Guilty on all three counts.

[yngrshr]

just found this thread.

two sides to this.
I think Murder was unwarranted but i wasnt on the jury panel.

I mean, he was very clearly guilty of third degree murder. I don't think there is any real question on that one, frankly (him being high at the time is really immaterial - addressed below_. The statutory definition of that is: "Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years."

I think the second degree murder charge was a bit harder to prove. Granted, I find the Minnesota statute for second degree to be a bit of a head scratcher in all honesty.

That Floyd was high is pretty much immaterial; it would really just be a contributing factor that could potentially shave down a sentence. There's this really weird rush to blame the drugs for everything in Floyd's death. We don't do that elsewhere in the law, generally (see the eggshell plaintiff rule if anyone remembers first year Tort Law). This carries over to the criminal side as well. That a person was fragile is not an excuse if you kill them. This also applies to cops if they commit a crime.

 

[yngrshr]

Bottom line is that cops are not targeting black people regardless of what Princess LeBron James says. Way more white people, armed and unarmed, are killed by cops. Almost all the time because the person is an idiot and resists arrest or fights the cops. A group that makes up only 13% of the population but commits over 50% of violent crimes is bound to have more interactions with police. These interactions will continue to go south especially since our culture, media, and politicians no longer respect police. I really feel for our law enforcement. Toughest job in America and it will only get worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I do agree with this, respect is a two-way street. Community policing has really been pushed aside and deescalation tactics were not really embraced for a long time. I mean, I live in a very small town in northern NJ and I'd say more than half the police here don't live in town. And it's not like I live in some unsafe town. But the force, here, is very detached from the community itself at times.

The police need to earn the respect back while the members of the community need to understand that policing is hard and the majority of cops aren't bad people. I don't like seeing people disparage cops for no reason. But the "thin blue line" stuff and the "wall of silence" crap absolutely adds to the distrust from the community.

At the end of the day, I have confidence that the police will earn that trust and respect back. But it is 100% a two-way street and pitting this as a "police vs. everyone else" mindset is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Frankly, that's the kind of stuff that leads to bad cops like Chauvin.

 

[Jshaffer3819]

While I do agree with this, respect is a two-way street. Community policing has really been pushed aside and deescalation tactics were not really embraced for a long time. I mean, I live in a very small town in northern NJ and I'd say more than half the police here don't live in town. And it's not like I live in some unsafe town. But the force, here, is very detached from the community itself at times.

The police need to earn the respect back while the members of the community need to understand that policing is hard and the majority of cops aren't bad people. I don't like seeing people disparage cops for no reason. But the "thin blue line" stuff and the "wall of silence" crap absolutely adds to the distrust from the community.

At the end of the day, I have confidence that the police will earn that trust and respect back. But it is 100% a two-way street and pitting this as a "police vs. everyone else" mindset is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Frankly, that's the kind of stuff that leads to bad cops like Chauvin.

I partially agree with your statements. First, Chauvin was an idiot and not representative of 99% of cops. Just look in his eyes when his knee was on Floyd. He looked deranged and almost like he enjoyed it. Pathetic. However, that never happens if the suspect complies. Chauvin was doing his job correctly up until that point so both parties were at fault. However, cops are heals to a higher standard.

As for earning the respect of the community, that’s where I disagree. That’s not their job. How can you earn the respect of the community if your job is to enforce laws and put people in jail or write speeding tickets? People don’t like them no matter what. The reason they have “lost the respect” of the community is due to people like Obama, Biden, George Soros, Princess LeBron James, Drew Brees, and all these other ass clowns demonizing law enforcement and making everything about race. Putting thugs on pedestals after they get shot for fighting with cops. You can’t tell me they have not contributed to this climate of hating cops. These idiots give thugs, both white and black, the balls to argue and disrespect cops. Cops are there to enforce laws and we need to respect their authority/badge regardless of how anyone feels about cops. All the touchy-feely BS can be dealt with by doing their gotcha cell phone videos like the dumb ass 2nd Lieutenant tried to do on his traffic stop. Completely his fault for not complying.

Bottom line, listen to cops and we never hear these stories. It’s like living at home and dealing with your parents. My house my rules. If the cop is crooked or corrupt, the traffic stop or street interaction is not the time or place to protest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jshaffer3819]

While I do agree with this, respect is a two-way street. Community policing has really been pushed aside and deescalation tactics were not really embraced for a long time. I mean, I live in a very small town in northern NJ and I'd say more than half the police here don't live in town. And it's not like I live in some unsafe town. But the force, here, is very detached from the community itself at times.

