Chauvin verdict at 4:30....

@Wahoo95 , Chauvin was clown shoes, a bad cop, a ticking time bomb, and I think was guilty. That GF was human garbage is immaterial to was Chauvin did. I got no problem with the verdict. And just more (non-Floyd-related) evidence that Chauvin is not exactly an upstanding member of society, he is gonna be charged with tax evasion of almost half a mil.

But I fully reject your notion of impartial/unbiased jurors. That is YOUR perspective; as you have pointed out, sometimes one's perspective doesn't marry with reality, but itself tainted with bias.
 
Wahoo95 said:
Yes the guy was a POS but does that make him less worthy of due process or justice? Does that nullify his rights? How can you consider yourself a true patriot and believer in justice, fairness, and freedom if those principles are actually conditional in your opinion? That attitude is the exact reason why the American Injustice System has railroaded people for generations.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Like I said the officer may indeed deserve some punishment. But animals burned down city blocks for a guy that died of a drug overdose. Nobody wins. And I am sure things will be much better for the people of Minneapolis when all those evil cops are gone and replaced with others. Just like every single Democrat city the place is a corrupt shit hole. And getting rid of one a-hole cop won’t change a thing.
 
Wahoo95 said:
Lemme guess, you also believed Eric Garner died of a heart attack right?

Can we really say it was an OD? Most junkies walk around with what would be medically considered a lethal dose of dope in their systems on daily basis and they don't die. Is it really fair to totally disregard the affects of had two grown men on his back, abdomen, and neck all while going through a drug induced medical crisis and honestly feel their actions played no part in the final outcome? The only real way to say it was purely OD is not have any help from anyone placing their weight on his back. Im sure anyone that disagrees should have no problem with allowing me and a couple of guys to sit on their backs, abdomen, and neck to see if he has any affect on their ability to breathe and thats without the added stress of drugs, stress, etc.

The people who consistently defend this type of stuff are the same people that stood around and watched lynchings years ago always coming up with reasons to justify what was taking place. It's the same pattern and always has been. Yup, the same people that saw nothing wrong with what happened to Emmett Till because I mean he did whistle at a white woman and surely that crime was punishable by death for a kid.

I'll go back to enjoying my drink while laughing at the idea of watching many of the folks in here struggle with witnessing the American Injustice System from what they feel is the "other side". It doesn't feel good does it...smh.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That’s a might big leap.
 
Wahoo95 said:
You say that as if there's EVER been unbiased jurors in the American Injustice System...

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That is most likely a pipe dream, I know. But there wasn't even a chance of that by holding this trial locally.
 
pinkbunny said:
You have a point. What with internet and smartphones, I think the idea of an unbiased, sequestered jury is impossible nowadays.
Click to expand...
it's not, but you can't have idiots on the jury.

For instance, I initially thought it was certainly murder based on what I had seen. I haven't heard the arguments, seen all the videos from all angles, reviewed all the reports. From what I've heard and seen in the news this last year, I'm considerably less likely to think he should be guilty on all 3. Again, I know the jurors heard things i didn't.
My opinions can be swayed by facts, even if I don't personally like where those facts lead my opinion to.
 
I have no problem with them charging and convicting the man. As @Chuckman said he still has federal tax evasion charges coming and will spend more time in the Federal Prison for that. I think the looting and shooting and thug life bullshit all in the name of GF was over the top and flat out stupid. The people that did the burning and pillaging should be in prison right beside Chauvin for their poor choices. The judicial system has spoken and found Chauvin guilty. Sure he will get an appeal and the trial maybe overturned which based on The Harris Administration’s words and Mad Max’s actions is most likely appropriate. They simply put intimidated the jury no two ways around it.
 
Last edited:
I am not a conspiracy guy, but I like to think I know human nature and human behavior. I think the judge was trying to get all Pontius Pilate by saying aloud that the defense has a reasonable chance to appeal. Just saying it aloud casts enough shade for the defense to claim procedural error in the trial.

If he gets a new trial--BIG 'if'--people will shi* themselves.
 
Spartan01 said:
Let me propose this:
What about professional jurors.
Seriously, think about it. Instead of randomly picking people, from all walks of life, and many of whom would rather be somewhere else, why not make this a profession.
Where people go to school, perhaps to get a degree in this, to understand case law and precedence, to be screened, repeatedly for bias, particularly under stress.
Also, it has been shown that when lawyers (both sides) want the jury to ignore something they will make that part of the jury instructions overly complicated, this could be nullified with this proposed solution.
I am just shooting in the dark, what say youse?
Click to expand...
I get your idea and while it is a noble one, I don’t know about that. We have professional politicians and you see how that’s worked out
 
Chuckman said:
I am not a conspiracy guy, but I like to think I know human nature and human behavior. I think the judge was trying to get all Pontius Pilate by saying aloud that the defense has a reasonable chance to appeal. Just saying it aloud casts enough shade for the defense to claim procedural error in the trial.

If he gets a new trial--BIG 'if'--people will shi* themselves.
Click to expand...
I think the judge had 1) spent this much time on it and wanted to see what would happen with regards to the jury 2) I think the judge didn’t want to be the one to declare a mistrial based on Max’s comments even if he thought a mistrial was appropriate. 3) I think he and the jury both looked out for their own safety by their acts which is wrong in my opinion because you are no longer fair and impartial. 4) Minneapolis and the Us would burn if he gets a new trial which may come but Judge Cahill can take comfort in knowing he did not cause it.
 
Spartan01 said:
Let me propose this:
What about professional jurors.
Seriously, think about it. Instead of randomly picking people, from all walks of life, and many of whom would rather be somewhere else, why not make this a profession.
Where people go to school, perhaps to get a degree in this, to understand case law and precedence, to be screened, repeatedly for bias, particularly under stress.
Also, it has been shown that when lawyers (both sides) want the jury to ignore something they will make that part of the jury instructions overly complicated, this could be nullified with this proposed solution.
I am just shooting in the dark, what say youse?
Click to expand...
Some problems with this.

One, Professional jurors would no longer be a jury of our peers.
Then you have a jury who are in effect "state employees" and as such couldn't be seen as impartial.

Tribunal maybe? Subject to appeal and judicial review? Maybe.
 
I wonder if they should have done the other 3 officer’s trial first? It’s going to be difficult for them to have a fair trial when one of the crew has already been convicted of murder.

Also I remember within the first month of the GF death there were articles written about how two of the officers were Asian and that there was a long history of Asian v Black racism. Nobody wants to mention that as playing a part in all the “Asian hate”.
 
premise said:
I mean we all witnessed that system with Daniel Shaver and countless others like him, which you don't mention for some odd reason.
Click to expand...
Probably because only in the Shaver case did folks like you not "reach" for every reason possible to make Shavers outcome okay and acceptable. From the start it was a clear cut case of the cop was wrong. I didn't have to hear anyone here on this forum or any others go into how he was moving was suspect, or that he was reported to have a gun earlier, or how he did reach to pull his pants up which definitely looked like he was going for something. GTFOH with that BS deflection. Right is right and wrong is wrong as the day is long.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Spartan01 said:
Let me propose this:
What about professional jurors.
Seriously, think about it. Instead of randomly picking people, from all walks of life, and many of whom would rather be somewhere else, why not make this a profession.
Where people go to school, perhaps to get a degree in this, to understand case law and precedence, to be screened, repeatedly for bias, particularly under stress.
Also, it has been shown that when lawyers (both sides) want the jury to ignore something they will make that part of the jury instructions overly complicated, this could be nullified with this proposed solution.
I am just shooting in the dark, what say youse?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a cool idea but everyone has some degree of bias on some level over various topics which is why even our Supreme Court isn't formed of truly non biased people.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Did the cold spell save Minneapolis last night or will crap happen once it warms up? Hopefully more things won’t be destroyed.
 
