Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Mestovakia]

Javert survived in the anime, though.

The what?

Nippon Animation did an adaptation of it over a decade ago. Javert's Bridge scene

[Mestovakia]

You should sympathise with victims of police brutality even if they have committed crimes, because it is wrong for people to be brutalised by the police, even if they are criminals. This should be easy in this case, where the brutal killing is totally unrelated to the past crimes.

The manner of someone's death doesn't change how they lived. I sympathize with victims of police brutality when they are innocent of crimes committed OR have sought to redeem themselves. George Floyd was neither of these things, hence why he doesn't have my sympathy. Did George Floyd help orphans in his spare time? Did he volunteer his time at animal or homeless shelters to help those in need? Did he do anything at all to make amends for his crime save for serving his prison sentences? The man was convicted and served his time so his rights should be respected yes, his killer should be put on trial but that doesn't mean he wasn't a bad person nor does it mean he deserves sympathy.

When Robespierre tried to kill himself, he shot himself and failed. He was probably in agony for some time before his execution. He killed more than a few people in his reign of terror, but he died a painful death. Does he deserve sympathy? No. Stalin's purges killed hundreds of thousands and his policies killed millions, but he had a seizure and probably died slowly and humiliatingly. Does he deserve your sympathy for that? No. Past crimes aren't absolved by a unfair and/or violent death.

Imagine comparing George Floyd to Stalin.

[Insaanistan]

You should sympathise with victims of police brutality even if they have committed crimes, because it is wrong for people to be brutalised by the police, even if they are criminals. This should be easy in this case, where the brutal killing is totally unrelated to the past crimes.

The manner of someone's death doesn't change how they lived. I sympathize with victims of police brutality when they are innocent of crimes committed OR have sought to redeem themselves. George Floyd was neither of these things, hence why he doesn't have my sympathy. Did George Floyd help orphans in his spare time? Did he volunteer his time at animal or homeless shelters to help those in need? Did he do anything at all to make amends for his crime save for serving his prison sentences? The man was convicted and served his time so his rights should be respected yes, his killer should be put on trial but that doesn't mean he wasn't a bad person nor does it mean he deserves sympathy.

When Robespierre tried to kill himself, he shot himself and failed. He was probably in agony for some time before his execution. He killed more than a few people in his reign of terror, but he died a painful death. Does he deserve sympathy? No. Stalin's purges killed hundreds of thousands and his policies killed millions, but he had a seizure and probably died slowly and humiliatingly. Does he deserve your sympathy for that? No. Past crimes aren't absolved by a unfair and/or violent death.

Man compares George Floyd’s death to Stalin’s hemorrhage and Robespierre dying at the guillotine.
More news at 12.

[Adamede]

Nice try, but no, he didn’t.

After reading some sources (Not the BBC)I will admit I am wrong about the pregnant woman,but he was in jail for some time for both theft and cocaine

So? What does that have to do with his death?

[Western Theram]

And all the other deaths of people of color by the hand of police brutality - all the other names we've remembered and said over the years - have forced hundreds of police officers to be found guilty as a result of people out for blood? No, it hasn't, so I'm not holding my breath on this trial. We've seen lots of officers let off for this same thing, I'm not coming into this trial with any assumption that it'll be different.

I'm not concerned with the trials of the past, I'm concerned with right now and this current trial. That same sort of attitude you have is shared by plenty of other people who are willing to take it a step further-they want nothing more than to turn this trial into a crusade and quite frankly that's abhorrent regardless of the crime. You don't have to like Derek Chauvin-I don't. But I would at least hope you'd agree that he deserves a fair trial and a fair trial is unlikely to happen.

As I'm sure you know the penalty for murder is death or life imprisonment. We typically reserve this for intentional and premediated murders. Regardless of the circumstances a lot of people are going to demand this penalty be given, even if the facts point to something like manslaughter.

why do you think its a crusade? literally everyone saw him kill george floyd on camera, literally everyone around him was telling him to get off his neck and saying he can't breathe. as far as im concerned its an open and shit case. he murdered him. he didnt care that he couldn't breathe, if he did he would've gotten off of him. there's no way he can be found innocent unless the jurry nullifies him which i doubt.

[Kilobugya]

When Robespierre tried to kill himself, he shot himself and failed. He was probably in agony for some time before his execution. He killed more than a few people in his reign of terror, but he died a painful death.

You're very wrong about Robespierre, who very likely didn't try to kill himself, and who was nothing of the bloody tyrant he's depicted by reactionaries. But that's the wrong thread so I won't say more.

[Western Theram]

The manner of someone's death doesn't change how they lived. I sympathize with victims of police brutality when they are innocent of crimes committed OR have sought to redeem themselves. George Floyd was neither of these things, hence why he doesn't have my sympathy. Did George Floyd help orphans in his spare time? Did he volunteer his time at animal or homeless shelters to help those in need? Did he do anything at all to make amends for his crime save for serving his prison sentences? The man was convicted and served his time so his rights should be respected yes, his killer should be put on trial but that doesn't mean he wasn't a bad person nor does it mean he deserves sympathy.

When Robespierre tried to kill himself, he shot himself and failed. He was probably in agony for some time before his execution. He killed more than a few people in his reign of terror, but he died a painful death. Does he deserve sympathy? No. Stalin's purges killed hundreds of thousands and his policies killed millions, but he had a seizure and probably died slowly and humiliatingly. Does he deserve your sympathy for that? No. Past crimes aren't absolved by a unfair and/or violent death.

Imagine comparing George Floyd to Stalin.

he probably felt real clever coming up with that one but doesn't realize it makes him look like a babbling idiot.

[Ifreann]

You should sympathise with victims of police brutality even if they have committed crimes, because it is wrong for people to be brutalised by the police, even if they are criminals. This should be easy in this case, where the brutal killing is totally unrelated to the past crimes.

The manner of someone's death doesn't change how they lived. I sympathize with victims of police brutality when they are innocent of crimes committed OR have sought to redeem themselves. George Floyd was neither of these things, hence why he doesn't have my sympathy. Did George Floyd help orphans in his spare time? Did he volunteer his time at animal or homeless shelters to help those in need? Did he do anything at all to make amends for his crime save for serving his prison sentences? The man was convicted and served his time so his rights should be respected yes, his killer should be put on trial but that doesn't mean he wasn't a bad person nor does it mean he deserves sympathy.

Of course he deserves sympathy. Whether he was a bad person or not is irrelevant. How someone lived doesn't change the manner of their death.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Hope the fucker gets life in prison.

But I know he won't.

[Alien Overlord]

As I'm sure you know the penalty for murder is death or life imprisonment.

I for once oppose death penalty or life imprisonment for everyone and that includes Derek Chauvin. I don't believe in vengeance or in going for blood. And I believe everyone can redeem themselves. But Derek Chauvin did commit a terrible crime, and must be found guilty of it. Not because he deserves to suffer, but because police brutality, fueled by impunity as it is, has to be put to a stop (of course, I know it won't be enough).

I don't disagree with any of these points.

Your views are the literal equivalent of Inspector Javert in Les Miserables right now.

I hope for Alien Overlord's sake they'll realize how wrong are those views earlier than Javert, seeing how things ended for him...

Funnily enough i've never actually watched more than the beginning of Les Miserables. In any case I stand by my views.

Isn't that the issue within the issue? I feel a not insignificant percentage of the population would think criminals get what they deserve.

Even if we accept that some people deserve to die for their crimes, no one deserves to be choked to death in the street on suspicion of passing a fake twenty. Even the people who think that Chauvin did nothing wrong agree with this, which we can tell by how they feel the need to play the whole "He was no angel" game with Floyd, or pretend that actually he coincidentally died of an overdose while under Chauvin's knee. They wouldn't be making these kinds of excuses if they believed that Floyd had it coming.

I never said Floyd had it coming, nor do I have any sympathy for Chauvin. I also don't disagree that no one should be choked to death in the street. None of that makes George Floyd more worthy of sympathy.

Imagine comparing George Floyd to Stalin.

he probably felt real clever coming up with that one but doesn't realize it makes him look like a babbling idiot.

I don't see how it makes me a babbling idiot considering my point was stated clearly and was relevant to evidence I already mentioned. I chose Robespierre and Stalin because they are examples that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of history can understand without extensive research, but my point stands. A point which quite obviously went over your head.

[Mestovakia]

I don't see how it makes me a babbling idiot considering my point was stated clearly and was relevant to evidence I already mentioned. I chose Robespierre and Stalin because they are examples that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of history can understand without extensive research, but my point stands. A point which quite obviously went over your head.

Yes, but the fact that you chose Robespierre and Stalin as examples didn't do your side of the debate any favours.

[SD_Film Artists]

The real question is whether he had put that side of his life behind him or whether he was still a criminal. Either way I agree that it isn't justification for summary execution.

that question is irrelevant, even if he were a criminal he shouldn't have been murdered - after being apprehended - on the street. This trial isn't about whether George Floyd was guilty of anything, this trial is about whether Derek Chauvin is guilty or not.

Yet it's often portrayed as if he were an innocent cherub.

[Alien Overlord]

The manner of someone's death doesn't change how they lived. I sympathize with victims of police brutality when they are innocent of crimes committed OR have sought to redeem themselves. George Floyd was neither of these things, hence why he doesn't have my sympathy. Did George Floyd help orphans in his spare time? Did he volunteer his time at animal or homeless shelters to help those in need? Did he do anything at all to make amends for his crime save for serving his prison sentences? The man was convicted and served his time so his rights should be respected yes, his killer should be put on trial but that doesn't mean he wasn't a bad person nor does it mean he deserves sympathy.

Of course he deserves sympathy. Whether he was a bad person or not is irrelevant. How someone lived doesn't change the manner of their death.

How someone dies doesn't change the manner in which they lived. I can sympathize with the way he died, I can't sympathize with him as a person. It's possible to recognize that bad things can happen to bad people. Regardless even if Floyd was a bad person, it shouldn't have any impact on the trial (which i'm sure you'll agree with). If it's your desire to sympathize with George Floyd then that's your business, but some people do recognize his crimes in the past and can't sympathize with him, it's something that should be understood to be an opinion when it comes down to it, it shouldn't have any bearing on the trial regardless of whether the general public thinks George Floyd was an angel sent from heaven or a criminal who never desired to make amends for his crimes.

[Silvedania]

that question is irrelevant, even if he were a criminal he shouldn't have been murdered - after being apprehended - on the street. This trial isn't about whether George Floyd was guilty of anything, this trial is about whether Derek Chauvin is guilty or not.

Yet it's often portrayed as if he were an innocent cherub.

He may not have been, but he shouldn't have been killed!

[Arisyan]

Oh boy, this'll be interesting to see how long it takes until it gets locked. I give it a day.

He does obviously deserve to be arrested as he did commit murder, through and through.

[Ifreann]

that question is irrelevant, even if he were a criminal he shouldn't have been murdered - after being apprehended - on the street. This trial isn't about whether George Floyd was guilty of anything, this trial is about whether Derek Chauvin is guilty or not.

Yet it's often portrayed as if he were an innocent cherub.

In the context of his killing he was. He posed no danger to anyone. He was not making off with stolen property. He was suspected of passing a counterfeit twenty, as innocent a crime as one can imagine, something that even the most saintly person could very easily to without realising it.

