Sounds about right to me

Derek Chauvin did not murder George Floyd

The reason they’re prosecuting for tax evasion being that they can’t get him for murder.

40 thoughts on “Sounds about right to me”

  1. Apparently a good way to annoy Al Capone was to pronounce the “e” in the Italian style.

    They got him for tax too.

  2. Not sure about this. I think it’s more that when there’s a news story about someone, with a whole lot of stuff that comes out, agencies have something to look at. It’s like waking a sleeping dragon.

  3. Dennis, Odin's Tax Collector

    Uh… 2014 to 2019 is six years, not five.

    Something else: You don’t dig up $450,000+ in unreported income over five (six, actually) years worth of tax returns in three or so months of auditing. Having worked more than one tax audit involving criminal acts (evasion), I can assure you that’s not how tax audits work. Under normal conditions it takes more than three months just to review the returns of the suspect and his/her sources of income and potential income. The gathering of evidence can run into years, depending on the complexity of the case. I’m involved in an evasion case right now that has been open for more than five years.

    If these charges are legit, it means Chauvin was under investigation well before he killed Floyd.

  4. I grew tired of reading and fisking her tedious, monotonous tripe years ago. So that makes two of us. I guess it’s easier for me, I can just ignore her whereas she’s trapped inside her head. Must be Hell on Earth.

  5. Yeah I thought of Capone when they wheeled out the tax charges. They will get him on what they can get him on.

    Where they were bang on though was about the BBC failing to do any actual analysis. Look at today’s report about the ‘Portland Wall of Moms’ supporting the Antifa protests/riots. No mention that they are just the same old protestors with yellow T-shirts on.

    In fact it’s amazing how little those riots get reported on, just like the low-level insurrection in France‘s banlieus was barely whispered about last year. Clearly the BBC has more important journalism to work on, like how ‘breathtaking’ it was for a young black journalist to report from inside the BLM protests.

  6. Been saying since day 1 of this sordid pantomime that he didn’t commit murder and you’d be lucky with manslaughter. We’ve now had transcripts that reveal Saint Floyd admitting to having had drugs up his arse for transportation purposes earlier on in the day and it appears he died of a Fentanyl OD.

    This is why you’re supposed to have a trial with all the information the defence can present, rather than decide on guilt from one video on YouTube. Not that the USA much likes trials these days, 19 out of 20 cases are decided by a forced confession, or “Plea Bargain” as it’s called in polite company.

    But unless we’re actually going to do a purge of the Denazification/Decommunistisation type, it’s largely irrelevant discussing such things since they presume Enlightenment values which are now not followed by the overwhelming majority of the Estates Of The Realm(s). If they ever really were.

    The Mob want one of those ludicrous American 3000 year prison sentences and that’s what they will get.

  7. Ian B,

    I don’t think it’s going to happen. I don’t see Chauvin pleading up from manslaughter (which under the circumstances might mean that he walks) to 2nd degree.

    All those people kneeling for George Floyd are going to have to suck it up. There are going to be riots and looting.

    And you can’t deal with this problem without mothers seeking responsible fathers who can physically chastise boys. Fascinating bit of research around “shotgun weddings” from the Brookings Institute:-

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

  8. Why didn’t / don’t they charge him (them) with what he was most apparently guilty of – criminal negligence? No attempt to care for the arrestee when he was clearly in immediate jeopardy.

  9. Why didn’t / don’t they charge him (them) with what he was most apparently guilty of – criminal negligence? No attempt to care for the arrestee when he was clearly in immediate jeopardy.

    Because, once you’ve overcharged him, you’re most likely to end up with an acquittal.

    Thus furthering the narrative of institutional racism, and instigating another round of protests and riots.

  10. We’ve now had transcripts that reveal Saint Floyd admitting to having had drugs up his arse for transportation purposes earlier on in the day and it appears he died of a Fentanyl OD.

    Interesting.
    Got a link?

  11. @ Dennis
    How long does it take for a tax evasion case to come to trial in the Covid-19 scenario? Are they assuming that, having been tipped off by one of Chauvin’s co-workers that he was moonlighting, they’ll have ample time to find the evidence?

