Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Austreylia]

It's so cool that you're a mind reader and still have time to bless us with your presence rather than doing something useful with your time.
Imagine what good you could achieve with such an amazing power.

One NSG-user trying to tell another that they aren't doing anything useful with their time. Right.

[Juristonia]

It's so cool that you're a mind reader and still have time to bless us with your presence rather than doing something useful with your time.
Imagine what good you could achieve with such an amazing power.

One NSG-user trying to tell another that they aren't doing anything useful with their time. Right.

To be fair, I don't have your amazing mind reading super powers, so I can't use that for anything useful, unlike you, who can apparently accurately judge the thoughts of an entire group of people based on absolutely nothing tangible.
It's super impressive, really. I'm a little jealous.

[Esalia]

The two posters above me did a good job at debunking this mess already.

No they didn't.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

"Improper verdict", coming from the person who blatantly admitted that they want Chauvin to be found guilty for the sake of spiting protestors and rioters.

That's even more evidence that the verdict was proper and just.

[Vassenor]

It's so cool that you're a mind reader and still have time to bless us with your presence rather than doing something useful with your time.
Imagine what good you could achieve with such an amazing power.

One NSG-user trying to tell another that they aren't doing anything useful with their time. Right.

So when are you going to explain what makes this an improper verdict besides it hurting your feelings?

[San Lumen]

One NSG-user trying to tell another that they aren't doing anything useful with their time. Right.

So when are you going to explain what makes this an improper verdict besides it hurting your feelings?

If I recall correctly they were the one who said he should have been acquitted to spite protesters.

[-SARS-]

UUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG Austreylia! Why are you still going on about this?

When you are on video killing a guy, it's not that weird to get convicted of murder. There is no reason to think the verdict is illegitimate.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

UUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG Austreylia! Why are you still going on about this?

When you are on video killing a guy, it's not that weird to get convicted of murder. There is no reason to think the verdict is illegitimate.

What was weird was thinking there was a good chance he wouldn't be convicted because America is that fucked up.

[The Rich Port]

UUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG Austreylia! Why are you still going on about this?

When you are on video killing a guy, it's not that weird to get convicted of murder. There is no reason to think the verdict is illegitimate.

Sadly, what is the truth has become so broken by "alternative facts" (subtle corporate and blatantly wrong fascist propaganda) that the only thing that some people think they need to be proven right is if they hold onto their beliefs as hard as possible, regardless of how wrong they are.

Austreylia is the kind of guy who would be still arguing for slavery and apartheid, partly because it benefits black people, but mostly because it's more convenient for white people.

[North Washington Republic]

DOJ to seek indictment of Derek Chauvin and three other ex-Minneapolis police officers, reports say

It looks like the DOG wants to charge Chauvin and the other MPD officers involved with Floyd’s death. I say this is a good thing. Police officers are starting to be held accountable for their actions

[Austreylia]

So when are you going to explain what makes this an improper verdict besides it hurting your feelings?

I already explained above.

UUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG Austreylia! Why are you still going on about this?

When you are on video killing a guy, it's not that weird to get convicted of murder. There is no reason to think the verdict is illegitimate.

You're acting like he had GF lay down on the sidewalk, told him to say a prayer, and then shot him in the back of the head.

He didn't.

He restrained him because he was resisting arrest.

[Vassenor]

So when are you going to explain what makes this an improper verdict besides it hurting your feelings?

I already explained above.

UUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG Austreylia! Why are you still going on about this?

When you are on video killing a guy, it's not that weird to get convicted of murder. There is no reason to think the verdict is illegitimate.

You're acting like he had GF lay down on the sidewalk, told him to say a prayer, and then shot him in the back of the head.

He didn't.

He restrained him because he was resisting arrest.

What part of that requires crushing his neck into the pavement?

[Austreylia]

What part of that requires crushing his neck into the pavement?

The part of making sure that he couldn't move.

If you're restraining somebody, you don't stop restraining them when they stop resisting, because they could begin resisting again.

[Kowani]

What part of that requires crushing his neck into the pavement?

The part of making sure that he couldn't move.

If you're restraining somebody, you don't stop restraining them when they stop resisting, because they could begin resisting again.

as it turns out, how you restrain someone matters

[Vassenor]

What part of that requires crushing his neck into the pavement?

The part of making sure that he couldn't move.

If you're restraining somebody, you don't stop restraining them when they stop resisting, because they could begin resisting again.

There's a reason that crushing someone's neck into the pavement is in fact not a restraint method police are allowed to use.

[Esalia]

So when are you going to explain what makes this an improper verdict besides it hurting your feelings?

I already explained above.

UUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG Austreylia! Why are you still going on about this?

When you are on video killing a guy, it's not that weird to get convicted of murder. There is no reason to think the verdict is illegitimate.

You're acting like he had GF lay down on the sidewalk, told him to say a prayer, and then shot him in the back of the head.

He didn't.

