The George Floyd trial thread
-
If he’s only found guilty of the last, there will be a massive riot for the “only 10 years” sentence.
If he’s found guilty of the 2nd degree murder, there might still be riots since it’s only 40 years compared to life or a death penalty.
My guess is he’ll get 50 years by being found guilty of 2nd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.
-
Manslaughter is a slam dunk. 2nd degree? Yeah, I can see it.
-
Manslaughter is a slam dunk. 2nd degree? Yeah, I can see it.
@lufins-dad You can't really make any conclusion until you hear the defense's case. That is, as to guilt vs. innocence. If the prosecution is competent, then they'll have convinced the viewer of their position, and you need to hear the defense position before you can draw any conclusion.
As to the possible retaliation, that is in Cloud Crazy Land. The competence of either or both sides does not matter.
It's pretty sad, though. Headed toward mob rule, we are.
ETA: And thanks very much, MSM, for keeping the thing alive and in the forefront so fervently every damn day. That'll help. NOT.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
Here’s the real question. If I was on the jury and didn’t think there was overwhelming evidence against him, would I still vote to find him guilty if I was the only one holding out?
If I’m being honest, I probably would. Otherwise I’d basically be setting a death sentence for my family, based on the likely mob retaliation.
@89th said in The George Floyd trial thread:
Here’s the real question. If I was on the jury and didn’t think there was overwhelming evidence against him, would I still vote to find him guilty if I was the only one holding out?
If I’m being honest, I probably would. Otherwise I’d basically be setting a death sentence for my family, based on the likely mob retaliation.
Look between your legs. If you've got a pair, you do The Right Thing. Sometimes doing that costs.
-
@lufins-dad You can't really make any conclusion until you hear the defense's case. That is, as to guilt vs. innocence. If the prosecution is competent, then they'll have convinced the viewer of their position, and you need to hear the defense position before you can draw any conclusion.
As to the possible retaliation, that is in Cloud Crazy Land. The competence of either or both sides does not matter.
It's pretty sad, though. Headed toward mob rule, we are.
ETA: And thanks very much, MSM, for keeping the thing alive and in the forefront so fervently every damn day. That'll help. NOT.
@catseye3 said in The George Floyd trial thread:
@lufins-dad You can't really make any conclusion until you hear the defense's case. That is, as to guilt vs. innocence. If the prosecution is competent, then they'll have convinced the viewer of their position, and you need to hear the defense position before you can draw any conclusion.
As to the possible retaliation, that is in Cloud Crazy Land. The competence of either or both sides does not matter.
It's pretty sad, though. Headed toward mob rule, we are.
ETA: And thanks very much, MSM, for keeping the thing alive and in the forefront so fervently every damn day. That'll help. NOT.
Not in this case. Cut and dried and INDEFENSIBLE. Manslaughter is exactly what happened before your eyes on that video. The failure to reach out for medical assistance is inexcusable and indisputable. There is no explanation that negates that. He was an officer of the law. He needed to be better.
The Brad
-
Here’s the real question. If I was on the jury and didn’t think there was overwhelming evidence against him, would I still vote to find him guilty if I was the only one holding out?
If I’m being honest, I probably would. Otherwise I’d basically be setting a death sentence for my family, based on the likely mob retaliation.
@89th You are a caretaker of your family. To subject your loved ones to peril on the strength of some nebulous concept like "balls" would make you an idiot. Better: If you're called for jury duty, make your case to the Clerk that you must refuse, for fear of your family's safety in the case of retaliation for whatever decision you'd be a part of. If they come back at you for dereliction, that's the time to stand fast.
-
@89th You are a caretaker of your family. To subject your loved ones to peril on the strength of some nebulous concept like "balls" would make you an idiot. Better: If you're called for jury duty, make your case to the Clerk that you must refuse, for fear of your family's safety in the case of retaliation for whatever decision you'd be a part of. If they come back at you for dereliction, that's the time to stand fast.
@catseye3 said in The George Floyd trial thread:
@89th You are a caretaker of your family. To subject your loved ones to peril on the strength of some nebulous concept like "balls" would make you an idiot. Better: If you're called for jury duty, make your case to the Clerk that you must refuse, for fear of your family's safety in the case of retaliation for whatever decision you'd be a part of. If they come back at you for dereliction, that's the time to stand fast.
Sometimes, you have to be a man. I know that integrity and doing the right thing may be a foreign concept to some, but if you (collective you) are that scared of life, go crawl into a corner and die.
-
@catseye3 said in The George Floyd trial thread:
@lufins-dad You can't really make any conclusion until you hear the defense's case. That is, as to guilt vs. innocence. If the prosecution is competent, then they'll have convinced the viewer of their position, and you need to hear the defense position before you can draw any conclusion.
As to the possible retaliation, that is in Cloud Crazy Land. The competence of either or both sides does not matter.
It's pretty sad, though. Headed toward mob rule, we are.
ETA: And thanks very much, MSM, for keeping the thing alive and in the forefront so fervently every damn day. That'll help. NOT.
Not in this case. Cut and dried and INDEFENSIBLE. Manslaughter is exactly what happened before your eyes on that video. The failure to reach out for medical assistance is inexcusable and indisputable. There is no explanation that negates that. He was an officer of the law. He needed to be better.
@lufins-dad I don't argue. If that's what happened, then that's what happened. But systemically, in a criminal trial, you can't justify a decision until both sides have presented -- be it this or any other trial. It's only just, only fair.
