Actually in a war zone, the prevailing powers usually skip the trial.

There was a BBC journalist who thought it a good idea to broadcast live via satellite uplink her reports from within a country in a state of war. She'd lived through a few scrapes and was known for her eye patch, which of course was one of the consequences of one of those scrapes.

Of course, the benefit of transmitting via satellite uplink with gear that could be recharged off-site was that it'd be a lot more difficult for most adversaries to be able to locate the signal, or so went the theory.

In practice, most of the major powers are very good at this, and so the country in a state of war simply asked their biggest ally for some assistance in locating the transmitter site.

Rather than bursting data traffic out of the war zone from a new location every time or implementing some sort of distributed transmission operation, the journalist and the crew didn't consider their true InfoSec and OpSec exposure. They believed that since the country itself didn't possess a satellite targeting capability that they'd remain free of the risks of discovery, and so they'd do it all live.

A few days after taking up a new transmitter location and using it to inconvenience that country's millitary and leadership with "reports from the field", or propaganda as they saw it, that country's ally fed them live and accurate information about when and where the transmitter was active.

The BBC journalist and the crew literally never saw the hit coming.

Over the years after seeing many badly behaving journos, not only with the BBC but also with other organisations, I've had to change my stance on these kinds of things.

If you are ever in a position to take out the journalists slamming you with unfavourable coverage or brightening your enemies with praise-laden prose, you should do so at any convenient opportunity.

Despite all of the bollocks they put forth as to being "independent observers", most journos are nothing of the kind.

Dans chaque pays, il est bon de tuer une journaliste de temps en temps pour encourager les autres.

I am not sure if the Black community do want their own nation

Perhaps the silent majority do not, and I'm happy to concede this.

The problem is that the silent majority ALSO do absolutely dick-all to keep their own community in line and functional. And that, really, is the core of the problem.

You don't need a majority of people agitating to break away from an existing body politic for it to happen. You just need a vocal and violent and intolerant minority, and for the majority to passively stand by and let it happen.

That's partly how the British Raj ended up splintered into Hindu and Muslim nations, and that's also why the Partition was such a traumatic event with such massive loss of life.

I pray they do not get it.

Me too. But war is upon us whether we pray against it or not. It's here, now, on our doorsteps. And we're all going to have to choose sides very soon.

Yep. I read the series. I particularly liked the last one about Kafkatrapping.

Yeah, the DM absolutely spun the SHIT out of that story. It's ridiculous – their own footage belies their printed words, and yet they apparently think that people reading their articles are dumb enough not to click and see for themselves.

And you're right about Floyd's state of mind. He was clearly out of it, completely. The rational way to avoid getting shot by the police, if you've been shot before, is to be as calm and compliant as possible.

Chauvin strikes me as a jerk, but the footage will likely exonerate him in a murder trial.

1) The Media pulled this same shit with the Rodney King beatings.

Absolutely. From what I've read, the senior policeman at the scene was actually ecstatic that they had the whole incident on tape – he wanted to use it as a training video to explain to new recruits how escalating levels of force work. That went out the window PDQ when the riots started. But the grand jury involved in that trial simply could not indict the officers once they saw the whole tape.

2) Technically, American Blacks had their own country to go back to: Monorovia, but it seems most chose to stay in America. Ghana has recently invited back the descendants of the people they sold into slavery .

Correct. As far as Ghana goes, Blacks who go back there quickly realise that they're even more foreign in Africa than they are in America. Which is not the least bit surprising. Black Americans are a full standard deviation more intelligent, on average, than Ghanaians. It's pretty likely that they don't fit in too well, at least at first, when they get there.

I do think that the old parry of slavery wants a war of the minorities against the Christian West.

I pray they do not get it.

Sadly- it's not a surprise. A number of people had already "guessed" at most of this from the evidence that was already known, photos that were already revealed. The shocking part to me is how baldly the DM spins the story. Forex: the bit about picking the gravel out of the tire treads. The loaded language used to describe every single step.

Also – cops shooting him previously is a damn good reason to NOT GIVE THEM AN EXCUSE BY ACTING ERRATIC – if one is coherent enough to act rational. If one is not, they are, intentions aside, escalating the chances they get killed by the cops by their own behavior.

All in all, while it paints Chauvin as more of a generally uncaring ass, it actually shows far more that the narrative of "cops choked out a black man because racist" was a lie.

No wonder they didn't release the body cam footage.