[Alien Overlord]

I don't see how it makes me a babbling idiot considering my point was stated clearly and was relevant to evidence I already mentioned. I chose Robespierre and Stalin because they are examples that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of history can understand without extensive research, but my point stands. A point which quite obviously went over your head.

Yes, but the fact that you chose Robespierre and Stalin as examples didn't do your side of the debate any favours.

Then how about a different example?

Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer who died by the electric chair. By many accounts the electric chair is a horrible way to die. It can cause cardiac arrest, paralyses and respiratory failure. Does he deserve your sympathy for dying this way despite his horrible crimes?

[Western Theram]

a white man (Brock Turner) rapes two unconscious women behind a dumpster and is sentenced to 6 months in jail(of which he only did 3) because they talk about how this will destroy a promising future for him or some bs like that but a black man dies after having a cop kneel on his neck for about 9 minutes and everyone telling him (including the person who called to cops in the first place) was telling him to get off his neck cause he cant breathe and he's gonna kill him. then people talk about how hes a "thug" and a "criminal" so even if he was murdered in cold blood he "deserved it"

im hoping justice is served but knowing the history of policing in america i wouldn't be surprised if he got away with it. here's to hoping justice will be served

[SD_Film Artists]

Yet it's often portrayed as if he were an innocent cherub.

He may not have been, but he shouldn't have been killed!

I didn't say he should have, indeed I said the opposite.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes, but the fact that you chose Robespierre and Stalin as examples didn't do your side of the debate any favours.

Then how about a different example?

Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer who died by the electric chair. By many accounts the electric chair is a horrible way to die. It can cause cardiac arrest, paralyses and respiratory failure. Does he deserve your sympathy for dying this way despite his horrible crimes?

That was after due process, not during the arrest.

[Ifreann]

Of course he deserves sympathy. Whether he was a bad person or not is irrelevant. How someone lived doesn't change the manner of their death.

How someone dies doesn't change the manner in which they lived. I can sympathize with the way he died, I can't sympathize with him as a person. It's possible to recognize that bad things can happen to bad people. Regardless even if Floyd was a bad person, it shouldn't have any impact on the trial (which i'm sure you'll agree with). If it's your desire to sympathize with George Floyd then that's your business, but some people do recognize his crimes in the past and can't sympathize with him, it's something that should be understood to be an opinion when it comes down to it, it shouldn't have any bearing on the trial regardless of whether the general public thinks George Floyd was an angel sent from heaven or a criminal who never desired to make amends for his crimes.

You keep talking about recognising things that no one disputes, as if you think that sympathy for Floyd can only come from failing to recognise his criminal record. But what I keep telling you is that his criminal record is irrelevant.

[Esalia]

Yes, but the fact that you chose Robespierre and Stalin as examples didn't do your side of the debate any favours.

Then how about a different example?

Ted Bundy was a notorious serial killer who died by the electric chair. By many accounts the electric chair is a horrible way to die. It can cause cardiac arrest, paralyses and respiratory failure. Does he deserve your sympathy for dying this way despite his horrible crimes?

Even that doesn't really make it a better comparison.

We're not talking psychopathic dictator or violent revolutionary or serial killer, we're talking about a petty criminal. That's a pretty different league, at least to me, and it's easily possible to justify "the dictator, revolutionary and serial killer doesn't deserve sympathy, but the petty criminal does".

[Insaanistan]

Guys, you know Floyd hadn’t been convicted of murder at the time he was killed, right? He wasn’t doing anything illegal and hadn’t for a long while.
He’s not Ted Bundy, he’s not Stalin, he’s not Robespierre. Jeez.

[Mestovakia]

Can we go back to, you know, discussing the trial?

[Juristonia]

Can we go back to, you know, discussing the trial?

Nah, we gotta keep going back to things he may or may not have done more than a decade ago, preferably in a "Not saying he deserved it buuuuuuut" routine that will keep repeating itself throughout this thread for at least 20 or so pages.

It's the NS way.