Wahoo95 said:
Sounds like a cool idea but everyone has some degree of bias on some level over various topics which is why even our Supreme Court isn't formed of truly non biased people.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think that this could be a problem with professional juries in (at least) two ways. One, they would likely become skilled at hiding their biases or otherwise knowing how to work the system. Two, they could develop a reputation for falling certain ways, much like judges do (and lawyers have been known to dismiss suits and file in another jurisdiction when they get a bad selection), and that lawyers on both sides would try to use that to their advantage.

J R Green said:
Some problems with this.

One, Professional jurors would no longer be a jury of our peers.
Then you have a jury who are in effect "state employees" and as such couldn't be seen as impartial.

Tribunal maybe? Subject to appeal and judicial review? Maybe.
Click to expand...
Your comment about "state employees" is correct. I remember my mother telling me back when I was a kid that Canada uses a 'professional jury' system, which from what I'm reading (and why I looked it up) is not true. Their process is similar to the US but has some differences, and obviously both are derived from the English system. The comment was that the jury system was developed as a better means that barbaric processes like Trial by Ordeal or Trial by Combat (or my favorite, a conclave). In the US the jury system was expressly created such that it was NOT the government deciding the fate of the people.

Introduction to Canada's Criminal Law and The Jury System - by Criminal Defence Lawyer & Instructor

www.canadalegal.info
 
CZfool68 said:
www.thegatewaypundit.com

BLM Minneapolis: 'I Don't Want to Say We Need to Start Killing All White Folks... But... Maybe They Need to Feel the Pain and Hurt' (WATCH)

www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com

I truly do dot know what is more sad. The fact that there is actually a George Floyd memorial or these women’s ignorance and vileness.
Click to expand...

Wow...

She should grow a little square moustache above her upper lip.

Wonder if shipping white people to camps or gassing/incinerating them would appease her bloodlust?

It is a sad day when anyone is killed without warrant or cause, but to even suggest the thought of exterminating folks based solely on their skin color is so far out of bounds.

Folks like this are becoming worse than what they are railing against and they don’t even realize it...or maybe, they do.
 
Last edited:
So pinkbunny, you are saying he could handle 3 to 4 times the overdose limit plus all the other drugs? Then why was he falling asleep, blubbering incoherently, and crying out he couldn't breathe? Cops didn't force him to struggle and fight. You suspect they doubled the size of his lungs and restricted his arteries 90% too? Suppose they made him a violent dirtbag criminal at the same time. He had a big heart!
 
I'll say, convictions are supposed to be rendered when the evidence presents a case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was so much reasonable doubt in this case, it should have been an open/shut not guilty verdict. Instead, the weight of the court of public opinion weighed heavily along with the input of politicians. I will not be surprised if these "convictions" are wholly overturned on appeal.
 
The shooting will be commencing soon if folks can’t simmer down. Resident Biden and Kamala and Maxine are all inciting riots. Right or wrong the verdict is in. He will get to appeal and rightfully should from the Judge, the Maxine comments and other issues. What out of ANY of this would justify rallying and demanding a White restaurant owner leave in NY? None of it would it’s all an excuse to act foolish
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
Wow...

She should grow a little square moustache above her upper lip.

Wonder if shipping white people to camps or gassing/incinerating them would appease her bloodlust?

It is a sad day when anyone is killed without warrant or cause, but to even suggest the thought of exterminating folks based solely on their skin color is so far out of bounds.

Folks like this are becoming worse than what they are railing against and they don’t even realize it...or maybe, they do.
Click to expand...
I always laugh whenever I see or hear anyone advocate for any form of violence or tactical action and they themselves cannot run to or away from danger.
 
Wahoo95 said:
Probably because only in the Shaver case did folks like you not "reach" for every reason possible to make Shavers outcome okay and acceptable. From the start it was a clear cut case of the cop was wrong. I didn't have to hear anyone here on this forum or any others go into how he was moving was suspect, or that he was reported to have a gun earlier, or how he did reach to pull his pants up which definitely looked like he was going for something. GTFOH with that BS deflection. Right is right and wrong is wrong as the day is long.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Show me where I stated any opinion about the outcome of the trial, Chauvin, or Floyd in this thread.

