Biden said "I'm praying that verdict is the right verdict, which I think it's overwhelming, in my view. I wouldn't say that unless the jury was sequestered now."Glasswolf said:Where has he said the right verdict was guilty. And for the record the right verdict is guilty. That cop has his knee one foot to the right this is a non issue. He could have moved his knee. Floyd was handcuffed and on his face. What was he going to do?Packchem91 said:So you (or his advisors) don't think that issuing a clearly prejudicial statement (the right decision = guilty) is going to inflame protestors who are already inclined to not trust the legal system?Glasswolf said:
He was advised to wait so the jury would not hear his opinion
**It does not matter if you or I think a not-guilty verdict would be difficult to believe (I'm not sure how he could possibly be viewed as not guilty, regardless of what his training is).....the POTUS has a significantly different impact when he speaks.
Packchem91 said:Biden said "I'm praying that verdict is the right verdict, which I think it's overwhelming, in my view. I wouldn't say that unless the jury was sequestered now."Glasswolf said:Where has he said the right verdict was guilty. And for the record the right verdict is guilty. That cop has his knee one foot to the right this is a non issue. He could have moved his knee. Floyd was handcuffed and on his face. What was he going to do?Packchem91 said:So you (or his advisors) don't think that issuing a clearly prejudicial statement (the right decision = guilty) is going to inflame protestors who are already inclined to not trust the legal system?Glasswolf said:
He was advised to wait so the jury would not hear his opinion
**It does not matter if you or I think a not-guilty verdict would be difficult to believe (I'm not sure how he could possibly be viewed as not guilty, regardless of what his training is).....the POTUS has a significantly different impact when he speaks.
What do you think he meant by that?
And I already said, I think the guy should be guilty. But I'm not the POTUS. And I'm not going against the precedent of not speaking about jury outcomes before they are final set by my predecessors.
Really???? This is the point you want to argue???Glasswolf said:Where has he said the right verdict was guilty. And for the record the right verdict is guilty. That cop has his knee one foot to the right this is a non issue. He could have moved his knee. Floyd was handcuffed and on his face. What was he going to do?Packchem91 said:So you (or his advisors) don't think that issuing a clearly prejudicial statement (the right decision = guilty) is going to inflame protestors who are already inclined to not trust the legal system?Glasswolf said:
He was advised to wait so the jury would not hear his opinion
**It does not matter if you or I think a not-guilty verdict would be difficult to believe (I'm not sure how he could possibly be viewed as not guilty, regardless of what his training is).....the POTUS has a significantly different impact when he speaks.
Had to get him on all three. Too hard to explain him not being convicted on the lesser two to the masses. It would have been scorched Earth had he only been convicted of one. This was the correct decision but you have to think some of it was also for politics.pineknollshoresking said:
Maybe I don't understand the charges... how can a person be guilty of Murder 2 and Manslaughter 2. Aren't they in conflict with each other?
Basically one is some intent and the other is no intent...
Probably not as much as the imagery we've all seen over the past year of him sitting on the guy and allowing him to die despite the guy clearly fading out....that image pretty much doomed him from the beginning.Civilized said:
Surprised he didn't beat murder-2.
I wonder how much him not testifying played a part in the jury's perception of him as a defendant.
My wife said they were explaining this on TV, because I had the same question. It's something unique (?) about Minnesota state law that allows this. I don't get it, but I'm just happy he was found guilty.pineknollshoresking said:
Maybe I don't understand the charges... how can a person be guilty of Murder 2 and Manslaughter 2. Aren't they in conflict with each other?
Basically one is some intent and the other is no intent...
I think that definition is incorrect in Minnesota (intent vs no intent). The murder 2 was "unintentional killing while committing an felony". The man 2 was "culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk."pineknollshoresking said:
Maybe I don't understand the charges... how can a person be guilty of Murder 2 and Manslaughter 2. Aren't they in conflict with each other?
Basically one is some intent and the other is no intent...
Here is an explainer of the charges from AP. I think a lot of confusion is we, the public, have the definitions wrong.FlossyDFlynt said:
I cant help but feel like this was mob justice. Chauvin definitely deserves time for what he did, but definitely surprised he was convicted on murder 2. I am afraid this one isnt over
Definitely going to be appealed. And guess who's video you are going to see on a loop during the trial?cowboypack02 said:
Could see this verdict coming from a mile away... especially after the reporter released jury information yesterday and the defense witness has pigs blood smeared all over his house earlier in the week.
Wouldn't be surprised if the defense lawyer has already filed an appeal
Murder 2 and manslaughter 2 are not in conflict with each other because murder 2 only requires intent to cause harm, not intent to kill. There is a separate prong of murder 2 for intentional killings that are not premeditated (crimes of passion for example) but that is not the only way to get a conviction on this charge. In this case, there was intent to harm through the kneeling on his neck, but obviously not intent to kill him through that harm. Manslaughter 2 is more of a death due to negligence thing than intent. Think of this as something like accidentally leaving a baby in a locked car during the summer in the Mojave Desert. Intent is not a facet, just whether or not culpable negligence created an unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm in another.pineknollshoresking said:
Maybe I don't understand the charges... how can a person be guilty of Murder 2 and Manslaughter 2. Aren't they in conflict with each other?
Basically one is some intent and the other is no intent...
Thanks for this. I admittedly havent been following that closely, this is a good explainer.Ground_Chuck said:Here is an explainer of the charges from AP. I think a lot of confusion is we, the public, have the definitions wrong.FlossyDFlynt said:
I cant help but feel like this was mob justice. Chauvin definitely deserves time for what he did, but definitely surprised he was convicted on murder 2. I am afraid this one isnt over
https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-charges-716fa235ecf6212f0ee4993110d959df
By that rationale just imagine had George Floyd had not been hopped up on Fentanyl, Meth and attempted to pass counterfeit money. And when he was first approached imagine if he would have cooperated with the police.dogplasma said:
Pelosi: :/
The person to thank is the person that shot the video. Without that, what would have been the chances that Chauvin would have been convicted for his crime? Much less, IMO.
Might have? Gone, but not forgotten.ncsualum05 said:
Was definitely the right decision. They should throw the book at him no doubt. But how we got from the murder to this day...man the cost. We might've lost the Republic.
Bell Tower Grey said:Might have? Gone, but not forgotten.ncsualum05 said:
Was definitely the right decision. They should throw the book at him no doubt. But how we got from the murder to this day...man the cost. We might've lost the Republic.
How about the Norfolk, Virginia police officer getting fired for making a $25 anonymous donation to his defense fund? He was doxxed when a hack was made to a website and was immediately outed and dismissed.cowboypack02 said:
Here is someone else who is going to have their trial rules by mob justice....
https://www.westernjournal.com/utah-reporter-hunts-paramedic-dared-donate-10-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=teaparty&utm_campaign=lminetwork&utm_content=2021-04-19
BS. The mob had as much influence on that decision as the video did and you are lying to yourself if you believe any different.Civilized said:
The court system worked. The mob did not mete out justice, the court system did.
And, Chauvin's actions were a flash point for mass calls for racial justice and police accountability.
Both were true.
Masses of people demonstrating that they wanted justice in the courts both for this case and for police accountability in general does not mean that what transpired was mob justice.
A person doesn't need to be a saint to deserve justice or be the face of justice. The man had his neck crushed for nine minutes despite his pleas and the pleas of bystanders. Members of Chauvin's own force said he wasn't following protocol. This is exactly what black America has been angry and scared about for decades. I personally don't see this as a right vs left issue but I'm sure that's probably naive.BBW12OG said:By that rationale just imagine had George Floyd had not been hopped up on Fentanyl, Meth and attempted to pass counterfeit money. And when he was first approached imagine if he would have cooperated with the police.dogplasma said:
Pelosi: :/
The person to thank is the person that shot the video. Without that, what would have been the chances that Chauvin would have been convicted for his crime? Much less, IMO.
We can "what if" this to death. Chauvin is guilty. He is in jail and will be there for a long time.
Making George Floyd the face of justice is about as stupid as a thing to say as you can get.
I expect nothing less from the party that had Bill Clinton as speaker for an Empowerment Conference for Women and Girls......
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kamala-harris-bill-clinton-touting-girls-empowerment-together-bad-joke-ncna1261977
Again just when you think the lefties have out-stupided themselves you get a "hold my beer" moment when the next idiot jumps up to out do the previous idiot.
Good thing they don't seem to have a problem with idiots on the bench ready to step up and grab the spotlight.
Enjoy lefties.... 1 year and 8 months it will all be over.
I think it's a bad cop issue just as much as a white or black issue, and that's coming from a non-white/non-black person.dogplasma said:A person doesn't need to be a saint to deserve justice or be the face of justice. The man had his neck crushed for nine minutes despite his pleas and the pleas of bystanders. Members of Chauvin's own force said he wasn't following protocol. This is exactly what black America has been angry and scared about for decades. I personally don't see this as a right vs left issue but I'm sure that's probably naive.BBW12OG said:By that rationale just imagine had George Floyd had not been hopped up on Fentanyl, Meth and attempted to pass counterfeit money. And when he was first approached imagine if he would have cooperated with the police.dogplasma said:
Pelosi: :/
The person to thank is the person that shot the video. Without that, what would have been the chances that Chauvin would have been convicted for his crime? Much less, IMO.
We can "what if" this to death. Chauvin is guilty. He is in jail and will be there for a long time.
Making George Floyd the face of justice is about as stupid as a thing to say as you can get.
I expect nothing less from the party that had Bill Clinton as speaker for an Empowerment Conference for Women and Girls......
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kamala-harris-bill-clinton-touting-girls-empowerment-together-bad-joke-ncna1261977
Again just when you think the lefties have out-stupided themselves you get a "hold my beer" moment when the next idiot jumps up to out do the previous idiot.
Good thing they don't seem to have a problem with idiots on the bench ready to step up and grab the spotlight.
Enjoy lefties.... 1 year and 8 months it will all be over.
