Free dc now!!!!
Get those non English speakers off the jury.
Free dc now!!!!
Get those non English speakers off the jury.
Not in my hood wrote:
breit leit wrote:
Take their knee off his neck.
You need to better describe how you would deal with some one larger than you, on drugs, resisting arrest and calm then down and restrain them.
Not just say what you would do once they have calmed down.
I don’t need to do any such thing. You asked a question and I answered it. That is something they should have done differently, no?
breit leit wrote:
Not in my hood wrote:
You need to better describe how you would deal with some one larger than you, on drugs, resisting arrest and calm then down and restrain them.
Not just say what you would do once they have calmed down.
I don’t need to do any such thing. You asked a question and I answered it. That is something they should have done differently, no?
So... no solutions, just complaints! Typical!!
I already answered your question in prior posts.
What the hell? You tossed me a softball so I cranked it out of the park, and then you get mad.
Take your knee of the man’s neck who is dying.
breit leit wrote:
What the hell? You tossed me a softball so I cranked it out of the park, and then you get mad.
Take your knee of the man’s neck who is dying.
Sorry, you hit a foul ball, but still have two strikes left.
Why do you think I'm mad?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Muldoon wrote:
You posted this: "The two autopsies both concluded the drugs in his system did not contribute to his death."
That was a lie. You are a liar. You even contradicted your own lie within the space of two posts (bolded above).
You are also a race-trolling obsessed weirdo.
The drugs did not cause his death - that was the a definitive conclusion of one of the two autopsies, and the other did not produce a conclusion of a drug overdose.
You've changed your tune on the drug issue considerably, within the space of a page. That is plain for all to see.
Just so everyone knows, the second autopsy this creepy fool is referring to is one commissioned by Floyd's family. Such second, private autopsies are of limited value - basically it is an autopsy done long after the previous independent autopsy has already substantially modified the body. Such autopsies are also subject to bias (they are paid for). They are seldom admissible in court. This particular one, to the extent it purports to refute the lethal levels of fentanyl, isn't even an autopsy. They didn't re-checked the fentanyl levels because that would be impossible.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The homicide charges are based on evidence that Fkoyd was killed unlawfully by the police. But that doesn't suit your agenda. Hence you try to distort and misrepresent the medical examiners' findings. But that wouldn't be "race-trolling" - even though you would blame Floyd for his death and exonerate Chauvin - would it?
You wouldn't know this, having never set foot in the US, but in the US, conclusions as to guilt are NOT based on charges brought by the state. Here in the US, the charges are made by the state, and then there is a a system that involves an independent judiciary and jury that makes such determinations, based on an adversarial proceeding involving the state and the one charged. Guilts is then determined by the judicial system under what we call the "reasonable doubt" standard - the state must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is an acquittal.
The only distortions and misrepresentations of the medical examiner's findings were YOUR lies, which were shown above.
I haven't blamed Floyd for his death at all. I've pointed out that fatal levels of fentanyl in a victim's body would seem to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether he was murdered by another. It does a reasonable doubt for anyone with any objectivity.
Yea, get ready for summer BLM riots round 2. He will be acquitted despite the video clearly showing him strangling a hand cuffed man who never posed any threat to anyone. The key to the case will be the biased police autopsy showed Floyd did not die due to strangling. That will get him off. One juror will say, "he didn't commit murder if he died from something else."
Man, if me, you, or anyone else on this message board did something like that on tape we'd spend 30 to life in prison. Must be nice to be a cop. Get your murder fantasies out of the way and go home to your family telling them you served the community with honor.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
Yea, get ready for summer BLM riots round 2. He will be acquitted despite the video clearly showing him strangling a hand cuffed man who never posed any threat to anyone. The key to the case will be the biased police autopsy showed Floyd did not die due to strangling. That will get him off. One juror will say, "he didn't commit murder if he died from something else."
Man, if me, you, or anyone else on this message board did something like that on tape we'd spend 30 to life in prison. Must be nice to be a cop. Get your murder fantasies out of the way and go home to your family telling them you served the community with honor.
This is so true in every way, shape and form. How many will be badly injured and die, directly and indirectly from the upcoming riots?
Muldoon wrote:
Here in the US, the charges are made by the state, and then there is a a system that involves an independent judiciary and jury that makes such determinations, based on an adversarial proceeding involving the state and the one charged. Guilts is then determined by the judicial system under what we call the "reasonable doubt" standard - the state must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is an acquittal.
Unless you are high and having a panic attack about getting into a cop car. Then individuals of the state are allowed to kneel on your neck until you are dead.
baa baa wool wrote:
Muldoon wrote:
Here in the US, the charges are made by the state, and then there is a a system that involves an independent judiciary and jury that makes such determinations, based on an adversarial proceeding involving the state and the one charged. Guilts is then determined by the judicial system under what we call the "reasonable doubt" standard - the state must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is an acquittal.
Unless you are high and having a panic attack about getting into a cop car. Then individuals of the state are allowed to kneel on your neck until you are dead.
Please name ONE other person that has died/been killed as a result of the knee to the neck technique. As brutal as police are, especially to black people, I'm sure you can rattle of a dozen or so, but I just need the information on one other person.
Not in my hood wrote:
baa baa wool wrote:
Unless you are high and having a panic attack about getting into a cop car. Then individuals of the state are allowed to kneel on your neck until you are dead.
Please name ONE other person that has died/been killed as a result of the knee to the neck technique. As brutal as police are, especially to black people, I'm sure you can rattle of a dozen or so, but I just need the information on one other person.
Please point out what I said that was incorrect.
Armstrong stated many months ago that he was black, now he's white,
he has no credibility.
You wouldn't know this, having never set foot in the US, but in the US, conclusions as to guilt are NOT based on charges brought by the state
this is the single most statment that proves armstronglivs aint a lorya.
i have no truck wiv a lot of wot a says, but when he sez he is a loya, he just loosez all credibility.
Let it Rupp wrote:
I am thinking Chauvin was innocent. Once the tapes came out, you can easily tell the use of the force was justified, along with the autopsy report that showed the amount of drugs Floyd was on definitely played a role in his death.
If this didn't happen during an election season, this wouldn't be as "groundbreaking" an incident that the media made this out to be. I'm sorry but a guy dying while resisting arrest and high on enough opiates to kill a horse doesn't merit national coverage. This whole story was clearly just to rile up the Democrats' base and provide easy photo ops for Democrat politicians, as was shown by the ridiculous funeral ceremony which saw Floyd buried in a gold casket with high-profile Democrat politicians in attendance. This was all political theater and the idiot sheep took the bait. This was clearly all curated to push a narrative of "evil, racist, white republicans creating a system of racism that kills innocent black men" that the Democrat heroes will save everybody from.
As to what the ruling will be? I am saying he is innocent of murder charges but might catch a manslaughter conviction. I am thinking that is why it took almost a year for a pretty cut-and-dry case to have a ruling, because they wanted to wait for tensions to cool before making a ruling that they know will clearly cause riots. Although, it doesn't matter what the ruling will be, even if Chauvin gets the death penalty, far-left fanatics will riot because his death wasn't painful enough - expect blood to be shed in far-left cities like Portland and San Francisco.
Uh....George Floyd is not on trial. Chauvin is. It is the Chauvin trial.
Muldoon wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The drugs did not cause his death - that was the a definitive conclusion of one of the two autopsies, and the other did not produce a conclusion of a drug overdose.
You've changed your tune on the drug issue considerably, within the space of a page. That is plain for all to see.
Just so everyone knows, the second autopsy this creepy fool is referring to is one commissioned by Floyd's family. Such second, private autopsies are of limited value - basically it is an autopsy done long after the previous independent autopsy has already substantially modified the body. Such autopsies are also subject to bias (they are paid for). They are seldom admissible in court. This particular one, to the extent it purports to refute the lethal levels of fentanyl, isn't even an autopsy. They didn't re-checked the fentanyl levels because that would be impossible.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The homicide charges are based on evidence that Fkoyd was killed unlawfully by the police. But that doesn't suit your agenda. Hence you try to distort and misrepresent the medical examiners' findings. But that wouldn't be "race-trolling" - even though you would blame Floyd for his death and exonerate Chauvin - would it?
You wouldn't know this, having never set foot in the US, but in the US, conclusions as to guilt are NOT based on charges brought by the state. Here in the US, the charges are made by the state, and then there is a a system that involves an independent judiciary and jury that makes such determinations, based on an adversarial proceeding involving the state and the one charged. Guilts is then determined by the judicial system under what we call the "reasonable doubt" standard - the state must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise there is an acquittal.
The only distortions and misrepresentations of the medical examiner's findings were YOUR lies, which were shown above.
I haven't blamed Floyd for his death at all. I've pointed out that fatal levels of fentanyl in a victim's body would seem to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether he was murdered by another. It does a reasonable doubt for anyone with any objectivity.
There is only any doubt if you're a white supremacist, who looks for any excuse for a white policeman who kills a black person. You're full of words and slimy excuses for Chauvin but the facts and the law are quite simple: if it was established forensically that Floyd had died of an overdose criminal charges would not have been brought and if taken to court the charges could have been dismissed. But Chauvin is standing trial because he killed Floyd - slowly, concertedly and brutally. But like many Americans of your persuasion, you're obviously ok with witnessing over 8 minutes of horror.
pupil3142 wrote:
You wouldn't know this, having never set foot in the US, but in the US, conclusions as to guilt are NOT based on charges brought by the state
this is the single most statment that proves armstronglivs aint a lorya.
i have no truck wiv a lot of wot a says, but when he sez he is a loya, he just loosez all credibility.
You wouldn't know this but criminal charges are brought by the state - not the state geographically but the constitutional authority entailed with applying and enforcing the law. It is not a private prosecution, brought by individuals against another.
runnerboy70 wrote:
Armstrong stated many months ago that he was black, now he's white,
he has no credibility.
No, he didn't. Moron.
Not in my hood wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Not for you. That would be asking too much. But when a court finds Chauvin guilty of homicide the question will be resolved.
If enough evidence is presented and that happens, great! Can you say the same if the verdict goes the other way?
I wouldn't count on a court doing that.
You wouldn't know this, having never set foot in the US, but in the US, conclusions as to guilt are NOT based on charges brought by the state. [/quote]
You wouldn't know this but criminal charges are brought by the state - not the state geographically but the constitutional authority entailed with applying and enforcing the law. It is not a private prosecution, brought by individuals against another. And, you also wouldn't know that I have set foot in the US. Add it to the growing list of what you dont know.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Not in my hood wrote:
If enough evidence is presented and that happens, great! Can you say the same if the verdict goes the other way?
I wouldn't count on a court doing that.
Could you at least answer the question?