For all the projecting on folks "like me", folks "like you" could stand to point that analytical laser a bit inwards.
 
Last edited:
premise said:
Show me where I stated any opinion about the outcome of the trial, Chauvin, or Floyd in this thread.

For all the projecting on folks "like me", folks "like you" could stand to point that analytical laser a bit inwards.
Click to expand...
You're the one that started the pointing/projecting and in typical fashion you now won't to wimp out on what you brought into the discussion. Your remark was loud an clear so don't go trying to play stupid now.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Chuckman said:
If he gets a new trial--BIG 'if'--people will shi* themselves.
Click to expand...


Dershowitz was confident it will be re tried. Might have to get to SCOTUS first. But he's got a solid list of reasons why. Including the actions of the mob pushing their agenda and making threats. And politicians mouthing off. If it does, we need folks to loudly report the mobs responsibility and the relationship between virtue signaling and social justice causing the re trial. The bully tactics are not what the legal system is based on. It's not redress of grievances when you are demanding an outcome and threatening violence. This temper tantrum riot mob mentality will backfire on them. Just because they are media darlings for it does not mean the judicial system will agree. Time will tell.

Wife was telling me BLM showed up to protest a police shooting only to find out the victim was white and they left. That react first and justify later type actions will be their downfall. Facts no longer matter in these cases. Listening to folks talk about other cases yesterday made that very clear. If the cop is white and the victim is black nothing else matters to some folks. And the clearer that becomes the more problematic it becomes for any movement.

I've said it before. Until personal responsibility on the part of the victim in regards to behavior with the police is part of the discussion, black men will continue to die at the hands of police with monotonous regularity. And it's easier to changed the trajectory of those around you than it is to change a Gov agency. And it's easier to focus on the egregious wrongs, when they are not polluted with legitimate police actions perceived as wrong because they are tainted by color.
 
chiefjason said:
Dershowitz was confident it will be re tried. Might have to get to SCOTUS first. But he's got a solid list of reasons why. Including the actions of the mob pushing their agenda and making threats. And politicians mouthing off. If it does, we need folks to loudly report the mobs responsibility and the relationship between virtue signaling and social justice causing the re trial. The bully tactics are not what the legal system is based on. It's not redress of grievances when you are demanding an outcome and threatening violence. This temper tantrum riot mob mentality will backfire on them. Just because they are media darlings for it does not mean the judicial system will agree. Time will tell.

Wife was telling me BLM showed up to protest a police shooting only to find out the victim was white and they left. That react first and justify later type actions will be their downfall. Facts no longer matter in these cases. Listening to folks talk about other cases yesterday made that very clear. If the cop is white and the victim is black nothing else matters to some folks. And the clearer that becomes the more problematic it becomes for any movement.

I've said it before. Until personal responsibility on the part of the victim in regards to behavior with the police is part of the discussion, black men will continue to die at the hands of police with monotonous regularity. And it's easier to changed the trajectory of those around you than it is to change a Gov agency. And it's easier to focus on the egregious wrongs, when they are not polluted with legitimate police actions perceived as wrong because they are tainted by color.
Click to expand...

LOL, that's happened here, too.

I simply hate it when facts get in the way of a good narrative.
 
Wahoo95 said:
You're the one that started the pointing/projecting and in typical fashion you now won't to wimp out on what you brought into the discussion. Your remark was loud an clear so don't go trying to play stupid now.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Were mine as loud and clear as to your main interaction with this forum?

My prior statement still stands.
 
Relapse said:
So pinkbunny, you are saying he could handle 3 to 4 times the overdose limit plus all the other drugs? Then why was he falling asleep, blubbering incoherently, and crying out he couldn't breathe? Cops didn't force him to struggle and fight. You suspect they doubled the size of his lungs and restricted his arteries 90% too? Suppose they made him a violent dirtbag criminal at the same time. He had a big heart!
Click to expand...

Yes a habitual user of opioids can withstand a much higher dosage of opioids vs the average person. Ask any anesthesiologist who works in a high opioid use areas. The rest of the your rebuttal shows a lack of understanding the cause of death in this case. Without the actions of Chauvin the amount of drugs in Floyds system would not have killed him at that exact point in time.


vp9c said:
jury got this one right.

continued force instead of rendering aid for four plus minutes after the guy was limp and unconscious is the heart of the case.

nothing else in this case mattered IMHO

none of the charges required that the prosecution needed to prove intent to kill
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth!

Wahoo95 said:
Lemme guess, you also believed Eric Garner died of a heart attack right?

Can we really say it was an OD? Most junkies walk around with what would be medically considered a lethal dose of dope in their systems on daily basis and they don't die. Is it really fair to totally disregard the affects of had two grown men on his back, abdomen, and neck all while going through a drug induced medical crisis and honestly feel their actions played no part in the final outcome? The only real way to say it was purely OD is not have any help from anyone placing their weight on his back. Im sure anyone that disagrees should have no problem with allowing me and a couple of guys to sit on their backs, abdomen, and neck to see if he has any affect on their ability to breathe and thats without the added stress of drugs, stress, etc.

The people who consistently defend this type of stuff are the same people that stood around and watched lynchings years ago always coming up with reasons to justify what was taking place. It's the same pattern and always has been. Yup, the same people that saw nothing wrong with what happened to Emmett Till because I mean he did whistle at a white woman and surely that crime was punishable by death for a kid.

I'll go back to enjoying my drink while laughing at the idea of watching many of the folks in here struggle with witnessing the American Injustice System from what they feel is the "other side". It doesn't feel good does it...smh.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

“That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.” – Aldous Huxley We have watched this cycle happen over and over again yet we learn nothing from it. We simply rinse and repeat. Depending on the time and the culture we change the target and we change the victim but the acts are always the same.
 
concepthomes2 said:
I'll say, convictions are supposed to be rendered when the evidence presents a case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was so much reasonable doubt in this case, it should have been an open/shut not guilty verdict. Instead, the weight of the court of public opinion weighed heavily along with the input of politicians. I will not be surprised if these "convictions" are wholly overturned on appeal.
Click to expand...

reasonable doubt of what?

none of the charges required proof of intent and none of the charges required chauvin to be the sole cause of death (just to have been a substantial causal factor that contributed to his death)

you doubt chauvin’s actions contributed to Floyd’s death? Which means you are SURE he would have died without Chauvin’s actions or his actions only played a minor role in the death?

just trying to understand. if this is your position then that helps me understand.

to me it is clear that chauvin’s actions were a substantial contributing factor to floyd’s death. i don’t think he had murderous intent
 
Last edited:
What I am amazed at is how many people in this thread seem to be so disappointed that there was no violence in Minn and other large cities last night after the verdict. People still expected looting and violence to erupt even after Chauvin was convicted on all counts.
 
vp9c said:
reasonable doubt of what?

none of the charges required proof of intent and none of the charges required chauvin to be the sole cause of death (just to have been a substantial causal factor that contributed to his death)

you doubt chauvin’s actions contributed to Floyd’s death? Which means you are SURE he would have died without Chauvin’s actions or his actions only played a minor role in the death?

just trying to understand. if this is your position then that helps me understand.

to me it is clear that chauvin’s actions were a substantial contributing factor to floyd’s death. i don’t think he had murderous intent
Click to expand...

Exactly. They did not have to prove he intended to kill Floyd or that there were no other contributing factors. The charges only required that Chauvin's action substantially contribute to Floyd dying on that sidewalk. At no time did the defense demonstrate that without Chauvin's actions Floyd would have died from just the drugs in his system at that exact point in time in that manner. Chauvin's disregard for dept policy and failure to render aid buried him. IMHO.
 
The primary lesson the militant left will take away from the Chauvin trial is not that he was found guilty, but that its tactics work. Leftists' willingness to use violence, looting, intimidation, and threats has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams....and now they have a sitting President with nary an ill word for them.




Cry GUILTY!...and unleash the dogs of thuggery and socialist revolution!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom