BREAKING : CHAUVIN JURY REACHES VERDICT

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  120 comments

BREAKING :  CHAUVIN JURY REACHES VERDICT

the jury has reached a verdict. it will be read in about 2 hours



Joe Biden told reporters a few minutes ago that the evidence against Derek Chauvin is "overwhelming" and he is praying that the jury reaches the right verdict. 

The president also said he would not have made that comment in public until the jury was sequestered, which happened yesterday afternoon.  

Biden spoke by telephone to George Floyd's family last night. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Biden is right. The evidence is overwhelming. The main defense of Chauvin is that he, a cop for about two decades, was distracted and fearful of the crowd gathered on the sidewalk. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

Whether the president is right or wrong in his feelings of Chauvin's guilt or innocence,  he is making the same potential mistakes Maxine Waters did. The trial is still underway and there is still the presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to our legal system. He and Waters should have kept their mouths shut until after the trial. Actions like theirs just serve to agitate people even further. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

His body language proved otherwise.  When you are fearful, you don't keep your hands in your pockets.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Senior Quiet
2  Ronin2    4 weeks ago

Another idiotic president butting in where he doesn't belong.

What the hell does he think is going to happen if the jury comes back with anything other than guilty verdict on all accounts? He might as well be placing targets on each and every last one of their heads.

No matter what the verdict is there will be riots; because that is what they do; but Biden adding his two cents won't help anything.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
2.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @2    4 weeks ago

I get the feeling that a guilty verdict was preordained and assured before the trial even started. The trial is only a formality.The liberal left will not accept any thing less no matter evidence was presented. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1    4 weeks ago

It is not about the liberal left, it is about the facts presented during the trial...the prosecution showed the overwhelming preponderance of evidence...the defense fell back on their only option, an argument based on past behavior and preexisting conditions, ignoring the fatal nine minutes.

Is justice served given that evidence, or do we wait for the next similar case to just once, hold those responsible accountable?

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
2.1.2  zuksam  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
an argument based on past behavior and preexisting conditions, ignoring the fatal nine minutes.

It can get rough subduing a noncomplying suspect and if a suspect died during a one minute struggle while the cops were trying to cuff him it might be believable that he had preexisting conditions but not nine minutes with three other cops standing there twiddling their thumbs. The problem with our Legal System is it only takes one Idiot Juror to screw everything up. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
It is not about the liberal left, it is about the facts presented during the trial...the prosecution showed the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. ..the defense fell back on their only option, an argument based on past behavior and preexisting conditions, ignoring the fatal nine minutes. Is justice served given that evidence, or do we wait for the next similar case to just once, hold those responsible accountable?

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
2.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

Okay, I was wrong to throw in the barb about the liberal left. My apologies to all. I agree with you about the preponderance of evidence part. 

You asked if justice is served given the evidence? Certainly as long as it is in a fair and legal manner, however, potentially inflammatory comments by Waters and the president can affect getting a fair outcome especially since the trial is not even over yet. Is that justice?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
"Okay, I was wrong to throw in the barb about the liberal left."

Why stop now?  That appears to be your standard retort.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
2.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.5    4 weeks ago

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. You have a good day now.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
Masters Participates
2.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

Justice was served. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Masters Quiet
2.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.7    4 weeks ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
2.1.9  SteevieGee  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
Certainly as long as it is in a fair and legal manner, however, potentially inflammatory comments by Waters and the president can affect getting a fair outcome especially since the trial is not even over yet. Is that justice?

So...  The President has to remain silent but Tucker Carlson has 1st amendment rights that must be respected?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.9    4 weeks ago
"So...  The President has to remain silent but Tucker Carlson has 1st amendment rights that must be respected?"

Of course you silly goose!  First Amendment rights only apply to the 'right'.  Didn't you know?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

did you just compare Tucker Carlson to the President of the United States?  

You believe a talk show host and the leader of the free world are equivalent positions? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
2.1.12  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.11    4 weeks ago
You believe a talk show host and the leader of the free world are equivalent positions? 

no, Tucker was definitely above 45

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.11    4 weeks ago

Where did he do that?  Where did he say that?

