On SKY news at the moment that the jury has reached a verdict and it will be announced shortly.

What is they say about a short decision time for jurors? Favours the defendant? Although given the media and the hype about this case it may break the mold.

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Next I'm sure he'll get right on those EOs decriminalising drugs and ending qualified immunity. Totally sure lol :rolleyes:

No, no. He has more important things to be doing. Like banning the use of illegal alien and replacing it with undocumented non citizen.

I s**t you not, check it out on any news/google search.

civdef wrote: »

Musta been. The jury seem to have been watching same one I did anyway

Yup. Wouldn've been quicker to just go straight to sentencing (after his arrest) than waste time on a show trial, but that pesky due process has not been abolished yet, although you wouldn't know from looking at that circus.

I saw officers ignoring their department policy and training in using inappropriate restraint techniques.

Agreed.

Then to cap it off, they repeatedly failed to check the condition of the detained person (which when you're arresting someone is 100% your job), way past the point where he became unresponsive and stopped breathing.

How many people feign illness, injury, etc. and try to use a lapse on concentration of the police to escape? Especially a career criminal and lets not forget floyd was a career criminal and drug addict.

My personal take on it, as there is no right or wrong and with the verdict in, anything after that is meaningless, is this:

The prosecutions' case was weak, from the start, and elements of it stand out as strange. Not using floyd's drug dealer for fear of incriminating himself. Well as prosecution they could have offered him immunity, but didn't. Why? "Witness" after witness talking about their feelings, and essentially supposition. One so called prosecution witness testified about his "experience" in choke holds and the likes. When cross examined the defense tore him apart and he admitted he never studied or practiced such techniques but his Sensei ( :rolleyes: ) did.

The judge was not without bias either. Refusing to move the case, not permitting testimony from the drug dealer in the car with floyd (obtained i believe by the FBI), prohibiting examination of prosecution witnesses [by defense] about excited delirium (i watched that bit with interest), reinstating the 3rd degree murder charge and allowing over a week of prosecution "witnesses" who gave no probative or substantive evidence.

He [Floyd] was a [criminal] drug addict that was high as balls with a documented history of overdoses and heart/health issues. He complained of not being able to breath well before being placed on the ground, in the full video shown in court by the defense, and medical records/witnesses, even the coroner(s) made note of his poor physical health (arteries, heart, etc) although disagreeing on cause of death (knee or drugs for the asphyxiation).

All of this leads up to a huge amount of reasons for appeal(s), and that is without touching on the contempt of court issues surrounding politicians that even the judge commented on and admitted were grounds for, possibly, having the whole case overturned.

I mean when the mayor comes out before the verdict and says no matter the verdict he [Chauvin] is guilty, what chance was there for a fair trial. Chauvin himself was fired, arrested and charged in record time, and the city paid out tens of millions in damages well before this went to trial. This "movement" gained so much traction that it could not stop and some did not want it to stop so regardless of the character of floyd he was going to be the horse they hitched their wagon to.

Should Floyd have died? Absolutely not. Was Chauvin at fault, yes, but not for 2nd degree murder. I don't believe there was intent let alone enough to be found guilty of all three counts (must look up how someone can be guilty of murdering the same person three times/ways).

This was a political thing from the get go, but as there is a concerted effort to attack, defund, and lately dismantle the police things are only going to get worse, not better. The police do need reformed, but not by defunding or removing them entirely especially with nothing in place to fill that gap. American police seem to be quick to draw their weapon, but then again i'm not a cop there and don't know the job so i only get what tiny information i have from videos and such which are never flattering.

I do wonder though. If the defund the police movement got ground and it actually started to the extent that, as some want, the police started to disappear, do people not realise that the police, as bad as they may seem, are actually there for their protection. By that i mean in a country with such a gun culture what is to stop people taking the law into their own hands when the police are gone? Picture the 2nd amendment guys against antifa with no police to control those with guns or their actions!

IOW the police stop more trouble than they create simply with their presence (that is a piss poor way of saying what i'm trying to but you hopefully get the idea).