Minnesota lawmaker proposes law to strip convicted protesters of food stamps, unemployment benefits, and other gov't programs



A Minnesota state lawmaker wants to strip convicted protesters of their access to government programs, including food stamps, student loans, and health care.

Republican state Sen. David Osmek authored the legislation as the nation awaits a decision in the jury trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer who was charged in the death of George Floyd.

After a long day of closing arguments, the jurors deliberated about four hours before retiring for the night to the hotel where they are being sequestered for this final phase of the trial, the Associated Press reported. They were slated to resume Tuesday morning.

"A person convicted of a criminal offense related to the person's illegal conduct at a protest, demonstration, rally, civil unrest, or march is ineligible for any type of state loan, grant, or assistance, including but not limited to college student loans and grants, rent and
mortgage assistance, supplemental nutrition assistance, unemployment benefits and other employment assistance, Minnesota supplemental aid programs, business grants, medical assistance, general assistance, and energy assistance," read the bill.

Ahead of the jury deliberations, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) was criticized for appearing to incite violence with her comments in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, demanding that protesters become "more confrontational" if Chauvin is acquitted of murder.

"We got to stay on the street," the 82-year-old said during a protest on Sunday. "And we've got to get more active. You've got to get more confrontational. You got to make sure that they know we mean business."

Many called out Waters for the irresponsible comments, but the most damning response came from Judge Peter Cahill, who is presiding over the Chauvin trial. Cahill called the comments "abhorrent" while admonishing lawmakers to be more respectful to the judicial branch in accordance with their oath to defend the Constitution.

"A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot. Anyway," Cahill said in court.

The Minnesota bill is not likely to pass with Democrats controlling the state House and the governor's office.

Here's the latest in the Derek Chauvin trial:

Jury retires for the night in murder case of former Officer Derek Chauvinwww.youtube.com

Nancy Pelosi defends Maxine Waters' comments calling on protesters to 'get more confrontational'



House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refused calls to censure Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) after she called on protesters to be more "confrontational" if former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin is not found guilty of murdering George Floyd.

Pelosi was asked by reporters Monday if Waters should apologize for her comments, and she defended her Democratic colleague.

"Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the Civil Rights movement. I myself think we should take our lead from the George Floyd family. They've handled this with great dignity and no ambiguity or lack of misinterpretation by the other side," Pelosi replied.

When pressed about whether Waters should apologize, she added, "No, I don't think she should apologize."

Waters ignited a firestorm with her comments at a protest Sunday in Brooklyn Center.

"Well, we got to stay on the street," Waters said to the protesters. "And we've got to get more active. You've got to get more confrontational. You got to make sure that they know we mean business."

She went on to say that she didn't agree with curfews imposed by officials trying to quell any possible rioting.

"I don't know what curfew means," Waters explained. "Curfew means that I want you all to stop talking. I want you to stop meeting. I want you stop gathering. I don't agree with that."

Many saw her comments as encouraging street violence.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) promised to take action against Waters if Pelosi refused to do so herself.

"Maxine Waters is inciting violence in Minneapolis — just as she has incited it in the past," McCarthy tweeted. "If Speaker Pelosi doesn't act against this dangerous rhetoric, I will bring action this week."

Maxine Waters is inciting violence in Minneapolis — just as she has incited it in the past. If Speaker Pelosi doesn… https://t.co/iUicQJYq3f
— Kevin McCarthy (@Kevin McCarthy)1618793152.0

Also on Monday, the judge in the Chauvin trial excoriated Waters and other public officials for speaking about the trial in a disrespectful way that did not honor their pledge to defend the Constitution.

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function," said Judge Peter Cahill, who called the comments "abhorrent."

Here are the comments from Waters:

Waters to demonstrators: 'Get more confrontational'www.youtube.com

Judge blasts Maxine Waters' 'abhorrent' comments and says they could lead to overturn of Derek Chauvin trial on appeal



The judge in the trial of former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin blasted the incendiary comments from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and said that they could lead to the overturn of the trial if the defense chose to appeal the ruling.

Chauvin is on trial for the death of George Floyd during an arrest on May 25 in Minneapolis. His attorney Eric Nelson argued Monday for a mistrial based on the fact that jurors were exposed to public comments because they had not been sequestered during the trial.

"It is so pervasive. I just don't know how this jury can really be said to be that they are free from the taint of this," Nelson said. "Now that we have U.S. representatives threatening acts of violence in relation to this specific case, it's mind-boggling to me, judge!"

"I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," responded Judge Peter Cahill.

"I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole tri… https://t.co/6Oy4whNiTh
— Daily Caller (@Daily Caller)1618866809.0

Cahill did not grant the defense's request for a mistrial, but he went on to excoriate Waters for her comments.

"This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function," the judge said.

"I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government," he added.

"Their failure to do so is abhorrent!" he added.

Cahill went on to say that he did not believe the jury would be prejudiced by Waters' comments because they had been instructed to not watch television.

"A congresswoman's opinion really doesn't matter a whole lot. Anyway," Cahill said.

Waters has been castigated by many for the comments she made on Sunday in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, calling for more protests and telling protesters to "get more confrontational" over the trial of Chauvin.

Here are the judge's comments against Waters:

Judge Peter Cahill rips Rep. Maxine Waters for "abhorrent" comments over the weekend on the trial:

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law." pic.twitter.com/8QHDXcmaTI
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 19, 2021

Ben Shapiro warns media are ‘paving the way for riots’ with their ‘skewed coverage’ of Derek Chauvin trial



Ben Shapiro, editor emeritus of the Daily Wire and lawyer, says that the media's coverage of the Derek Chauvin trial will end up causing riots.

Chauvin has been accused of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and manslaughter in connection to George Floyd's May 2020 death.

His trial began last week.

What are the details?

Shapiro on Wednesday, according to the outlet, said that the media are largely "ignoring the prosecution's difficulties" and only reporting one side to the public.

"If you watch the actual Chauvin trial and then watch the media coverage of the Chauvin trial, the gap is stunning," he said. "The media are paving the way for riots by ignoring the prosecution's difficulties — and his acquittal is not a remote possibility based on those difficulties."

Pointing to a recent Washington Post headline that read, "Trial to resume after training officer says an unauthorized neck restraint was used on George Floyd," Shapiro argued that the story only served to detract from "the actual takeaway from the use-of-force expert's testimony."

Shapiro then addressed recent testimony by Los Angeles Police Sergeant Jody Stiger, a paid witness for the state, whose testimony "undercut the prosecution's case on several points during cross-examination, according to Law of Self-Defense Attorney Andrew Branca."

"The use-of-force officer admitted that Chauvin's procedure (use of body weight and pressure) was a lesser use of force than adopted in the past, that it wasn't a chokehold, that use-of-force standards change based on drug use or physical stature of a suspect, that he had personally restrained suspects until EMS arrived, that some suspects quickly regain consciousness and thus sometimes suppression is necessary despite appearances," Shapiro explained.

From the Daily Wire:

Prosecutors are attempting to make the case that Chauvin and three other officers killed Floyd through excessive use of force, while the defense alleges that Floyd's drug use and heart problems played crucial roles in Floyd's fate.

The defense is attempting to establish that Chauvin's actions, restraining Floyd with a knee on his upper body for nearly nine minutes, would not have resulted in Floyd's death without complications from those existing drug and heart problems. Prosecutors have admitted that Floyd had a history of substance abuse, but are arguing that Floyd's past drug use would have built up his immunity enough so the drugs in his system at the time of his arrest would not have had a major effect on him.

Prosecutors, in order to convict Chauvin on the more serious second-degree murder charge, will be tasked with proving that Chauvin was in the process of committing felony assault on Floyd during the detainment.

As previously reported by Blaze Media:

In order to prove the second-degree murder charge, prosecutors will need to prove that Chauvin was committing felony assault on Floyd, which will require proof that his actions in subduing Floyd were objectively unreasonable and outside the scope of his authority as a police officer. They will also have to prove that his actions were a "substantial causal factor" in Floyd's death. Alternately, the jury will be permitted to consider lesser charges of third-degree murder, if jurors find that Chauvin's actions were reckless and caused Floyd's death, or manslaughter, if they find that his actions were negligent and caused Floyd's death.

Chauvin's attorneys have indicated that they intend to argue two separate points to the jury. First, they intend to argue that Chauvin's actions in detaining Floyd were reasonable in the context of the full circumstances. Also, they intend to argue that Floyd either contributed to or caused his own death by swallowing a large quantity of fentanyl in order to prevent officers from finding it during his arrest. The autopsy report on Floyd's death blamed his death on "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression" but did note that fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use may have made his death more likely.

Three other officers who were involved in Floyd's death have also been charged criminally and are awaiting trial, which is currently scheduled to begin in August 2021.