David Duke, Former Grand Wizard Of The KKK, On Tucker Carlson

[Luigi]

36 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Demosthenes Wellington III, we meet again! 

My FB name is something like that. I've never posted a picture on that account, I've never specified a race, gender, age, school, education level, city, job, or anything else. But FB (or its artificial intelligence algorithm (which really ought to be called an Artificial Stupidity algorithm))  has "decided" who I must be and offers me lots of links to nearly naked women in provocative poses, or tattooed men posing with lots of guns & money. That account never has ads for colleges or churches. 

My point is that based on a name alone - no other information - FB has determined that I am a Black man, and has determined what Black men are interested in. And to my mind, both of those determinations are based on racial stereotypes propagated by the mainstream media. 

[little2add]

FB haha

 

[Clean Water]

On 7/3/2021 at 11:25 AM, Ice_nine said:

Maybe you can come educate him. I'm sure he'd be quite surprised to know that he enjoys watching a white supremacist. You know, these particular Blacks, we need to teach them to think the right way and how to stop being so racist towards themselves.

Your husband is free to watch Tucker whenever he wants. Where did I imply he wasn't? Like I said I often watch his show. Also never officially called Tucker a white supremacist. But what do you call someone who is lauded by David Duke and vilified George Floyd the entire trial and then had Candace Owens on the day of the verdict to go on and on why the jury got it wrong. 

 

 

Tucker says white supremacy isn't real. Meanwhile last week: Ohio police chief resigns after putting Ku Klux Klan note on Black officer's deskhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7873455002

[Peace]

On 7/9/2021 at 3:42 PM, Clean Water said:

But what do you call someone who is lauded by David Duke and vilified George Floyd the entire trial and then had Candace Owens on the day of the verdict to go on and on why the jury got it wrong.

What do you call him?

[Ice_nine]

On 7/9/2021 at 3:42 PM, Clean Water said:

Your husband is free to watch Tucker whenever he wants. Where did I imply he wasn't? Like I said I often watch his show. Also never officially called Tucker a white supremacist. But what do you call someone who is lauded by David Duke and vilified George Floyd the entire trial and then had Candace Owens on the day of the verdict to go on and on why the jury got it wrong.

I'll answer your questions in order

1) Nowhere.

2) I don't judge people because unsavory people happen to like said people. That is guilt by association, as was my original comment.

Some other points

Also Matt Walsh is not a racist.

And I love Matt Fradd and patronize the good work he does.

The jury did get the verdict wrong. I watched a lot of the trial because I couldn't work during the time because of an injury.

Just because one doesn't think George Floyd was a saint, hero, or good person does not mean you are vilifying him. We can argue about the relevance of bringing up someone's criminal past when they die in an unrelated police encounter. Sometimes it is relevant, sometimes it is not. In the Floyd case it probably was not. But when you have literal altars, statues, and iconography you start asking for that criticism.

Still waiting for those reparations from you, or if you bipoc, get me some of those white allies plz.

[Clean Water]

22 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

The jury did get the verdict wrong.

The jury got the verdict wrong? You're saying he should have been found innocent?

 

22 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

ut when you have literal altars, statues, and iconography you start asking for that criticism.

@dUSthad a picture of him depicted as Jesus on the Phatmass IG page. It's not there anylonger but was for a long time. Jesus said whatever you did to the least of men you did to him.

 

22 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

 

 

22 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Just because one doesn't think George Floyd was a saint, hero, or good person does not mean you are vilifying him.

None of this has any relevance with a knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds choking him out. It doesn't matter what type of person he was or anything he had done. Nothing justfies it. Dave Chappelle explains it better than I can although it's not that complicated. 

@dUSt does your family visit Phatmass? Do they read this stuff? How about Theory Haziit? Does he read the stuff on the forum? 

 

[Machine_Washable]

3 hours ago, Clean Water said:

@dUSt does your family visit Phatmass? Do they read this stuff? How about Theory Haziit? Does he read the stuff on the forum? 

 

Just argue your point. What is this?

[Clean Water]

On 7/11/2021 at 1:49 AM, Ice_nine said:

get me some of those white allies plz.

Abolitionists and co-conspirators are needed. Not white allies who more often than not are trying to be the hero and put the focus on themselves.

[Peace]

On 7/11/2021 at 1:49 AM, Ice_nine said:

The jury did get the verdict wrong. I watched a lot of the trial because I couldn't work during the time because of an injury.

Why do you think it was wrong? I have trouble seeing what was unreasonable about the verdict.

[Ice_nine]

18 hours ago, Clean Water said:

The jury got the verdict wrong? You're saying he should have been found innocent?

Are you American? This is not how the US justice system is supposed to function. You do not have to prove your innocence you only have to prove reasonable doubt.
 

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Why do you think it was wrong? I have trouble seeing what was unreasonable about the verdict.

I think there was reasonable doubt, definitely for second degree (and third if I understand it correctly). You could maybe swing me on a manslaughter charge. Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe prior to being put on the ground, he was actually asked to be taken out of the car (and put on the ground I think?), he had illegal narcotics in his system, the type of restraint used was permissible or recommended by the MPD, the overly emotional testimonies that didn't really provide factual information but seemed designed to be prejudicial against the defendant.

It's more faded in my memory now, but there were a lot of other problems including, but not limited to, politicians and protestors applying pressure and intimidation. I think the fact that the jury took a few hours to reach a verdict is evidence of this.

I think once Floyd was obviously unresponsive they should have ended the restraint, but that's an easy decision for me to make not having been there.

I've worked the past 5.5 years dealing with kids who have aggression problems. Some are little and easier to handle. But some of them are bigger and/or stronger than me (I'm a 5'5'' semi-husky lady), and when they're coming at you amped up trying to bite and kick and spit at you, it can be pretty scary, your adrenaline can shoot up and you just have to make decisions in the moment.

I'm not a "back the blue" chick but I have respect for the fact that cops have to deal with the most violent among us. At my job, I never feared for my life. I knew, barring a freak accident, I'd be OK. So while I think the officers crossed the line by staying on his neck past the point he was unresponsive, I know what it's like to have your adrenaline so far up you don't always think the clearest.

18 hours ago, Clean Water said:

None of this has any relevance with a knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds choking him out.

But his knee wasn't on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. Multiple camera angles proved this to be false. If you watched any of the trial you would likely know this. And you would also know that the cause of death was contested.

 

Look I was mad too when I saw the first video. I didn't like to watch a man die, on what appeared to be a callous officer smirking while he felt the life go out of someone.

But I was able to take a step back, regroup, and look at the evidence in context.

What bugs me the most about you knuckleheads is that this trial exonerated THE STATE. You know "the system" in the supposed systemic racism y'all are always whinging about. Well, this trial vindicated the system and placed all the blame on one "bad apple."

[Peace]

14 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Are you American? This is not how the US justice system is supposed to function. You do not have to prove your innocence you only have to prove reasonable doubt.

I am American. Sure, it is innocent until proven guilty. The defendant does not even have to prove reasonable doubt actually. The prosecution carries the burden to prove that there is no reasonable doubt. In this particular case, I think the prosecution met its burden. The jury, who saw all of the evidence, also thought so. I don't see anything in the evidence that is so-shockingly counter to the truth that leads me to think that the jury made a wrong decision. You seem to think that there is, but I still am not sure what that evidence is.

14 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think there was reasonable doubt, definitely for second degree (and third if I understand it correctly). You could maybe swing me on a manslaughter charge. Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe prior to being put on the ground, he was actually asked to be taken out of the car (and put on the ground I think?), he had illegal narcotics in his system, the type of restraint used was permissible or recommended by the MPD, the overly emotional testimonies that didn't really provide factual information but seemed designed to be prejudicial against the defendant.

OK he had breathing problems and took some drugs. He wasn't going to die, but for the actions of the officer. The evidence at trial did not indicate that the drugs killed him, or would have killed him. It's not like he was just about to drop dead in the next 10 minutes from the drugs and it's just a random coincidence that a police officer came by and put his knee on his neck.

Let's say it was a little old 90 year old lady, put in handcuffs, and the officer put his knee on her neck for 9 minutes (or whatever length of time it was). Are you gonna be like "Well she was 90 years old, she was frail and was gonna die anyway. If she had been a completely healthy young person she would have been able to survive an officer having his knee on her neck for 9 minutes. So she didn't die because of the officer, she died because she is old and frail." This is basically the same type of argument that you making, but I don't think the law works this way.

14 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

It's more faded in my memory now, but there were a lot of other problems including, but not limited to, politicians and protestors applying pressure and intimidation. I think the fact that the jury took a few hours to reach a verdict is evidence of this.

I don't know how long the jury was out, but a few hours seems relatively quick given the gravity of this case.

14 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think once Floyd was obviously unresponsive they should have ended the restraint, but that's an easy decision for me to make not having been there.

Well this is the question isn't it? At some point it become a bit unreasonable to keep your knee on the neck of a man who is in handcuffs, lying on the ground unresponsive, with no pulse. Let's say the officer kept his knee on the guys neck for another hour. After 60 minutes would you say "Oh its an easy decision for me but who knows what the officer should have done in the situation?" How about two hours? Three hours? No, that would be ridiculous. At some point the action becomes unreasonable conduct for any person, regardless of the situation. Here, the jury found that it was unreasonable, and it seems pretty darn unreasonable to most people watching the tape. You know that.

If it were anyone other than a police officer who did that we would say "throw the guy in jail" but for some reason with police officers some people seem to think they get extra-leeway to take patently unreasonable actions that would be prohibited to general members of the public. But it should be exactly the opposite - police officers should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the general public given their oath, duty, and training, not a lower standard of conduct.

14 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I've worked the past 5.5 years dealing with kids who have aggression problems. Some are little and easier to handle. But some of them are bigger and/or stronger than me (I'm a 5'5'' semi-husky lady), and when they're coming at you amped up trying to bite and kick and spit at you, it can be pretty scary, your adrenaline can shoot up and you just have to make decisions in the moment.

That's all good but look, as you concede, the guy was in handcuffs, unconscious, and had no pulse. Let's be reasonable here.

14 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I'm not a "back the blue" chick but I have respect for the fact that cops have to deal with the most violent among us. At my job, I never feared for my life. I knew, barring a freak accident, I'd be OK. So while I think the officers crossed the line by staying on his neck past the point he was unresponsive, I know what it's like to have your adrenaline so far up you don't always think the clearest.

Come on now. Having adrenaline up is not an excuse to make bad decisions that resulted in the death of another. Hell if that is an excuse then one can get away with literally anything. And let's keep it real its not like Chauvin was in the middle of a shootout here. Again, the guy was in handcuffs, on the ground, unresponsive and had no pulse. You are really gonna let him pull out the lame "I feared for my life" excuse at that point? If you are gonna let that go then literally a police officer can do anything simply say "I feared for my life" and get away for it.

A little old lady reaching into her purse poses more of a threat than a man in handcuffs, unresponsive, lying on the ground with no pulse!

Edited July 13, 2021 by Peace

[Ice_nine]

8 hours ago, Peace said:

OK he had breathing problems and took some drugs. He wasn't going to die, but for the actions of the officer. The evidence at trial did not indicate that the drugs killed him, or would have killed him. It's not like he was just about to drop dead in the next 10 minutes from the drugs and it's just a random coincidence that a police officer came by and put his knee on his neck.

Did you watch the trial? I really don't feel like much more energy on this if we're not even referring to the same data so to speak.

I watched a lot of it, but I didn't take notes. I don't remember everything I watched verbatim, I just remember a lot of things that at the time gave me paused and seemed like reasonable doubt.

I have no strong desire to really convince anyone either way. I've got bills to pay and other shiz to do. But if someone didn't even watch at least some of the trial, there is absolutely no reason to even have the discussion in the first.

9 hours ago, Peace said:

Let's say it was a little old 90 year old lady, put in handcuffs, and the officer put his knee on her neck for 9 minutes (or whatever length of time it was). Are you gonna be like "Well she was 90 years old, she was frail and was gonna die anyway. If she had been a completely healthy young person she would have been able to survive an officer having his knee on her neck for 9 minutes. So she didn't die because of the officer, she died because she is old and frail." This is basically the same type of argument that you making, but I don't think the law works this way.

 

His knee wasn't on his neck for 8 minutes. That's just factually not true. Maybe that makes no difference to you but to me it's just evidence you were not aware of the particulars of the case.

The analogy of the 90 year-old lady fails because the amount of "reasonable force" changes quite drastically. Floyd was a big dude. A 200+ male, even high and with a heart problem, is a much more difficult restraint than a 90 year old lady, or a skinny 15 year old boy.

And that really matters because the second degree murder charge requires "intention to inflict bodily harm." Sometimes in the commission of a restraint, injuries or death occur. That doesn't mean the harm was intended. If you put a 90 year old woman on the ground, it's a lot harder to prove you weren't trying to cause harm because restraining a 90 year old woman is a lot easier than restraining a large human male.

If you have a problem with the neck restraint, take that up with the MPD. Let me remind you, this was a victory for THE STATE. It was literally the State of Minnesota v. Chauvin. They train their officers and authorize them to use this "non-lethal" restraint, and then when ish went sideways wiped their hands clean of the whole affair.

9 hours ago, Peace said:

I don't know how long the jury was out, but a few hours seems relatively quick given the gravity of this case.

I disagree. Explain why there should be an inverse correlation between time and deliberation and the gravity of a given case. It seems like the opposite should be true.

 

9 hours ago, Peace said:

Well this is the question isn't it? At some point it become a bit unreasonable to keep your knee on the neck of a man who is in handcuffs, lying on the ground unresponsive, with no pulse. Let's say the officer kept his knee on the guys neck for another hour. After 60 minutes would you say "Oh its an easy decision for me but who knows what the officer should have done in the situation?" How about two hours? Three hours? No, that would be ridiculous. At some point the action becomes unreasonable conduct for any person, regardless of the situation. Here, the jury found that it was unreasonable, and it seems pretty darn unreasonable to most people watching the tape. You know that.

There was more than one tape. That one tape was allowed to proliferate and dominate our collective psyche. I thought Derek Chauvin was an obvious murderer and sociopath. He still might be those things. I only say this to point out that I too was swept up in the emotion of the national moment.

Also recall that I said I was open to a manslaughter charge. Even if Chauvin had made a bad decision because of adrenaline or whatever he is still responsible for his actions.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. It's not so much an issue of guilt, it's about having a little grace to say, or even just to understand, that after you wrestle someone who is large and uncooperative, who has been yelling about not being able to breathe, and you have a crowd of people around you screaming at you  . . . that maybe you wouldn't make the best decision either.

Quote

If it were anyone other than a police officer who did that we would say "throw the guy in jail" but for some reason with police officers some people seem to think they get extra-leeway to take patently unreasonable actions that would be prohibited to general members of the public. But it should be exactly the opposite - police officers should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the general public given their oath, duty, and training, not a lower standard of conduct.

Like it or not, the state has a legal right to use violence that is not permitted to us mere plebs. You can make a moral argument against that, sure, but that's the way it is broski. 

But again, let me reiterate, THE STATE WON THIS CASE. Sorry, had to say it extra loud for the people in the back.

Quote

Having adrenaline up is not an excuse to make bad decisions that resulted in the death of another.

Of course not, but in many criminal charges intent matters. What is reasonably going through someone's mind matters. That's why Kenneth Walker was not charged for firing at officers because it seemed like a reasonable fear response. And the officer who shot into another apartment was charged because, in a tough situation, he made an error that could have been deadly. That's why the officer who reached for her taser will likely be charged because she made a mistake under fight-or-flight.

Quote

You are really gonna let him pull out the lame "I feared for my life" excuse at that point?

It's not about fearing for your life even. Imagine you just got done wrestling a large person to the ground. You thought you might be hurt, now the threat seems to be eliminated. OK. But it DOES take a while for your physiology to reset itself after a violent confrontation. And when you have bystanders screaming at you, it will probably take longer for things to return to baseline.

But to reiterate I'm not saying that adrenaline eliminates all potential guilt, but it is part of the context in determining intent.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Did you watch the trial? I really don't feel like much more energy on this if we're not even referring to the same data so to speak.

I watched exactly 73.47% of the trial. Is that sufficient?

Look, the whole thing is on YouTube. I bet you can find a transcript too. If there is any specific piece of evidence or testimony that you want to discuss you should be able to link to it. I'd be happy to discuss it.

But unless you are gonna produce the specific evidence that apparently you and only you have seen because you watched more of the trial than the rest of us, I will continue find the whole "I watched more of it than you did therefore I win" argument to be a bit comical, to be frank.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I watched a lot of it, but I didn't take notes. I don't remember everything I watched verbatim, I just remember a lot of things that at the time gave me paused and seemed like reasonable doubt.

That's fine by me. I still don't specifically see what it is that makes you think that there is reasonable doubt, let alone coming out and saying that the jury got it wrong when the jury saw 100% of the trial (more than both you and me).

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I have no strong desire to really convince anyone either way. I've got bills to pay and other shiz to do. But if someone didn't even watch at least some of the trial, there is absolutely no reason to even have the discussion in the first.

That's cool. You ain't gotta convince me if you don't feel like it. I wanted to know why you concluded that the jury got it wrong. That's all. We can still be friends.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

His knee wasn't on his neck for 8 minutes. That's just factually not true. Maybe that makes no difference to you but to me it's just evidence you were not aware of the particulars of the case.

Well that's why I wrote "or whatever length of time it was" in my post above.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

The analogy of the 90 year-old lady fails because the amount of "reasonable force" changes quite drastically. Floyd was a big dude. A 200+ male, even high and with a heart problem, is a much more difficult restraint than a 90 year old lady, or a skinny 15 year old boy.

A man who literally is not breathing, handcuffed, lying on the ground unresponsive, and who has no pulse (otherwise known as "a half-dead man who needs a paramedic") is a whole lot easier to restrain than a 90 year old lady, old as she may be. Hell, at least she has a fighting chance. She can swing her purse at him or whatever it is that old ladies do.

Nobody is talking about what the police officers needed to do initially to restrain the suspect. We are talking about what is reasonable when a man is dying and in need of life-saving CPR. So the analogy succeeds quite well actually.

Again, what if the police officer kept his knee on his neck for 20 minutes? How about 30 minutes? An hour?  Is there literally no time period at which you are gonna admit the obvious and say "OK that's a bit much it's unreasonable for the police officer to stay on his neck for that long"? Or does the fact that Floyd is a "big dude" mean that the police officer gets to continue kneeling on his neck until the Lord Jesus returns to judge the Earth?

The question here is how long was reasonable. The jury concluded that the amount of time was unreasonable. How many minutes would be unreasonable to you? I would honestly like to know. How many minutes is it going to take for you to conclude "Actually, maybe he does want to hurt the man?"

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

And that really matters because the second degree murder charge requires "intention to inflict bodily harm." Sometimes in the commission of a restraint, injuries or death occur. That doesn't mean the harm was intended. If you put a 90 year old woman on the ground, it's a lot harder to prove you weren't trying to cause harm because restraining a 90 year old woman is a lot easier than restraining a large human male.

You are married no? Let's say your husband was lying on the ground unconscious, not breathing, without a pulse and was handcuffed. And for good argument lets say there was a wallet and a knife lying next to him on the ground.

I come along, say "Oh my it looks like this chap has committed a crime" and put my knee on your husband's neck for a several minutes, while other people sit there and shout "he's not breathing."

Would you conclude that I intended to inflict bodily harm?

If not, what would you conclude that my intent was? I just felt a need to restrain a half-dead man for a few minutes?

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

If you have a problem with the neck restraint, take that up with the MPD. Let me remind you, this was a victory for THE STATE. It was literally the State of Minnesota v. Chauvin. They train their officers and authorize them to use this "non-lethal" restraint, and then when ish went sideways wiped their hands clean of the whole affair.

If a police officer needs to do that to get an unruly suspect under control it could be OK. But that's not why the officer was found guilty. He was found guilty because it is unreasonable to keep your knee on the neck of somebody who is passed out, handcuffed, without a pulse and not breathing for several minutes. Come on - you know that is unreasonable do you not? Does the police policy say keep your knee on a man's neck for three minutes after he is clinically dead?

Are you really not seeing what seems to be obvious to so many people?

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I disagree. Explain why there should be an inverse correlation between time and deliberation and the gravity of a given case. It seems like the opposite should be true.

I'm not sure if you got the point I wanted to make there. Naturally, the more serious the crime, the longer the deliberations should be. If you have a situation where a jury comes back quickly that means that there was little doubt in the jury's mind concerning the culpability of the defendant. If it takes the jury days or weeks to convict likely there were one or more jurors who doubted that the defendant was guilty, and needed to be persuaded by the other jurors. In this case the jury came back quick, so it indicates that it was not a close case in their minds. It seems that they thought he was clearly guilty.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

There was more than one tape. That one tape was allowed to proliferate and dominate our collective psyche. I thought Derek Chauvin was an obvious murderer and sociopath. He still might be those things. I only say this to point out that I too was swept up in the emotion of the national moment.

Yeah but I think they could have convicted him based on the witness testimony alone. Everything you see in the tape was eye-witnessed by multiple people. Its not like any of the tapes made him guilty. He is guilty because his actions were unreasonable and a man died because of his actions.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Also recall that I said I was open to a manslaughter charge. Even if Chauvin had made a bad decision because of adrenaline or whatever he is still responsible for his actions.

That's cool.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Perhaps I should have been clearer. It's not so much an issue of guilt, it's about having a little grace to say, or even just to understand, that after you wrestle someone who is large and uncooperative, who has been yelling about not being able to breathe, and you have a crowd of people around you screaming at you  . . . that maybe you wouldn't make the best decision either.

I like to think that I would not keep my knee on the neck of a man who has been handcuffed, unbreathing, unconscious, with no pulse, for several minutes while an off-duty fireman is there trying to administer CPR.

And if I did I would expect to be convicted of a crime for it. And I'd surely be in the confessional at some point asking for forgiveness.

It's not like Chauvin is a little old lady here. He is a grown man. He received training as a police officer. He's not a rookie. He has been on the force for years. He is the man with the gun. He isn't the man with the handcuffs on. There are other police officers there (also men with guns) to back him up. Its broad daylight. Hell I grew up in the inner city during the crack era. My every day walk to school was more dangerous than this.

I mean I understand adrenaline and all of that jazz but he's not exactly a soldier in the Vietnamese jungle here. I don't see a whole lot here to be sympathetic for, or circumstances that make his actions understandable. What I see here is an unreasonable response under the circumstances and a man died because of it. I guess you see it differently from your perspective but that's cool. That's why we have a jury of many people to decide it.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Like it or not, the state has a legal right to use violence that is not permitted to us mere plebs. You can make a moral argument against that, sure, but that's the way it is broski. 

Well police officers don't have a legal right to murder and that is why Chauvin is going to jail. You can make a moral argument against that, sure, but that's just the way it is too, my dear.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

Of course not, but in many criminal charges intent matters. What is reasonably going through someone's mind matters. That's why Kenneth Walker was not charged for firing at officers because it seemed like a reasonable fear response. And the officer who shot into another apartment was charged because, in a tough situation, he made an error that could have been deadly. That's why the officer who reached for her taser will likely be charged because she made a mistake under fight-or-flight.

