Businesses at struggling corner where George Floyd was killed sue Minneapolis

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

Several business owners at the struggling corner where George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020 are suing the city to demand it take over their properties and compensate them.

The owners of the Cup Foods convenience store and other businesses operating near 38th Street and Chicago Avenue argue that the city’s failure to address deterioration and crime in the neighborhood has ruined their businesses and constitutes an unlawful taking of their property without just compensation, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported Thursday. They’re seeking $30 million in damages.

 

Link

[Gromdor]

Yeah, I don't see a grocery store being very prosperous at a murder memorial.  The city was responsible for the death so the damages were caused by them.  

Also, as it has been pointed out in numerous court cases- police have no obligation to protect you: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Yeah, I don't see a grocery store being very prosperous at a murder memorial.  The city was responsible for the death so the damages were caused by them.  

Also, as it has been pointed out in numerous court cases- police have no obligation to protect you: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

It could if it were just a statue.  What the lawsuit asserts is that the city is not addressing the general decline in the neighborhood.  Living somewhere where this has been happening as well I sympathize with them.  An overcompensation of poor policing by moving to a lack of policing causes many more problems than there originally were.  Stupid leftists.

[Gromdor]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It could if it were just a statue.  What the lawsuit asserts is that the city is not addressing the general decline in the neighborhood.  Living somewhere where this has been happening as well I sympathize with them.  An overcompensation of poor policing by moving to a lack of policing causes many more problems than there originally were.  Stupid leftists.

Eh, maybe if police were obligated to police things might be different.  But alas, they don't.  We have seen this in school shooting lawsuits and even situations like this.  I don't particularly blame leftists.  

Honestly, I thnk the "increased crime" is just an excuse in the law suit.  The root problem is it is in a poor location.  

Crime is still at the same level as it has been: https://www.startribune.com/heres-how-crime-in-minneapolis-and-st-paul-compares-to-national-trends-in-2024/601124945

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, maybe if police were obligated to police things might be different.  But alas, they don't.  We have seen this in school shooting lawsuits and even situations like this.  I don't particularly blame leftists.  

Honestly, I thnk the "increased crime" is just an excuse in the law suit.  The root problem is it is in a poor location.  

Crime is still at the same level as it has been: https://www.startribune.com/heres-how-crime-in-minneapolis-and-st-paul-compares-to-national-trends-in-2024/601124945

Then the question is were these stores running at a profit before a large permanent memorial was erected?  

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Then the question is were these stores running at a profit before a large permanent memorial was erected?  

Maybe, maybe not.  It's something they would have to show in court.

But no one is going to argue that their profits haven't gone down after the murder and monument.  

[+and-then]

29 minutes ago, OverSword said:

An overcompensation of poor policing by moving to a lack of policing causes many more problems than there originally were. 

I think the state government is definitely culpable here.  None of this happens absent policies that were implemented by the government there.  I wouldn't hold my breath if I were one of the business owners.

[Gromdor]

Just now, and-then said:

I think the state government is definitely culpable here.  None of this happens absent policies that were implemented by the government there.  I wouldn't hold my breath if I were one of the business owners.

Oh, it's definitely the city's fault.  The officer that commited the murder was in their employ.  His crime was what caused the loss of profits to the store.

[Edumakated]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Oh, it's definitely the city's fault.  The officer that commited the murder was in their employ.  His crime was what caused the loss of profits to the store.

No, the city allowing riots and then falsely prosecuting the officer is what resulted in the current situation.  Were it not for the media and activist, George Floyd would have been just another drug OD case.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Edumakated said:

No, the city allowing riots and then falsely prosecuting the officer is what resulted in the current situation.  Were it not for the media and activist, George Floyd would have been just another drug OD case.

Chavin's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court was unsuccessful.  Chavin murdered Floyd.

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Chavin's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court was unsuccessful.  Chavin murdered Floyd.

And many MANY people on this forum still believe Kyle Rittenhouse murdered three people, and have gone on to passionately argue their side despite him being found by a jury to have acted in self defence. The existence of a factual court case proving self defence hasn't stopped them from offering their opinions that he is guilty of murder. I can't see why people on the other side of the political spectrum cannot also offer their opinions that run counter factual to the legal cases themselves. 

[Edumakated]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Chavin's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court was unsuccessful.  Chavin murdered Floyd.

History is littered with bad court decisions....

[Golden Duck]

16 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

And many MANY people on this forum still believe Kyle Rittenhouse murdered three people, and have gone on to passionately argue their side despite him being found by a jury to have acted in self defence. The existence of a factual court case proving self defence hasn't stopped them from offering their opinions that he is guilty of murder. I can't see why people on the other side of the political spectrum cannot also offer their opinions that run counter factual to the legal cases themselves. 

The opinions of those "MANY people" do not go unchallenged and are shot down with the same cry of "Look at the scoreboard!"  There was no prohibition of offering an opinion.  Yet here you are attempting to moderate the discussion through your preaching that claims of political persecution, of a murderer who appealed to the highest court in the land without success, should be accepted with silence.  A reasonable person would see that as a hypocritical argument.

The two cases have a major difference based on the dictum "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."  In the Rittenhouse case, the verdict was not appealed.  Chauvin exhausted every avenue available to him.

[Golden Duck]

35 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

History is littered with bad court decisions....

Even those where the highest court in the land was petitioned?

[+Link of Hyrule]

45 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The opinions of those "MANY people" do not go unchallenged and are shot down with the same cry of "Look at the scoreboard!"  There was no prohibition of offering an opinion.  Yet here you are attempting to moderate the discussion through your preaching that claims of political persecution, of a murderer who appealed to the highest court in the land without success, should be accepted with silence.  A reasonable person would see that as a hypocritical argument.

I'm not "attempting to moderate" anything, I was just offering an idea you may or may not have considered. 

 

45 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The two cases have a major difference based on the dictum "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt."  In the Rittenhouse case, the verdict was not appealed.  Chauvin exhausted every avenue available to him.

You can't appeal a "Not Guilty" verdict, so the comparison is irrelevant. And the Guilty verdicts that are appealed cannot be appealed on the veracity of the evidence, but only if an error of law has taken place. The appeals court in Chauvin's case did not retry him, examine the evidence and say "well, he's still guilty", that's not how appeals work. If there was an appeal, it can only be on legalities (eg, "we wanted to include evidence x, but the judge wouldn't allow it for illegal reason y, therefore the case should be tossed, or at least retried). 

If the jury made a wrong decision and convicted him when the evidence wasn't strong enough, then that CANNOT be appealed, it just has to be accepted that the jury made a mistake (unless the jury was given flawed jury instructions by the judge, for example, that's the type of thing that can be appealed). 

Edited November 15 by Link of Hyrule

[Golden Duck]

43 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I'm not "attempting to moderate" anything, I was just offering an idea you may or may not have considered. 

 

You can't appeal a "Not Guilty" verdict, so the comparison is irrelevant. And the Guilty verdicts that are appealed cannot be appealed on the veracity of the evidence, but only if an error of law has taken place. The appeals court in Chauvin's case did not retry him, examine the evidence and say "well, he's still guilty", that's not how appeals work. If there was an appeal, it can only be on legalities (eg, "we wanted to include evidence x, but the judge wouldn't allow it for illegal reason y, therefore the case should be tossed, or at least retried). 

If the jury made a wrong decision and convicted him when the evidence wasn't strong enough, then that CANNOT be appealed, it just has to be accepted that the jury made a mistake (unless the jury was given flawed jury instructions by the judge, for example, that's the type of thing that can be appealed). 

The idea you are offering is laced with the snide accusation of hypocrisy.  There must be some "nuanced" reason for making the false observation that "people on the other side of the political spectrum cannot also offer their opinions."  Such a prohibition did not happen.  

In the appeal decision Reyes J, Larson J, and Klaphake J affirmed that Chauvin used unreasonable force.
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2023/OPa211228-041723.pdf

The comparison between the two cases is irrelevant.  You need to explain why you introduced it.

[+Link of Hyrule]

15 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The idea you are offering is laced with the snide accusation of hypocrisy.  There must be some "nuanced" reason for making the false observation that "people on the other side of the political spectrum cannot also offer their opinions."  Such a prohibition did not happen.  

In the appeal decision Reyes J, Larson J, and Klaphake J affirmed that Chauvin used unreasonable force.
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctappub/2023/OPa211228-041723.pdf

I don't recall writing "people on the other side of the political spectrum cannot also offer their opinions". Certainly not as is without any context, and I just read through my posts, it seems I did say that, although it was preceded by a phrase that read "I can't see why...", in other words, everyone CAN offer their opinion, regardless of political view (and I can see no reason why they can't). It appears as if you've taken my words and twisted them to say the opposite of what I intended. Hopefully that wasn't intentional, but you've got a knack for twisting my words into a narrative that suits you, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was more of the same. 

