Between Maxine Waters inflammatory comments and the asshats who decided to throw a pigs head at what turns out to be the wrong house of a defense witness a mistrial is a real possibility here. Great job shit brains.

Also if there are riots after the verdict is read and the dems don’t bring incitement charges against Ms Waters they need to STFU about Trump and the insurrection.

Since I can’t directly comment on Charles piece earlier I wanted to answer his question here. “Woke” is used as a term of derision because that is what it has become. It is now an ironic term used to refer to be people who claim they are concerned about social issues but in reality are just using the issue of the day for their own personal gain. Examples include Kshama and her embrace of BLM during CHOP, the SCC and their defund the police promises last summer and the Seattle school board and the demand to stop sweeps on school grounds. All of these issues were co-opted to demonstrate how virtuous these people are with little to no regard for actually doing anything to improve or solve the problem. Thus “woke”

The military buildup isn’t just at the court house. Troops are all over Minneapolis.

LOVE the photos of Peter Ostrum from Willie Wonka - to see the child in the man. We need to step back from the news from time to time to recognize the continuity of humanity...

@5 - and, similarly, I suppose those who bathe in Tucker Carlson's rhetoric are "woke" to "replacement" and "America #1" and "criminals at the border" and "government conspiracy", and wear their virtuous cloaks as (they think) an impervious shield to change...

@1,

How often does that happen though? That there are too many incompetent people who can't be fired because of union rules?

If someone weren't doing their job, and flaunting it because they can't be fired, they'd still feel the effects from their co-workers. I guess if one could put up with harassment from co-workers for being a slacker, being given the shittiest jobs on the floor, and never getting any bonuses or accolades, then yeah, one could abuse the union's power, but I think most people wouldn't want to go to work everyday with that abuse and they'd self-select out. Besides, you said it yourself, most people take pride in their work. So why would there be lots of slackers?

I think union decline was due to the steady stream of lies, propaganda, money, and muscle from corporations. Corporations don't fear unions because of work rules that stifle creativity and innovation, they fear unions because it gives the workers power and agency. Big corporations
do like creative and innovative employees, but what they truly crave is obedience and conformity.

How dare a black woman speak out against racism in policing and police brutality. That's very uppity of her.

@10 she even has the judge in the case admonishing her:

“I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.

“I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function.”

“I think if they want to give their opinion they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a co-equal branch of government,”

I’d say that goes beyond speaking out but whatever you need to tell yourself to preserve your ideological bubble.

@11 I could give a shit what the judge thinks.

There's no equivalence between calling for action for justice for murder conducted under the color of law and action on account of blatantly false conspiracies and lies.

Do get a grip.

I'd like to comment on Charle's piece critiquing the Times' columnist assertion that Seattle was created for making money.

In 1902, Eugene Debs wrote a column, "What's the matter with Chicago?" and his thesis statement was this:
"First of all, Chicago is the product of modem capitalism, and, like all other great commercial centers, is unfit for human habitation. "

The difference in 119 years and thousands of miles is that there have been some few successful fights to make our cities a bit more livable; from cleaner air to housing regulations to higher wages. There is no progress without struggle, right? But otherwise, the property owning class will continue to make decisions in their own interest primarily. And after decades of neoliberalism, many property owners now only make decisions in their own short term interests.

I missed Sunday's canvas for NikkitaforNine but there will be others.

@12 you’re the one that needs to get a grip. You’re basically shitting on our judicial system and advocating for mob rule. This isn’t hard. Inciting people to take matters into their own hands is wrong. Full stop.

11, the judge is the one who shouldn't be speaking about the case like this. "Disrespectful" is quite the dog whistle.

13, Nothing she said is wrong. You will interpret it how you will.

Over the years, Maxine's overheated rhetoric seems to always get drowned out by her overheated style and flair. Her passion is raw, patronizing and opportunistic perhaps, but sincere. A headache, but never a bore. She's not adding fuel to the fire, bless her heart.