We know the only standards that apply to the 'right' are double standards.  Actually, no standards whatsoever.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.13    4 weeks ago

Do you imagine you accomplish anything positive (other than making me laugh) by asking pointless questions with painfully obvious answers?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.14    4 weeks ago

I expect absolutely NOTHING from you.  Least of all the truth.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

Well, Tucker is a mouthpiece for one tiny part of America. Pres Biden represents all of us. I would prefer all politicians keep their pie holes shut in cases like these until the verdict is read

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
2.1.17  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.16    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
2.1.18  SteevieGee  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.11    4 weeks ago

While I trust the jury members to avoid all media like I'm sure they're instructed to do, they are probably more likely to see Tucker Carlson on TV accidentally than President Biden since he's on for an hour every day prime time.  It only takes one juror to hang a jury.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
2.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1.18    4 weeks ago

Joe Biden is the President of the US.  His words mean infinitely more than those of a talk show host.  Pundits are supposed to offer opinions.  Elected officials are supposed to let the system run it's course without sticking their fingers on the scales of justice.  

There's a reason the trial Judge recognized that the politicians may have given Chauvin grounds for a mistrial, and didn't attack pundits for being pundits.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.19    4 weeks ago
Joe Biden is the President of the US.  His words mean infinitely more than those of a talk show host. 

Let's note that on this we agree; but I would use 'substantially' rather than 'infinitely'.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Junior Silent
2.1.21  SteevieGee  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.19    4 weeks ago

We agree on one thing.  Joe Biden is "infinitely"  more important, powerful, and just a better man than than Tucker Carlson.  He also has first amendment rights and can say anything he wants to.  Wasn't that what you guys loved about Trump?  That he had no filter?  

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @2    4 weeks ago
Another idiotic president butting in where he doesn't belong.

If that is your measure of idiocy, then you must see all presidents as idiots. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
Senior Quiet
2.2.1  gooseisgone  replied to  MrFrost @2.2    4 weeks ago
If that is your measure of idiocy, then you must see all presidents as idiots. 

YES......they are idiots if they open their mouths about pending court cases, it gives the lawyers something to appeal on.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

What an asshole. I’m sorry, but elected officials - and particularly presidents - should not be declaring the guilt or innocence of people on trial. In a regular citizen, it is usually ignorant, but largely harmless. For a person in his position, it is completely irresponsible.

There are reasons that we have the legal processes that we do. If guilt or innocence were justly decided from afar, we would have been doing that. Shit like this undermines the already fragile faith people have in the judicial system. It also promotes the violence we will see after the verdict. A reponsible president would be advocating for the system, and calling on the American people to let the jury decide the issue and then respect their conclusion.

Normally my impulse in these matters is to say that any of these politicians who have graduated from law school should know better, but then I remember that Biden cheated his way through so law school and dismissed it as “much ado about nothing,” so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
3.1  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @3    4 weeks ago

Like Trump calling for execution of innocent teens?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3    4 weeks ago
"Normally my impulse in these matters is to say that any of these politicians who have graduated from law school should know better, but then I remember that Biden cheated his way through so law school and dismissed it as “much ado about nothing, ” so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised."  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

JFC!  I'm sure you've got the documentation for that, right?

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4  Sunshine    4 weeks ago

I wasn't aware that he was a juror in the trial.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
4.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sunshine @4    4 weeks ago

only in the court of public opinion ,  we are all members of that jury ....

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.1    4 weeks ago

Biden should not be convicting anyone.  His public opinion holds a lot more weight to some unlike ours.  He is only adding fuel to fire.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
4.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
Biden should not be convicting anyone.

Was he on the jury? Was he the judge? 

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
4.1.3  JBB  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

What incites? Cops killing unarmed citizens! 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
4.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
Biden should not be convicting anyone.  His public opinion holds a lot more weight to some unlike ours.  He is only adding fuel to fire.  

Were you exclaiming this point when we had 45 spurting out non stop about that which HE JUST DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT , and that was about ALL HE COMMENTED ON ! I would normally prefer pols kept their thoughts till trials are complete, but....after watching TOO MUCH of this trial, THERE WAS/IS NO other way to interpret WTF took place, but i'm "silly" that way, after WATCHING SOMEONE'S LIFE get EXTINGUISHED right before my OWN FCKN EYES, but hey, whatever blurred view you wish to see your 'truth' distorted through, is up to you, good luck with that....

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
Was he on the jury? Was he the judge? 

No, be good if he didn't speak to convict a person as if he was.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.4    4 weeks ago
Were you exclaiming this point when we had 45 spurting out non stop about that which HE JUST DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT

<insert Jeopardy theme song here>

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
4.1.7  Sunshine  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.4    4 weeks ago
Were you exclaiming this point when we had 45 spurting out non stop about that which HE JUST DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT , and that was about ALL HE COMMENTED ON

using Trump did it to excuse Biden...hillarious.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
4.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

How soon they forget when Trump wanted five innocent teens executed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.8    4 weeks ago

When did President Trump call for the execution of five "innocent" teens? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.7    4 weeks ago
sing Trump did it to excuse Biden...hillarious.

Trump is now the gold standard for Presidents I guess.  All the progressives think he's the role model to follow. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.10    4 weeks ago

It probably is because he was the prior PotUS (freshly out of office) and that he was also an outrageous character who somehow still has strong support in the R party.

Once the Rs rid themselves of the Trump parasite and start healing from the infection, Trump will fade from concern and will be replaced with a new target.

In short, it does not surprise me a bit that Trump continues to appear when speaking of Biden or of presidential politics.   Who, other than Trump, do you think should be compared?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.11    4 weeks ago
 Who, other than Trump, do you think should be compared?

Biden is not being compared to Trump, Trump's being cited as a justification and precedent for Biden.  If Trump did something, it's now  okay for Biden to do it. 

Which under normal circumstances would be fine. But Trump, and the reaction to him, was not normal.   The people now citing Trump as acceptable precedent  spent the last 5 years claiming he was the worst President ever, a traitor, a psychopath etc...To turn around and now him use as a justification is like Brutus citing Caesar to justify  his actions.  If his critics actually meant what they said about Trump, he's the last person they would ever use to justify the actions of Biden or anyone else. 

Either Trump was a normal President or he wasn't. The same progressives who hysterically demonized Trump  are now doing their best to normalize him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.12    4 weeks ago
If Trump did something, it's now okay for Biden to do it. 

It is wrong to justify actions based on Trump.

Either Trump was a normal President or he wasn't.

He was atypical in a bad way.    Regardless, it is never rational to do something simply because someone else did it (or similar).

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
4.1.14  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.12    4 weeks ago
The same progressives who hysterically demonized Trump  are now doing their best to normalize him.

as the bar drops ever lower

and lower.

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.9    4 weeks ago

When did President Trump call for the execution of five "innocent" teens? 

'They admitted their guilt': 30 years of Trump's comments about the Central Park Five

Rebecca Morin
USA TODAY
President Donald Trump has repeatedly commented on a case that wrongly accused a group of black and Latino men  of assaulting a white female jogger in Central Park in 1989.

Trump's comments surrounding the case, many of which were made in his capacity as a New York business mogul, have resurfaced following   a Netflix series on the men   who were charged with the assault. The men are commonly referred to as the Central Park Five. 

Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise were all boys when they were convicted of raping Trisha Meili. They were then found innocent of the crime after convicted murder Matias Reyes in 2002 confessed to raping Meili, which was confirmed by DNA evidence. The city awarded the men $41 million in 2014, a decade after some of the men initially sued the city for how it handled the case.

Trump, now president, has doubled down on his stance that some involved in the attack were guilty.

On Tuesday, he   dodged questions about apologizing for a 1989 ad   calling for the death penalty for those involved in an assault.

'You have people on both sides of that': Trump doesn't apologize to Central Park Five

Trump's role:  Ava DuVernay lets Trump 'speak for himself' in Central Park Five series 'When They See Us'

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.15    4 weeks ago

Trump was President in 1989? 

Where did you learn your history?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.16    4 weeks ago

Trump still refuses to admit he was wrong about the Central Park 5

“You have people on both sides of that.”

By   Aaron Rupar @atrupar     Jun 18, 2019, 5:40pm EDT
1156794051.jpg.0.jpg Trump speaks outside the White House on Tuesday.   Alex Wong/Getty Images

More than a decade after the exoneration of five black and Latino teens accused of raping a woman in Central Park, President Donald Trump indicated on Tuesday that he still doesn’t accept their innocence. Nor does he think he owes them an apology for publicly calling for their executions.

The teenagers, known as the Central Park 5, were exonerated by DNA evidence and a confession from the true perpetrator in 2002, 13 years after they were vilified by prosecutors and in the press after being charged and convicted of the rape of a white woman jogging in the park. The story is back in the news because of a recently released Netflix series about the case titled   When They See Us .

