Ralstonite

Certainly that's the narrative, though I'm not sure the statistics confirm that. I think police in America tend to be more violent. Full stop. The racial motive is more speculation, and given that Chauvin was married to a 'person of colour' and had been raising his step-children for ten years, the idea that he woke up and thought "I'm gonna kill me a n****r" is cynical conjecture; the sort of thing that causes racial tension and distrust.

I don't think anyone can be expected to know the mind of a third party, we can only speculate. Hence why there's a trial and the defendant is allowed to provide his explanation. However, I will speculate that if Chauvin didn't believe the pressure he was applying was enough to render Floyd unconscious, then I would imagine he didn't know he had passed out. The eyes are possibly the best way of determining whether someone's passed out, and he couldn't see them from the position he was in. It could be argued that the body would go limp, though if he had a heart attack would his body be convulsing, which Chauvin misread as resistance? Again, speculation on my part. I agree, it is appalling policing. I think many police officers, here and abroad, are bullies. However I still think Chauvin's entitled to a fair trial. Saying he deserves to be locked up without hearing his defence is akin to those who say Floyd was a criminal and a thug and deserved to die, IMHO. I just don't see it likely that Chauvin would risk everything - particularly given that he was aware he was being filmed - to kill some guy he was arresting. I don't believe Chauvin thought Floyd was going to die. Again though, I am speculating. But was it not a case of the adrenaline, the deprivation of oxygen and his poor cardiovascular system and intoxication which killed him? That's one for the medical experts to answer. I'm not sure how long Chauvin had been a police officer, but was this the first time he had ever used this restraint? Was it the longest? To repeat what I said above: 'I just don't see it likely that Chauvin would risk everything - particularly given that he was aware he was being filmed - to kill some guy he was arresting. I don't believe Chauvin thought Floyd was going to die.' It does. I have been knocked unconscious by one, they are extremely effective. I think it's disgusting that the police were ever allowed to use them. But to reiterate what I said above, for the third time: 'I just don't see it likely that Chauvin would risk everything - particularly given that he was aware he was being filmed - to kill some guy he was arresting. I don't believe Chauvin thought Floyd was going to die.'

If it was taught to cops, then someone else should be standing in the dock. Chauvin could easily claim that he didn't think he was putting much pressure on Floyd's neck. The inappropriate application of a technique which had been taught to him during his police training sounds like negligible homicide rather than murder to me. If Floyd was really 6'4" was resisting arrest, and had prior convictions for violence, then Chauvin can say he felt he needed to apply the technique. It certainly casts doubt on the accusation that he decided that he intentionally set out to kill Floyd. Furthermore, I have read that the autopsy report showed that he had a potentially lethal dose of drugs, possibly having swallowed drugs he was carrying, and also had cardiovascular disease. In which case Chauvin's defence could claim that the technique would not have been lethal if applied to a healthy man, and that looking at Floyd there was no reason to believe he wasn't healthy. As a juror would that be enough to give you reasonable doubt?

I haven't watched the full, twenty minute video, but a friend of mine told me Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before the officer applied the restraint. If it was taught to cops, presumably it was considered non-lethal. If it wasn't considered non-lethal but was taught to cops anyway, then presumably deaths like Floyd's are considered acceptable in America. However, if Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before the restraint was applied, I would imagine the cop would believe him to be lying.

Allegedly there's a police training manual which shows the knee to the neck restraint technique: https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7 If the guy was doing what he had be trained to do, then I cannot see how he can ever be convicted of murder. I doubt that he was supposed to utilise that technique for so long, and he may not have applied it correctly, however I suppose we will need to see the contents of the manual first. My basic understanding of law is that mens rea needs to be established for murder charges, and I don't think the cop was trying to kill Floyd. If this training manual really exists I would imagine that's compelling evidence in his favour.

A Tory prime minister schooled at Eton, and about as popular as a fart in a lift having taken us out of the EU up here, refusing the Scottish people a referendum is exactly what the indy campaign needs to bolster its ranks. If we had the balls we could unilaterally declare independence! What would he do, send the army in?

Just to clarify, are you referring to contemporary Scotland? I

I think he was talking beyond this election. Nae bother. My point is now that MPs have defected over to Alba, will the SNP contest their seats? If so, will Alba contest the SNP's? I would imagine discussions will have taken place between Alba and the MPs before the defections happened, which is likely to sour relations between the two from the start. The idea behind the conception of Alba is brilliant, it really is. But, it has the potential to go horribly wrong.

That's the first I've heard of it, and it's not a good thing. Guess what happens if the SNP and Alba start fielding candidates in the same constituency? Even if Alba pick up a few percent of the vote it might be enough to lose the seat for the SNP, or vice versa.

I quite fancy watching this. I watched the Zimmerman trial years ago and it fascinated me so much I took a day's leave to watch the closing statements.

They've just lost two consecutive games, one to a wee shitty club and the other to Brora Rangers, ffs, it's only natural.

It looks like it might be a loaded question, that and the lack of anonymity might skew results. Ideally the SNP's second vote will be split between the Greens, SNP & Alba. Wouldn't that not ensure the super-majority needed?

Being a 'sex pest' might mean he propositions female aids in the back of black cabs, etc. It doesn't make him a rapist. I'm not defending him, btw. All I care about is independence, and if Salmond can help achieve that, then I don't see how him being a bit of a lech really matters that much.

Regardless of what one thinks of Salmond, the man is innocent until proved guilty. Personally, I suspect he probably got drunk at parties and pinched a few lassies' arses and made a few crude gestures...but that's pure speculation on my part. I'll be voting for Alba and the SNP.

Can you really, justifiably, sack your manager when you're top of your league? It is one game, after all. How many sides have been humbled by lower league teams? It happens, in fact it's what the Cup is all about.