Taking the Initiative Party (TTIP) leader Sasha Johnson was shot in the head early Sunday morning outside of a party in Southwark (south London), according to a Met Police report.
Johnson, 27, was taken to an area hospital at approximately 3 a.m. where she underwent surgery and remains in critical condition.
Although Johnson is identified as a member of the British Black Lives Matter chapter in numerous reports about this incident, she was not associated with the organization. Instead, she was on the leadership committee of TTIP, a separate anti-black racism activist group.
The Post Millennial’s Andy Ngo reported that Johnson “rose in prominence last year for her advocacy of the creation of an armed black militia, the abolishment of police & the overthrowing of capitalism.”
Ngo provides a example of Johnson ginning up a crowd on a London street in the video below.
She tells her supporters: “Racism thrives on capitalism. The back of racism is capitalism. … We need a black militia. … The police is no different than the KKK. They stand around and protect statues and buildings instead of people. … All together, put your fist in the air. Black power. Don’t ever be scared to say, it doesn’t mean that you hate another race and anybody that say that you hate them too have hidden racism. They’re scared of your blackness. Black is beautiful. …”
Charming young woman.
#BLM leader Sasha Johnson is in hospital with life-threatening injuries after being shot in London. She rose in prominence last year for her advocacy of the creation of an armed black militia, the abolishment of police & the overthrowing of capitalism. pic.twitter.com/Q9doTLPCvw
In a statement to the BBC, TTIP said Johnson had received “numerous death threats.”
Imarn Ayton, a friend of Ms Johnson’s, spoke to the BBC. She said the surgery had gone well and that Johnson was “now with her parents.”
Ayton told the BBC she did not believe Johnson “was the intended victim. … As far as I am aware, this incident is more related to rival gangs as opposed to her activism.”
BLMUK reacted to this shooting on Twitter: “BLMUK expresses our shock and solidarity over the shooting of Sasha Johnson. A young mother and fearless political campaigner who was at the forefront of many BLM protests last summer. … While Sasha wasn’t part of our organisation, she impressively founded a new Black-led political party and was dedicated to resist anti-Black racism.”
The group announced a vigil had been set for the next day and said, “Any attempt to intimidate or silence her, is an attack on all of us.”
Detective Chief Inspector Jimi Tele said: “We are all hoping that this young woman’s condition improves. Our investigation is in its early stages and urgent enquiries are under way to establish the circumstances.
“I would appeal to the residents of Consort Road and the surrounding area to check any doorbell or dashcam footage for any suspicious activity that may relate to this investigation.”
Considering one of Johnson’s goals is the abolishment of the police, does she even want them to carry out an investigation to find the shooter?
Really? Can anyone even imagine what would happen to this great nation if we were to hand over the keys to Westminster to this woman?
Speaking at a campaign event for Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin on Thursday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told supporters: “Can you imagine, a year and a half ago, if I said, okay, here’s what’s gonna be the issues. We ought to let businesses open up. We ought to let kids go to school. And how about, let’s not abolish the police.”
That any one of these items is a political issue today is a testament to how far America has strayed from its founding principles.
On Thursday, conservative commentator and historian Victor Davis Hanson published a list of ten symptoms of Sovietism. He encouraged readers to ask themselves if America is “headed down this same road to perdition.”
1. There was no escape from ideological indoctrination — anywhere. A job in the bureaucracy or a military assignment hinged not so much on merit, expertise or past achievement. What mattered was loud enthusiasm for the Soviet system.
2. The Soviets fused their press with the government. Pravda, or “Truth,” was the official megaphone of state-sanctioned lies. Journalists simply regurgitated the talking points of their Communist Party partners.
3. The Soviet surveillance state enlisted apparatchiks and lackeys to ferret out ideological dissidents.
4. The Soviet educational system sought not to enlighten but to indoctrinate young minds in proper government-approved thought.
5. The Soviet Union was run by a pampered elite, exempt from the ramifications of their own radical ideologies.
6. The Soviets mastered Trotskyization, or the rewriting and airbrushing away of history to fabricate present reality.
7. The Soviets created a climate of fear and rewarded stool pigeons for rooting out all potential enemies of the people.
8. Soviet prosecutors and courts were weaponized according to ideology.
9. The Soviets doled out prizes on the basis of correct Soviet thought.
10. The Soviets offered no apologies for extinguishing freedom. Instead, they boasted that they were advocates for equity, champions of the underclass, enemies of privilege — and therefore could terminate anyone or anything they pleased.
