Chauvin Murder Trial

[The Grand Nudger]

@SUNGULA

You a fellow car crash enthusiast, lol? I keep tabs on the nuts soap operas so I know what tomorrows talking points will be. I get the impression that some people want to throw shit at the tv every time tuck tuck opens his mouth - but I fuckin love it. Love...it. It makes me laugh and giggle like a child. Pure unfiltered glee.

The Wife says something is just ever so slightly out of whack between my ears, she's probably right.

[Reforged]

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?

Thanks. I will. 

Oh yes. It was a massively far-fetched conspiracy. The news conspired to put on reports of public officials declaring guilt that the jurors were free to watch.
Truly the work of the Illuminati.
You sound ridiculous.

Heres the thing, I've said repeatedly I'm not suggesting it influenced them. I'm suggesting there will be a retrial because of it. And there will be.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still an incredibly violent, unscrupulous person capable of anything that you *might* overcompensate for in the heat of the moment.  

Fun fact, you're not allowed to assault an incredibly violent, unscrupulous person capable of anything, with extreme recklessness, causing their death.

If you did that, you would be guilty of all the charges that chauvin has been convicted for.

The law protects criminals, too. Saying "I overcompensated"...would be an admission of guilt - but, also...intent. That's murder in the first. Good thing you weren't poor dereks lawyer, amiright?

[Reforged]

Still an incredibly violent, unscrupulous person capable of anything that you *might* overcompensate for in the heat of the moment.  

Fun fact, you're not allowed to assault an incredibly violent, unscrupulous person capable of anything, with extreme recklessness, causing their death.

If you did that, you would be guilty of all the charges that chauvin has been convicted for.

The law protects criminals, too.  Saying "I overcompensated"...would be an admission of guilt - but, also...intent.  That's murder in the first.  Good thing you weren't poor dereks lawyer, amiright?

So, cool thing I said; "contributory factor". 
Don't worry, I'll type it in nice bold letters for you next time.

[The Grand Nudger]

What you suggested would be a contributing factor to his conviction for murder in the first. Thankfully, no one who valued his life was so foolish as to suggest that he overcompensated. That he thought to himself, gee, this is a really bad guy, I better give him the harsh stick.

That...is....a.......crime. That would be intentional, not an accident. He got off on lesser charges.

[Reforged]

What you suggested would be a contributing factors to his conviction for murder in the first.  Thankfully, no one who valued his life was so foolish as to suggest that he overcompensated.

Correction. *Alone* it would be.
I didn't present it alone, did I.

Oh who am I kidding, you read bitesize chunks didn't you. I'm talking to someone wants to rattle on over a keyboard to a scapegoat.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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?

1. No the fact Floyd was violent toward an unarmed civilian does justify a group of armed  to  " overcompensate " period 

2. Yup there were enough to make him not a threat but nowhere near enough to fatally contribute to his death. Those are two separate things.

3. And there still isn't a debate 

4.Yes i have and it changes nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you like to continue our discussion of those other things you suggested, which you claim not to have suggested, or?

Look, I'm not trying to drag you over the coals here - I just get impatient when people bullshit me or, worse, themselves. I'm sure that we, together, could resolve your misapprehensions of the chauvin trial and verdict.

[Reforged]

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?

1. No the fact Floyd was violent toward an unarmed civilian does justify a group of armed  to  " overcompensate " period 

2. Yup there were enough to make him not a threat but nowhere near enough to fatally contribute to his death. Those are two separate things.

3. And there still isn't a debate 

4.Yes i have and it changes nothing.

1. Who trying to justify anything? A crime was committed, the question is what crime. 

2. Really? Not enough to put alittle extra strain on him? Not enough to make him just vulnerable enough to die to a level of force he wouldn't usually? Are you sure? Because the toxicology seemed to indicate the drugs weren't enough to kill him by themselves.

3. Sure, thats why you're stuck making points to someone who doesn't care either way.

4. Sort of my point, it doesn't change anything because you can barely see anything half the time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Excellent question. So, do you think that chauvin acted with extreme recklessness while assaulting a man, leading to that mans death?