The police need to earn the respect back while the members of the community need to understand that policing is hard and the majority of cops aren't bad people. I don't like seeing people disparage cops for no reason. But the "thin blue line" stuff and the "wall of silence" crap absolutely adds to the distrust from the community.

At the end of the day, I have confidence that the police will earn that trust and respect back. But it is 100% a two-way street and pitting this as a "police vs. everyone else" mindset is the absolute wrong way to go about it. Frankly, that's the kind of stuff that leads to bad cops like Chauvin.

Sorry, I forgot to mention, what is wrong with the “ Thin Blue Line?” Its just a symbol supporting their own and law enforcement in general. Thin red line too for cops. I have shirts and stickers on my ST with the thin blue line. I am not a cop, retired one, but I support them 100%. People need to get over all this sensitivity stuff. It was fine a few years ago until all the activists attacked it now they want it cancelled. Like tearing down monuments from our past. Just crazy in my opinion. If you are a law abiding citizen, you are on the same team as cops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UNBROKEN]

He has a ton of things to appeal on. Most are long shots but he’s still got a chance. Even the trial judge said so...along with every legal expert that’s chimed in.
As far as rjacobs last sentence...see below.I believe he’s 100% correct.

 

[yngrshr]

He has a ton of things to appeal on. Most are long shots but he’s still got a chance. Even the trial judge said so...along with every legal expert that’s chimed in.
As far as rjacobs last sentence...see below.I believe he’s 100% correct.

What are these "tons of things"?

The judge made an offhand remark since he was pissed off (rightfully so) at Maxine Waters. However, 99.99999% of high profile cases have some sort of similar, inflammatory comments made at any given time. Those cases are not overturned on appeal. I would expect this one to go the same way. This is not uncommon at all.

 

[yngrshr]

I partially agree with your statements. First, Chauvin was an idiot and not representative of 99% of cops. Just look in his eyes when his knee was on Floyd. He looked deranged and almost like he enjoyed it. Pathetic. However, that never happens if the suspect complies. Chauvin was doing his job correctly up until that point so both parties were at fault. However, cops are heals to a higher standard.

As for earning the respect of the community, that’s where I disagree. That’s not their job. How can you earn the respect of the community if your job is to enforce laws and put people in jail or write speeding tickets? People don’t like them no matter what. The reason they have “lost the respect” of the community is due to people like Obama, Biden, George Soros, Princess LeBron James, Drew Brees, and all these other ass clowns demonizing law enforcement and making everything about race. Putting thugs on pedestals after they get shot for fighting with cops. You can’t tell me they have not contributed to this climate of hating cops. These idiots give thugs, both white and black, the balls to argue and disrespect cops. Cops are there to enforce laws and we need to respect their authority/badge regardless of how anyone feels about cops. All the touchy-feely BS can be dealt with by doing their gotcha cell phone videos like the dumb ass 2nd Lieutenant tried to do on his traffic stop. Completely his fault for not complying.

Bottom line, listen to cops and we never hear these stories. It’s like living at home and dealing with your parents. My house my rules. If the cop is crooked or corrupt, the traffic stop or street interaction is not the time or place to protest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is always a two way street. The idea that cops can be successful without getting the trust and respect of the people they police is absurd. The motto is "protect and serve". You can't do either without a level of trust and a level of respect.

I'm not really going to go further since I don't see the need to inflame and demonize people I disagree with. The weird mentioning of George Soros makes me think that this is a bit deeper than just supporting police, though.

 

[yngrshr]

Sorry, I forgot to mention, what is wrong with the “ Thin Blue Line?” Its just a symbol supporting their own and law enforcement in general. Thin red line too for cops. I have shirts and stickers on my ST with the thin blue line. I am not a cop, retired one, but I support them 100%. People need to get over all this sensitivity stuff. It was fine a few years ago until all the activists attacked it now they want it cancelled. Like tearing down monuments from our past. Just crazy in my opinion. If you are a law abiding citizen, you are on the same team as cops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "thin blue line" phrase is divisive rhetoric from police and people that want to make policing into an "us vs. them" narrative. Hell, it was popularized in the US by Bill Parker of all people (talk about "us vs. them") and the history behind the phrase dates back to war time in England.

I'll say that the phrase was never meant to be racist, never meant to be anything like that. And I think that's certainly taking it way too far when people go that route. But I'll never be a fan of purposefully pushing an "us vs. them" narrative.

I don't understand the comment on "cancelling."

 

[rjacobs]

He has nothing of substance to appeal on. Perhaps he can argue ineffective counsel (his defense attorney was shockingly bad at times).

What in the world would he even allege that would result in a successful appeal?

Your last sentence is absurd, though. Of course this would have gone to trial. Had there not been video, though, I doubt it would have.

LOL

High profile politicians chiming it not only throughout, but in the last minutes of the trial and deliberation... pushing bias. Pretty sure when Trump did that a few times the D's went absolutely BALLISTIC and claimed he was tampering with evidence and the whole case should be thrown out... but now that THEY are doing its JUST FINE and "part of the process"...

Alternate jurors speaking out saying they were afraid during jury selection that if they had been selected and didnt "come through with the right verdict" that their houses, lives, family's lives, etc... were in jeopardy... So the real jurors DAMN SURE felt the same way. No way that this guy got a fair trial. And im not agreeing with most things he did that day as I think he and the other officers totally screwed up that whole situation... but IM NOT A COP and IVE NEVER BEEN IN THAT POSITION. So I will refrain from being the typical monday morning QB... Guessing you have never been in that position either.

And as to my last sentence you say its absurd, but then you AGREE WITH IT...

Had this event not been recorded and become politically explosive it never would have seen the light of day...take that to the bank...

 

[Jshaffer3819]

This is always a two way street. The idea that cops can be successful without getting the trust and respect of the people they police is absurd. The motto is "protect and serve". You can't do either without a level of trust and a level of respect.

I'm not really going to go further since I don't see the need to inflame and demonize people I disagree with. The weird mentioning of George Soros makes me think that this is a bit deeper than just supporting police, though.

So if a cop pulls you over, you will only do what he/she says if you respect them? I don’t recall ever seeing in the constitution or state statutes that say you only have to comply if you respect law enforcement! And I injected George Soros because he is finding BLM and pushing all this anti cop hate. Not sure why facts are weird to you. Follow the money and you will always get your answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jshaffer3819]

The "thin blue line" phrase is divisive rhetoric from police and people that want to make policing into an "us vs. them" narrative. Hell, it was popularized in the US by Bill Parker of all people (talk about "us vs. them") and the history behind the phrase dates back to war time in England.

I'll say that the phrase was never meant to be racist, never meant to be anything like that. And I think that's certainly taking it way too far when people go that route. But I'll never be a fan of purposefully pushing an "us vs. them" narrative.

I don't understand the comment on "cancelling."

So you say the phrase was never meant to be racist or anything like that. So why is it racist now? Hence the woke comment. Man, not rocket science. Just because someone applies a new feeling/meaning to a phrase doesn’t make it true. Thin Blue Line all the way!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jshaffer3819]

What are these "tons of things"?

The judge made an offhand remark since he was pissed off (rightfully so) at Maxine Waters. However, 99.99999% of high profile cases have some sort of similar, inflammatory comments made at any given time. Those cases are not overturned on appeal. I would expect this one to go the same way. This is not uncommon at all.

Have you heard comments by alternate jurors saying they were scared if he wasn’t found guilty that they would burn the city down? Where have you been.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yngrshr]

LOL

High profile politicians chiming it not only throughout, but in the last minutes of the trial and deliberation... pushing bias. Pretty sure when Trump did that a few times the D's went absolutely BALLISTIC and claimed he was tampering with evidence and the whole case should be thrown out... but now that THEY are doing its JUST FINE and "part of the process"...

Alternate jurors speaking out saying they were afraid during jury selection that if they had been selected and didnt "come through with the right verdict" that their houses, lives, family's lives, etc... were in jeopardy... So the real jurors DAMN SURE felt the same way. No way that this guy got a fair trial. And im not agreeing with most things he did that day as I think he and the other officers totally screwed up that whole situation... but IM NOT A COP and IVE NEVER BEEN IN THAT POSITION. So I will refrain from being the typical monday morning QB... Guessing you have never been in that position either.

And as to my last sentence you say its absurd, but then you AGREE WITH IT...

Had this event not been recorded and become politically explosive it never would have seen the light of day...take that to the bank...

I don't like anyone commenting on a trial regardless of their political backgrounds. However, that alone is largely pretty meaningless when it comes to appeal in a case like this.

I'm not sure how you can say that Chauvin didn't get a fair trial. The evidence is all on video. This wasn't something done in a smoke filled back room.

 

[yngrshr]

So if a cop pulls you over, you will only do what he/she says if you respect them? I don’t recall ever seeing in the constitution or state statutes that say you only have to comply if you respect law enforcement! And I injected George Soros because he is finding BLM and pushing all this anti cop hate. Not sure why facts are weird to you. Follow the money and you will always get your answer.

I do/say the bare minimum with/to a cop if I am in a situation where I am pulled over or being questioned. I don't know what the Constitution has to do with respect, though. Just because someone should generally comply with lawful orders doesn't mean that policing isn't a two-way street. I think you weirdly tried to shoehorn the Constitution into your quote since you had no real response to me. The Constitution has nothing to do with policing being a two-way street where respect is earned and not unilaterally given.

George Soros is such a hilarious boogieman to some people. Generally, when his name is invoked, it's due to general misinformation of the person tossing his name out there. He'll probably be invoked even after he dies since it's such a crutch at this point.

So you say the phrase was never meant to be racist or anything like that. So why is it racist now? Hence the woke comment. Man, not rocket science. Just because someone applies a new feeling/meaning to a phrase doesn’t make it true. Thin Blue Line all the way!

I see you once again ignored everything in the post. I don't personally find the phrase racist. I thought I made that abundantly clear. You're right that this isn't rocket science, though I don't think in the way you intended.

However, the phrase is 100% an "us vs. them" narrative. And that's a big problem since policing is not "us vs. them." It's "us protecting and serving them."

Have you heard comments by alternate jurors saying they were scared if he wasn’t found guilty that they would burn the city down? Where have you been.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/posts-mislead-on-words-of-alternate-juror-in-chauvin-trial/

I'm not on board with the twisting of words that has gone on. I've been around the whole time - I just don't buy into stuff that is easily debunked. There was a single quote by a single juror who was hesitant about serving on the jury in general.

This same juror then said that no external pressure was applied to the jurors and that the jurors were unaware of anything going on outside of the courtroom:

"Raguse asked her whether she thought “outside forces would’ve played a role at all in your decision.”

“I don’t,” she responded. “I feel like we took this trial very seriously, we didn’t want anything to go wrong. I feel like none of us watched the news or were on our phones [on] social media or anything. We did not discuss it among any of us, so I wasn’t aware until afterwards, when I got released, the magnitude of everything.”

At the end of the day, hyper-partisans at OAN took that a single quote from that same alternate juror and tried to twist it. However, if you actually read the full interview and look at her full statement, it is abundantly clear that external pressures on the jurors were generally non-existent. Hell, the actual interviewer slammed OAN for this and called out noted clown Jack Posobiec for his BS.

So, to answer your question? I've been here. I just don't read or watch hyper-partisan media since they very frequently either twist words or inject flat out falsehoods into the "reporting." I suggest you do the same since you seem to be deep into the weeds in that hyper-partisan crap.

 

[Jshaffer3819]

I do/say the bare minimum with/to a cop if I am in a situation where I am pulled over or being questioned. I don't know what the Constitution has to do with respect, though. Just because someone should generally comply with lawful orders doesn't mean that policing isn't a two-way street. I think you weirdly tried to shoehorn the Constitution into your quote since you had no real response to me. The Constitution has nothing to do with policing being a two-way street where respect is earned and not unilaterally given.

George Soros is such a hilarious boogieman to some people. Generally, when his name is invoked, it's due to general misinformation of the person tossing his name out there. He'll probably be invoked even after he dies since it's such a crutch at this point.



I see you once again ignored everything in the post. I don't personally find the phrase racist. I thought I made that abundantly clear. You're right that this isn't rocket science, though I don't think in the way you intended.

However, the phrase is 100% an "us vs. them" narrative. And that's a big problem since policing is not "us vs. them." It's "us protecting and serving them."



https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/posts-mislead-on-words-of-alternate-juror-in-chauvin-trial/

I'm not on board with the twisting of words that has gone on. I've been around the whole time - I just don't buy into stuff that is easily debunked. There was a single quote by a single juror who was hesitant about serving on the jury in general.

This same juror then said that no external pressure was applied to the jurors and that the jurors were unaware of anything going on outside of the courtroom:

"Raguse asked her whether she thought “outside forces would’ve played a role at all in your decision.”

“I don’t,” she responded. “I feel like we took this trial very seriously, we didn’t want anything to go wrong. I feel like none of us watched the news or were on our phones [on] social media or anything. We did not discuss it among any of us, so I wasn’t aware until afterwards, when I got released, the magnitude of everything.”

At the end of the day, hyper-partisans at OAN took that a single quote from that same alternate juror and tried to twist it. However, if you actually read the full interview and look at her full statement, it is abundantly clear that external pressures on the jurors were generally non-existent. Hell, the actual interviewer slammed OAN for this and called out noted clown Jack Posobiec for his BS.

So, to answer your question? I've been here. I just don't read or watch hyper-partisan media since they very frequently either twist words or inject flat out falsehoods into the "reporting." I suggest you do the same since you seem to be deep into the weeds in that hyper-partisan crap.

Maybe this will help. It’s obvious written facts don’t help so maybe a picture will.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GalenaST]

I don't know anyone who would argue that Chauvin wasn't an idiot. His actions were the fuse that lit the powder keg of the year 2020. Still does not justify all of the destruction and damage that occurred in the aftermath.

The "fuse" was the liberal media, not Chauvin.

 

[yngrshr]

The "fuse" was the liberal media, not Chauvin.

I don't agree with this at all. You even had members on Fox News calling this outcome proper (many of them - even Judge Jeanine - saying that the outcome was the right outcome).

These protests would've happened regardless. Autoworker is right. Chauvin's actions were a true powder keg.

Still not sure why everyone races to go "HERP DERP, LIBERAL MEDIA" or "HERP DERP, CONSERVATIVE MEDIA" when you have instances like this. Both sides do this and it's obnoxious.

We should view Chauvin's actions on their own.

 

[yngrshr]

Maybe this will help. It’s obvious written facts don’t help so maybe a picture will.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure why you bothered to draw something to prove that you haven't read anything I've written (since I've never said or even insinuated that people only need to abide by laws if they respect the police), but that may be the single funniest thing I've seen in a while.

At least you go all out when you're ignorant.

Plus, I think it's telling that you didn't have anything to say about the juror statements. I hope you take my advice and stay away from the hyper-partisan media you seem to take in. It's a lot easier not living in a hyper-partisan bubble.

 

[rjacobs]

I don't agree with this at all. You even had members on Fox News calling this outcome proper (many of them - even Judge Jeanine - saying that the outcome was the right outcome).


Still not sure why everyone races to go "HERP DERP, LIBERAL MEDIA" or "HERP DERP, CONSERVATIVE MEDIA" when you have instances like this. Both sides do this and it's obnoxious.

LOL at you thinking Fox news is anything other than a SLIGHTLY less liberal form of CNN/CNBC... LOLOLOLOLOL

Tucker Carlson is about the only person left over there that is "conservative" and he's gotta have pics or video of some shit he shouldnt have to not have been shit canned long ago.

 

[Jshaffer3819]

I'm not sure why you bothered to draw something to prove that you haven't read anything I've written (since I've never said or even insinuated that people only need to abide by laws if they respect the police), but that may be the single funniest thing I've seen in a while.

At least you go all out when you're ignorant.

Plus, I think it's telling that you didn't have anything to say about the juror statements. I hope you take my advice and stay away from the hyper-partisan media you seem to take in. It's a lot easier not living in a hyper-partisan bubble.

It’s obvious you just are on the wrong side of this issue and you will never admit it. No sense Having a logical discussion with anyone who believes the media is not one sided. The Communist News Network (CNN) Technology Director even admitted they did their best to get Trump out of office. Where have you been? As for Fox, they are not conservative! Hannity and Tucker are the only ones that get any of my time.

Regarding your juror comments, I did not respond because it was such a ludicrous attempt to show the jury was not effected. She states “I feel like we didn’t use our phones, we didn’t look at social media?” Such BS. We’re they living under a rock before they were selected for jury duty? Seriously? You believe they had no idea what was going to happen if they did not render a guilty verdict. I’m done with this conversation. Not worth the fingerprints off my hands to show you facts. Let the place burn. I don’t give a rats ass. I’ll be in Florida where we have a real governor who supports law enforcement regardless of what the liberal media says. Oh the media isn’t liberal, check out there 60 Minutes hit piece against DeSantis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk