George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

Tell me there wouldn't be a different amount of media coverage and protests/riots if Ashli was black?

Not in my hood wrote:

Tell me there wouldn't be a different amount of media coverage and protests/riots if Ashli was black?

The Trump riot received maximum media coverage. It would have received the same coverage if more of Trump's rioters were black, or a different political group tried to murder politicians and prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Why would there be a riot in response to Babbitt being killed whilst rioting? Was there a riot in response to the handling of the riots in 1992? Was there a riot in response to any other riot? It's hard to imagine the police stopping a riot without violence, in which case why wouldn't there be riots all the time?

Not in my hood wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If the victim was an upstanding member of society - and white - or even a little old lady, God forbid - no one would be coming forward to justify Chauvin's actions. It wouldn't matter what the victim had in their systems. But the police wouldn't see the need to "restrain" a white suspect like they did Floyd - especially a "respectable" suspect. There would be outrage from whites all over America that the police killed a person over an alleged fake 20 dollar bill. But not here. Because the victim was a black American male. He must have deserved it. That's how it's always worked in your country, hasn't it?

Wrong again!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/no-racial-bias-police-shootings-study-harvard-prof/

The good old Washington Times - a voice for the Right. Aside from the Harvard professor, there have been plenty of studies that demonstrate systemic racism by police. Most blacks can also testify to that - which is why thousands went to the streets to protest last year. They'd had enough. I'll take their experiences over the views of the good professor.

wazzu1452 wrote:

I don't care that he was killed by the police.

"Hennepin County medical examiners released the toxicology report on June 2nd, 2020 which stated that George Floyd was indeed intoxicated with Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, and traces of cannabinoids and morphine at the time of his death."

He made his own bed.

So the police should get to decide who lives and who dies. Such a civilised approach.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Not in my hood wrote:

Wrong again!

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/no-racial-bias-police-shootings-study-harvard-prof/

The good old Washington Times - a voice for the Right. Aside from the Harvard professor, there have been plenty of studies that demonstrate systemic racism by police. Most blacks can also testify to that - which is why thousands went to the streets to protest last year. They'd had enough. I'll take their experiences over the views of the good professor.

Yeah, always trust emotions over evidence and facts.

So only 2-8 Years if he is Convicted, I have a feeling people wont be happy about that and may Riot after that sentence is given.

how is anyone going to look good in this situation?

https://www.startribune.com/watch-live-trial-of-minneapolis-police-officer-derek-chauvin-for-george-floyd-death/600031682/

Interesting that the judge appears to be arguing against the prosecution without the defense saying anything?

Finally defense comes to the stand and simply agrees with the judge. easy life. in fact, having had the judge do the legwork, he now builds on it.

judge probably going to recall the seven selected jurors to ask them if the 27milion lawsuit has prejudiced them since selection.

defense points out that the mayor who announced it is himself a lawyer.

When I popped on they were going to recess.

Can you give details to what your heard?

first juror, no 51, says she is so shocked by the size of the settlement she doesnt think she could keep it out of her mind.

then she says she cant cope with the officer in question, and she can give the three a fair trial, but her mind is made up for chauvin.

and the judge excuses her.

that was brutal.

Finding good jurors will be extremely difficult.

Not in my hood wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The good old Washington Times - a voice for the Right. Aside from the Harvard professor, there have been plenty of studies that demonstrate systemic racism by police. Most blacks can also testify to that - which is why thousands went to the streets to protest last year. They'd had enough. I'll take their experiences over the views of the good professor.

Yeah, always trust emotions over evidence and facts.

I disagree with this ...never trust the professor’s emotions over the evidence and facts of others experiences!!

dlsnl wrote:

Not in my hood wrote:

States that need government aid to cover underfunded pensions and cities that haven't been able to balance a budget in years...you know Democrat ran states and cities.

Again.... red states are typically the most reliant on federal funding to survive. Blue states typically pay more into the federal government than they receive and red states typically take more than they give. It takes very little effort to look this information up.

Typical liberal...wants you to do the work.

Reflection_ wrote:

Not in my hood wrote:

Yeah, always trust emotions over evidence and facts.

I disagree with this ...never trust the professor’s emotions over the evidence and facts of others experiences!!

Sarcasm refers to the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say, especially in order to insult someone, or to show irritation, or just to be funny. For example, saying "they're really on top of things" to describe a group of people who are very disorganized is using sarcasm.

TheOhioState wrote:

dlsnl wrote:

Again.... red states are typically the most reliant on federal funding to survive. Blue states typically pay more into the federal government than they receive and red states typically take more than they give. It takes very little effort to look this information up.

Typical liberal...wants you to do the work.

Yeah, if he needs info on red and blue states, it's already too late.

Not in my hood wrote:

Reflection_ wrote:

I disagree with this ...never trust the professor’s emotions over the evidence and facts of others experiences!!

Sarcasm refers to the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say, especially in order to insult someone, or to show irritation, or just to be funny. For example, saying "they're really on top of things" to describe a group of people who are very disorganized is using sarcasm.

I said what I said refers to the use of words that mean exactly what I really wanted to say and said it!!

Reflection_ wrote:

Not in my hood wrote:

Sarcasm refers to the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say, especially in order to insult someone, or to show irritation, or just to be funny. For example, saying "they're really on top of things" to describe a group of people who are very disorganized is using sarcasm.

I said what I said refers to the use of words that mean exactly what I really wanted to say and said it!!

Yeah, I get that. I was being sarcastic!

Borya wrote:

Why would there be a riot in response to Babbitt being killed whilst rioting? Was there a riot in response to the handling of the riots in 1992? Was there a riot in response to any other riot? It's hard to imagine the police stopping a riot without violence, in which case why wouldn't there be riots all the time?

Because if Ashli were black and was the only one shot in the 1/6 Riot you could bet the race card would have been laid down hard! The fact that there has been little coverage of an unarmed, non-violent female being shot seems alarming to me, regardless of her race.

The issue isn't being shot while rioting, the issue is why was she shot, and why was she the only one shot? Certainly many protesters that day were way more threatening then she was!