The trial was fine and the verdict was correct. Trying to blame external factors for the verdict won't fly, And a retrial is as likely as Floyd rasing from the dead.

(April 22, 2021 at 6:07 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 5:59 am)Reforged Wrote: I wasn't saying he was. I was saying his violent past would have contributed to the disproportionate response and that this should not be discounted.
All factors need to be considered when deciding the degree guilt. We can dislike the act, we can dislike the person but the reaction must be proportionate to the circumstances and what we know of both men.

They weren't initially going to press for second, I don't think they thought they could get it at first and given the wiggle room afforded to the defense by the circumstances I can't say I blame them. 
Public opinion definitely played a role. The jury and witnesses were not sequestered, public officials were dishing out guilt like it was in fashion and the use of force experts old house was smeared in pigs blood and had a pigs head laid outside it. 

Regardless of whether it was the right verdict or not this was a horrendously tainted trial. We can definitely expect a retrial at some point when things cool down. I imagine the defense probably knew that, infact the judge told him as much at one point.

It did, and they were pretty damned brutal in restraining him.  Chauvin committed the crime for which he was charged and convicted -after- Floyd was fully restrained.  Public opinion and tainted juries played absolutely no role in what chauvin did, for ten minutes, on video, in front of everyone's lying eyes.  He committed the crimes for which he was charged and convicted -at least.  IMO, it was more than that, but hey, whatevs, it's nice when the bad man does the bad shit on tape, right?  You think that being a bad guy needs to be counted in when it comes to floyd...fine, same with chauvin.

He was committing assault, and through his extreme recklessness, caused a mans death.  Those were the charges, that was the conviction.  If you want to insist that taint played a part in convicting him for exactly what he did on camera, you could at least explain how, rather than waving at some boogeyman.

You are putting words in my mouth. I think its you who is looking for a boogeyman.
Go for a walk, do some breathing exercises and talk to me when you're ready to be civil.

(April 22, 2021 at 6:10 am)Reforged Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 6:00 am)SUNGULA Wrote: Yes says me and apparently the justice system, And some people would debate me over the shape of the earth it's irrelevant, Furthermore, the willingness to do unpleasant things is neither here nor there when we're comparing a group of armed cops to an unarmed woman (Who there no evidence was pregnant) is simply off, And his history is not a factor in this scenario, And I will dismiss it because it's worthy of dismissal regardless of whether someone else cares or not.

Oh she wasn't pregnant? It was just a regular woman him and his gang threatened with a firearm? In that case fair enough, she had it coming.
No history of violence for cops to be wary of here.

As I said, I'm not invested in any side but if you want me to take you seriously you need to stop dismissing relevant evidence out of hand. 
Chauvin killed him, whether it was murder is not as clear-cut as you would like. Sorry.

Did I imply here lack of pregnancy made the crime any less awful or that she deserved it? No, I didn't so kindly stop imposing positions on me.  I only pointed that out because you keep bringing up an inaccurate or at the very least unproven claim. And again a history of violence against unarmed women has nothing to do with a history of violence against a group of armed men so no there was little serious threat Floyd posed. I dismiss irrelevant evidence if you don't like that I really don't care, And yes it's clear cut it was murder sorry you can't handle that.

(April 22, 2021 at 6:19 am)SUNGULA Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 6:10 am)Reforged Wrote: Oh she wasn't pregnant? It was just a regular woman him and his gang threatened with a firearm? In that case fair enough, she had it coming.
No history of violence for cops to be wary of here.

Like I said, I'm not invested in any side but if you want me to take you seriously you need to stop dismissing relevant evidence out of hand. 
Chauvin killed him, whether it was murder is not as clear cut as you would like. Sorry.

Did I imply here lack of pregnancy made the crime any less awful or that she deserved it? No, I didn't so kindly stop imposing positions on me  I only pointed that out because you keep bringing up an inaccurate or at the very least unproven claim. And again a history of violence against unarmed women has nothing to do with a history of violence against a group of armed men so no there was little serious threat Floyd posed. I dismiss irrelevant evidence if you don't like that I really don't care and yes it's clear cut it was murder. Sorry

You seemed to find it very important that this human being did not have a fetus inside her at the time of a violent criminal entering her home and threatening her life. 
You deem it irrelevant, I suggest that it is not. I suggest that a man with a violent past on fentanyl and meth amphetamine may be prone to act in unpredictable, violent ways. I suggest that anyone in that position would be a fool not to adjust their reaction based on that information.
It is possible that overreaction could occur as a result.
It is a factor worth consideration. Are you *really* beyond acknowledging that?

(April 22, 2021 at 6:29 am)Reforged Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 6:19 am)SUNGULA Wrote: Did I imply here lack of pregnancy made the crime any less awful or that she deserved it? No, I didn't so kindly stop imposing positions on me  I only pointed that out because you keep bringing up an inaccurate or at the very least unproven claim. And again a history of violence against unarmed women has nothing to do with a history of violence against a group of armed men so no there was little serious threat Floyd posed. I dismiss irrelevant evidence if you don't like that I really don't care and yes it's clear cut it was murder. Sorry

You seemed to find it very important that this human being did not have a fetus inside her at the time of a violent criminal entering her home and threatening her life. 
You deem it irrelevant, I suggest that it is not. I suggest that a man with a violent past on fentanyl and meth amphetamine may be prone to act in unpredictable, violent ways. I suggest that anyone in that position would be a fool not to adjust their reaction based on that information.
It is possible that overreaction could occur as a result.
It is a factor worth consideration. Are you *really* beyond acknowledging that?

Your the one who brought it up in the first place then repeated it. I was simply pointing there is no evidence that it's the case. I'm sorry if accuracy bothers you.  And yes I deem it irrelevant. Being on drugs does not alter the fact he was up against a group of armed men and that the drugs were clearly doing more to hinder him than aid him in a potential struggle not to mention his health issues. Thus my original point stand Floyd was no serious threat to the officers and they used excessive force on him resulting in his death.

(April 22, 2021 at 6:13 am)Reforged Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 6:07 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It did, and they were pretty damned brutal in restraining him.  Chauvin committed the crime for which he was charged and convicted -after- Floyd was fully restrained.  Public opinion and tainted juries played absolutely no role in what chauvin did, for ten minutes, on video, in front of everyone's lying eyes.  He committed the crimes for which he was charged and convicted -at least.  IMO, it was more than that, but hey, whatevs, it's nice when the bad man does the bad shit on tape, right?  You think that being a bad guy needs to be counted in when it comes to floyd...fine, same with chauvin.

He was committing assault, and through his extreme recklessness, caused a mans death.  Those were the charges, that was the conviction.  If you want to insist that taint played a part in convicting him for exactly what he did on camera, you could at least explain how, rather than waving at some boogeyman.

You are putting words in my mouth. I think its you who is looking for a boogeyman.
Go for a walk, do some breathing exercises and talk to me when you're ready to be civil.

We have different notions of civility.  Being completely upfront, if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for me to be any more civil by whatever measure you define it.

Did you or did you not suggest that the jury was tainted?  Did you or did you not suggest that chauvin was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with and convicted for?  Did you or did you not suggest that something about what floyd had done some other time and what he did before he was restrained needed to be factored in for chauvins crime? I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that I've misunderstood something, you just go ahead and tell me what I misunderstood.

(April 22, 2021 at 6:47 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 6:13 am)Reforged Wrote: You are putting words in my mouth. I think its you who is looking for a boogeyman.
Go for a walk, do some breathing exercises and talk to me when you're ready to be civil.

We have different notions of civility.  Being completely upfront, if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for me to be any more civil by whatever measure you define it.

Did you or did you not suggest that the jury was tainted?  Did you or did you not suggest that chauvin was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with and convicted for?  Did you or did you not suggest that something about what floyd had done some other time and what he did before he was restrained needed to be factored in for chauvins crime?

I do not consider knowingly mischaracterizing my points in the pursuit of a cheap "ah-ha" moment to be civil. I consider it to be intellectually dishonest.
A tainted trial does not mean I think there was some massive conspiracy at play, it means what it says on the tin. It was tainted by outside forces that I clearly defined (vocal officials, mobs, expert intimidation, the identities of the jurors being out in the open), the fact the judge even had to set aside time to address and acknowledge those forces points to this. Regardless of whether or not it influenced the verdict these factors were present and will be taken into account when an appeal is made. 

You are keenly aware of what my point was, it was inescapably clear. I will thank you not to cheaply tarnish it with smear tactics like implying the presence of a tin foil hat again.
I assume you are capable of that level of restraint.

You can consider me anything you like, but I'm wondering whether you did or did not suggest those things.

Apparently, I didn't misunderstand you. You did suggest the jury was tainted. Now you suggest conspiracy. Stuff that noise. I think that the jury convicted him because they watched him commit the crimes which he was charged with on tape. You're suggesting that they convicted him because they feared the mob might do something to them otherwise.

So that's one down. Next?

(April 22, 2021 at 7:05 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You can consider me anything you like, but I'm wondering whether you did or did not suggest those things.  

Apparently, I didn't misunderstand you.  You did suggest the jury was tainted.  Now you suggest conspiracy.  Stuff that noise.  I think that the jury convicted him because they watched him commit the crimes which he was charged with on tape.  You're suggesting that they convicted him because they feared the mob might do something to them otherwise.

So that's one down.  Next?

Funny enough Carlson Tucker tried pushing the idea that the jury was intimidated into their verdict.

(April 22, 2021 at 6:40 am)SUNGULA Wrote:

(April 22, 2021 at 6:29 am)Reforged Wrote: You seemed to find it very important that this human being did not have a fetus inside her at the time of a violent criminal entering her home and threatening her life. 
You deem it irrelevant, I suggest that it is not. I suggest that a man with a violent past on fentanyl and meth amphetamine may be prone to act in unpredictable, violent ways. I suggest that anyone in that position would be a fool not to adjust their reaction based on that information.
It is possible that overreaction could occur as a result.
It is a factor worth consideration. Are you *really* beyond acknowledging that?

Your the one who brought it up in the first place then repeated it. I was simply pointing there is no evidence that it's the case. I'm sorry if accuracy bothers you.  And yes I deem it irrelevant. Being on drugs does not alter the fact he was up against a group of armed men and that the drugs were clearly doing more to hinder him than aid him in a  potential struggle not to mention his health issues. Thus my original point stand Floyd was no serious threat to the officers and they used excessive force on him resulting in his death.

The evidence for pregnancy is several reports, I agree thats not sufficient to confirm she was pregnant. Still an incredibly violent, unscrupulous person capable of anything that you *might* overcompensate for in the heat of the moment.  

Drugs and health issues, more contributory factors to his death. Let me guess... severe enough to hinder him but not severe enough to contribute to an accidental manslaughter?
There was no debate about excessive force. There wasn't even a debate about whether it was murder or manslaughter. You were debating me on whether it can even be debated based on these factors, whether its even a question. An issue worth discussing.
Have you seen the bodycam footage?