Our mainstream media is “fused” to our government. The New York Times has tried to rewrite history via its 1619 Project. Last summer we watched as the “woke” canceled historical figures they objected to by toppling statues across the country. And “critical race theory” has been introduced into American educational curriculums.
Americans are being surveilled in ways we never dreamed possible – by government agencies.
A small group of Big Tech leaders now wield more power than the U.S. government by controlling what information we can and cannot see.
Hanson points out that, “where and for what reason you riot determines whether you face any legal consequences. Politically correct sanctuary cities defy the law with impunity. Jury members are terrified of being doxxed and hunted down for an incorrect verdict. The CIA and FBI are becoming as ideological as the old KGB.”
It would be difficult to make the case that we’re not being “Sovietized.”
That America was ready to cross the line into Soviet territory became clear during the 2020 Democratic presidential debates which began in the summer of 2019. Suddenly the “radical” ideas proposed by Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont during his 2016 run for the White House were embraced by most, if not all, of the candidates.
In June 2019, Sanders delivered a major speech about Democratic Socialism. Knowing that many Americans viewed the term “socialist” as a “slur,” he was eager for an opportunity to clear up some of the myths and show us how great socialism could be.
He told supporters, “In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able to fulfill that vision.” Sanders then presented himself as a modern day FDR and said he hopes to complete the work which FDR began.
Finally, Sanders introduced the centerpiece of his platform, which he called “a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights.”
There was something deeply disturbing about Sanders’ proposal. In an appearance on Hannity, political commentator and historian Mark Levin pointed out that Sanders had “stolen his agenda from the 1936 Soviet Constitution.”
ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality.
ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.
ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and alsoin case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.
ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.
ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.
The only “right” not stolen from the Stalin Constitution was the right to a clean environment.
The National Review’s Kevin Williamson provides a more appropriate definition of socialism: “solidarity that is enforced at gunpoint, if necessary.”
Rarely do we hear an individual so thoroughly disgrace themselves as a Los Angeles woman did following a traffic stop by a Latino L. A. County Sheriff’s deputy last month.
She had been pulled over for using her cell phone while driving her son to his therapy appointment. We immediately grasp why her son might be in serious need of therapy.
The deputy approaches the car and tells her, “I pulled you over today because — ”
“Because you’re a murderer,” she says, interrupting him. During their brief encounter, she calls him a murderer eight times. She insists that he call his supervisor because “you’re threatening to kill me and my son.”
The deputy is the model of restraint. He remains calm and polite as she spews her poison.
She concludes by informing him that he will never be white. “You’re always gonna be a Mexican, you’ll never be white, you know that? You’ll never be white which is what you really want to be.”
Her race is unclear, because her image has been blurred.
NEW: "You're always gonna be a Mexican, you'll never be white, you know that?" A Latino LASD deputy sent me his bodycam video of a woman claiming to be a teacher launching into a racist tirade against him when he pulled her over in San Dimas. She repeatedly calls him a murderer. pic.twitter.com/Cc8jSVenCQ
According to Fox News’ reporter Bill Melugin, who obtained the video, the deputy is a 14-year career officer. He told Melugin that he uses both a department-issued body camera as well as one he purchased privately to “protect himself from false allegations.”
Melugin spoke to L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva who said he was “appalled” by this woman’s behavior. He praised his deputy’s restraint.
Villanueva noted, “She claims to be a teacher. I’m not so sure where she is teaching … but if she represents her profession, is that an indictment on her profession and the caliber of people?”
“You have one incident like George Floyd … but some people want to label the entire profession as if everyone was a Derek Chauvin. It shows you that bigotry, racism comes in all, colors and all ages — that’s proof of that right there. If you want to call all of the deputies murderers, unfortunately, you are doing the exact same thing you’re accusing other people of doing against your own kind.”