Well we infer intent in most cases from the circumstances. It's not like a murderer is gonna get on the stand and say "I intended to murder". In this case the jury inferred the requisite intent from the evidence presented and I still fail to see what is so clearly wrong about their conclusion.

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

It's not about fearing for your life even. Imagine you just got done wrestling a large person to the ground. You thought you might be hurt, now the threat seems to be eliminated. OK. But it DOES take a while for your physiology to reset itself after a violent confrontation. And when you have bystanders screaming at you, it will probably take longer for things to return to baseline.

But to reiterate I'm not saying that adrenaline eliminates all potential guilt, but it is part of the context in determining intent.

Yeah, I will agree that those things are a factor that the jury should and likely did consider. But at least for me, I still think its reasonable to conclude that he intended to cause him bodily harm given the amount of time that he was on his neck after he was passed out. The jury thought so too, apparently.

[Lilllabettt]

4 minutes ago, Peace said:

I watched exactly 73.47% of the trial. Is that sufficient?

Look, the whole thing is on YouTube. I bet you can find a transcript too. If there is any specific piece of evidence or testimony that you want to discuss you should be able to link to it. I'd be happy to discuss it.

But unless you are gonna produce the specific evidence that apparently you and only you have seen because you watched more of the trial than the rest of us, I will continue find the whole "I watched more of it than you did therefore I win" argument to be a bit comical, to be frank.

That's fine by me. I still don't specifically see what it is that makes you think that there is reasonable doubt, let alone coming out and saying that the jury got it wrong when the jury saw 100% of the trial (more than both you and me).

That's cool. You ain't gotta convince me if you don't feel like it. I wanted to know why you concluded that the jury got it wrong. That's all. We can still be friends.

Well that's why I wrote "or whatever length of time it was" in my post above.

A man who literally is not breathing, handcuffed, lying on the ground unresponsive, and who has no pulse (otherwise known as "a half-dead man who needs a paramedic") is a whole lot easier to restrain than a 90 year old lady, old as she may be. Hell, at least she has a fighting chance. She can swing her purse at him or whatever it is that old ladies do.

Nobody is talking about what the police officers needed to do initially to restrain the suspect. We are talking about what is reasonable when a man is dying and in need of life-saving CPR. So the analogy succeeds quite well actually.

Again, what if the police officer kept his knee on his neck for 20 minutes? How about 30 minutes? An hour?  Is there literally no time period at which you are gonna admit the obvious and say "OK that's a bit much it's unreasonable for the police officer to stay on his neck for that long"? Or does the fact that Floyd is a "big dude" mean that the police officer gets to continue kneeling on his neck until the Lord Jesus returns to judge the Earth?

The question here is how long was reasonable. The jury concluded that the amount of time was unreasonable. How many minutes would be unreasonable to you? I would honestly like to know. How many minutes is it going to take for you to conclude "Actually, maybe he does want to hurt the man?"

You are married no? Let's say your husband was lying on the ground unconscious, not breathing, without a pulse and was handcuffed. And for good argument lets say there was a wallet and a knife lying next to him on the ground.

I come along, say "Oh my it looks like this chap has committed a crime" and put my knee on your husband's neck for a several minutes, while other people sit there and shout "he's not breathing."

Would you conclude that I intended to inflict bodily harm?

If not, what would you conclude that my intent was? I just felt a need to restrain a half-dead man for a few minutes?

If a police officer needs to do that to get an unruly suspect under control it could be OK. But that's not why the officer was found guilty. He was found guilty because it is unreasonable to keep your knee on the neck of somebody who is passed out, handcuffed, without a pulse and not breathing for several minutes. Come on - you know that is unreasonable do you not? Does the police policy say keep your knee on a man's neck for three minutes after he is clinically dead?

Are you really not seeing what seems to be obvious to so many people?

I'm not sure if you got the point I wanted to make there. Naturally, the more serious the crime, the longer the deliberations should be. If you have a situation where a jury comes back quickly that means that there was little doubt in the jury's mind concerning the culpability of the defendant. If it takes the jury days or weeks to convict likely there were one or more jurors who doubted that the defendant was guilty, and needed to be persuaded by the other jurors. In this case the jury came back quick, so it indicates that it was not a close case in their minds. It seems that they thought he was clearly guilty.

Yeah but I think they could have convicted him based on the witness testimony alone. Everything you see in the tape was eye-witnessed by multiple people. Its not like any of the tapes made him guilty. He is guilty because his actions were unreasonable and a man died because of his actions.

That's cool.

I like to think that I would not keep my knee on the neck of a man who has been handcuffed, unbreathing, unconscious, with no pulse, for several minutes while an off-duty fireman is there trying to administer CPR.

And if I did I would expect to be convicted of a crime for it. And I'd surely be in the confessional at some point asking for forgiveness.

It's not like Chauvin is a little old lady here. He is a grown man. He received training as a police officer. He's not a rookie. He has been on the force for years. He is the man with the gun. He isn't the man with the handcuffs on. There are other police officers there (also men with guns) to back him up. Its broad daylight. Hell I grew up in the inner city during the crack era. My every day walk to school was more dangerous than this.

I mean I understand adrenaline and all of that jazz but he's not exactly a soldier in the Vietnamese jungle here. I don't see a whole lot here to be sympathetic for, or circumstances that make his actions understandable. What I see here is an unreasonable response under the circumstances and a man died because of it. I guess you see it differently from your perspective but that's cool. That's why we have a jury of many people to decide it.

Well police officers don't have a legal right to murder and that is why Chauvin is going to jail. You can make a moral argument against that, sure, but that's just the way it is too, my dear.

Well we infer intent in most cases from the circumstances. It's not like a murderer is gonna get on the stand and say "I intended to murder". In this case the jury inferred the requisite intent from the evidence presented and I still fail to see what is so clearly wrong about their conclusion.

Yeah, I will agree that those things are a factor that the jury should and likely did consider. But at least for me, I still think its reasonable to conclude that he intended to cause him bodily harm given the amount of time that he was on his neck after he was passed out. The jury thought so too, apparently.

I was surprised they got him. Glad they did, for selfish reasons. But apparently in the statute it wasn't required they had to prove Chauvin killed him independently of the drugs. Although an argument could be made Floyd built up a tolerance, once the delirium started for him it was over. It's not like with narcan where they can bring you back. The delirium is your brain dying while you're awake. It's scary AF. Don't do drugs.

I feel bad for Chauvin in that i sense he got annoyed at dealing with this guy and decided to use his position of power to get over on him a little. Iotw "oh you don't want to get in the car? [Applies knee] How about now, do you want to get in the car? Too bad."  Then he accidentally killed him. I feel bad because I can see myself abusing power this way as a parent - obvs not physically punishing a child but in the way of saying "you get what you get and you don't throw a fit" with a little too much enthusiasm.  Like, I know you prefer carrots but here's some peas because you're a pint sized a$$hole. Just using my power to reassert control a little more than is strictly necessary.  Now I know giving a child peas instead of carrots isn't the same thing as assaulting them but my point is I think I understand Chauvin. A statement which creeps me out. But. It's basically power plus lack of self discipline that leads to "accidents" like this.  You indulge those dark impulses until one day it catches up with you. 

Regardless of all that Chauvin is too stupid to be free.  If you accept, as I do, that Floyd was almost certainly going to die in custody at some point, there is no scenario where this plays out in such a way that people do not try burning Chauvins house down. Any cop that is being "proactive" in this day and age, and responding in a timely manner to calls for service relating to "financial crime" deserves what he or she gets. 

[dUSt]

On 7/11/2021 at 11:03 PM, Clean Water said:

 

@dUSthad a picture of him depicted as Jesus on the Phatmass IG page. It's not there anylonger but was for a long time. Jesus said whatever you did to the least of men you did to him.

 

I never had anyone depicted as Jesus on the phatmass IG, other than Jesus. Not sure what you're talking about?