Before leaving for his reelection campaign launch rally in Florida, Trump took a number of questions from reporters outside the White House. April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks asked if he’ll “apologize to the Central Park 5” for taking out a full page newspaper ad calling for their executions. Trump indicated he will not.

“Why do you bring that question up now? It’s an interesting time to bring it up,” Trump said, apparently not aware about the Netflix series. “You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt. If you look at Linda Fairstein [the discredited prosecutor  who oversaw the case] and if you look at some of the prosecutors, they think the city should have never settled that case. So, we’ll leave it at that.”

The Central Park 5 — Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise — were five young teens (four black, one Latino) in 1989, when they were accused of beating and raping a woman who was jogging through Central Park.

After their arrests, the five were violently interrogated and deprived of food and sleep, and they ultimately offered a coerced confession. Trump then took out a full-page ad in a number of newspapers calling for their execution. My colleague Alissa Wilkinson  detailed  the backstory in a recent piece about the Netflix show:

On May 1, 1989, as the case was headed to trial, then-real estate developer Trump spent about $85,000 placing  a full-page ad  in four newspapers, calling (in so many words) for the young men accused of the crime to be executed. “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” the ad proclaimed in enormous capital letters. Below, in smaller text, Trump ranted, “I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them … I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.”

Trump echoed that sentiment in a number of television interviews conducted around the same time. But 13 years later, DNA evidence exonerated the Central Park 5, and a serial rapist named Matias Reyes who was already serving a life sentence in prison on other charges confessed. The five ultimately agreed to a $41 million settlement with the city of New York in 2014.

But when Trump’s 1989 comments about the Central Park 5 became an issue in subsequent years, not only did he refuse to apologize, but he even refused to admit he was wrong.

“My opinion on the settlement of the Central Park Jogger case is that it’s a disgrace,” Trump wrote in  a June 2014 New York Daily News op-ed . “What about the other people who were brutalized that night, in addition to the jogger?”

In a tweet posted in 2013, Trump alluded to the wave of crime Central Park was experiencing back in 1989 to suggest that even if the teens weren’t guilty of rape, they were still guilty of something — just for being there.

@CoachClintSwan   Tell me, what were they doing in the Park, playing checkers? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)   April 21, 2013

When CNN did a special about the case weeks before the 2016 election, Trump didn’t back away from his previous comments, but instead provided a statement to CNN citing the false confession the teens made — the same move he made on Tuesday.

“The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same,” Trump said in 2016.

Nearly three years later, Trump still refuses to simply admit he was wrong, let alone apologize. Racism is a stubborn thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @4.1.14    4 weeks ago

No bar is too low for some to slither under.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.17    4 weeks ago

So what? DO you understand he wasn't President when the matter was adjudicated?  

Imagine thinking people aren't allowed to have opinions on historical events.

How hard is this to understand? Biden is the President and offered his opinion on the evidence of a trial as it was happening. Got it?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.19    4 weeks ago

I got it.  You obviously, DO NOT.  

Didn't trumpturd offer an opinion on scumbag Manafort?

You're the one who doesn't understand dick.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.19    4 weeks ago
On May 1, 1989, as the case was headed to trial, then-real estate developer Trump spent about $85,000 placing  a full-page ad  in four newspapers, calling (in so many words) for the young men accused of the crime to be executed. “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” the ad proclaimed in enormous capital letters. Below, in smaller text, Trump ranted, “I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them … I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to understand our anger. I want them to be afraid.”
So trumpturd has always been an impotent, angry, hateful, racist, scumlappingshitbag.
Nothing's changed!
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
4.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.21    4 weeks ago

Who knew I'd be lucky enough to see someone arguing  real estate developers are the equivalent  of the President of the USA in our justice system?

What a treat. This is what make the site worthwhile. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.22    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
4.1.24  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.22    4 weeks ago
Who knew I'd be lucky enough to see someone arguing  real estate developers are the equivalent  of the President of the USA in our justice system?

Was 45 NOT a real Estate Developer ? was he also KNOT tied to OUR potUS in our InJustice System...in some damn mannerism, that is not mannerly , or are we rewriting history Again ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
4.1.25  MrFrost  replied to  Sunshine @4.1.5    4 weeks ago

No, be good if he didn't speak to convict a person as if he was.

Well, he is now. Also, the jury was sequestered so they had no clue what he said anyway. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  author  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

The truth is the president is expected to weigh in on topics such as this one.  That is our modern world. 