Melugin learned that, following this encounter, the woman “called internal affairs and filed a harassment complaint against the deputy” and that she “has a history of making false claims against deputies.”
This is a “grade A example of the kind of animosity that some of the officers out there are encountering on the streets,” Melugin said.
Here are a few responses to Melugin’s Twitter thread about this story:
“Insanity on full display. The scary thing was, she claimed to be a teacher. Does anyone want their kids taught by this woman?”
“If she is a teacher than I feel where ever she teaches should see this video and decide if they want someone that is obviously racist towards Hispanic people and talks to police officer this way teaching children. If she were teaching my children I would be demanding her be axed.”
“If this was a white male cop and the person breaking the law was a drug abusing ex con, the cops name would be released and he would be fired and Lebron would have already put a hit out on him. Let’s return the favor. Release her name so we can call the school and terminate her.”
“They always seem to make it until the very end, and then their true side comes out. Such a piece of garbage. I bet she has a “hate has no home here” sign in her front yard.”
This is what the repeated vilification of police officers does. It gives this woman and countless others like her a license to treat cops as if they were sub-human.
I wrote yesterday about a video recorded by a police officer who had reached the height of his frustration over being painted with the same brush as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.
It’s heartbreaking to watch. The officer is exhausted, heartbroken with the state of America. He, like many others, has to go to work every day and face the anti-cop rhetoric that has ripped through the US. Most cops are good. But the good ones have to face hatred every day.
I think most Americans were unanimous in their revulsion toward this woman. Demonizing all police officers because of Chauvin makes about as much sense as tarnishing all teachers because of this woman’s loathsome behavior.
But this is where the left’s campaign against police officers has brought us. It’s a dangerous state of affairs.
Antifa held an “Abolish the Police” protest in Portland on Thursday which blocked an intersection. As one car followed a truck through the crowd, a protestor tried to punch the driver through his open window.
Another, carrying an umbrella which said “Abolish the Police,” stood in front of the vehicle – which kept going. He wound up on the hood of the car, momentarily, until falling off. The driver then accelerates leaving behind an angry group. One female protestor is heard yelling, “Get it, get it, get it.”
A widely read CNN op-ed claims that “Ma’Khia Bryant’s death on the day Chauvin was found guilty is a reminder that we have a long way to go.”
As he awaited the Chauvin verdict on Tuesday, University of Texas history professor Peniel Joseph worried that the “U.S. justice system was going to prove, once again, unable to recognize and protect the sanctity of Black life.”
Joseph had been pleasantly surprised by the jury’s decision. But when he later heard that a 16-year-old black girl had been shot by an Ohio police officer shortly before the verdict was announced, the temporary relief he’d felt quickly passed.
The teenager, Ma’Khia Bryant, had tried to stab a girl, and was lunging toward a second girl with a knife in her hand when the officer pulled the trigger.
Joseph writes that “many are openly questioning why this young teenager could not have been subdued with nonlethal force.”
Because given the facts as they have been reported so far, had the officer not acted, Bryant would have plunged a quite large kitchen knife into another girl. So, let’s see, should he have tried to subdue her first? He did offer two verbal warnings. The group of individuals involved in this episode had been unable to deescalate the situation. A member of the group had called the police 12 or more minutes earlier because none of them had been able to subdue her either.
This case has nothing whatsoever to do with race. It has to do with a police officer responding to a call for help because that’s his job. Does Joseph really believe the officer thought, “I’m going to shoot this girl because she’s black?’
Equating Chauvin’s actions to the Ohio police officer’s actions is a reminder that the far left has really gone off the deep end. Mr. Joseph and his ilk are trying to attach Chauvin’s crime to every conservative.
By seeing “systemic racism” everywhere and in everything, and labeling everyone who doesn’t see it as they do as racists, they’ve lost credibility.
It seems that local and state governments care more about property, building and money than people of color. … We need only to point to the outpouring of state and local resources to prevent violence in the event that Chauvin was acquitted. Imagine if the same level of care that Minneapolis officials and law enforcement agencies took in turning the Twin Cities into a military encampment had been directed toward investing in Black communities?
Considering Black Lives Matter members generally react to every perceived slight by burning a building or looting a department store, law enforcement had to be proactive.
While we’re on the subject, doesn’t the professor think that behavior is rather infantile? Does he feel that BLM members are entitled to destroy property because 160 years ago, people none of us knew, thought slavery was a good idea?
I agree it was a horrendous institution, but sorry, I’m not going to feel any guilt over it.
Next, he addresses the new Georgia voting law. House Judiciary Committee member Burgess Owens, a black Republican from Utah, absolutely destroyed this talking point on Tuesday. Owens spoke at the “Senate Judiciary Hearing – Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.”
Owens grew up in the Deep South and said he has “actually experienced Jim Crow laws” and would “like to set the record straight.” He told colleagues that “any comparison between this law and Jim Crow is absolutely outrageous.”
He said he’d once protested with his friends outside of a movie theater where blacks were not allowed. He spoke about gas stations that had restrooms for white men and white women and then one filthy bathroom in the back for “coloreds.”
“In addition, Jim Crow laws like the poll tax, property tests, literacy tests and violence and intimidation at the polls made it nearly impossible for black Americans to vote.”
He cannot fathom how it’s considered racist to ask for an ID.
“By the way,” he notes, “97% of voters already have a government-issued ID.”
“What I find extremely offensive is the narrative from the left that black people are not smart enough, not educated enough, not desirous enough of education to do what every other culture and race does in this country: Get an ID.”
“True racism is this: this projection of the Democratic Party on my proud race. … It’s called the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
“To call this Jim Crow 2021 is an insult, my friends. … For those who never lived Jim Crow, we are not in Jim Crow.”
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa told colleagues, “These claims about Georgia aren’t about truth, they’re about politics.”
On the other side of the aisle, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said Georgia’s law was “the greatest crisis facing our democracy today.”
Actually Senator, the greatest crisis facing our democracy today is the Democratic Party’s insatiable hunger for power.
Back to Joseph. He spends a lot of time elevating Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California and activist Stacey Abrams to rock star status. I’ve addressed Waters’ actions twice in the last week, here and here, and I have nothing more to say on the subject.
Then, mercifully, Joseph concludes, telling readers: “In the meantime, Black people continue to be shot, to be brutalized and to die at the hands of the police.”
He is gaslighting. He knows that blacks kill other blacks multiple times more often than white officers kill blacks. According to Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather MacDonald, one of the smartest conservatives I know, 0.2 percent of black homicides are the result of unarmed black men being shot by police officers.
After the Chauvin verdict had been announced, President Biden said, we have to get “systemic racism out of policing.” Schmitt asked MacDonald, “What exactly do the numbers say about ‘systemic racism’?
“The numbers say that it does not exist,” she replied. “The police go where the crime is. We have a crime problem in this country. We do not have a police problem. We have been talking about phantom police racism for the last three decades obsessively so as to continue turning our eyes away from the cultural breakdown that you so rightly spoke about Rob.”
“America does not want to confront the disfunction in the inner city black community.” She said that ten percent of white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by police officers while only three percent of black homicide victims are. “Why,” MacDonald asks. “Because the number of black homicide victims is so huge that it dwarfs anything else. Blacks die of homicide at a rate 13 times that of whites.”
In 2020, MacDonald said there were 18 unarmed blacks killed by police. “Unarmed is defined very liberally, to mean going after an officer’s gun or fleeing in a stolen car with a loaded handgun on the seat next to you. Those 18 unarmed blacks represent 0.2 percent of all blacks who died of homicide last year.”
“The police could end all police shootings and it would have no effect on the black homicide rate. This idea that blacks are being gunned down on a daily basis is an optical illusion,” She explains that this is created by the media which should surprise no one. Watch the whole segment here (starts at 13:30 in the video).
The message from the left is anti-American. It’s disgusting that our president is in on this farce. The left has gone down the rabbit hole.
Call me crazy, but I think it would be difficult to find a country where there are greater opportunities for blacks than in America. I wholeheartedly encourage those who feel life is so unbearable to move. Quite frankly, I’m tired of hearing about their perpetual victimhood.
So professor, I’m going to call BS on your attempt to use Ma’Khia’s death to advance your narrative. America does not have a long way to go.
If you’re truly concerned about the sky high homicide rate among blacks, please start with the inner city black communities.
