George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

MSNBC had a 60 minute special yesterday called "The Killing of George Floyd".

It's amazing that they are allowed to produce and televise such biased programming.

Also interesting is we are approaching the 5th anniversary of the death of Prince.

How did his fentanyl levels compare to George Floyd?

Not all areas are the same wrote:

MSNBC had a 60 minute special yesterday called "The Killing of George Floyd".

Good.

is there graffiti on the wall in the court room behind the judge?

Opening video is pretty powerful, surprised they stated so soon when a bystander was telling GF to give up and go in to the car, and surprised the attorney used the words grinding and crushing and stated that GF said his stomach hurt.

pupil3142 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Oh - so second-degree murder isn't really serious then - even though it's still called murder? That must make it ok. Unfortunately for Chauvin it is also easier to prove - which is why the prosecutors have opted for it.

good lord. unable to distinguish between comparative and absolute? some lawyer you must be.

I am absolutely sure you are a comparative ignoramus on the law. You think by reading a few Google articles that you are legally literate. You aren't. Chauvin is facing several charges relating to unlawful killing, not just the one charge of second degree murder. As the prosecution do not have to prove prior intent to kill Floyd, the ingredients of the charges Chauvin faces are easily satisfied on the evidence of the video alone. But in your seeking to minimise Chauvin's culpability you reveal the repugnant underlying prejudice in your arguments.

Armstronglivs wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

good lord. unable to distinguish between comparative and absolute? some lawyer you must be.

I am absolutely sure you are a comparative ignoramus on the law. You think by reading a few Google articles that you are legally literate. You aren't. Chauvin is facing several charges relating to unlawful killing, not just the one charge of second degree murder. As the prosecution do not have to prove prior intent to kill Floyd, the ingredients of the charges Chauvin faces are easily satisfied on the evidence of the video alone. But in your seeking to minimise Chauvin's culpability you reveal the repugnant underlying prejudice in your arguments.

i was questioning your understanding of english, not the law. You have failed. the rest of what you have said is irrelevant since you havent grasped the problem.

pupil3142 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am absolutely sure you are a comparative ignoramus on the law. You think by reading a few Google articles that you are legally literate. You aren't. Chauvin is facing several charges relating to unlawful killing, not just the one charge of second degree murder. As the prosecution do not have to prove prior intent to kill Floyd, the ingredients of the charges Chauvin faces are easily satisfied on the evidence of the video alone. But in your seeking to minimise Chauvin's culpability you reveal the repugnant underlying prejudice in your arguments.

i was questioning your understanding of english, not the law. You have failed. the rest of what you have said is irrelevant since you havent grasped the problem.

Your English is always going to be poorly understood. The problem is that it is unimprovable.

Armstronglivs wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

i was questioning your understanding of english, not the law. You have failed. the rest of what you have said is irrelevant since you havent grasped the problem.

Your English is always going to be poorly understood. The problem is that it is unimprovable.

the really strange part of your latest tirade is that i was actually agreeing with you regarding seond degre murder and intent. but you are so far off on your ridiculous hobby horse you even argue with those agreeing with you.

And next; Jena Scurry, the dispather just finished for the prosection - i found her very credible and the clever way the prosecution presented it was very damning. be interestng to see how the defence turn this around, if they can, or if they even try.

pupil3142 wrote:

And next; Jena Scurry, the dispather just finished for the prosection - i found her very credible and the clever way the prosecution presented it was very damning. be interestng to see how the defence turn this around, if they can, or if they even try.

What was good or bad about what she said? I was unable to watch all of it this morning and only caught a little of her testimony.

Has anyone picked up anything new that you feel is newsworthy from the trial this morning?

pupil3142 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your English is always going to be poorly understood. The problem is that it is unimprovable.

the really strange part of your latest tirade is that i was actually agreeing with you regarding seond degre murder and intent. but you are so far off on your ridiculous hobby horse you even argue with those agreeing with you.

And next; Jena Scurry, the dispather just finished for the prosection - i found her very credible and the clever way the prosecution presented it was very damning. be interestng to see how the defence turn this around, if they can, or if they even try.

We are not in agreement. My "ridiculous hobby horse" is that, like the prosecutors, I believe Chauvin committed homicide. But that is ridiculous to you.

Armstronglivs,

Have you watched the entire trial this morning?

Oh, so when i agreed that second degree murder is an intentional killing in Minnesta - which bit do you disagree with?

Not all areas are the same wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

And next; Jena Scurry, the dispather just finished for the prosection - i found her very credible and the clever way the prosecution presented it was very damning. be interestng to see how the defence turn this around, if they can, or if they even try.

What was good or bad about what she said? I was unable to watch all of it this morning and only caught a little of her testimony.

She essentially testified that whilst semi absractly wacthing the live security footage she thought it sufficiently strange to call the supervising seargeant.

The only come back i can think is that she admitted she had never seen an event like that - so on what past expereince was she basing her opinion? and calling the seargeant is routine for many other things, such as the unrelated knife she started talking about. I guess the defense may not wish to risk labouring these points, and would be surprised if they can turn this around effectively. how significant is it?

Is there a way to block Armstronglivs? I would simply scroll on by but his spam consumes too much of each page and it's become increasingly difficult to find posts in the midst of it.

pupil3142 wrote:

Oh, so when i agreed that second degree murder is an intentional killing in Minnesta - which bit do you disagree with?

The bit that sees Chauvin's guilt as "a ridiculous hobby horse". Add to that that you didn't see that he is facing three different homicide charges and not just one, and there are differing degrees of intent - hence the separate charges. You are a spectator, not an expert.

StevePrefonDead wrote:

Is there a way to block Armstronglivs? I would simply scroll on by but his spam consumes too much of each page and it's become increasingly difficult to find posts in the midst of it.

I would hate to see you prevented from reading the Chauvin apologists.

Interesting that EMS went to the wrong location, just imagine if they would have been there five minutes earlier?