 

15 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The comparison between the two cases is irrelevant.  You need to explain why you introduced it.

I've already explained why I introduced it, so I see no reason to do so again! 

Edited November 15 by Link of Hyrule

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I don't recall writing "people on the other side of the political spectrum cannot also offer their opinions". Certainly not as is without any context, and I just read through my posts, it seems I did say that, although it was preceded by a phrase that read "I can't see why...", in other words, everyone CAN offer their opinion, regardless of political view. It appears as if you've taken my words and twisted them to say the opposite of what I intended. 

 

I've already explained why I introduced it, so I see no reason to do so again! 

What was the idea you claimed you were trying to introduce?  Who was unable to offer their opinion?

Your original post is some sort of protest or grievance against equal behaviour.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

What was the idea you claimed you were trying to introduce?  Who was unable to offer their opinion?

Your original post is some sort of protest or grievance against equal behaviour.

You're not looking for an explanation, you're looking for a way to twist my comments into an attack. I don't want to play your game anymore, so you'll have to go back and read it yourself, I have faith in your comprehension skills, Mr Duck. 

[Golden Duck]

2 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

You're not looking for an explanation, you're looking for a way to twist my comments into an attack. I don't want to play your game anymore, so you'll have to go back and read it yourself, I have faith in your comprehension skills, Mr Duck. 

This comes across as a complaint against some prohibition that didn't occur.

2 hours ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I can't see why people on the other side of the political spectrum cannot also offer their opinions

It's obvious you can't see something that never existed.🙄

[Tatetopa]

6 hours ago, Edumakated said:

Were it not for the media and activist, George Floyd would have been just another drug OD case.

Is that pointing to police coverup? 

[+Link of Hyrule]

30 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

This comes across as a complaint against some prohibition that didn't occur.

It's obvious you can't see something that never existed.🙄

I can't stop you from interpreting my post in that manner, but you do you, mate. I did the right thing not buying into your schtick. 

Edited November 15 by Link of Hyrule

[Golden Duck]

7 minutes ago, Link of Hyrule said:

I can't stop you from interpreting my post in that manner, but you do you, mate. I did the right thing not buying into your schtick. 

Nice.  It's good to hear you're doing better.

[Edumakated]

25 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Is that pointing to police coverup? 

No, it is pointing to that Floyd died from an OD, not a knee on his neck.  Were it not for the activist, initial viral video that didn't tell the entire story and the subsequent resulting riots, Floyd would be just another dead drug addicted low life.  Chavin was sacrificed for political expediency because the mob's destruction would have continued with a not guilty verdict.  Anyone who has looked at the entire video, body cam footage, timeline, autopsy results, etc knows Floyd died of an OD.  Unfortunately, he just happened to OD while being restrained.

If someone wants to argue that Chavin should have been more aware of what was happening, then fine.  I can accept that position.  However, I think it is a travesty of justice to have put that man in prison.

Now we have the Daniel Penny case in NYC which kind of similar.  

[+Link of Hyrule]

9 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

No, it is pointing to that Floyd died from an OD, not a knee on his neck.  Were it not for the activist, initial viral video that didn't tell the entire story and the subsequent resulting riots, Floyd would be just another dead drug addicted low life.  Chavin was sacrificed for political expediency because the mob's destruction would have continued with a not guilty verdict.  Anyone who has looked at the entire video, body cam footage, timeline, autopsy results, etc knows Floyd died of an OD.  Unfortunately, he just happened to OD while being restrained.

If someone wants to argue that Chavin should have been more aware of what was happening, then fine.  I can accept that position.  However, I think it is a travesty of justice to have put that man in prison.

Now we have the Daniel Penny case in NYC which kind of similar.  

This is where I disagree with you, Edumakated. I watched the Floyd trial as it happened, it is my opinion that the prosecution successfully managed to prove Manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt. I don't believe they managed to prove Murder beyond reasonable doubt, but an appeal doesn't address whether a jury made the wrong decision. Right or wrong, it's the decision a politically charged jury arrived at. 

Edit: hopefully the jury sees how ridiculous the Daniel Penny case is, though I'm thinking that this is going to be more like George Zimmerman than Derek Chauvin, Penny should be acquitted in a fair and just world. 

Edited November 15 by Link of Hyrule