Derek Chauvin guilty of all charges

[badgerx16]

Justice for George Floyd ?

[Lighthouse]

A jury of peers have clearly decided, beyond reasonable doubt, that he’s guilty, which is the best you can ask for. So on that count, yes, justice has been served. Having said that I’ve still seen no evidence that it was racially motivated.

[whelk]

He looked so fucked with his eyes shooting every way. 

[Turkish]

He was always going to get found guilty. Any other verdict would have caused absolute mayhem. No way could the jury have not been influenced by all what went on last year. Was never going to be a fair trial. 

[skintsaint]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

He was always going to get found guilty. Any other verdict would have caused absolute mayhem. No way could the jury have not been influenced by all what went on last year. Was never going to be a fair trial. 

Yeah he was always going to get the murder charge, I thought looking at it he would get done for just Manslaughter like other Police officers in the states who have killed people unintentionally. Thought I read a politician over there encouraging a riot if he wasn't given a murder charge. I'm sure he will appeal.   

Edited 21 April, 2021 by skintsaint

[Raging Bull]

I know he’s a senile old cretin but as president he needs to stfu when it comes to high profile cases

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1264666

[aintforever]

He was obviously guilty, we all saw what he did.

He's going to have a arse like a cat flap by the time he gets out of jail.

 

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

He was obviously guilty, we all saw what he did.

He's going to have a arse like a cat flap by the time he gets out of jail.

 

Murder 2 means he meant to kill him. I doubt it was intentional given he was being filmed and watched for nine minutes. I would’ve have thought manslaughter due to gross negligence but then I didn’t hear what the jury did 

Edited 21 April, 2021 by buctootim

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

He was obviously guilty, we all saw what he did.

He's going to have a arse like a cat flap by the time he gets out of jail.

 

Statements like this are why it couldn't possibly have been a fair trial. 

[Lighthouse]

38 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Murder 2 means he meant to kill him. I doubt it was intentional given he was being filmed and watched for nine minutes. I would’ve have thought manslaughter due to gross negligence but then I didn’t hear what the jury did 

I didn't watch any of it but I'd have thought the prosecution would have to prove some sort of motive for it to be murder 2. I was also expecting a manslaughter verdict, it'll be interesting to see what his lawyers make of it all.

[aintforever]

39 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Murder 2 means he meant to kill him. I doubt it was intentional given he was being filmed and watched for nine minutes. I would’ve have thought manslaughter due to gross negligence but then I didn’t hear what the jury did 

True, without hearing all the facts you can't really tell.

If it had been a black man who put his knee on a police officers neck until he died it would be pretty obvious what the verdict would be though.

[Turkish]

16 minutes ago, aintforever said:

True, without hearing all the facts you can't really tell.

If it had been a black man who put his knee on a police officers neck until he died it would be pretty obvious what the verdict would be though.

But you'd made your mind up as to his guilt. hence my point how could it be a fair trial. 

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

But you'd made your mind up as to his guilt. hence my point how could it be a fair trial. 

Because the jury heard all the facts dumbass.

[Turkish]

12 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Because the jury heard all the facts dumbass.

"He was obviously guilty, we all saw what he did." that was your opinion based on not hearing the facts. It sounds like you would have needed your opinion changing if you'd been on the jury, you wouldn't have been completely impartial. 

Do you then think 12 randomly picked people who had seen the riots, seen the footage and had it drummed into them for a year that it was murdered by the entire world would have entered into the court room with a completely impartial view? It seems you wouldn't have.

Edited 21 April, 2021 by Turkish

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

"He was obviously guilty, we all saw what he did." that was your opinion based on not hearing the facts. It sounds like you would have needed your opinion changing if you'd been on the jury, you wouldn't have been completely impartial. 

Do you then think 12 randomly picked people who had seen the riots, seen the footage and had it drummed into them for a year that it was murdered by the entire world would have entered into the court room with a completely impartial view? It seems you wouldn't have.

If I was in the Jury I would have judged it on the facts presented.

Anyway, at least we can all celebrate the fact that this cunt is behind bars.

 

[Turkish]

14 minutes ago, aintforever said:

If I was in the Jury I would have judged it on the facts presented.

Anyway, at least we can all celebrate the fact that this cunt is behind bars.

 

You'd already decided he was guilty. What makes you think think 12 people would not have been influenced not even 0.000001% by all the press coverage and rioting that went on beforehand? If they were influenced, however marginally, it wasn't a fair trial. Are you telling me no one was influenced by this sort of article released 9 months before the trail started?

 

George Floyd's death was 'murder' and the accused officer 'knew what he was doing,' Minneapolis police chief says - CNN

Edited 21 April, 2021 by Turkish

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You'd already decided he was guilty. What makes you think think 12 people would not have been influenced not even 0.000001% by all the press coverage and rioting that went on beforehand? If they were influenced, however marginally, it wasn't a fair trial. 

You seem more concerned with the idea of that than the killing itself, which is not surprising.

If there is evidence that the jury were influenced then he may get off one of the convictions, it's just great that he's inside though, I'm sure you'll agree it's fantastic news?

[Turkish]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

You seem more concerned with the idea of that than the killing itself, which is not surprising.

If there is evidence that the jury were influenced then he may get off one of the convictions, it's just great that he's inside though, I'm sure you'll agree it's fantastic news?

So you're not willing to admit that there was a good chance it was not a fair trial as it wouldn't have been an impartial jury. How could a jury not be influenced? The world was saying it was murder, the media were reporting it as murder, there were riots in the street condemning the murder. No one would not be influenced by that. You made your mind up from 4,000 miles away.

The blokes obviously a bit of a c*nt and obviously guilty of an offence, it's great he's no longer a copper but being a c*nt doesn't mean he didn't deserve a fair trial. As that is the very basic right of every defendant. Something you seem unwilling to admit that was likely. 

Edited 21 April, 2021 by Turkish

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

If it had been a black man who put his knee on a police officers neck until he died it would be pretty obvious what the verdict would be though.

Mental.

So, you're comparing a police officer kneeling on someone's neck (I'm not condoning what he did or the way he did it, just pointing out that a police officer has a lawful obligation to detain someone who is under arrest), with a black man kneeling on a police officers neck (not sure why you've mentioned a colour as frankly it is irrelevant, as I'm not sure there are any circumstances in which a member of the public would be legally obliged to detain a serving police officer, let alone kneel on their neck!), as if that was somehow equivalent? 

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Mental.

So, you're comparing a police officer kneeling on someone's neck (I'm not condoning what he did or the way he did it, just pointing out that a police officer has a lawful obligation to detain someone who is under arrest), with a black man kneeling on a police officers neck (not sure why you've mentioned a colour as frankly it is irrelevant, as I'm not sure there are any circumstances in which a member of the public would be legally obliged to detain a serving police officer, let alone kneel on their neck!), as if that was somehow equivalent? 

A police officer has a lawful obligation to detain someone but no more right to break the law and kill them, that’s what he was convicted for.

[ecuk268]

15 minutes ago, aintforever said:

A police officer has a lawful obligation to detain someone but no more right to break the law and kill them, that’s what he was convicted for.

According to the initial police report, they arrested him and then noticed that he needed medical attention. It wasn't until the phone footage came out that they had to rapidly revise their story.

Just shows what a bunch of liars they were.

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, Turkish said:

So you're not willing to admit that there was a good chance it was not a fair trial as it wouldn't have been an impartial jury. How could a jury not be influenced? The world was saying it was murder, the media were reporting it as murder, there were riots in the street condemning the murder. No one would not be influenced by that. You made your mind up from 4,000 miles away.

The blokes obviously a bit of a c*nt and obviously guilty of an offence, it's great he's no longer a copper but being a c*nt doesn't mean he didn't deserve a fair trial. As that is the very basic right of every defendant. Something you seem unwilling to admit that was likely. 

There was nothing unfair about the trial. Any preconceptions the jury would have had would be pretty irrelevant given the amount of evidence IMO. The whole thing was recorded on video by multiple people.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

There was nothing unfair about the trial. Any preconceptions the jury would have had would be pretty irrelevant given the amount of evidence IMO. The whole thing was recorded on video by multiple people.

How can you have an impartial jury if they’ve already seen multiple videos and reports of the incident before the trial? You’ve defeated your own point by stating “any preconceptions the would have” exactly my point, they shouldn’t have any

Edited 21 April, 2021 by Turkish

[aintforever]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

How can you have an impartial jury if they’ve already seen multiple videos and reports of the incident before the trial? You’ve defeated your own point by stating “any preconceptions the would have” exactly my point, they shouldn’t have any

Every jury on any high profile case ever would have preconceptions before the trial you bell-end.

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Every jury on any high profile case ever would have preconceptions before the trial you bell-end.

Oh that’s all right then! Doesn’t matter if it’s the right verdict, or if the jury are impartial or not. Why bother with media blackouts in trials then? Fuck it! Let’s do trials by media in future 
 

Why are you being abusive? Is it because you’re all confused again? 

Edited 21 April, 2021 by Turkish

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Oh that’s all right then! Doesn’t matter if it’s the right verdict, or if the jury are impartial or not. Why bother with media blackouts in trails then? Fuck it! 
 

Why are you being abusive? Is it because you’re all confused again? 

Brilliant, you always post that when you know you are talking bollocks.

Why don’t you stick to your thread poking fun at people trying to stop racism - that’s about your level.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Brilliant, you always post that when you know you are talking bollocks.

Why don’t you stick to your thread poking fun at people trying to stop racism - that’s about your level.

I’m not talking bollocks, my initial point was he was always going to be found guilty as the jury will have preconceptions due the furore (that means public anger by the way) around it. Despite your initial denials you’ve admitted that is the case so you’ve actually proven my point, congratulations on making yourself look stupid again and once again resorting to being abusive whilst doing it. 

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Brilliant, you always post that when you know you are talking bollocks.

Why don’t you stick to your thread poking fun at people trying to stop racism - that’s about your level.

Oh and “people trying to stop racism” you talking about you who when you did have the chance to do something other than post about it on an Internet forum bottled it 

[Lord Duckhunter]

6 hours ago, aintforever said:

If it had been a black man who put his knee on a police officers neck until he died it would be pretty obvious what the verdict would be though.

Like OJ Simpson? 

[Weston Super Saint]

47 minutes ago, aintforever said:

A police officer has a lawful obligation to detain someone but no more right to break the law and kill them, that’s what he was convicted for.

Odd that you would post the bit in bold, did you think I didn't understand that he broke the law?

Any chance you can explain why your post stating "If it had been a black man who put his knee on a police officers neck until he died it would be pretty obvious what the verdict would be though." is relevant in any way, shape or form?

 

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I’m not talking bollocks, my initial point was he was always going to be found guilty as the jury will have preconceptions due the furore (that means public anger by the way) around it. Despite your initial denials you’ve admitted that is the case so you’ve actually proven my point, congratulations on making yourself look stupid again and once again resorting to being abusive whilst doing it. 

He was always going to be found guilty because his crime was recorded on video from start to finish from multiple angles.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

He was always going to be found guilty because his crime was recorded on video from start to finish from multiple angles.

But you admitted that the jury would have preconceptions, which is exactly the point I was making. A jury should be impartial, regardless of what you think about the crime or individual that’s how the jury system works. It’s why they order media blackouts in some trials so the jury are not influenced by reporting. 

[aintforever]

2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Odd that you would post the bit in bold, did you think I didn't understand that he broke the law?

Any chance you can explain why your post stating "If it had been a black man who put his knee on a police officers neck until he died it would be pretty obvious what the verdict would be though." is relevant in any way, shape or form?

 

Because the physical act - kneeing on someone’s neck until they are dead, is the same crime wether the roles are reversed or not. Police officers are not allowed to do it to members of the public just as members of the public are not allowed to do it to coppers.

 

[ecuk268]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

But you admitted that the jury would have preconceptions, which is exactly the point I was making. A jury should be impartial, regardless of what you think about the crime or individual that’s how the jury system works. It’s why they order media blackouts in some trials so the jury are not influenced by reporting. 

Difficult to do in this case as the whole thing was captured on film and was all over social media before the police even acknowledged that they may have not told the whole story.

 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

But you admitted that the jury would have preconceptions, which is exactly the point I was making. A jury should be impartial, regardless of what you think about the crime or individual that’s how the jury system works. It’s why they order media blackouts in some trials so the jury are not influenced by reporting. 

But millions of trials have had media coverage before the trial, that why the judge tells the jury to focus on the evidence in the court room alone at the start. In this case it was overwhelming.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

But millions of trials have had media coverage before the trial, that why the judge tells the jury to focus on the evidence in the court room alone at the start. In this case it was overwhelming.

He might tell them that but how can you not be influenced? It’s not the jury’s fault it’s perfectly natural to be. Any verdict other than murder would have be met with rioting and outrage, even that would put a jury member under subconscious pressure to reach a particular verdict 

[Turkish]

7 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Difficult to do in this case as the whole thing was captured on film and was all over social media before the police even acknowledged that they may have not told the whole story.

 

Precisely. Trial by media with only one possible outcome. 

[aintforever]

Just now, Turkish said:

Precisely. Trial by media with only one possible outcome. 

Or trial by watching exactly what happened from multiple angles.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Or trial by watching exactly what happened from multiple angles.

Do you think someone, especially a copper would deliberately murder someone if they knew full well dozens of people were filming it? 

And the silly laughing emoji appears again 🙄

 

Edited 21 April, 2021 by Turkish

[aintforever]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Do you think someone, especially a copper would deliberately murder someone if they knew full well dozens of people were filming it? 

And the silly laughing emoji appears again 🙄

 

It doesn’t have to be deliberate for murder 2, just has to be a crime that results in a death.

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It doesn’t have to be deliberate for murder 2, just has to be a crime that results in a death.

So what? Could have been manslaughter, but that verdict would have caused rioting, which everyone knows it would have. I’m not defending him or saying he isn’t guilty, just pointing out that a jury was under pressure to reach a verdict and it was impossible for it not the be impartial. 

[egg]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

There was nothing unfair about the trial. Any preconceptions the jury would have had would be pretty irrelevant given the amount of evidence IMO. The whole thing was recorded on video by multiple people.

Everything about it was unfair. Millions of people on social media have been telling everyone that the fella was guilty. Millions of people hijacked it as a reason to riot and cause carnage. It was the catalyst to get sportsmen, our footy players included, to take a knee. 

It would have taken a brave juror to acquit the fella. 

Aside of whether he was guilty or not, he had no chance of a fair trial. 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Everything about it was unfair. Millions of people on social media have been telling everyone that the fella was guilty. Millions of people hijacked it as a reason to riot and cause carnage. It was the catalyst to get sportsmen, our footy players included, to take a knee. 

It would have taken a brave juror to acquit the fella. 

Aside of whether he was guilty or not, he had no chance of a fair trial. 

Exactly. Unfortunately saintforever isn’t bright enough to grasp it. In his very naive little world the judge will tell the jury to ignore the world wide uproar that’s been drummed into everyone for a year and just concentrate on what the barristers tell them. Impossible to do. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Or trial by watching exactly what happened from multiple angles.

Lol. Once more you show why you really are dim witted.

I appreciate that you have zero concept of the hypothetical, however, in this case there was an issue raised regarding the illegal possession and use of fentanyl.

Do the multiple angles show this?

Hypothetically speaking ( which you don't understand, but at least give it a try), the coroner could have found that the use of fentanyl caused his breathing to stop.  As it was, the introduction of this evidence "could" have caused reasonable doubt to a completely impartial jury.  Were there any of the multiple angles that showed this use of the drug?

Edited 21 April, 2021 by Weston Super Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Because the physical act - kneeing on someone’s neck until they are dead, is the same crime wether the roles are reversed or not. Police officers are not allowed to do it to members of the public just as members of the public are not allowed to do it to coppers.

 

Pretty stupid statement of yours then stating the obvious about everyone knowing what the outcome would be.

Why did you feel the need to bring colour into your example?

[whelk]

20 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Exactly. Unfortunately saintforever isn’t bright enough to grasp it. In his very naive little world the judge will tell the jury to ignore the world wide uproar that’s been drummed into everyone for a year and just concentrate on what the barristers tell them. Impossible to do. 

Have you ever done jury service?

[skintsaint]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/28/jury-chauvin-trial-george-floyd/

 

Some snippets of what the Jury thought about the case.

[scally]

 

 

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, scally said:

 

 

What the actual fuck are the BBC doing inviting this loon to speak on the news? I've seen his Youtube channel before and he's basically just a rabid Trump supporter who has somehow made himself famous (and rich) by making videos claiming that America can't possibly have a problem with racism because he is black, he has never personally experienced racism, and he managed to become a cop. 

[scally]

7 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

What the actual fuck are the BBC doing inviting this loon to speak on the news? I've seen his Youtube channel before and he's basically just a rabid Trump supporter who has somehow made himself famous (and rich) by making videos claiming that America can't possibly have a problem with racism because he is black, he has never personally experienced racism, and he managed to become a cop. 

You may not like him but is he right?