Enhance

This has been popping up on Twitter for years, and the reaction to the answer actually being 9 cracks me up every time. A lot of people think it's 1 (which, IMO, is more of a reflection of the education/retention process than anything else).

This does not really belong in this sub forum.

Apparently the 3rd degree charge was initially removed by a judge, but later appealed by the prosecution and successfully added back. I'm guessing it's legal because the different degrees carry varying burdens of proof? But yeah, on the surface, seems weird to my non-lawyer mind.

That's... a strange way of putting it. IMO Floyd didn't deserve to die. The court system provided justice. But, I stop short of turning Floyd into a martyr.

I found it interesting (unless I misheard the coverage?) that he will only be sentenced on the primary charge of second degree murder. Sounds like this is Minnesota State law?

You "very clearly" did not. That's what I'm referring to when I'm talking about dunking on the protesters. Once again, take it somewhere else. This isn't the thread or the place for the direction you want to take this.

It's truly bizarre and misguided to want to turn today and today's verdict into a societal reprimand on rioters and looters, in addition to trying to dunk on people who wanted to protest and make their voices heard. This isn't the time or the thread for that kind of stuff. Take it somewhere else.

The right decisions.

Yep - historically speaking, fast jury deliberations in cases like this almost always mean a guilty verdict.

There are quite a few recent posts in this thread that are teetering on the edge of acceptability. Time to tone it back. Attack the post, not the poster.

So, I agree with what you're saying here, but I think we need to be appropriate in how we analyze these statistics and react to them. Just because they're both "correct" doesn't mean they're equally pertinent or being presented in good faith, so it makes the back and forth you two have been having a bit pedantic. If the explicit issue is that 'black males are disproportionately impacted in police related gun deaths,' then why are we talking about white people being volumetrically more impacted? Maybe systemic racism isn't the cause of more black deaths. Bernard is welco

You're both arguing two different viewpoints of the same numbers. Volumetrically speaking, there's no way for black people to incur a sum total more deaths at the hands of law enforcement than white people. There are effectively too many white people. However, it is possible for black people to incur a statistically disproportionate number of deaths, and that's what Decoy is pointing out. So, what Kerik is doing is effectively the red herring in all of this. He's saying more white people are killed volumetrically. He's not wrong, but that's not what people are trying to

Not that responding to this matters, but it's remarkably convenient to only focus on "rifles" when talking about homicides, as if it somehow minimizes the damage done by firearms each year. If you look up homicides by murder weapon in this country, every verifiable source will prove that firearms kill more people each year than any kind of cutting instrument. In 2019, there were 6,000+ handgun related murders alone... compared to about 1,500 murders committed by 'knives or cutting instruments.'

This isn't directed at you Devo, but reading stuff like this is akin to me reading that someone took a toy away from a child in a toy store and then the child managed to get another toy It's like... you don't say? This man had guns taken away before, but still had some or managed to get more? I'm shocked... The sheer volume and general latitudes associated with gun ownership in this country make it 100% unsurprising that people who shouldn't have guns have guns.