The police shooting in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, of a black man, Daunte Wright, last Sunday sparked a new round of calls from Democrats for defunding the police.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chair Rep. Sean Maloney of New York joined MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Friday morning and was asked if Democrats support “defunding the police.” Maloney repeatedly evaded the question telling Scarborough, “My argument is what are you doing about racial justice? Our party is going to do something about it.”
“Forgive me for repeating the same question. Maybe I need to say it a different way.” Scarborough asked, “Do Democrats support defunding the police first of all? And secondly, the Cook Political report said that Democrats lost 25 of 25 contested House races in 2020. And I think most analysts believe that, at least in the House races, Democrats badly underperformed expectations. So, again, address those two again and if you could specifically answer the question. Again, it’s not the question I’m asking. It’s a question Republicans will continue to ask: Do Democrats support defunding the police?”
“Right. The answer is no and you are asking the question and you are repeating a Republican talking point for reasons I don’t know,” clearly not happy to have answered.
Scarborough dug in. “You guys did a damn poor job of answering that, such a poor job of answering socialism questions, such a poor job about answering cancel culture questions. That’s why I’m repeating it. Because if you believe that Kevin McCarthy should be Speaker of the House, keep pretending that none of that happened. And keep pretending that the House did a good job in 2020, because they did not. House Democrats did a poor job. So my question is are you going into 2022 with eyes wide open?”
“Right, so as my friend Maxine Waters said to Jim Jordan, ‘You’re ranting again,’ Maloney said chuckling. A stupid joke that deserved to fall flat.
Scarborough, who was most definitely not amused, told Maloney, “If you don’t really care whether Democrats win or not in 2022, okay, let our viewers know that.”
“The answer to the question is that Kevin McCarthy is the minority leader and we hold the gavels, Joe,” replied Maloney.
Continuing, Maloney said, “Can we learn from 2020? You bet. You didn’t hear me say everything went well, what I told you is I’m not going to run the other way because on shows like this you insist on repeating these Republican talking points when you know it’s a lie that we want to defund the police. Look at the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.”
“If your point is that we need to communicate better, well fair enough. But do me a favor, please also acknowledge that when you echo and amplify these talking points of the Republican Party, you give them life,” Maloney concluded.
Scarborough said, “I don’t need that reminder.”
I rarely take Scarborough’s side on anything. But Maloney is wrong. Many Democrats have called for defunding the police. And the chorus grows after each police shooting. AOC led the calls to abolish the police, saying it was “an indefensible system.”
Within hours of the Daunte Wright shooting, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib tweeted, “It wasn’t an accident. Policing in our country is inherently & intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met with aggression & violence. I am done with those who condone government funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.”
Even Democrats believe this position hurt the party in 2020. In a recent interview with Bill Kristol, Democratic strategist James Carville said, “I mean, this defund the police was just a terrible drag on the Democratic Party. It really was. Don’t kid yourself.”
Defunding the police was one of the Democrats’ more extreme positions ahead of the 2020 elections. It could be among their most moderate going into 2022, as the party embraces truly radical positions like open borders, stacking the court, adding two states, eliminating the use of fossil fuels and abolishing the electoral college so that elections can be decided by New York and California, to name a few.
Democrats know they’re likely to lose the House and the Senate majorities in 2022, so they’re going to ram as much of their radical agenda through while they can. But Maloney is kidding himself if he truly believes that Democratic support for defunding the police is just a Republican talking point.
The video clip of George Floyd that was played on an endless loop last summer was filmed by an individual who happened to be passing by the scene of the arrest. The problem with this video is it missed what occurred before Floyd was put on the ground.
Former federal and state prosecutor and current conservative writer George Parry created a 24-minute video which shows the interaction between Floyd and the four Minneapolis police officers charged in his death throughout the arrest.
Parry combined video taken by civilian witnesses, from the body cameras worn by the police officers involved in the arrest and from a fixed surveillance camera at that location to provide the full story.
The video concludes shortly after Floyd was placed inside the ambulance.
It might surprise you to learn that George Floyd uttered the now famous words, “I can’t breathe,” seven times before he was placed on the ground.
We also learn that it was Floyd’s idea to lay on the ground. As they tried to put him into the squad car, Floyd tells police. “I wanna lay on the ground, I wanna lay on the ground, I wanna lay on the ground, I wanna lay on the ground. I know, I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe.”
Moreover, there was foam around Floyd’s mouth at the time of his arrest. When one of the officers asked him about it, Floyd replied. “Yes, Yes, I was just hooping earlier.” I’ll leave it to the video to explain the meaning of “hooping” in this context.
Additionally, Parry explains the autopsy results and makes it clear that the fatal dose of fentanyl in Floyd’s system, combined with his severe coronary artery disease, his history of hypertension, his poor physical condition and the extremely agitated state he was in at the scene all fits into a classic pattern of excited delirium syndrome.”
The reason excited delirium syndrome is so serious, Parry tells us, “is that it leads to sudden onset cardiac arrhythmia. In fact, the finding by the Hennepin County medical examiner was that Mr. Floyd died as a result of cardiac arrest.”
Within days of former police officer Derek Chauvin’s arrest on charges of murder and manslaughter, the Hennepin County medical examiner presented prosecutors with the autopsy results. They showed that Floyd had three times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system.
He told them that “this level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That’s a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”
Floyd also had methamphetamine in his system, a drug the medical examiner noted was “hard on the heart.”
The medical examiner said that “if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else), and there were no other contributing factors, he would conclude that it was an overdose death.”
We’re going to be bombarded with news from this trial shortly. I highly recommend watching Parry’s video beforehand.
On March 23, 2020, police in Rochester, NY, received a report that a naked man under the influence of PCP was running through town, shouting that he had the coronavirus. When police tried to subdue him, he spit on them which caused them to place a mesh hood, otherwise known as a “spit sock” over his head. The man, Daniel Prude, was placed on the pavement and subdued for two minutes by police.
Prude, who had a history of mental illness, was black.
After Prude became unresponsive, he was resuscitated and brought to a hospital where he died one week later.
“The Monroe County Office of the Medical Examiner ruled Mr. Prude’s death a homicide. The autopsy report concluded he died of asphyxiation ‘in the setting of physical restraint’ and acute intoxication with the hallucinogenic drug PCP,” according to The Wall Street Journal.
In February, a New York grand jury voted against indictment of any of the police officers involved in the case.
Tuesday marked the one year anniversary of this incident, and a group of approximately 200 members of Black Lives Matter gathered for a protest. As they marched toward Wegmans, a popular Rochester grocery store, they shouted, “We have a long walk today. We’re shutting s— down.”
The Washington Examiner reported that, as the group approached the store, the owner locked it down, trapping around 100 customers inside.
The group banged on the glass doors and repeatedly chanted, “Black Lives Matter.”
In a tweet, Rochester journalist and radio host Bob Lonsberry wrote, “Hundreds of people trapped in the East Avenue #ROC Wegmans by this mob, The Rochester Police Department is just watching and letting it happen. I guess fire codes and trespassing aren’t things in Rochester anymore. What an embarrassing day for the city and the PD.”
He continued in a second tweet. “Allowing the mob to shut down the East Ave [Wegmans], trapping at least a hundred people, is an immoral failing by the mayor at @CityRochesterNY and the @RochesterNYPD. To kiss the a– of the mob, the rights of others are trodden, and the city dies even more.”
Hundreds of people trapped in the East Avenue #ROC Wegmans by this mob. The Rochester Police Department is just watching and letting it happen. I guess fire codes and trespassing aren't things in Rochester anymore. What an embarrassing day for the city and the PD. https://t.co/ICeNJy5jGK
Rochester based journalist Justin Murphy spoke to one of the BLM protestors who said, “We’re more than just taxpayers in their capitalist system; we’re human beings, and we demand to be treated as such.”
They’re taxpayers? I’ll bet most of them pay little or no taxes. They’re human beings, and they demand to be treated as such? Need I even respond to the irony in that remark?
Craig Carson: “We’re more than just taxpayers in their capitalist system; we’re human beings and we demand to be treated as such.”
In the tweet below, Monroe County legislator Rachel Barnhart makes an equally stupid comment. “Reasonable people can debate tactics and messaging. It’s normal to be annoyed or inconvenienced if the grocery store is blocked off by protesters. But I care more about Black lives than Wegmans. The protest will end. The store will reopen. The injustice will go on.”
Barnhart’s comment is even more egregious than Carson’s, if possible. One would expect such an inane remark from a member of BLM. I am not a lawyer, but here’s a county legislator who overlooks the obvious crimes being committed, entrapment and threatening, for starters.
And she views the shoppers trapped inside as being “annoyed or inconvenienced” rather than frightened. BLM has a long history of violence. Any reasonable person in that situation would feel some degree of fear.
Reasonable people can debate tactics and messaging. It’s normal to be annoyed or inconvenienced if the grocery store is blocked off by protesters.
But I care more about Black lives than Wegmans. The protest will end. The store will reopen. The injustice will go on.
America defeated Nazi Germany and Japan’s Imperial Army. How do we fight the enemy from within? Especially now that they control the presidency and both chambers of Congress. The Democratic Party is fast becoming the greatest foe this nation has ever faced.
The Democrats are trying to destroy America. It’s as if they’re in command of our ship and they’re aiming it right for an iceberg at flank speed.
Tell me again how Jan. 6 was the most shameful day in America’s history..
Or perhaps justice before Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s army of determined prosecutors fail in their efforts to convict former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin of murder in George Floyd’s May 25 death.
Unbelievably, before Chauvin has had his day in court, the city agreed on Friday to pay $27 million to Floyd’s family to settle a civil lawsuit filed last July, according to NBC News. Defendants in the case were the city of Minneapolis, Chauvin and the other three police officers who were involved in Floyd’s arrest.
NBC reported that “the City Council unanimously approved the settlement Friday after meeting in private. It includes a $500,000 donation to the community around the intersection of 38th and Chicago Avenue — now known as George Floyd Square — where police confronted Floyd last May 25 after a convenience store clerk claimed that he had tried to use a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes.”
As we learned recently, Floyd’s autopsy revealed that a lethal dose of fentanyl was present in his system at the time of his death. Additionally, the video that played on an endless loop following the incident that triggered widespread rioting in cities throughout the U.S. last summer, had been selectively edited. Specifically, Floyd had been uttering “I can’t breathe” while still standing and asked to be put on the ground. I posted about these circumstances here.
A look at the police bodycam footage shows that Floyd was complaining that he couldn’t breathe before he was restrained by the police. Why? Because, as the FBI’s interview with the local medical examiner on July 8, 2020 revealed, Floyd was suffering from pulmonary edema, i.e., his lungs were full of fluid. And why was that? Partly because of an underlying heart condition, partly because Floyd was full to the gills with fentanyl, a drug known to affect respiration and cause pulmonary edema.
I reported on Thursday that a Hennepin County judge had reinstated the charge of 3rd-degree murder against Chauvin. This was actually the initial charge in his case. However, following enormous public outrage, including that from the highly partisan Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the charge was upgraded to 2nd-degree murder and a charge of 2nd-degree manslaughter was added.
Ellison issued a statement (on Thursday) which read: “The charge of 3rd-degree murder, in addition to manslaughter and felony murder, reflects the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Chauvin. We look forward to presenting all three charges to the jury.”
Jury selection is currently underway in Chauvin’s trial. And NBC reports that “seven of 12 jurors have been seated as of Friday afternoon — five men and two women.”
Will it be possible to find twelve objective jurors in the Minneapolis vicinity. I doubt it would be possible to find twelve objective jurors in the entire U.S. Lawyers will have to settle for the least biased among them.
Jury selection began on Tuesday in the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.
Chauvin had been charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd.
On Thursday morning, however, a Hennepin County, Minnesota judge reinstated a third-degree murder charge against Chauvin, according to a CNN report.
The report said that “Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill dismissed the [third-degree murder] count in October, saying it did not apply to this case.” CNN explains how that charge came to be reinstated.
An appeals court ruling in February in the case against former Minneapolis Police officer Mohamed Noor opened the door to reinstating the charge against Chauvin, and the state subsequently filed an appeal of Cahill’s ruling.
