Yes like I did with Puerto Rico. You talked about a poor white individual and he talked about odds for the black population. So I talked about Puerto Rico. Seemed about as applicable.

When you have to explain it... Smh

So much crime in poor areas is committed by people against their own family and neighbors in the same circumstances. And most of the people in those circumstances aren't committing crime, so it's not the circumstances that causes it. You want to help underprivileged people, get them a more effective protective service. Increased patrol s would help. Maybe some social workers walking the block.

Where the hell is this coming from? Were you just waiting for me to leave?

Specific outcomes do not equate to your choice of cause. There are explanations for disparity beyond racism

Also, this isn't 1954.

Why don't you ever say reasonable things like this to me?

You are much more likely to be poor if you're black

Not in Puerto Rico.

because of systemic racism

Pretty simplistic to look at one variable and hang your explanation on it. High school dropouts are more poor because of arrogant educated people holding em down, right? Or maybe generational factors play more of a role...

Why does systematic racism not keep poor black immigrants poor? They tend to do well after they are here for a bit. Also, why does systematic racism disappear for black people after they are married? Hmm

Shouldn't have gotten yourself on a no-knock warrant.

"Large capacity" in this case means a magazine holding 10 or more rounds. Many handguns have magazines that hold 15 as it's normal standard magazine. It's unlikely that you will find a police officer with anything less than a LCM.

The officer who was "worried about excited delirium or whatever", stated his concern because positional asphyxiation is a greater risk for someone suffering from excited delirium or even intoxication. He was fresh from the academy, but he didn't know what anything looks like in real life. So he listened to the senior guy who said to keep Floyd face down. The rookie was right and Chauvin was 180 degrees from right.

Given the extended time Chauvin had to re-evaluate and change course, charging him makes sense. However, the factors involved with positional asphyxiation and intoxicants are mitigating to the charge of murder. I expect that a jury is likely to weigh these mitigating factors against the likelihood of public outcry rather than the likelihood of murderous intent. The whole worlds eyes creates a lot of pressure.

The fact that Floyd deserved to be arrested can't be an argument for killing him slowly in the street. Similarly, the fact that Chauvin deserved to be charged for Floyd's death cannot be an argument against him having a reasonably fair trial.

I know the jury can't be truly and fully unbiased. But after what has transpired, can we believe they will be even somewhat unbiased?

Does it matter ?