  12. i was perusing old HL Mencken and came across this very subject. – written in 1922

    “Thus the law, statute, common and case, protects the free American against injustice. It is ignorance of that subtle and perfect process and not any special love of liberty per se that causes radicals of anti-American kidney to rage every time an officer of the gendarmerie, in the simple execution of his duty, knocks a citizen in the head. The gendarme plainly has an inherent and inalienable right to knock him in the head: it is an essential part of his general prerogative as a sworn officer of the public peace and a representative of the sovereign power of the state. He may, true enough, exercise that prerogative in a manner liable to challenge on the ground that it is imprudent and lacking in sound judgment. On such questions reasonable men may differ. But it must be obvious that the sane and decorous way to settle differences of opinion of that sort is not by public outcry and florid appeals to sentimentality, not by[Pg 200] ill-disguised playing to class consciousness and anti-social prejudice, but by an orderly resort to the checks and remedies superimposed upon the Bill of Rights by the calm deliberation and austere logic of the courts of equity.
    The law protects the citizen. But to get its protection he must show due respect for its wise and delicate processes.”

  13. Looks like his (Asian) wife has gained nothing from publicly abandoning him.
    Even if he serves six months for tax evasion he won’t make it out alive.

  14. He should have shot it out on the same day the mob kicked off–that end would have been far better than jailhouse horrors.

  15. BlokeOnM4: Interesting reading. I’ve been pondering similar things while zoned out driving to work. It’s as though the last century’s societal education that women actually do enjoy sex is all a lie. Evidence is piling up higher and higher that women actually do *not* like sex, they put with it just long enough to get a baby, then as fast as possible forcibly expel any source of future sex.

    I’m working with a new starter, and chatting with him he mentioned shift difficulties due to “my turn to have my daughter”. Yer wot? He’s about 22 years old. Gentle conversational pressure revealed they got divorced when babby was just over a year old. “I’ve got yer sperm, now ***k off”.

    Look at the statistics. Post-divorce, who gets remarried? The man. The woman abandons any sex life. “Single mother” is such a common life status, that I’m getting annoyed at media articles that introduce somebody as a single mother, it’s like introducing somebody “This is Helen, she’s a human being”.

    This has great dangers for societal upheaval. In the past the 90% of women who didn’t like sex just put up with being married to the 90% of men who did like sex. 10% were blissfully happy, 80% put up with it for the joy of babies. That doesn’t happen today. What is going to happen to that 80% of leftover men who like sex chasing the 10% of compatible women, when there’s no fall-back to “ok, if I must”. And this is in a society where the sex ratio is broadly 50/50; we can already see problems in China were there are 60 men for 40 women, and the numbers that result in dozens of *millions* of unattached men.

  16. Dennis, Author of the Tay Bridge Tax Return

    How long does it take for a tax evasion case to come to trial in the Covid-19 scenario? Are they assuming that, having been tipped off by one of Chauvin’s co-workers that he was moonlighting, they’ll have ample time to find the evidence?

    In my opinion there is too much income being evaded to simply be a matter of not reporting moonlighting money. Using six years rather than five the amount averages over $70,000 annually. At $35 an hour, that’s a full year’s worth of work. Given that they have included 2019 in this indictment, I doubt very much this is about failing to report moonlighting wages. Including 2019 means the tax authorities have been working this case for at least a year or two, and it also means to me that the evasion has been consistent, systematic and ongoing (which points away from moonlighting). The fact that his wife was indicted as well suggests some sort of conspiracy; if she wasn’t involved I doubt they’d bother to indict her… She could claim innocent spouse and pursue relief on that count.

  17. Dennis, Tiresome Denizen of Central Ohio

    Another thought… I’m not a lawyer (Thank God), but what seems to be lost in Hopper’s post is the fact that state charges of tax evasion (and by the IRS for that matter), will have no impact on Chauvin’s prosecution for murder (or manslaughter). Separate cases. And in the Real World MN didn’t just whip up a tax case because someone in Keith Ellison’s office decided they’d overcharged Chauvin. That’s not how these things work. It could be years before Chauvin’s tax case goes to court. Lordy, in the case I’m involved in that is now more than five years old, the IRS has had this guy dead to rights for years, with inconvertible proof of evasion (I’ve seen the documents), and they’re still trying to negotiate a plea.

    Basically, I think Hopper (the author of the original post) is full of shit on all counts.

  18. ” Evidence is piling up higher and higher that women actually do *not* like sex, they put with it just long enough to get a baby, then as fast as possible forcibly expel any source of future sex.”

    I think your argument is pretty close to the truth, however I would posit its that its not that ‘women don’t like sex’ its that ‘women don’t like sex with the vast majority of men’. There’s a small % of men who float women’s boats and the rest of masculinity are, as you say, only any use as sperm and £££ donors. So a woman who gets divorced having got her child, and maintenance from the father won’t eschew sex entirely, she will just only indulge in it when she manages to attract the (usually fleeting) attentions of one of the small % of men who she actually finds sexually attractive. Most of whom are not the nicest people in the first place, and not the sorts who hang around for relationships etc.

    I suspect that women are primarily sexually attracted to the Dark Triad personality traits – Psychopathy, Machiavellianism and Narcissism. This is probably the reason the Ancients spent so much time and efforts to socially control female sexuality – they knew the problems that would arise for a society that allowed it free rein.

  19. In my opinion there is too much income being evaded to simply be a matter of not reporting moonlighting money.

    Depends on the “moonlighting”, surely? She / they purportedly had an interest in real estate. I’ve seen online chatspiracy that this was a cover for drug and gun running between MN and FL.

    Going for tax evasion charges on incongruous income might be a way of skirting probable cause on otherwise well disguised illegality.

  20. “I think your argument is pretty close to the truth, however I would posit its that its not that ‘women don’t like sex’ its that ‘women don’t like sex with the vast majority of men’. There’s a small % of men who float women’s boats and the rest of masculinity are, as you say, only any use as sperm and £££ donors. So a woman who gets divorced having got her child, and maintenance from the father won’t eschew sex entirely, she will just only indulge in it when she manages to attract the (usually fleeting) attentions of one of the small % of men who she actually finds sexually attractive. ”

    By my experience, Jim, you’ve got that about right. I’ve certainly seen little sign of single mums eschewing sex altogether. Quite the opposite. But the mating game’s entirely different from their yet-to-be-bred sisters. Their support structure’s already in place, rather than something they’re seeking in a partner. So they’re more after a good time & sex.

  21. Talking with a high school girl friend I saw at a class reunion a few years ago . . . she was an EPA prosecutor. Then retired. She told me that for every case the EPA prosecuted, they had 5,000 others they could have prosecuted.

    So many cases, so few prosecutors.

  22. Longrider: no, no, that’s completely fair 🙂

    Dennis: you might very well be right on all counts. (I didn’t bother delving into whether the date range fencepost). But **why is the BBC specifically reporting on this case** is the more interesting question, IMNERHO.

  23. Yes, it’s more like: 90% of men don’t like sex with 10% of women, 90% of women don’t like sex with 90% of men. Evidence shows that most men are happy with “the best they can get”, most women insist on “the best possible”.

    The downside of the “the best they can get” is the continual possiblity of dumping the current squeeze for the opportunity of a better on. The downside of the “the best they can get” is 90% not getting any at all. The evidence shows that the 80% of men losing access to sex because they aren’t in the 10% are unhappy with no sex; but the 80% of women losing access to sex because 10% of the women have already got their target men are perfectly copacetic to not be having sex.

  24. Oh dear, I’m going to keep digging this hole, aren’t I?

    Society considers it the height of arrogance to, eg, resign from a job (house, trade deal, supranational organisation) before securing a replacement job, it is the height of sensibility to seek out and secure a replacement job (house, trade deal, international grouping) before dumping the current one. However, society also considers it the height of disgracefulness to seek out a replacement partner before disconnecting from the current one.

    Just as some people stick in a job because they are wary that if they leave, they’ll never get another on, some people stick in a relationship scared that they’ll never get a replacement, to the detriment of that relationship. The biological divide between “I don’t care if I don’t get sex” vs “not having a sex life makes me unhappy” clashes against the realities of human interactions.

  25. Western civ has fucked up relationships in two ways. Firstly by making sure women are not financially dependent on men, if women don’t have to play nice, they won’t, and secondly by making it a criminal offence to inconvenience women in any way. Together this makes it impossible for men to achieve any kind of mastery over women, which makes them seem week and unattractive in women’s eyes.

  26. So Much For Subtlety

    I don’t like to comment before I have read anything but the oddity is charging the wife. Why would they do that when she always has the perfectly good fall back of saying she was doing what she was told by her husband and she was a beauty Queen who did not understand money anyway?

    Presumably they want the ex to flip. Which she will. But that means their case ain’t that good. Why would they need her to?

  27. Women like sex, but the context is generally different. Women generally want more security around it, where men don’t care. Men commit adultery to get more sex, women commit adultery to find a better partner.

    And the reason that single mothers aren’t seen in further relationships is that they can’t attract men. Single men generally don’t want to be the bank, caregiver, parent to someone else’s kids.

  28. @jgh
    ” Evidence is piling up higher and higher that women actually do *not* like sex, they put with it just long enough to get a baby, then as fast as possible forcibly expel any source of future sex.”
    Fortunately not true for my wife – not unless she is very optimistic about having another baby – very unlikely now sadly.

  29. Dennis, CPA to the Gods

    I don’t like to comment before I have read anything but the oddity is charging the wife. Why would they do that when she always has the perfectly good fall back of saying she was doing what she was told by her husband and she was a beauty Queen who did not understand money anyway?

    Perhaps there is evidence that she was an active participant in an attempt to evade taxes? That tends to defeat attempts at innocent spouse relief.

    It’s a political prosecution.

    I’ve given several excellent, real world reasons for this not being a political prosecution. But, if all you have is a hammer, sooner or later everything is going to look like a nail.

  30. “I’ve given several excellent, real world reasons for this not being a political prosecution. But, if all you have is a hammer, sooner or later everything is going to look like a nail.”

    They’re very reasoned arguments Dennis, but they forget one point – in cases like this the rules go out of the window in order to allow the authorities to get what they want. It may indeed take years for a normal case of State tax evasion to be investigated and charges brought, one suspects in this case it will be enough to have a bit of circumstantial evidence of tax evasion in (say) 2019 and then for them to just extrapolate that back as far as they see fit. I really can’t see an investigators or prosecutors giving Chauvin any of the usual rights and protections a person under investigation should expect. They’ll ignore all the rules in order to make it look like they are ‘doing something’ to this ‘white supremacist’, as they see it.

  31. Are you the same Dennis, who gives excellent, real world reasons, who said Chauvin was guilty of first degree murder?

    BTW, anarchy trumps excellent, real world reasons.

  32. I’m reading a lot of man talk, here, about what women think. But it doesn’t bear much relationship to what women actually think. Have you met any?

  33. Dennis, Less Paranoid Than Many, Evidently

    Gamecock –

    Nope. Never said Chauvin was guilty of first degree murder. Go back and read what I actually said.

    BTW, facts trump speculation. And paranoia.

  34. I’m reading a lot of man talk, here, about what women think. But it doesn’t bear much relationship to what women actually think. Have you met any?

    I was amused by the “voices from ancient Rome” being expressed; perhaps some meetings didn’t go well.
    Nevertheless, none of us can know what women think. We can merely observe what they say and what they do, and that sometimes those do not align.

  35. “BTW, facts trump speculation.”

    OMFG !!! You think anyone in Minnesota cares about the facts ???

  36. ‘The murder of George Floyd isn’t an isolated incident. It is the second murder of a civilian by a Minneapolis police officer in less than three years.’

    You didn’t say “manslaughter,” Dennis.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/manslaughter

    ‘Manslaughter is the act of killing another human being in a way that is less culpable than murder.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *