quick-hands
Footballguy
He isn't getting off. But if he does you might want to look at why.if it is deemed "appropriate force" to kneel on a guys neck for 9 minutes resulting in his death then something is wrong. Terribly wrong.
He isn't getting off. But if he does you might want to look at why.if it is deemed "appropriate force" to kneel on a guys neck for 9 minutes resulting in his death then something is wrong. Terribly wrong.
That's one incident. One. BLM/Antifa dwarfs that record last year alone, much less the last 4.What side of the aisle? We know what the Trump side of the aisle did on January 6th when what they were falsely led by Trump that he won the election.
This is some lazy posting.What side of the aisle? We know what the Trump side of the aisle did on January 6th when what they were falsely led by Trump that he won the election.
I wasn’t the one who claimed how one side of the aisle reacted and then ignored how the other side reacted.This is some lazy posting.
StillI wasn’t the one who claimed how one side of the aisle reacted and then ignored how the other side reacted.
When someone gives you the opportunity for a layup..take it.Still
300,000 incidents to 1. Yeah, good comparison.When someone gives you the opportunity for a layup..take it.
While terrorism is somewhat different but considering the fact that our FBI Director says White Supremacists are our main concern when it comes to domestic terrorism I disagree. Events like Jan 6th and Charlottesville are the results. As are many of mass shootings which are often times anger from the Right. Apologize to many for getting off the topic of this thread.300,000 incidents to 1. Yeah, good comparison.
My statement stands. The left side resorts to violence far, far more often than the right. It's not even comparable.
Hopefully we’ll never know. He deserves, IMO, to be convicted on all counts.You’re not this naive
Cmon man...
It shouldn’t because it had nothing to do with my point. When I discussed the chances of riots here, I wasn’t referring to Democrats or Republicans or “sides of the aisle.” I don’t even know why you brought it up.300,000 incidents to 1. Yeah, good comparison.
My statement stands. The left side resorts to violence in scope and scale far, far more often than the right. It's not even comparable.
Yep. I already took a step back, realized the emotions of this case got the best of me and admitted I was wrong.
First....as it pertains to this topic, it's not "either/or". Second....you are talking about the individuals. I am talking about the companies. If you think the companies give you any thought beyond "what will get jon's attention" I've got "news" for you. They don't even hide it. It's painfully obvious to anyone not participating in their nonsense.I really wish that was the case. But people go into journalism to be social justice activists. That is what schools put out and that is painfully obvious in every mainstream newscast. It is all about advancing narratives and agendas.
https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7300,000 incidents to 1. Yeah, good comparison.
My statement stands. The left side resorts to violence in scope and scale far, far more often than the right. It's not even comparable.
Exactly. My why is that the system is broken and we need a reset. What is your why?He isn't getting off. But if he does you might want to look at why.
My why is why although you have no idea what comes next. And will probably be more tribal but you would cut off your nose to spite your face.Exactly. My why is that the system is broken and we need a reset. What is your why?
I am not under 35. Not sure why that matters. I don't think it is a very controversial take that if what happened to Floyd is deemed appropriate use of force that we need to revisit what calculus we are using in coming to that decisionMy why is why although you have no idea what comes next. And will probably be more tribal but you would cut off your nose to spite your face.
Why would you do that.
Are you under 35?
I dont think anyone thinks it is. In fact everyone was rightly outraged when that happened. I want him to gone and every officer who watched fired.I am not under 35. Not sure why that matters. I don't think it is a very controversial take that if what happened to Floyd is deemed appropriate use of force that we need to revisit what calculus we are using in coming to that decision
This post, and those who responded to it with a heart symbol, is clear evidence (which I didn’t really need) that what I wrote earlier today was absolutely correct: there are folks here rooting for Chauvin’s acquittal.Second-Degree Murder
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/second-degree-murder/
Third Degree Murder Law and Legal Definition
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/third-degree-murder/
******
So you did something that you later regretted in hindsight, but when you did it, there was no actual "intent" to harm the community around you?
How easy would it be for anyone here to prove what your intent actually was given the time and place?
How difficult would it be for anyone to prove what your intent actually was to the standard of removing all reasonable doubt?
How excruciating would it be for anyone to prove what your intent actually was in several specific moments in time, all clouded by context and other legal complexities?
How insanely hard would it be to convince all of the above to 12 different people, all from diverse backgrounds and life experiences?
Your lack of control means you just did more to defend Chauvin than anyone else here in this thread. Very likely more than anyone in the entire PSF. And a betting man's chance of more than anyone in all of FBG.
Just because Chauvin is very likely a ######## does not change the basic principles of a legal defense in an intended democratic society. The very issue that Chauvin is very likely a huge douchenozzle is proof that the average person can get a legal defense when tried for a crime. Would you rather we all just line people up against a wall and start opening fire instead?
Is it more important that you admit you are wrong? Or is it more important to understand why you are wrong to the degree that viewpoints as such are actually toxic to the ideals of freedom.
Freedom isn't always about apple pie, flags,medals, tear inducing speeches and glory. Often it is ugly, brutal, relentless, unforgiving and thoroughly battered. It's not tragic you lost control of your emotions, it's tragic you don't seem to understand the ugly cost of actual freedom.
Derek Chauvin thanks you for the greatest defense of him yet posed here on FBG.
Which part is evidence? I mean GG probably served it up on a platter but I’d like to confirm which element implies GG wants Chauvin to be acquitted.This post, and those who responded to it with a heart symbol, is clear evidence (which I didn’t really need) that what I wrote earlier today was absolutely correct: there are folks here rooting for Chauvin’s acquittal.
Oh the post in its entirety will do just fine. I don’t need to parcel it out.Which part is evidence? I mean GG probably served it up in a platter but I’d like to confirm which element implies GG wants Chauvin to be acquitted.
Second-Degree Murder
https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/second-degree-murder/
Third Degree Murder Law and Legal Definition
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/third-degree-murder/
******
So you did something that you later regretted in hindsight, but when you did it, there was no actual "intent" to harm the community around you?
How easy would it be for anyone here to prove what your intent actually was given the time and place?
How difficult would it be for anyone to prove what your intent actually was to the standard of removing all reasonable doubt?
How excruciating would it be for anyone to prove what your intent actually was in several specific moments in time, all clouded by context and other legal complexities?
How insanely hard would it be to convince all of the above to 12 different people, all from diverse backgrounds and life experiences?
Your lack of control means you just did more to defend Chauvin than anyone else here in this thread. Very likely more than anyone in the entire PSF. And a betting man's chance of more than anyone in all of FBG.
Just because Chauvin is very likely a ######## does not change the basic principles of a legal defense in an intended democratic society. The very issue that Chauvin is very likely a huge douchenozzle is proof that the average person can get a legal defense when tried for a crime. Would you rather we all just line people up against a wall and start opening fire instead?
Is it more important that you admit you are wrong? Or is it more important to understand why you are wrong to the degree that viewpoints as such are actually toxic to the ideals of freedom.
Freedom isn't always about apple pie, flags,medals, tear inducing speeches and glory. Often it is ugly, brutal, relentless, unforgiving and thoroughly battered. It's not tragic you lost control of your emotions, it's tragic you don't seem to understand the ugly cost of actual freedom.
Derek Chauvin thanks you for the greatest defense of him yet posed here on FBG.
Parcel tim. Parcel.Oh the post in its entirety will do just fine. I don’t need to parcel it out.
Respectfully, this particular back and forth is derailing what has generally been an extremely informative thread.300,000 incidents to 1. Yeah, good comparison.
My statement stands. The left side resorts to violence in scope and scale far, far more often than the right. It's not even comparable.
I don’t read that post as rooting for his acquittal. It is an observation that there is a very high standard of proof and the state’s case may not be as slam dunk as some think.Oh the post in its entirety will do just fine. I don’t need to parcel it out.
Agree to disagree.I don’t read that post as rooting for his acquittal. It is an observation that there is a very high standard of proof and the state’s case may not be as slam dunk as some think.
Can't he just claim 5th Amendment right not to say anything?I know we don't do this in the U.S. ... but I'd love for Chauvin to be compelled to testify. Not North-Korea or Soviet style ... but in a system more like France's inquisitorial system, which compels defendant testimony but codifies that a defendant is immune from a perjury charge.
IMHO -- and this is a mile off base and will not get broad support -- Chauvin owes the general public an explanation and at least a play-act of remorse. What the heck was he thinking at, say, minute six? A minute later?
In the American judicial system, it doesn't even come to having to invoke the 5th -- a defendant can't be compelled to testify, full stop. What I am musing about is really just fantasy.Can't he just claim 5th Amendment right not to say anything?I know we don't do this in the U.S. ... but I'd love for Chauvin to be compelled to testify. Not North-Korea or Soviet style ... but in a system more like France's inquisitorial system, which compels defendant testimony but codifies that a defendant is immune from a perjury charge.
IMHO -- and this is a mile off base and will not get broad support -- Chauvin owes the general public an explanation and at least a play-act of remorse. What the heck was he thinking at, say, minute six? A minute later?
Tim can see black in white. He's so desperately hungry for someone to want him to be acquitted. It's pathetic.I don’t read that post as rooting for his acquittal. It is an observation that there is a very high standard of proof and the state’s case may not be as slam dunk as some think.
You understand me about as well as you understand COVID, or politics, or the border situation, or any of the rest of the long list of items you’ve continually gotten wrong in this forum.Tim can see black in white. He's so desperately hungry for someone to want him to be acquitted. It's pathetic.
From what I've read, none of the things he is charged with carry a sentence of life in prison. He's not being charege with murder in the 1st. He'd have to have to be found guilty of a combination of charges and/or receive the maximum penalties to spend the rest of his life in prison, assuming he lives a normal length life.Just trying to get back on topic here...is there anyone that doubts that this Officer Chauvin didn't murder George Floyd?
I have not been following all of the evidence BUT what I've heard seems awfully damning and I'll just point to the very few things I have heard so far.
-The video of where he is at the back of the ambulance, the BS he said about trying to get a supervisor or someone out to care for Floyd, it doesn't appear Chauvin gave a single shred of care in the World AND it appears from the things I am pointing to that he was covering his tracks as soon as he knew there wasn't a pulse. Just the way it looks and there was ample time for cross examination and that hasn't helped much.
-The Police Chief's testimony, where I come from cops are always backing their fellow officers in almost every situation unless something terribly egregious has happened...well when the Chief says they don't train any officers to use their knee on the back of the victim like he did for any reason, what else do we need to hear?
-The testimony today from an expert saying lack of oxygen and not drugs were the reason George Floyd died.
I'm sure they can keep mounting more evidence but I think they have made a clear case on the Prosecution to put Mr DC behind bars...for how long? If I were the judge, let's start with a Life sentence and see where that goes. Again, I'm mostly running on emotion from what i have heard so far but no matter what comes out of the Defense team, I don't see any way they can get 12 members of a jury to not see this as murder of one kind or another.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I didn't rebuke anyone or quote anybody, just an opinion from someone who doesn't tune in that often. I am saddened by everything that I have heard so far in this case.
I don't understand why folks are fighting in here. What does crazy violent mobs have to do with the murder of George Floyd? Did those violent outbreaks happen prior or after his life was taken while he was cuffed behind his back face down on the ground with a knee pressed into him cutting off his oxygen and ability to breath and just live his life? I think we know the answer to that at this point.
I know why folks were outraged watching it all thru a television that usually had tainted glasses for jersey color or the other but again I stress that pinning bad events on one political group is a really bad idea. It bites you in the ### and if they had all the murders of innocent folks who had their lives taken by police officers who weren't recorded and put up on social media for the entire world to see, I think folks would be shocked. I remember a string of police involved shootings in Miami/Little Haiti area and you would just read about cops mowing down a car of believed drug or gang related thugs and there was barely any coverage and I would have loved to read the police reports on all these shootings. I wish they would have an independent council go thru the Miami-Dade records the last 10 years, I'll bet some fo those officers are still on active duty as we speak.
This would be valuable (not from a case perspective but from a information perspective...I doubt it would hurt)IMHO -- and this is a mile off base and will not get broad support -- Chauvin owes the general public an explanation and at least a play-act of remorse. What the heck was he thinking at, say, minute six? A minute later?
So what's he being charged with, max sentence?tonydead said:From what I've read, none of the things he is charged with carry a sentence of life in prison. He's not being charege with murder in the 1st. He'd have to have to be found guilty of a combination of charges and/or receive the maximum penalties to spend the rest of his life in prison, assuming he lives a normal length life.
2nd degree murder - 40 years max, average sentence is 26 years.
3rd degree murder - 25 years max, average sentence is 12.5 years
2nd degree manslaughter - 10 years max, average sentence is 4 years.
(these are different, hopefully more accurate, numbers than I posted yesterday)
Oh snap.timschochet said:You understand me about as well as you understand COVID, or politics, or the border situation, or any of the rest of the long list of items you’ve continually gotten wrong in this forum.
timschochet said:This post, and those who responded to it with a heart symbol, is clear evidence (which I didn’t really need) that what I wrote earlier today was absolutely correct: there are folks here rooting for Chauvin’s acquittal.
I didn't either but some here like to parrot people into groups. racist, et al. makes some feel really good about themselves even if they are totally wrong.bigbottom said:I don’t read that post as rooting for his acquittal. It is an observation that there is a very high standard of proof and the state’s case may not be as slam dunk as some think.
Yeah those guys are total scumbags too!glvsav37 said:I think how you view lawyers really depends on your experience with them. Although I've thankfully never dealt with it, IMO divorce lawyers are one of the lowest rung of scumminess, but for every one who takes some dude's whole financial life away from him, there are others who help a battered wife regain he life again. It's hard to paint with a broad brush.
It's easy to say being a defense lawyer is bad, until its you who are wrongly accused of something and thier experience in being "bad" is you only shot at freedom or sentencing.
To clarify: there was a divorce lawyer's office next to my old office and he had a series of 3 Lambos that he would park out front with license plates like "Winning" other douchey phrases. I could only imagine how many unfortunate dudes are sleeping in studio apartments and driving 06 Carolla's to their 3rd job to make those Lambo payments for him. lol
Ministry of Pain said:Just trying to get back on topic here...is there anyone that doubts that this Officer Chauvin didn't murder George Floyd?.......
9 mins knee on neck. Case closed just figuring out the details now.VIDEO: Will Derek Chauvin Be Convicted? — NYC Trial Attorney Provides Her Analysis •Apr 9, 2021
Ben Shapiro interviews Misty Marris, a trial attorney covering the Derek Chauvin case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbmcwc5a2e4
********
Marris brings up some good distinctions
1) What is active resistance versus passive resistance?
2) What are the ambiguities ( via department General Orders) in the defensive tactics training that Chauvin received?
3) Part of the prosecution's case now rests on one narrow pathway for cause of death in contrast to the medical examiners report (Baker) of varied issues. Baker said if Floyd died in his apartment, that he would have ruled it an overdose.
Something to keep in mind is because Marris spoke up, she will raise her public profile so that might have some positive impact on her individual marketing. However since she will be blacklisted for "wrongthink", she almost certainly invited further doxxing in her legal life, will face some type of open confrontation, there will be those who will gun down for her law license in some fashion and she will very likely receive threats.
If you speak up against the radical cancel culture woked out left, it's pretty much established in the standard playbook that you are now a target and will be dragged through purity test after purity test.
The problem you are going to have here MOP is you are mixing law versus justice. I've spoken on this issue before, I wished more of the open attorneys here in the forums would discuss this, but then most would have to admit they don't specialize in criminal law. Can't have that, can we?
When you walk into a courtroom, you are only sure to get the application of the law, you may or may not receive what you believe is justice.
What you are really asking is -
A) Will there be "justice" for George Floyd?
B) Will Derek Chauvin face "justice" for what happened?
Chauvin will get the law. That bothers lots of people. But this is how our legal system works. Often times, justice does not happen. But the same principles that makes that repugnant to you are the same principles under which our society just doesn't grab a rope and find a tall tree as fast as possible when the mob is offended. You can't have one without the other. It's the same principle under which love is the greatest thing on Earth, until it breaks your heart into a thousand pieces and you believe you will never be whole ever again.
"Reasonable Doubt" is a matter for legal debate, not one regarding justice. No amount of screaming by the shills in the woked out MSM will ever change that. It won't help you sleep any better at night, but this is the game, this is how it works, this is the truth.
“Passive resistance”. While the full weight of a grown ### man is on a mans neck, for 9 min. Nine ####### mins. Unreal.9 mins knee on neck. Case closed just figuring out the details now.
9 mins knee on neck. Case closed just figuring out the details now.
He’s getting a trial. That’s his due process. I have heard enough from his colleagues, from his bosses, from eye witnesses, from what I saw on video.VIDEO: Reasonable Doubt: Floyd's Drug Use And Dealer Trip Up Prosecutors •Apr 8, 2021
George Floyd's drug dealer, who was in the car during his death, refuses to testify and investigators found Floyd's half-chewed pills on the floor of the squad car 6 months after the incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iEvh26-08Q
******
Shapiro brings up an interesting point ( those "details") about Maurice Hall (why he won't testify) that the standard MSM won't cover.
Also he is open about Floyd's past, a large majority of it, should not be relevant to this specific proceeding.
But Shapiro is a Conservative right? No way he could have any legitimate points. He needs to be purified with the rest of the "wrongthink" Morlocks.
But since The General believes the case to already be closed, without actual due process, let's get to the heart of his viewpoint
https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=rope
^ This is all you have left when you've decided due process is just too troublesome and is taking too long for your personal tastes.
Good stuff GG but for me it is very simple, he's already been caught red handed trying to cover his tracks, he knew he did wrong when there was no pulse and he pretty much is a cold hearted #####, the jury will have no problem convicting him for whatever they have thrown at him.VIDEO: Will Derek Chauvin Be Convicted? — NYC Trial Attorney Provides Her Analysis •Apr 9, 2021
Ben Shapiro interviews Misty Marris, a trial attorney covering the Derek Chauvin case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbmcwc5a2e4
********
Marris brings up some good distinctions
1) What is active resistance versus passive resistance?
2) What are the ambiguities ( via department General Orders) in the defensive tactics training that Chauvin received?
3) Part of the prosecution's case now rests on one narrow pathway for cause of death in contrast to the medical examiners report (Baker) of varied issues. Baker said if Floyd died in his apartment, that he would have ruled it an overdose.
Something to keep in mind is because Marris spoke up, she will raise her public profile so that might have some positive impact on her individual marketing. However since she will be blacklisted for "wrongthink", she almost certainly invited further doxxing in her legal life, will face some type of open confrontation, there will be those who will gun down for her law license in some fashion and she will very likely receive threats.
If you speak up against the radical cancel culture woked out left, it's pretty much established in the standard playbook that you are now a target and will be dragged through purity test after purity test.
The problem you are going to have here MOP is you are mixing law versus justice. I've spoken on this issue before, I wished more of the open attorneys here in the forums would discuss this, but then most would have to admit they don't specialize in criminal law. Can't have that, can we?
When you walk into a courtroom, you are only sure to get the application of the law, you may or may not receive what you believe is justice.
What you are really asking is -
A) Will there be "justice" for George Floyd?
B) Will Derek Chauvin face "justice" for what happened?
Chauvin will get the law. That bothers lots of people. But this is how our legal system works. Often times, justice does not happen. But the same principles that makes that repugnant to you are the same principles under which our society just doesn't grab a rope and find a tall tree as fast as possible when the mob is offended. You can't have one without the other. It's the same principle under which love is the greatest thing on Earth, until it breaks your heart into a thousand pieces and you believe you will never be whole ever again.
"Reasonable Doubt" is a matter for legal debate, not one regarding justice. No amount of screaming by the shills in the woked out MSM will ever change that. It won't help you sleep any better at night, but this is the game, this is how it works, this is the truth.
I agree 100% with this and think that alone is going to push the jury to want to convict. You add that to Chauvin lying about trying to get Floyd some field help and the back of the ambulance video plus the 8 or 9 minutes he chokes off Floyd's capacity to breathe with onlookers watching him he felt absolutely no compassion whatsoever.I heard 8 of his former colleagues say he was wrong - including his supervisor, chief of police, and the officers who trained him. Their words mean a lot. Its rare to have one or two officers speak out against one of their own, Chauvin's had 8.
Ben Shapiro can’t credibly broach this. Everyone has bias, but his is too heavy. Marris loses credibility by even sitting down and talking with Shapiro about this.VIDEO: Will Derek Chauvin Be Convicted? — NYC Trial Attorney Provides Her Analysis •Apr 9, 2021
Ben Shapiro interviews Misty Marris, a trial attorney covering the Derek Chauvin case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbmcwc5a2e4