Saying that the evidence is overwhelming is really just stating the obvious, but it lets Floyd's family and the black and other non white people of Minneapolis know he is thinking of them.

I asked a friend of mine who was a street cop in Chicago for 30 years if it was proper to arrest someone for passing a counterfeit twenty dollar bill.  Basically my friend just laughed. Thats how ludicrous it is. 

Chauvin and the other cops justified their treatment of George Floyd that day by telling him, as he struggled, that he was being arrested for "forgery".  This was a tragedy caused by police arrogance. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago
The truth is the president is expected to weigh in on topics such as this one.

No. Not for ongoing trials. He took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That Constitution talks about due process and trial by jury. Biden isn’t advocating that we respect any of that. He’s got it all figured out from watching CNN. 

He now bears responsibility for any unrest that follows the verdict.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
5.2  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @5    4 weeks ago
The truth is the president is expected to weigh in on topics such as this one.  That is our modern world. 

There are a multitude better ways to weigh in on topics such as this without undermining the jury. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @5.2    4 weeks ago

He didn't undermine the jury.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
5.2.2  evilgenius  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.1    4 weeks ago
He didn't undermine the jury.

If the jury comes back not guilty he is indeed undermining them. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @5.2.2    4 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.3    4 weeks ago

No, indeed he was not!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
5.2.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  evilgenius @5.2.2    4 weeks ago

The jury came back with GUILTY.  So much for the undermining them theory.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Guide
6  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

The liberal loons, goons, punks, and thugs will riot regardless of the verdict

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.1  Tacos!  replied to  Greg Jones @6    4 weeks ago

Yeah, but now they’ll have official support. The president said the case against this guy was “overwhelming,” so it must be true.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @6.1    4 weeks ago

You'd have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to see it.  

 
 
 
zuksam
Sophomore Silent
6.2  zuksam  replied to  Greg Jones @6    4 weeks ago

You're probably right the Celebration will likely be as bad as the Protest.

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
6.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @6    4 weeks ago

The liberal loons, goons, punks, and thugs will riot regardless of the verdict

The cunt conservatives pissed on the floor and smeared their own shit on the walls of the US Capitol... Let me guess, they are patriots? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @6    4 weeks ago

So we would protest if the murderer Chauvin was found guilty of killing George Floyd?

NO.

Why the hell would we protest justice finally being served?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Participates
6.4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @6.4    4 weeks ago

hy the hell would we protest justice finally being served?

Why the hell would you riot and kill people despite his being arrested and charged with murder?

Imagine thinking violent rioters act rationally. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4.1    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.4.1    4 weeks ago

Constant deflections and projection from you and when I respond I get a ticket.  Go figure! 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7  TᵢG    4 weeks ago

A PotUS should not weigh in on such matters.   The office carries substantial influence;  the words of the PotUS should focus on matters of the office.   While PotUS, the individual holding the office should refrain from commenting as an ordinary citizen.    There simply is no way that the public will distinguish words from the PotUS from words from the individual speaking as an ordinary person.

Waiting until the jury is sequestered is not enough.   Biden should not weigh in on this at all.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @7    4 weeks ago

I disagree. Why should a president, then,  "weigh in" against "riots" when the people participating in these protests haven't been convicted of a crime yet? 

What Chauvin did was clearly wrong, whether he is sent to prison or not. Biden didnt prejudice the jury because he waited to say something until they were sequestered. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    4 weeks ago

This is a case against an individual.    Contrast this with a PotUS weighing in on the principle of unnecessary force and promising to encourage all national law enforcement practices  ensure the safety of both officers and those under arrest.

Biden didnt prejudice the jury because he waited to say something until they were sequestered. 

I am aware that he did not prejudice the jury.   I intentionally and explicitly addressed that preemptively:  "Waiting until the jury is sequestered is not enough.   Biden should not weigh in on this at all."

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
7.2  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @7    4 weeks ago

If he would have waited until after the verdict and then said his opinion I wouldn't mind.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @7.2    4 weeks ago

I still would because I do not think a PotUS should ever comment on what is taking place with a legal matter dealing with an individual.  

It is one thing for the PotUS to single out individuals for positive recognition, but to weigh in on an individual legal case carries the influential power of the office.   The words of the PotUS should address the concerns of 331+ million citizens, not on an individual on trial.

The reason behind my position is the influential power of a PotUS' words.   I made the same comment about Trump with his reckless personal comments while PotUS;  similarly with Obama.   It is, IMO, an abuse of the power of the office to amplify the personal opinion of the individual who currently holds the most powerful office on the planet on a matter that is not in the purview of the Office —  especially when it is focused on a single individual.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
7.2.2  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.1    4 weeks ago

I understand. I just think worded correctly, it could be an opinion yet a little insignificant. We all know he is going to be asked about it and saying something like, I disagree with the outcome but we have to trust the legal system, or something along those lines. Depending on outcome of course.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8  Mark in Wyoming     4 weeks ago

verdict coming in this quickly means either convicted of all charges or at least 1 , or an aquittal..... and before anyone wants to start an argument about it , i mention one name , George Zimmerman , that was a slam dunk as well or was suppose to be.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
8.1  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8    4 weeks ago

I hate to say it but I am thinking one voted in his favor.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ender @8.1    4 weeks ago

we shall see in about an hour or so. its in the jurys hands , not the court of public opinion.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
8.1.2  Ender  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.1.1    4 weeks ago
not the court of public opinion.

Too late for that I think.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Masters Guide
8.2  Sunshine  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8    4 weeks ago

Hope we don't have another LA riot.  Never know what a jury will do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sunshine @8.2    4 weeks ago

or what a bunch of loons unhappy with a verdict will do.

 
 
 
MrFrost
PhD Principal
8.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.1    4 weeks ago

or what a bunch of loons unhappy with a verdict will do.

256

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
9  Ender    4 weeks ago

I have to say, I would hate to be on that jury.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
9.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ender @9    4 weeks ago

I wonder how many will be contacted for book deals.

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
10  Ender    4 weeks ago

Guilty

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
11  evilgenius    4 weeks ago

Guilty on all counts!

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
14  MonsterMash    4 weeks ago

Guilty on all three counts. The celebration riots will commence. 

 
 
 
Ender
PhD Principal
15  Ender    4 weeks ago

I could have sworn one juror said no.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
16  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

Verdict doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can he be guilty of all three charges for the one act?

Under Minnesota law

1) The Second Degree Unintentional Murder charge is what is more commonly known as “Felony Murder,” which is when a person is committing a felony and thereby causes the death of another person, without actually intending to kill anyone.

It’s hard to see this one because there is no underlying felony. He certainly wasn’t charged with one and I have seen no indication that the jury was tasked with determining whether or not he committed one. The killing itself does not count as the underlying felony.

2) Third Degree Murder is what is more commonly known as “Depraved Heart Murder.” In this case, without intending to kill anyone, he causes the death of another by committing an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind with no regard for human life. 

With this charge, it’s sort of really really obvious that you’re doing something that could likely kill a person and you don’t care. Like a chaotic agent of death. That honestly doesn’t seem to have been the mindset of either the officer or his comrades. It doesn’t seem like they thought Floyd was in any danger of dying. However, it seems more reasonable than the Second Degree Murder Charge.

3) Second Degree Manslaughter means he caused the death through negligence that creates an unreasonable risk. This means he committed the acts on purpose, and knew they were risky, but wasn’t trying to kill anyone. The obviousness of deadly risk seems less for this charge.

This seems like the most accurate charge to me, but I think you can make an argument for either this one or the Third Degree charge.

Each of these charges describes a different kind of situation. It’s splitting hairs, but that’s what the law does. It’s not really logical to convict him of all three. I can easily see two of these convictions being thrown out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @16    4 weeks ago

One of the witnesses was a female EMT who was off duty out for a walk in the neighborhood. She told the cops that Floyd needed immediate medical attention. By completely disregarding her Chauvin tacitly acknowledged he was putting Floyd's life in jeopardy. 

I think her testimony will turn out to have been important in the verdict. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
16.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @16.1    4 weeks ago
By completely disregarding her Chauvin tacitly acknowledged he was putting Floyd's life in jeopardy. 

I feel like it’s standard procedure (official or unofficial) for cops to try to ignore the people who approach them when making an arrest. Part of that impulse is reasonable. You need to be focused on doing your job. Also, a lot of cops are super defensive and don’t want people telling them how to do their job. I think I heard they had called for an official EMT, so I expect they were waiting for that assessment.

Even so, that doesn’t seem to rise above the manslaughter charge.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @16.1.1    4 weeks ago

"Even so, that doesn’t seem to rise above the manslaughter charge."

Of course not!

Kneeling on someone's neck for 9-1/2 minutes - I wonder how long Mr. Floyd was dead and that scumbag still had his knee on his neck?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
16.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @16.1.2    4 weeks ago

It doesn’t matter how offended we are by the act. Crimes are defined about as specifically as we can make them for a reason. Maybe you’d like to go to an Old Testament-type system where we just execute people for everything?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @16.1.3    4 weeks ago

There you go, putting words in my mouth again.  STOP IT!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
16.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @16.1.4    4 weeks ago

I didn’t put anything in your mouth.

 
 
 
321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu
Sophomore Principal
16.2  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu   replied to  Tacos! @16    4 weeks ago

Tacos I tend to agree with you. 

At first (before I had learned more) I thought .. Murder.

After hearing a lot of the testimony I changed to thinking neglectful homicide. 3)  Second Degree Manslaughter

Either way this cop screwed up royal. shakin head ... sad

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  321steve - realistically thinkin or Duu @16.2    4 weeks ago
IT WAS MURDER
 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
16.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.1    4 weeks ago
IT WAS MURDER

Murder has a definition. It is - in most places - the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought. “Malice aforethought” means the murderer meant to kill the victim. Other forms of killing that lack that intent are usually classified as lower degrees of “murder” or “manslaughter.”

The law almost always considers it worse if the killing was intentional. None of the three charges against Chauvin allege that he meant to kill Derek Floyd. In fact, every single one of them is defined as an unintentional killing. So then you get deep into the weeds about Chauvin’s level of intent.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @16.2.2    4 weeks ago

IT WAS MURDER.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
16.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.3    4 weeks ago

Because? And therefore what?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
17  Thrawn 31    4 weeks ago

Now we will just have to see what the sentencing holds. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
18  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

In the poll I posted previously asking members for their votes for various possibilities that Chauvin would be convicted of, I had no idea that he could be convicted of all three.  

However, remember that Yogi Berra wasn't wrong with "It's never over 'till it's over."  The appeals will soon be filed. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
19  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

I was just thinking that if he does end up being jailed they had better put him in an isolation situation because it's likely that his sentence of time will soon become a sentence of death. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
19.1  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @19    4 weeks ago

No doubt about it IMO.   One of the worst things is for a cop (or equivalent) to become an inmate.    

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
19.1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @19.1    4 weeks ago

The White Aryans in prison will forgive him for being a cop because he killed a black man.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
19.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @19.1.1    4 weeks ago

Somehow I doubt that will be enough.   I suspect that being in law enforcement is up there in the most unforgiveable sins to a prison population (along with being a 'rat' or a child molester.)

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
19.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.2    3 weeks ago

He will be in PC aka solitary where he will go mental or kill himself after six months.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
Professor Guide
20  Freedom Warrior    4 weeks ago

Justice is sacrificed upon the alter of raciall demagoguery.  What a relief.  At least we can reaffirm our faith in the dumphuckery of our justice system.

And why would it be any other way. Seriously you don't really think it's worth risking yours and probably your family's life for that  dude. Isn't that how we define fairness?

Anyway, fuck all that let's party!

   

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
20.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @20    4 weeks ago

Your meaning seems slightly obscure. Is it your belief that Chauvin is innocent? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
20.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @20.1    4 weeks ago

I think Oliver is having trouble with the Russian to English translation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
20.2  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @20    4 weeks ago

NYET!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Masters Guide
21  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

All this drama for a worthless criminal POS, while the brazen murder of a little girl in Chicago goes unnoticed

.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
21.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Greg Jones @21    4 weeks ago

But that's because,

A police vehicle that was already at the scene rushed the girl to a hospital, Chicago police Officer Sally Brown said.

That paints a police officer in a good light for trying to save that beautiful little girl.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
22  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

Does Chauvin have this to look forward to, what this homeless guy endured?

I talked with a homeless man this morning and asked him how he ended up this way.
 
He said, “Up until last week, I still had it all.
 
I had plenty to eat, my clothes were washed and pressed,
 
I had a roof over my head,
 
I had HDTV and Internet, and I went to the gym, the pool, and the library.
 
I was working on my MBA on-line.
 
I had no bills and no debt.
 
I even had full medical benefits coverage."
 
I felt sorry for him, so I asked, “What happened? Drugs? Alcohol? Divorce?"
 
"Oh no, nothing like that,” he said. 
 
“Because of Corona virus, I was unexpectedly paroled."
 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








cjcold
JumpDrive


44 visitors