MMM

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

Since FDR's first election in 1932, through Biden's win in 2020, #MN has voted GOP for Prez 3 times. Twice for Ike (1952, 1956) and Nixon in 1972.
All three were landslides nationwide. MN is the only state not to vote for Reagan in his 1984 landslide. #Mondale #mnleg

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@ZachDuckworth What a crazy leap to make. Papers are struggling across the country, many much much worse than the strib. Maybe you missed it in the article, but even with the layoffs it will still be the largest new room between the two coasts.

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@John_Rouleau @amyklobuchar @realDonaldTrump actually got permission to leave the white house from his doc and held a meeting with senators?

[Walker Orenstein @walkerorenstein]

Text from former GOP Senate Pres. Dave Osmek, who is very much not holding back right now: "Any convention that sees fit to have a Moment of Silence for Derek Chauvin should not be able to chose what flavor juice is in their sippy cup, much less the next Governor of Minnesota"

[Michael Brodkorb @mbrodkorb]

A simple yes-or-no question. Would you pardon Derek Chauvin? Lisa Demuth wouldn't answer it. That was her campaign relaunch.

Based on the events at the MN GOP convention, this is a fair question. Refusing to answer the question is disappointing.

[Aaron Rupar @atrupar]

Minnesota House Speaker and Republican gubernatorial candidate Lisa Demuth refuses to rule out a pardon for Derek Chauvin: "There's a lot that goes into any type of pardon decision"

[St. Olaf Stories @StOlafStories]

Happy Pride Month!

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@NickZerwas Thats a joke/fake quote

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

In case you're wondering how the @mngop convention is going.

Doing moments of silence for convicted murderers.

#mnleg @MinnesotaDFL

[Luke Sprinkel @LukeSprinkel]

The convention just voted to stand and observe a moment of silence for Derek Chauvin. The moment of silence was observed immediately after that vote and was brief.

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@jbendery This whole thread is wildly over dramatic.

[Minnesota Timberwolves @Timberwolves]

WOLVES WIN!!!

WOLVES WIN!!!

WOLVES WIN!!!

#WOLVESBACK

[Headquarters @HQNewsNow]

Cry harder

[Tim @trouble_man90]

Yea we joke about the double standard in the media, but this is legitimately insane.

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@LisaDemuthMN THAT'S what you're tweeting about this morning?? You got bigger car problems this morning, lady

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@mnhousegop lol!

[Rob Doar @robdoar]

From a legal use-of-force perspective, the video makes this hard to justify.

Deadly force turns on imminence. Under Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner, officers CAN'T use lethal force just because someone is fleeing or being defiant.

There MUST be a specific, immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.

Vehicles can be deadly force... but ONLY when they’re actually being used that way.

In the video, the SUV appears to move slowly. No pedestrians are visible in the vehicle’s path. If an officer was not about to be struck (or reasonably avoid being struck) at the instant shots were fired the claim of imminent lethal danger weakens quickly.

“Fleeing” isn’t enough.
“Felony” isn’t enough.
Even “reckless” isn’t enough without imminence.

Shooting to stop movement, rather than to stop an unavoidable lethal threat, is exactly what Garner forbids.

The government labeling the car “weaponized” is a conclusion, not a fact.

The Fourth Amendment question is simple: was deadly force necessary at that moment?

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@SenGillibrand Who'd you support as leader?

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@SenTinaSmith Who'd you vote for for leader?

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@aschoch0226WCCO @YahooSports What do you call an unranked team beating a ranked team? Don't quit your day job. Whatever that is.

[MMM @MmmShhhhh]

@RealSkipBayless Lol