Michigan cop on Black man's back, fatally shot him

[Grizzly Adams]

Sure like chauvin..
But now go hustle up and tell the da they don't know the law.

I left a message. Can we agree that we have different opinions and you can stop with this stupidity now?

 

[jaeger19]

I left a message. Can we agree that we have different opinions and you can stop with this stupidity now?

And NOW ..you want to be civil?
Maybe..just maybe..you will act better in the next debate.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

And NOW ..you want to be civil?
Maybe..just maybe..you will act better in the next debate.

I realize that you have to try to make this about me, since you lose on the facts.

 

[jaeger19]

I realize that you have to try to make this about me, since you lose on the facts.

I lost on the facts? You mean that I knew it didn't look like a good shoot and not self defense.
As both the investigating officers and da found that it was enough evidence that it was not only not a good shoot but was a criminal act?
Please explain why if this is so clear cut under the law..as you claim..
The DA ..with support of the investigative officers...you know a da is someone who is a LAWYER..who tries cases before a judge..
Brought charges against the officer?

Are you claiming your understanding of the law is greater than a district attorney?
Or are you better and in a greater position to investigate this case than the investigating officers?

Now me? I am surprised charges were brought. It was not a good shoot but I didn't necessarily believe criminal.
And frankly ..i think the da has a long uphill battle for 2nd degree murder. It's a white cop and a large black man resisting. The law would mean little to most juries in that case.

But you were flat out wrong about the law. If it was clear cut case of self defense ..nothing would have happened to the officer and charges would not have been brought.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I lost on the facts? You mean that I knew it didn't look like a good shoot and not self defense.

You are wrong on your conclusion. It was a proper use of force according to every use of force instructor I've talked to, and according to the GRPD's use of force policy.

As both the investigating officers and da found that it was enough evidence that it was not only not a good shoot but was a criminal act?
Please explain why if this is so clear cut under the law..as you claim..

Political pressure, obviously.

Are you claiming your understanding of the law is greater than a district attorney?
Or are you better and in a greater position to investigate this case than the investigating officers?

I'm claiming what I've always claimed: the use of force was proper under the GRPD's use of force policy. By the book, from start to finish. Because I can read.

And you never answered the question. You've mocked it, but you've never answered it. Why even bother with a jury trial if the DA has such a great understanding of the law, such that it surpasses what my puny intellect can manage? Really, if this were so, it would do justice a disservice to subject the vast knowledge of a DA to the whims and stupidity of the mindless simpletons plucked from the jury pool.

 

[jaeger19]

You are wrong on your conclusion. It was a proper use of force according to every use of force instructor I've talked to, and according to the GRPD's use of force policy.


Political pressure, obviously.


I'm claiming what I've always claimed: the use of force was proper under the GRPD's use of force policy. By the book, from start to finish. Because I can read.

And you never answered the question. You've mocked it, but you've never answered it. Why even bother with a jury trial if the DA has such a great understanding of the law, such that it surpasses what my puny intellect can manage? Really, if this were so, it would do justice a disservice to subject the vast knowledge of a DA to the whims and stupidity of the mindless simpletons plucked from the jury pool.

Right..the DA was pressured to charge a case he knows he will lose and won't even make it past a judge..earning him the enmity of every policeman he works with.
Because????

Like I said..you need to go there and present all your evidence. Just explain to the da that you know the law better and explain to the investigating cops that you know their job better than they do.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Right..the DA was pressured to charge a case he knows he will lose and won't even make it past a judge..earning him the enmity of every policeman he works with.
Because????

This really escapes you? DAs are usually elected. They don't answer to the cops. And even if his reputation with police takes a hit, it's not like there's a DA free market and they can take their business elsewhere.

Like I said..you need to go there and present all your evidence. Just explain to the da that you know the law better and explain to the investigating cops that you know their job better than they do.

I told you, I left a message. Gas is too expensive to drive there and explain it for him in small words that he'll understand.

By the way, you STILL haven't answered why there needs to be a trial, since the DA knows so much better than the rest of us. I think we all know the reason you haven't.

 

[jaeger19]

This really escapes you? DAs are usually elected. They don't answer to the cops. And even if his reputation with police takes a hit, it's not like there's a DA free market and they can take their business elsewhere.


I told you, I left a message. Gas is too expensive to drive there and explain it for him in small words that he'll understand.

By the way, you STILL haven't answered why there needs to be a trial, since the DA knows so much better than the rest of us. I think we all know the reason you haven't.

You just keep doubling down don't you?.
First DAs are lawyers that spend years studying the law. Yet you think you know more.
Second DAs generally don't prosecute cases they know they will lose.
Third DAs want to win cases and they need the police to work with them on cases. Prosecuting police doesn't generally put you in their good graces.
And the demographic in the area is 60% white. 17% black.

Why is there a trial? Because that's how our judicial sys6em works. Here is the irony.
If..as you claim. there was absolutely no question that the officer acted in self defense THEN THERE WOULD BE NO TRIAL.
Frankly as I stated..though it's not a good shoot..I don't think it's 2nd degree murder based on what I have seen so far. ..
And that's why there is a trial to determine if it is or not.

But again..if it was as you claim..there would be no trial..
And so you get to eat crow

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You just keep doubling down don't you?.

When I'm not wrong, why should I?

First DAs are lawyers that spend years studying the law. Yet you think you know more.

I can read, and I have eyes. I've seen the video and I've read GRPD's use of force policy. Schurr was within it the entire time.

Second DAs generally don't prosecute cases they know they will lose.

That's likely generally true. As you are surely aware, generally true is not the same as always true.

Third DAs want to win cases and they need the police to work with them on cases. Prosecuting police doesn't generally put you in their good graces.

I'm sure it doesn't. But what's their alternative?

And the demographic in the area is 60% white. 17% black.

And?

Why is there a trial? Because that's how are judicial sys6em works.

But you obviously don't think it should work that way.

If..as you claim. there was absolutely no question that the officer acted in self defense THEN THERE WOULD BE NO TRIAL.

You've got the standard turned 180 degrees around the wrong way. The standard is that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Schurr committed the crime alleged.

There is, at the barest of minimums, a reasonable doubt. In fact, (as I've said the entire time), the shooting was 100% justified based on precedent and GRPD policy. Even you agree that there was no crime, even if you disagree that it was a reasonable use of force.

 

[jaeger19]

When I'm not wrong, why should I?


I can read, and I have eyes. I've seen the video and I've read GRPD's use of force policy. Schurr was within it the entire time.


That's likely generally true. As you are surely aware, generally true is not the same as always true.


I'm sure it doesn't. But what's their alternative?


And?


But you obviously don't think it should work that way.


You've got the standard turned 180 degrees around the wrong way. The standard is that it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Schurr committed the crime alleged.

There is, at the barest of minimums, a reasonable doubt. In fact, (as I've said the entire time), the shooting was 100% justified based on precedent and GRPD policy. Even you agree that there was no crime, even if you disagree that it was a reasonable use of force.

If course you are wrong. If you were right..and it's obviously self defense there would be no trial.
The fact the da leveled charges proves you wrong.
Well..thats not the opinion of the DA who is much more versed in the law than you and not the opinion of the investigating officers who are much more knowledgeable than you.
Yet you jump to the conclusion the da was
" pressured"..
Pressured by whom exactly. He is a republican. In a predominantly white area...
I obviously do think we should have jury trials. So stop lying.
Honestly you are just being ridiculous..
The shooting was not justified ..certainly not 100% or it wouldn't have gone to trial.
The question is whether it rises to the level of 2nd degree murder.

 

[gboisjo]

Just another incident showing all the reasons cops should NEVER engage blacks.

Yup, just let em go.

Most either run or fight when questioned by police.

Floyd and all the rest would be alive today if they hadn't resisted.

Zero respect for authority.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

If course you are wrong. If you were right..and it's obviously self defense there would be no trial.
The fact the da leveled charges proves you wrong.
Well..thats not the opinion of the DA who is much more versed in the law than you and not the opinion of the investigating officers who are much more knowledgeable than you.
Yet you jump to the conclusion the da was
" pressured"..
Pressured by whom exactly. He is a republican. In a predominantly white area...
I obviously do think we should have jury trials. So stop lying.
Honestly you are just being ridiculous..
The shooting was not justified ..certainly not 100% or it wouldn't have gone to trial.
The question is whether it rises to the level of 2nd degree murder.

If you intend to respond point-by-point, it works much more smoothly if you quote and respond to each point individually instead of expecting me to guess at which response belongs to which point.

Regardless, you obviously don't think trials should happen at all because the DA knows much more about the law than the layperson, as you've stated numerous times.

 

[jaeger19]

If you intend to respond point-by-point, it works much more smoothly if you quote and respond to each point individually instead of expecting me to guess at which response belongs to which point.

Regardless, you obviously don't think trials should happen at all because the DA knows much more about the law than the layperson, as you've stated numerous times.

The da does know the law more than you do.
And more than a layperson.
That is a fact.
Do you think you know the law better than da?

Please explain how recognizing that a lawyer knows more about tge law than a layperson means there should be no trial by jury?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The da does know the law more than you do.
And more than a layperson.
That is a fact.

Exactly. So if he charges someone, there shouldn't be a need for some ignorant layperson to have a chance at getting in the way of justice, right? This is the logical conclusion of your premise that I'm obviously wrong about this being a reasonable use of force due to the fact that the DA has elected to bring charges.

 

[jaeger19]

Exactly. So if he charges someone, there shouldn't be a need for some ignorant layperson to have a chance at getting in the way of justice, right? This is the logical conclusion of your premise that I'm obviously wrong about this being a reasonable use of force due to the fact that the DA has elected to bring charges.

I see..so you don't think that there should be jury trials then..??
You seem confused..
Let's get this straight according to ..if a person recognizes that lawyers know the law more than a lay person ..it necessarily means that the don't believe in jury trials??

Please explain

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I see..so you don't think that there should be jury trials then..??
You seem confused..
Let's get this straight according to ..if a person recognizes that lawyers know the law more than a lay person ..it necessarily means that the don't believe in jury trials??

Please explain

I've explained it all already. If you don't get it now, you never will.

 

[jaeger19]

I've explained it all already. If you don't get it now, you never will.

No you didn't explain it.
You have asserted that if I believe that lawyers like the da ..know the law better than a layperson like yourself..
It necessarily means that I MUST NOT BELIEVE IN JURY TRIALS.

I want to understand how you arrive at that conclusion
If your premise is correct... then why do we even need lawyers ?
According to you..lawyers don't know anymore about the law than do laypeople.
And if You believe they do know more about the law..then it means YOU don't believe in jury trials.
So please explain

 

[Atomic Kid]

the prosecutor is already propagandizing the prospective jury pool:
"... The death was not justified or excused, for example, by self-defense. ...."

will look forward to his proving there is no valid self defense claim

The prosecutor's assessment of the evidence is absolutely correct. It was not self-defense and it was indeed unjustified.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The prosecutor's assessment of the evidence is absolutely correct. It was not self-defense and it was indeed unjustified.

He fought with the officer for 2.5 minutes and disarmed him of the still-functional taser. You think he wanted to make out?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He fought with the officer for 2.5 minutes and disarmed him of the still-functional taser. You think he wanted to make out?

There is a possibility that the prosecution IS being "brought for political reasons".

However, those "political reasons" could very well be different than the ones that people appear to be complaining about.

As long as that police officer has NOT "been cleared in court" the DA is going to be facing "Why didn't you do something about it?" accusations. By charging the police officer (whose legal costs are going to end up being picked up by either the city or the police union [which means "indirectly by the city"]) and then losing in court, the DA gets out from under those accusations. Once "cleared in court" the police officer goes back on duty (and receives all of the back pay due him). That lasts until he is "released" (due to the fact that he creates "an excessive administrative burden") with a whacking great "severance package".

 

[jaeger19]

There is a possibility that the prosecution IS being "brought for political reasons".

However, those "political reasons" could very well be different than the ones that people appear to be complaining about.

As long as that police officer has NOT "been cleared in court" the DA is going to be facing "Why didn't you do something about it?" accusations. By charging the police officer (whose legal costs are going to end up being picked up by either the city or the police union [which means "indirectly by the city"]) and then losing in court, the DA gets out from under those accusations. Once "cleared in court" the police officer goes back on duty (and receives all of the back pay due him). That lasts until he is "released" (due to the fact that he creates "an excessive administrative burden") with a whacking great "severance package".

This may be why the day is going for 2nd degree murder..knowing it won't stick and tanking the case.
However..it could also be a ploy to get a plea deal.
Though I think the lawyers for the officer know convicting a cop against a big black guy is a huge uphill battle.

 

[Atomic Kid]

He fought with the officer for 2.5 minutes and disarmed him of the still-functional taser. You think he wanted to make out?

Correction. The cop fought with him for 2.5 minutes. The subject tried to disengage from the cop at least 2 or 3 times and each time he did the cop continued to pursue him. And for what? Misuse of plates? Driving while black? And despite this cop kicking and punching him and jumping on his backside trying to employ choke holds. He never even once retaliated with any blows or kicks of his own in response to the cop's violence. And it seem to me pretty clear that this guy could've dusted the street with this cop, if he so chose. But he didn't . Nor did he ever have control of the cops taser at any point and was instead consistently pushing it away from him. Not to mention that this dumbass cop didn't even know how to deploy a taser properly. This was really all about this cop trying to impose his will over a subject he was no real match for and got angry and frustrated by his inability to do so and saw this black man's refusal to submit to his authority as personal insult and out of embarrassment that he was able to pretty much able to do so without really fighting back that hard. His pride couldn't handle that so he shot him point blank in back of the head while he was face down to the ground, a la execution style. Simply out of anger. This guy is going down and the people of the precinct in which he worked will be the clear beneficiaries of his absence. He should never be allowed to serve as a law enforcement officer there or anywhere else in the country. He has proven himself to be completely unfit for the job.

 

[Atomic Kid]

This may be why the day is going for 2nd degree murder..knowing it won't stick and tanking the case.
However..it could also be a ploy to get a plea deal.
Though I think the lawyers for the officer know convicting a cop against a big black guy is a huge uphill battle.

But it wouldn't be quite so hard to convict said cop if he or she is black and the victim is white.

Ex-Minneapolis police officer sentenced to 57 months in the killing of a 911 caller

Mohamed Noor, who fatally shot an unarmed woman after she called 911 to report a possible rape behind her home, was sentenced on a lesser charge after his murder conviction was overturned.

www.npr.org

 

[bluesmoke]

Unless we have cultural shift, it is extremely difficult to get a conviction against LEO in a shooting death.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Correction. The cop fought with him for 2.5 minutes. The subject tried to disengage from the cop at least 2 or 3 times and each time he did the cop continued to pursue him.

Yeah, that's fighting with the cop. Schurr was attempting to effect a lawful arrest (and even just a detention at first) and Lyoya fought him. For two and a half minutes.

And for what? Misuse of plates? Driving while black?

This would be ****ing hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. You acknowledge the violation that led to the initial encounter, then immediately suggest that Lyoya was pulled over just because he's black. What kind of stupid shit is that?

And despite this cop kicking and punching him and jumping on his backside trying to employ choke holds. He never even once retaliated with any blows or kicks of his own in response to the cop's violence.

Never saw an attempt at a chokehold, but you're so off-base with everything else, it would surprise me if you were making it up or imagining it.

Nor did he ever have control of the cops taser at any point and was instead consistently pushing it away from him.

He clearly had control of the taser just before he was shot. You can see it in the video and it's why Schurr stopped telling him to let go of the taser and started telling him to drop it.

{purely speculative amateur psychoanalysis snipped}