@1, by defending the worst actors, unions(especially cop unions) loudly signal their usefulness to groups that might not see the purpose of joining. Also, unions act almost as amoral capitalist agencies in that their function is to only represent the interests of their members, despite the possible negative impacts they may have on society as a whole. Another specific question Id like to throw out there is why do we(still) need public sector unions? They seem to keep the worst actors in play in areas where the public should have the most confidence, police and teachers. Equal halves of the American population view either teachers or cops is infallible gods depending on if R or D, wouldnt they continue seeing good money without a union?

Hooray for Peter Ostrum (as Charlie Bucket in the 1971 in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)! After his only film role, he went on from being a child star to study veterinary medicine. What lucky dogs and cats fortunate to be in the care of Dr. Ostrum, D.V.S..

@6 In2ishn2: Jesus, that's totally insane! It's further proof that the perpetrators are dangerously batshit crazy and, like Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, MUST be stopped. We shoot rabid dogs, don't we? These QAnon thugs, Proud Boys, and Patriot Players--not to mention the police officers caught posing for selfies with them---all claim to love their guns and ammo, don't they? I think the perps at this point of escalation are going to have to start losing some of their own before any of them wake up to the unspeakably reprehensible level of their criminal plots and activities.

@9 Urgutha Forka: BINGO.

I find it deeply offensive that congresswomen Waters is demanding a guilty verdict in the media prior to the jury deliberating on this case.

Our system is based on checks and balances and separation of powers. Ms. Water's doesn't understand that under our system it's the prosecutor office and police departments job to work with the media pre-trial in order to pollute the jury pool and guarantee the win at all cost conviction prosecutors base their career on. Who is Ms. Waters to get out front and piss all over a jury trial when that is clearly the job of law enforcement.

As for the judge, we should cut him some slack. Usually after a prosecutor and the police have smeared a defendant in the media pre-trial, it's the judges job to act they they hadn't heard anything and declare everything kosher. After all, judges understand the entire reason judges gave prosecutors absolute immunity is so they lie to the media with absolute impunity.

This, however, is one of those unusual cases where it is a cop on trial and there is media attention, so the judge is forced to dust off his law books for perhaps the first time since the last cop was on trial and loudly warn against creating prejudice with the jury.

@16: You'e half right. Typically it's the job of the prosecutor and cops to to incite mob violence against the defendant by releasing personal identifiable information to the media along with narrative that fits their version of events needed for a prosecution. The job of a judge is to act like nothing happened when the defense council points this out. In this case, it's a cop on trial. We will be hearing a lot about not jumping to conclusions, the presumption of innocent and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Things that are entirely absent from the typical trial.

@1, You are oversimplifying it a little, I think.

Good & bad workers is not a binary black & white issue. Rather, employees run the gamut on a scale. A few great, some good, some mediocre, some coasting a bit, a few bad. Naturally, employers would like to get rid of the bad ones. But if you give them all the power, then they will get rid of the bad ones, the coasting a bit ones, and most of the mediocre ones if they can get away with it. I'm fine having the union as a counterbalance, even if it means that they're stuck with an occasional bad one.

Here's an example. I was working at a job site a few years ago. A woman who worked there, who I'll call Jane (not her real name), was a pretty poor worker. Did a halfhearted job at best. Was out sick a lot. She was grandfathered in on a job she wasn't really fully capable of. Definitely didn't have her heart in it, and took no pride in her work. Just marking time for her paycheck. Nothing egregiously wrong, though. Just a bit of a drag on the office. Nobody wanted to work with her because she kind of sucked the energy out of the room. Exactly the sort that the company would probably fire if they could. The other side of the story is that she'd been working there for decades, and had been very dedicated in the past. She was just tired, and nearing retirement. Well past her best days. She would have retired a year or so earlier, but she'd had an injury on the job (which is why she was out sick a lot), and the company was contesting her worker's comp claim, and if she quit or retired, she'd forfeit her claim. She was in pain a lot, and couldn't afford a surgery that would fix the physical problem until the claim was resolved. So she was sort of stuck until the claim was resolved. And if she was fired, what would she do? She was already near or at retirement age. Not like she'd be able to find a new job or retrain in her mid-60s, especially after after being fired from a previous job.