In court on Thursday, Chauvin’s defense attorney Eric Nelson argued that Noor’s case was factually and procedurally different than Chauvin’s interactions with Floyd, in which he knelt on Floyd’s head and neck area for an extended period. However, prosecutors argued that the judge was bound to follow the appeals court’s precedent in Noor.
Judge Cahill ruled Thursday morning that he accepted the appeals court’s ruling that the opinion in Noor’s case immediately set a precedent, and he ruled to reinstate the charge.
He added that the third-degree murder charge only applied to Chauvin and that the potential to reinstate the charge for the three other officers charged in Floyd’s death will be addressed at a later date.
“This charge has not come out of left field,” Cahill said Thursday. “It was originally charged. I think the defense has been aware that the state will take every opportunity to try and add it back.”
If convicted, Chauvin could face up to 40 years in prison for second-degree murder, up to 25 years for third-degree murder, and up to 10 years for second-degree manslaughter.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ordered Cahill to reconsider the motion to reinstate the charge last week. On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused a request by Chauvin’s attorney to block the appellate court’s decision, clearing the way for Cahill to reinstate the charge.
Chauvin has pleaded not guilty to all three charges.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement (on Thursday) which read: “The charge of 3rd-degree murder, in addition to manslaughter and felony murder, reflects the gravity of the allegations against Mr. Chauvin. We look forward to presenting all three charges to the jury.”
In light of the underreported developments that many of us just learned about this week, one has to wonder if the reason the third-degree murder charge has been reinstated is because prosecutors are worried that second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges might be too difficult to prove.
It’s clear that Ellison and many others desperately want to convict Chauvin for something in this case.
Days after the video of Chauvin pressing his knee on Floyd’s neck for nine minutes went viral last May, Chauvin was charged with third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. I posted about this here.
On Wednesday, I presented excerpts from an article written by The Spectator’s Roger Kimball. It turned out that at the time of Floyd’s death, he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system.
Kimball noted that rather than being St. George, Floyd was a “drug addict, a woman abuser and a career criminal.” He wrote:
First, the video clip that horrified the world was heavily edited. We see Floyd, pinned to the ground by Chauvin, piteously crying ‘I can’t breathe.’ Conclusion? That he can’t breathe because Chauvin is pressing on his windpipe. But a look at the police bodycam footage shows that Floyd was complaining that he couldn’t breathe before he was restrained by the police. Why? Because, as the FBI’s interview with the local medical examiner on July 8, 2020 revealed, Floyd was suffering from pulmonary edema, i.e., his lungs were full of fluid. And why was that? Partly because of an underlying heart condition, partly because Floyd was full to the gills with fentanyl, a drug known to affect respiration and cause pulmonary edema.
By the way, I say that FBI report ‘revealed’ this extenuating evidence, but it was evidence that the prosecution withheld from public scrutiny until the end of October 2020, by which time Minneapolis and many other cities across the country had been torched by Black Lives Matter rioters demanding ‘justice’ for George Floyd.
Here’s something else. Although Chauvin’s restraint looks brutal, it was actually part of the standard Minneapolis police protocol for dealing with persons exhibiting ‘excited delirium,’ a dangerous, often fatal, condition brought about by too much fentanyl with one’s afternoon tea. According to the medical examiner, Chauvin did not appear to have obstructed Floyd’s airway — Floyd would not have been able to speak if he had — and Floyd did not die from strangulation. Bottom line, George Floyd died from the effects of a self-administered drug overdose, effects that might have been exacerbated by his interactions with the police, i.e., his exertions in resisting arrest. For their part, the police were trying to help Floyd. It was they who called the ambulance because they recognized that Floyd was in extremis.
It just may be that Ellison and his colleagues, who are far more familiar with the details of this case than anyone else, are acutely aware of its vulnerabilities.
Although I am not a lawyer, CNN’s explanation for the reinstatement of the third-degree murder charge doesn’t make sense to me.
I recall vividly that many people were deeply disappointed by the third-degree charge and exerted tremendous pressure upon the powers that be to upgrade the charge to second-degree murder. And on June 3, prosecutors announced the elevated charge.
With the highly partisan Ellison in charge of the case, it remains to be seen if Chauvin will get a fair trial.