He restrained him because he was resisting arrest.

Then proceeded to kneel on his neck for nine minutes, killing him, which according to the witnesses was against department policy and according to anyone with a basic knowledge of biology would obviously be fatal.

I really don't see much of a difference between this and if Chauvin just decided to get Floyd to lie down then shoot him in the head.

What part of that requires crushing his neck into the pavement?

The part of making sure that he couldn't move.

If you're restraining somebody, you don't stop restraining them when they stop resisting, because they could begin resisting again.

It is perfectly possible to restrain people without killing them.

If you're incapable of restraining people without killing them, you shouldn't be in a position where you're expected to restrain people, period.

[Vassenor]

I already explained above.


You're acting like he had GF lay down on the sidewalk, told him to say a prayer, and then shot him in the back of the head.

He didn't.

He restrained him because he was resisting arrest.

Then proceeded to kneel on his neck for nine minutes, killing him, which according to the witnesses was against department policy and according to anyone with a basic knowledge of biology would obviously be fatal.

I really don't see much of a difference between this and if Chauvin just decided to get Floyd to lie down then shoot him in the head.

The part of making sure that he couldn't move.

If you're restraining somebody, you don't stop restraining them when they stop resisting, because they could begin resisting again.

It is perfectly possible to restrain people without killing them.

If you're incapable of restraining people without killing them, you shouldn't be in a position where you're expected to restrain people, period.

Remember, Chauvin was told repeatedly by the attending EMT to release the pressure. He did not.

[Gravlen]

So when are you going to explain what makes this an improper verdict besides it hurting your feelings?

I already explained above.

You really didn't. At best, you mentioned some factors which could have had an impact, but you didn't actually link those factors to your claim that the verdict was, somehow, "improper".

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

What part of that requires crushing his neck into the pavement?

The part of making sure that he couldn't move.

If you're restraining somebody, you don't stop restraining them when they stop resisting, because they could begin resisting again.

And you think crushing someone's neck is regular police procedure? Or do you think there are non-lethal ways of restraining someone?

[Ifreann]

The part of making sure that he couldn't move.

If you're restraining somebody, you don't stop restraining them when they stop resisting, because they could begin resisting again.

And you think crushing someone's neck is regular police procedure? Or do you think there are non-lethal ways of restraining someone?

Unnecessarily dangerous restraints that put people's life at serious risk probably are regular police procedure, if perhaps not strictly legal or in keeping with their on-paper policies.

[Winiscia]

And you think crushing someone's neck is regular police procedure? Or do you think there are non-lethal ways of restraining someone?

Unnecessarily dangerous restraints that put people's life at serious risk probably are regular police procedure, if perhaps not strictly legal or in keeping with their on-paper policies.

Well that's the crux of the whole deal, isn't it? That there are clear aberrations from what police should be doing according to their training, the law, or even common sense, when restraining someone, and further with crowd control, and what police are doing.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Unnecessarily dangerous restraints that put people's life at serious risk probably are regular police procedure, if perhaps not strictly legal or in keeping with their on-paper policies.

Well that's the crux of the whole deal, isn't it? That there are clear aberrations from what police should be doing according to their training, the law, or even common sense, when restraining someone, and further with crowd control, and what police are doing.

Aye. Abolish the institution, replace it with what people think the police is doing.

[Liliumtopia]

If the argument in defence of police murders is "well, that's just what the police do" then maybe that's not what the police should do.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It's very easy to dislike the police when you're of the opinion that murdering people is bad

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

It's very easy to dislike the police when you're of the opinion that murdering people is bad

Perhaps that's why the issue is so devisive...

[Postauthoritarian America]

So when are you going to explain what makes this an improper verdict besides it hurting your feelings?

I already explained above.

UUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGG Austreylia! Why are you still going on about this?

When you are on video killing a guy, it's not that weird to get convicted of murder. There is no reason to think the verdict is illegitimate.

You're acting like he had GF lay down on the sidewalk, told him to say a prayer, and then shot him in the back of the head.

He didn't.

He restrained him because he was resisting arrest.

1. George Floyd was in no way responsible for his murder.

2. George Floyd was not resisting arrest.

3. Every cop who testified in Chauvin's case from the dispatcher to the Chief of Police was a prosecution witness; every one of them was appalled at Chauvin's actions; most if not all stated under oath that those actions violated every rule and principle of policing.

4. Had George Floyd been white, he never would have been placed under arrest for allegedly attempting to pass a fake $20 bill; in all probability the police never would have been called.

5. Had George Floyd been white, he could have resisted arrest without having been forced to the ground and knelt on by three cops for nearly 10 minutes while a fourth cop held off bystanders, like this white guy who crashed his truck into police vehicles and assaulted a police officer who was clinging to his window as he drove away after refusing to wear a mask in a hardware store or these two white women who tried to pass a fake $1 million bill in a Dollar General store and were released without charges.

Need I go on? Need I?