Read 2296 times

  • tylerthegloob
  • The Legend

    • 2727

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
guilty
« on: April 21, 2021, 07:54:22 am »
LOOOOOOOOOOOLget ******

i'm in another poll mood. and i normally don't like this kind of thing (basking in the defeat of my enemies), but god damn it feels good to have some JUSTICE up in hereooooooh weeeeee anyway, do you guys agree with the jury here?
more gg more skill


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: guilty
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2021, 08:03:16 am »
I'm really upset that the jury listened gave more credibility to medical experts than Steven Crowder's re-enactment.


  • 745sticky
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1654

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: guilty
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2021, 08:52:38 am »
Nice to see the thing blue line's been broken. I knew he'd get hit with something since this case was way too high-profile for him to get off scot-free entirely, but it's nice to see they hit him with 2nd degree, I thought he'd probably get manslaughter

anyways I'd "agree" with the jury regardless (well, unless he got hit with nothing I guess, lol). They have access to facts I don't, sat through the trial, etc. so if they found him guilty on those counts, that's what he gets.


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: guilty
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2021, 09:13:59 am »
^ I think that's a good point. This hasn't been the only trial to have this effect (I remember a girl at my high school wearing an "OJ is Innocent" T-shirt with 100% sincerity), but there was an extraordinary amount of prejudgment without access to the full range of evidence. I'm glad Chauvin got the sentence that he did, and it's hard to imagine that a murder conviction would even be in question for anyone other than a cop. But I think this is a good reminder that Internet Pundit #5567 doesn't have access to the same evidence as a jury, and pre-judging these outcomes is a bit of a fool's errand.

Of course, those who did pre-judge this outcome incorrectly will be now look for anyone other than themselves and Derek Chauvin to blame. I'll guess that the media, Black Lives Matter and Democrats will somehow be held responsible, and that will be peppered with vagaries about a corrupt justice system and maybe some unsubstantiated innuendo about jurors being forced to convict because they "feared for their lives".

You heard it here first.


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: guilty
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2021, 09:20:43 am »
That's not to say the juries always make good decisions, of course.

I'm criticizing the tendency to try and predict the outcome based on your political inclinations.


  • plan b
  • Super Waygook

    • 369

    • March 22, 2013, 11:53:06 am
    • Korea
Re: guilty
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2021, 10:23:40 am »
He didn't receive a fair trial.
The Jurors knew fully well that the rioters were going to burn the city down if they came down with a not guilty verdict.

The jury was not sequestered. One of the jury members would have to drive thru the protests in the morning on the way to the trial.

No one wants to have their property attacked, or their property values go down. They sacrificed someone for what they thought was the "greater good"


  • 745sticky
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1654

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: guilty
« Reply #6 on: April 21, 2021, 10:55:58 am »
^right on cue


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: guilty
« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2021, 11:55:42 am »
But a guilty verdict would also potentially harm the jurors, wouldn't it? The thin blue line has been known to retaliate against those who cross it.


Re: guilty
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2021, 02:02:53 pm »
^right on cue
Even people who wanted to see Chauvin thrown into a pit of lions acknowledged that some of the things made it distinctly possible that Chauvin would have grounds to at least appeal and that some of the actions, while perhaps not enough to overturn, would certainly be used by the defense and if enough of them took place, it probably would lead to a second trial.


Re: guilty
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2021, 02:03:17 pm »
But a guilty verdict would also potentially harm the jurors, wouldn't it? The thin blue line has been known to retaliate against those who cross it.
Not against jurors, at least not in recent history.


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: guilty
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2021, 02:14:09 pm »
Even people who wanted to see Chauvin thrown into a pit of lions acknowledged that some of the things made it distinctly possible that Chauvin would have grounds to at least appeal and that some of the actions, while perhaps not enough to overturn, would certainly be used by the defense and if enough of them took place, it probably would lead to a second trial.

Is that what plan b said?


Re: guilty
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2021, 02:15:25 pm »
Is that what plan b said?
No, but it addresses the issue of jury intimidation and if it has taken place.


  • tylerthegloob
  • The Legend

    • 2727

    • September 28, 2016, 10:46:24 am
    • Busan
    more
Re: guilty
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2021, 02:39:00 pm »
Even people who wanted to see Chauvin thrown into a pit of lions acknowledged that some of the things made it distinctly possible that Chauvin would have grounds to at least appeal and that some of the actions, while perhaps not enough to overturn, would certainly be used by the defense and if enough of them took place, it probably would lead to a second trial.

No, but it addresses the issue of jury intimidation and if it has taken place.



i always resize my images but when i dont its for a good reasonand that reason is i love this movie
more gg more skill


Re: guilty
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2021, 06:01:08 pm »
He didn't receive a fair trial.
The Jurors knew fully well that the rioters were going to burn the city down if they came down with a not guilty verdict.

The jury was not sequestered. One of the jury members would have to drive thru the protests in the morning on the way to the trial.

No one wants to have their property attacked, or their property values go down. They sacrificed someone for what they thought was the "greater good"

Maybe you guys should consider not pissing off black people by celebrating every time the cops murder them.


Re: guilty
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2021, 07:51:47 pm »
I'll tell you what I'm blathering about. New shit has come to light.

But yes, with legal cases and legal proceedings, very rarely speak in certainties. It's always, "Well on the one hand..." No one knows how judges will rule and what laws and cases will be brought up. It's all just a guess.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2882

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: guilty
« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2021, 09:19:13 pm »
I'll tell you what I'm blathering about. New shit has come to light.


Could you elaborate?

The only "things" that have come to light that I know of are Maxine Waters's fairly boilerplate civil rights protest talk, which the courts have determined over and over again are protected by the first amendment.  The jurors heard much more inflammatory rhetoric from both sides in the past year and swore they could disregard such comments.  Is that what you meant?

Of course, President Biden got the right-wing media apoplectic with incredibly milquetoast comments on the hoped-for verdict, as if they never experienced the past four years of Trump, and which comments, besides, were only delivered after the jury was in sequestration.  Is that what you meant?

Or has some "other shit" come to light?  I was quite busy at work today, exacerbated by the fact that Google wouldn't load, and Bing is horrible if you want to find images, so I apologize if I missed some shit.


Re: guilty
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2021, 07:34:43 am »
^ I think that's a good point. This hasn't been the only trial to have this effect (I remember a girl at my high school wearing an "OJ is Innocent" T-shirt with 100% sincerity), but there was an extraordinary amount of prejudgment without access to the full range of evidence. I'm glad Chauvin got the sentence that he did, and it's hard to imagine that a murder conviction would even be in question for anyone other than a cop. But I think this is a good reminder that Internet Pundit #5567 doesn't have access to the same evidence as a jury, and pre-judging these outcomes is a bit of a fool's errand.

Of course, those who did pre-judge this outcome incorrectly will be now look for anyone other than themselves and Derek Chauvin to blame. I'll guess that the media, Black Lives Matter and Democrats will somehow be held responsible, and that will be peppered with vagaries about a corrupt justice system and maybe some unsubstantiated innuendo about jurors being forced to convict because they "feared for their lives".

You heard it here first.


He was given a verdict, the sentencing comes later.


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: guilty
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2021, 08:39:22 am »
The right-wing meltdown over this has been even more extreme and more bonkers than I predicted. Listening to this is like putting your brain in a microwave.

https://youtu.be/MizHuGWl0ww

I poked around Reddit yesterday and was honestly quite shocked to see the emotional investment that so many people have put into seeing a man exonerated for killing someone. It goes without saying that there's a ton of misinformation circulating (we've already seen a bit of it here), but looking past that, it's clear that many people just really, really wanted Derek Chauvin to face no consequences. Why? Seriously, why? A lot of these same characters are the first to pontificate about how "bad life choices" result in poverty and incarceration for black people. Why is so hard to accept that Derek Chauvin made a bad life choice? He had plenty of opportunity to take a different course of action.

Furthermore, this was a really bad horse to back. If you're really passionate about cops killing people with impunity, this was still the wrong case to pin your hopes on. There was clear video footage of most of the incident, there were witnesses at the scene, you had the chief of police and other law enforcement experts testifying that Chauvin's use of force was excessive, and the defense's medical arguments (drug O.D., carbon monoxide, etc) fell apart pretty spectacularly. Anything but the most narrow and selective reading would have indicated that "George Floyd died of a drug overdose" was a flimsy and slightly desperate premise.

Next time you want to get incensed because someone who killed another person has to face consequences, I'd suggest choosing a different case to serve as your cause célèbre.


  • plan b
  • Super Waygook

    • 369

    • March 22, 2013, 11:53:06 am
    • Korea
Re: guilty
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2021, 10:03:11 am »
The trial was not fair or just in any manner for Derek Chauvin.
First of all, the trial should not have been held in Minnesota, it had national and international attention, and the city had a history of having riots and being looted and burned last summer.
Second of all, the jury should have been sequestered when the trial began. There was too much heated information and threats of violence from the outside for the jury to not be influenced outside the court.

The jury obviously didn't debate the evidence too much. They spend a short amount of time before giving their verdict, and it was clear that they were probably just getting their stories straight.

The threat of violence was simply too much. The jury must have seen the real possibility of rioting, looting, fires, additional deaths, assaults and property damage that was going to come if a "not guilty" verdict was rendered.
The jurors knew that there was a real possibility that they were in physical danger if they came out with a "not guilty verdict. They knew the media would out them. They were also aware that a pigs head had been left at the home of a Chauvin defence witness.(google it).
It was clear that they and their families were at risk.

Even Maxine Waters had called for violence...imagine that, a Democrat from another state making statements to directly influence the verdict of a trial.

Its clear that Derek Chauvin was sacrificed..it was just easier this way. The verdict was never in question because BLM and the Democrats were going to bully others to get the decision they wanted.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 10:05:17 am by plan b »


  • fka
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1091

    • September 05, 2019, 06:37:44 pm
    • Seoul
Re: guilty
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2021, 10:18:17 am »
Why do you think he should have been declared "Not guilty"?

You're talking about all this peripheral stuff while maintaining that he was innocent (of all charges, I'm presuming). Is there a key piece of evidence which proves that George Floyd would be dead regardless of Derek Chauvin's actions? If not, it seems like a guilty verdict on at least one or two counts was probable. 

Why would you look positively on a not guilty verdict for someone who killed another person in a manner that many law enforcement and medical experts argued was excessive, in violation of policing norms, and unjustly cruel? Why would you consider that a favorable result?

Why should other people be imprisoned for their bad life choices but not this particular man?

Also...

Quote
Even Maxine Waters had called for violence...

I don't normally use the emojis but I don't think there's any response to this other than  :huh:
« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 10:26:13 am by fka »