Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Dresderstan]

Go start your revolution.

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Tell that to MLK he didn't see civil rights passed because he was killed, we didn't get civil rights in 68 until after he was killed and riots broke out across the city. Your not gonna get wide sweeping change with peaceful protests and voting.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Go start your revolution.

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Quite the opposite, it might be just what we need. How many decades longer would we have had slavery if we hadn't burned the South to the ground?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Im not saying there should be violence. Im completely opposed to the actions some are suggesting.

I wasn't directing it at you--sorry. I know you're not. I'm with you. Bad wording on my part.

[Kanadorika]

I wouldn't mind if Chauvin was shot during the process of the murder.

Of course this will never happen. Americans don't like violence. That's why nothing will change. The only othe alternative is violence from the top down, with the feds getting involved and treating the police like the police treat protestors.

Wouldn't that be hilarious? Imagine the National Guard coming along and busting up a police line like cops do to protestors.

Private O'Toole BTFOs a highly trainee veteran police officer by clobbering him with his unloaded vintage M16.

[San Lumen]

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Tell that to MLK he didn't see civil rights passed because he was killed, we didn't get civil rights in 68 until after he was killed and riots broke out across the city. Your not gonna get wide sweeping change with peaceful protests and voting.

The Civil Rights act passed in 1964.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Tell that to MLK he didn't see civil rights passed because he was killed, we didn't get civil rights in 68 until after he was killed and riots broke out across the city. Your not gonna get wide sweeping change with peaceful protests and voting.

The Civil Rights act passed in 1964.

But the hatred continued. F***in' Jim Crow supporters were disgusting.

[Senkaku]

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Honestly, if we ever hit a state of civil war, it would make Syria look like a children’s playground, not to mention kick off a large number of conflicts around the world.

I don't think we'd live long enough for that to happen. Too many loose nukes rattling around, eventually they're going to start going off. The Soviets got veeeeery lucky they didn't have a full-blown civil war and didn't actually have any stray warheads slip into the wrong hands (people motivated and knowledgeable enough to use them).

[Alcala-Cordel]

I'm glad Chauvin's gone too, but this changes almost nothing about the system. This isn't gonna be the start of a trend where courts hold cops accountable, cops are just gonna be a little more careful about getting caught murdering people.

[Galloism]

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Quite the opposite, it might be just what we need. How many decades longer would we have had slavery if we hadn't burned the South to the ground?

Our first civil war was much more regional. If we had one on conservative/liberal lines, it would be way way worse than the first one, because it would be a street to street neighbor to neighbor conflict.

Even in liberal bastions at least a third of the population is conservative, and in conservative bastions it’s the same story.

This would be a very very bad thing - much worse than the civil war, which was bad enough.

Fortunately, the likelihood of such is remote. It’s more likely we are heading for a period of “the troubles”.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

And you wanna know what would happen if you just simply burned it all down right now? Literally all of that but 100x worse, plus absolute metric fuck tons of people dead.

By this metric nothing would ever change. Serious and substantive changes often require conflict and some degree of violence.

I’d rather something more smart, thought out and strategic happen than the whole “let’s burn this whole motherfucker to the ground!” garbage since I kinda like not being dead.

[San Lumen]

The Civil Rights act passed in 1964.

But the hatred continued. F***in' Jim Crow supporters were disgusting.

Yes it did but that was a landmark moment that helped end segregation

[Ifreann]

Go start your revolution.

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

If the police are murdering you, don't incite violence, just calmly request that they respect your rights.

[Tsaivao]

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Quite the opposite, it might be just what we need. How many decades longer would we have had slavery if we hadn't burned the South to the ground?

The South was the side that incited the violence by firing the first shots at Fort Sumter, North Carolina. They got absolutely destroyed, and the socioeconomic effects of that are still felt today.

[Galloism]

Honestly, if we ever hit a state of civil war, it would make Syria look like a children’s playground, not to mention kick off a large number of conflicts around the world.

I don't think we'd live long enough for that to happen. Too many loose nukes rattling around, eventually they're going to start going off. The Soviets got veeeeery lucky they didn't have a full-blown civil war and didn't actually have any stray warheads slip into the wrong hands (people motivated and knowledgeable enough to use them).

Indeed, and for the record, I’d say the possibility of such is remote.

I do think we’re heading for a period of “the troubles” or “years of lead”.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

Quite the opposite, it might be just what we need. How many decades longer would we have had slavery if we hadn't burned the South to the ground?