There's no easy answer to a situation like that. Should she do a better job? Yes. Be more dedicated? Yes. Would it be fair to simply fire her after decades of dedicated work, possibly compromising her health and retirement? No. Especially since they were contesting the comp claim, which was forcing her to hang on longer than she wanted to in the first place. In hind sight, it might have been a more pragmatic solution to just pay off her comp claim and let her retire, but they didn't want to play it that way.

This is why unions are a good thing, even with halfway useless employees like Jane. It was a union job. Without the union, she would have far less chance to resolve the injury claim and get healthy, and very likely would have been fired. She probably would have lived the remainder of her life in pain because she couldn't afford the surgery and this country has a seriously retrograde healthcare system. It was the union that backed her claim, which she eventually won. She did then get the surgery she needed, and now lives pain free. She retired as soon as the claim was resolved. Everyone in her office is glad she's gone. She gets to keep the retirement that she rightfully earned for decades of good work prior to the injury.

There are lots of cases out there like Jane. Grey areas, where you can make a valid argument either way whether or not they should be fired or retained. Most companies, of course, would get rid of all Janes. Even some of her coworkers would be glad to get rid of her, especially if they didn't know any of the background or her side of the story. If fired, Jane would have been miserable, and a drag on society too. Unions (or effective government protections, or an effective healthcare system) is needed to maintain balance, and not put all the power over people like Jane in the hands of companies.

Who is this "Ethan Nordean" guy who's in the national news?
A Seattle guy who was one of the leaders in the attempted overthrow of the United States government on January 6th, and it isn't in the Seattle news? I have to depend on the national news, 3 months late?
Or, did I miss it?

Oh, right, I almost forgot : corporate media.
Never mind.

@6: Well, if there is an acquittal they will be needed.

There's not gonna be an acquittal. The evidence is overwhelming. What scares and wouldn't shock me a bit though is to have a couple, or even a single cop apologist among the jurors. In that case I'm assuming a refusal to acquiesce would lead to a hung jury and eventually a mistrial. Is that right? And then the case is retried and a second hung jury would constitute an acquittal? Or do they re-try yet again? I know it's still wildly speculative and hopefully won't be an issue, but I've been wondering.

@26: Yes, if any juror does not agrees to convict it is a hung jury.

It's then at the discretion of the Prosecutor to decide if they will retry the case. This is very high profile so they almost certainly will. Generally when it is not this high profile and a police officer is involved prosecutors and judges will work to support the defense team by dropping a retrial and declaring them not guilty. Retrials are generally reserved for those who are not in law enforcement.

You're right that the evidence is overwhelming, but I personally doubt they will get a conviction. Most people have no idea how different a trial runs when a police officer is on trial. The prosecutor gets to choose all the evidence and more importantly choose what evidence will not seen by the jury at trial.

Historically prosecutors and judges work together to present evidence to the jury that will deliver a not guilty verdict, but with the media involved that will be more of a challenge.

@26: 95% of all charges are concluded through plea bargains and of those who go to trial 90% are convicted. That tiny 10% of the 5% that go to trial and are not convicted are made up overwhelmingly of those on trial who work within the criminal system (police, prosecutors, judges) the ultra rich and politicians. Based on his membership in one of the protected groups, I would say Chauvin has a better than 50/50 chance of not being convicted.

I'd be more willing to believe the jury will either be hung, or they'll manage to convict Chauvin of the second-degree manslaughter charge... basically saying that he didn't mean to kill Floyd but simply wasn't careful enough while restraining him.

I don't think there's any way he gets convicted of the second degree unintentional murder charge.

If he's acquitted though... well, I wouldn't want to be in Minneapolis if that happens.

@29: You could be absolutely correct on the first point.

On the second point, right also. When prosecutors and judges are caught using a different deck of cards when it comes to their own while always dealing off the bottom of the deck for everyone else it erodes confidence in the system and you end up with what we witnessed in the streets last Summer.

Over time people come to assume the case is corrupt from experience even when it's not. Systemic injustice creates a powder keg like nothing else.

“Some things you must always be unable to bear. Some things you must never stop refusing to bear. Injustice and outrage and dishonor and shame. No matter how young you are or how old you have got. Not for kudos and not for cash: your picture in the paper nor money in the bank either. Just refuse to bear them.”
― William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust