Jequ0n wrote: » There is no debate that Chauvin caused the death of the man, but you seem to be very sure that murder is the right term and not manslaughter. Anyway, we weren’t on the jury, but I don’t envy the jurors given the pressure on them
ohnonotgmail wrote: » chauvin was convicted for what he did after floyd became unconscious. if he stopped at that point he would still be a police officer. what happened prior to that is irrelevant.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » so a president can never comment on a specific crime?
briany wrote: » What pressure would this be? If the case is open and shut, I wouldn't be feeling much pressure as a juror. My job would be pretty easy. Feeling pressure generally relates to being made to do something you're not sure about.
Billy Mays wrote: » Carlson :pac: :pac:https://twitter.com/GOP_Ethics/status/1384687608693985284?s=20
Deleted User wrote: » If you saw any of the extended bodycam footage..the dude was having a heart attack from too many drugs while being arrested..he couldn't breathe before Chauvin ever went near him..He wanted to be put on the ground..he was lashing out.. yeah, it was unfortunate they didn't realize earlier.. but to call it murder is ridiculous.. The only outcome of this is the next generation of police won't join.. with all the knock on consequences of that..
correct horse battery staple wrote: » Well yes theres nothing wrong with a policeman strangling a grown man to death whatever colour his skin is, sheesh did you not get the memo? Now go be outraged about Biden commenting on the trial AFTER the verdict was reached
I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict, which I think is overwhelming in my view."
walshb wrote: » This is absurd.. And you have nothing to back it up. I absolutely would have objected. I clearly said that his commenting here is wrong, period. A U.S. President should not be giving his opinion on what verdict he wants from any trial.. This point is completely lost in you. Maybe because you are too involved on what you wanted to happen..
walshb wrote: » Of course he/she can... Not sure what it has to do with my specific point.. Simple: trial is on. Verdict yet to be announced..... It is not appropriate for a U.S president to state what verdict he wants. Example: reporters asks president what verdict he wants from a trial He has two choice there in my view. 1: He can answer guilty or not guilty. Or two, be impartial, presidential and proper: and answer that it would not be appropriate for the president to give his personal opinion on the verdict he wants. That justice needs to be allowed give its verdict. And in this instance, with a case of such magnitude, emotions, division, hostility etc; he absolutely needs to shut up and show restraint!
Sonics2k wrote: » US Presidents, and many other world leaders, give their opinions on trials and cases all the damn time. You're only annoyed because Biden went on the side you don't like, just be honest.
Jequ0n wrote: » Walshb explained that quite clearly
walshb wrote: » That is nonsense.. I believe Chauvin deserved to be found guilty here. With such a high profile trial and all that has happened before it and the rioting and damage done after George’s death... You have tens of millions of Americans waiting anxiously on a verdict announcement, with many polarised and highly strung and ready to possibly react very strongly.. And you have the leader of these people announcing what is the right verdict.. It’s obscene that people can’t see the potential damage these things can cause.. I said it clearly, no matter what side you’re on, knowing how emotive this case is, and knowing that the verdict will cause so much division and debate, to publicly declare what is the “right” verdict is, is wrong for someone like the U.S President.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the only division is between those who think it is unacceptable for a police officer to kneel on the neck of a restrained man for nine minutes causing their death and those who have no problem with a police officer doing that.
walshb wrote: » It’s still very highly strung division...that is the more important thing.. Whether one agrees with the verdict or not, there is a lot of division and polarisation around this case.. And knowing this, people in very influential positions need to thread very carefully..
Smee_Again wrote: » Seems like you're calling for Biden to pander to racists.
osarusan wrote: » It seems to me to be a real stretch to think that this will make police want to quit and so on. If we were looking at a case in which it was a split-second decision to shoot, and it turned out that the person was not actually armed, I can understand the argument. I can see how police would think 'That could happen to anybody, it could easily be me in that situation making that decision, and it puts me in prison? f**k that.' But in this case, what is it exactly that police officers (or potential police officers) would look at and see as a deterrent in terms of doing their job properly? As other 'not guilty' verdicts or decisions not to even bring charges show, the police already have a great deal of leeway given to them. The verdict in this trial shows only that the leeway doesn't extend as far as kneeling on somebody's neck even after they stop resisting, even after they lose consciousness, even after there's no pulse, even after they're dead...not while on camera at least. If there's an actual or potential police officer out there who sees this as something that limits their ability to do their job properly, then they shouldn't be in the job anyway.
walshb wrote: » No idea where you pulled this from..
[Deleted User] wrote: » Why does the appearance of a juror matter? Seems pretty silly to attack a person based on their appearance, the defense are perfectly free to object to jurors. Although doing so based on their appearance would be a tad stupid...
Melanchthon wrote: » Isn't the real issue that jurors are willing to publicly identifying themselves after the trial? It's not a stretch that if they are willing to do that they might also be willing to identify other jurors who would suffer consequences depending on the verdict. This isn't a crazy idea or defending the cop but we do have the special criminal court here because we recognise these issues
MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: » Love the smell of coffee and circuit boards frying on a Wednesday morning of certain folk spewing inanities for why chauvin has no responsibility for the criminal murderous actions on the day..
Yellow_Fern wrote: » That just isnt accurate. Some thing it is unacceptable but he should be just fired or charged with a minor crime or manslaughter or many other options. Some think his knee wasn't on his neck at all. Just like you claim people who disagree with you are racist, you are trying to force a binary on people, with us or against us nonsense. Life isnt so black and white.
seamus wrote: » I gotta tell you lads, "A cop being held accountable for murder while on the job will cause people to not join the cops" is not the deep-thinking insight that you think it is. If accountability in a job discourages someone from joining it, that's a good thing. A very, very good thing. If only if was also possible to drive people away from becoming bankers and politicians for fear of having to behave themselves.