I don’t think we need tens of millions dead and irreparable societal damage.

[Senkaku]

Go start your revolution.

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

I agree mass violence is probably not the road to a positive national transformation or rebirth, but let's not equate a little bit of judiciously-applied arson here and there with civil war. I mean, even the occasional political assassination doesn't get you to that level (though it would be a hell of a lot worse than the odd government building burning down).

[Senkaku]

Quite the opposite, it might be just what we need. How many decades longer would we have had slavery if we hadn't burned the South to the ground?

I don’t think we need tens of millions dead and irreparable societal damage.

I'm sure plenty of McClellan supporters said the same thing in '64 tbh.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

But the hatred continued. F***in' Jim Crow supporters were disgusting.

Yes it did but that was a landmark moment that helped end segregation

And 'twas Chad.

By this metric nothing would ever change. Serious and substantive changes often require conflict and some degree of violence.

I’d rather something more smart, thought out and strategic happen than the whole “let’s burn this whole motherfucker to the ground!” garbage since I kinda like not being dead.

I like it, too!!!

Quite the opposite, it might be just what we need. How many decades longer would we have had slavery if we hadn't burned the South to the ground?

I don’t think we need tens of millions dead and irreparable societal damage.

We don't.
Out of context, that reminds me of WWII.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Quite the opposite, it might be just what we need. How many decades longer would we have had slavery if we hadn't burned the South to the ground?

I don’t think we need tens of millions dead and irreparable societal damage.

I agree, plus, there's no guarantee that the groups that emerge would have desirable goals. A violent group may be like Nelson Mandela or something along the lines of Parmehutu. They might seek civil rights or racial separation, or revenge; the latter two being concerning.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I don’t think we need tens of millions dead and irreparable societal damage.

I'm sure plenty of McClellan supporters said the same thing in '64 tbh.

We're in a different situation than we were in the 1860s. A war to end slavery was needed; here, it's possible to be avoided.

[Senkaku]

I don't think we'd live long enough for that to happen. Too many loose nukes rattling around, eventually they're going to start going off. The Soviets got veeeeery lucky they didn't have a full-blown civil war and didn't actually have any stray warheads slip into the wrong hands (people motivated and knowledgeable enough to use them).

Indeed, and for the record, I’d say the possibility of such is remote.

I do think we’re heading for a period of “the troubles” or “years of lead”.

The Red Brigade shoots politicians so the government will collapse, which is like shooting lightbulbs to make the sun go down.

I'll get the popcorn.

Seriously, though. If you want people to listen to your points, don't incite violence. Protest, march, state your opinion--you have that right under the Constitution. But you don't have the right to risk the wellbeing of others through violent crimes such as arson/murder. That solves nothing. The US is polarized enough as it is; the last thing we need is another civil war.

If the police are murdering you, don't incite violence, just calmly request that they respect your rights.

Vote!

[Australian rePublic]

He's gonna have a shitty time in jail. I can't imagine the other inmates taking kindly to a cop who killed someone. America, needs to teach cops desculation. Cops here in Australia will kill someone as an absolute last resort, and when they do, it makes the news. I can only remember the cops only killing one or two person in the last ten years. What Derek Chauvin did was funked up, and he should be prosecuted, but when your training teaches mostly about killing people and how to kill people, what do you expect?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

I'm sure plenty of McClellan supporters said the same thing in '64 tbh.

We're in a different situation than we were in the 1860s. A war to end slavery was needed; here, it's possible to be avoided.

A war is absolutely not necessary.

Maybe you shouldn't have SECEDED in the FIRST PLACE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

[Dresderstan]

But the hatred continued. F***in' Jim Crow supporters were disgusting.

Yes it did but that was a landmark moment that helped end segregation

No it didn't there was still wide spread segregation and discrimination in 68 again African-americans, civil rights act of 68 mate hate crimes against people's race, religion, sex and natural origin illegal, made housing discrimination illegal, and gave widespread rights and freedoms to native tribes, all because King was killed and people wanted change and rioted.

[Senkaku]

I'm sure plenty of McClellan supporters said the same thing in '64 tbh.

We're in a different situation than we were in the 1860s. A war to end slavery was needed; here, it's possible to be avoided.

Meh. The definition of war has changed since the 1860s. I don't think we'll really be able to tell when we've officially crossed from "emergent hybrid conflict" into "full hybrid war," but I don't really see many indications that anything in the country is changing in a way that'll buck the long-term trend of rising political polarization, and the accompanying growing risk of violence.