Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Who knew a 9 minute video of him killing someone would result in him being found guilty of killing someone.

Why not, they had one as President.

Posted Images

It's almost like this guy's appearance at that march, with that t-shirt, means Chauvin didn't kneel on George Floyd's neck until he died.

 

If only there wasn't that video....

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

It's almost like this guy's appearance at that march, with that t-shirt, means Chauvin didn't kneel on George Floyd's neck until he died.

The first question asked: 'Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?' 

The second asked: 'Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?'

That photo was not a demonstration, march or a protest. It was at a celebration of MLK's I Have A Dream speech in DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sean said:

Thanks. That’s where the rubber meets the road, not on bullshitter media. It’s an accumulation of glittering generalities. Note the repeated use of the abuse of discretion language. That’s the standard. Good luck with that, fans of people being allowed to kill black men without repercussion. 
 

The rest of the sound and fury is a bullshitter circle jerk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

It's almost like this guy's appearance at that march, with that t-shirt, means Chauvin didn't kneel on George Floyd's neck until he died.

 

If only there wasn't that video....

One would think the MLK day was a white only holiday and Black people shouldn't have the Gall to be selected for juries anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2021 at 8:34 PM, Keith said:

I've been traveling most of my life, I've never seen, or heard of anything like that anywhere in Canada, especially in a town in Saskatchewan. 

I lived in Canada moons ago and imho, the Canadians are nothing like the yanks when it comes to racism.


But I must say that I do get a chuckle out of that wank Mr8shillingsshyofaquid. Calling out others for their racism
 

oh my, what a knob.

 

lol

040910BC-197B-424A-B97E-EE78550135F7.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

It's almost like this guy's appearance at that march, with that t-shirt, means Chauvin didn't kneel on George Floyd's neck until he died.

 

If only there wasn't that video....

What a stupid thing to say.

Its almost as stupid as selecting a person with a clear bias as a juror, almost.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

And the sun rose in the East. Why do you defend a murderer?

 

3 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Pity about those videos. This would have never gone to trial without them. 

So that old requirement of “an impartial jury of your piers” was tosh all along?
Why have a trial at all?
You lot should be careful what you wish for.
 

 

And for the record, I think Chauvin is as guilty as fuck...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

 

So that old requirement of “an impartial jury of your piers” was tosh all along?
Why have a trial at all?
You lot should be careful what you wish for.
 

 

And for the record, I think Chauvin is as guilty as fuck...

So by thinking Chauvin is guilty as fuck you undermine your point.

People may have a bias. But that doesn't mean that it needs to be/was applied.

And having a unanimous decision shows one person's bias is swallowed up by the jury process.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people with a bias not capable of setting that bias aside when asked to perform jury duty? (Rhetorical)

It's interesting which side of the political divide seem to think not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... The whole white jury agreed,,,Seems the divide can go both ways and isn't dependent on political stance

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 00seven said:

Hmmm... The whole white jury agreed,,,Seems the divide can go both ways and isn't dependent on political stance

 

White bread or wholemeal.?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

White bread or wholemeal.?

 

(It's "all white Jury agreed" )

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

 

So that old requirement of “an impartial jury of your piers” was tosh all along?
Why have a trial at all?
You lot should be careful what you wish for.
 

 

And for the record, I think Chauvin is as guilty as fuck...

The jury trial system began when the neighbors who knew you made the decision.  Now we make sure it is a stranger that judges your actions.

I really would hate to deal with a doped up thief.  I doubt I'd kill him.  But we paid someone to do it.  And then he goes to prison as a salve on our conscience.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:
2 hours ago, 00seven said:

Hmmm... The whole white jury agreed,,,Seems the divide can go both ways and isn't dependent on political stance

 

Expand  Expand  

White bread or wholemeal.?

tenor.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2021 at 6:27 PM, SloopJonB said:

I'm 69 and have never seen anything like that - anywhere.

Do you live in a box?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mike in Seattle said:

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[21]

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only we could go back to the days before camera phones, we could have chalked this up to a medical event...like the press release before the footage went public. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So by thinking Chauvin is guilty as fuck you undermine your point.

People may have a bias. But that doesn't mean that it needs to be/was applied.

And having a unanimous decision shows one person's bias is swallowed up by the jury process.

 

Um,

I wasn’t a juror ya dummy and if I’d been summoned,  I would have as declared that I believed the cop to be guilty, which would, get this, have disqualified me from serving.

Clearly that knobhead of a juror wanted his pathetic 15 minutes of fame so he lied during the vetting process. It sure would be nice to see him pay for that crime and for wasting taxpayer resources.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:
14 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

 

So that old requirement of “an impartial jury of your piers” was tosh all along?
Why have a trial at all?
You lot should be careful what you wish for.
 

 

And for the record, I think Chauvin is as guilty as fuck...

Expand  

Expand  

So by thinking Chauvin is guilty as fuck you undermine your point.

People may have a bias. But that doesn't mean that it needs to be/was applied.

And having a unanimous decision shows one person's bias is swallowed up by the jury process.

A jury of your piers? Why are all the RWQNJ illiterate? Is illiteracy the root or the result of RWQNJness?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

A jury of your piers? Why are all the RWQNJ illiterate? Is illiteracy the root or the result of RWQNJness?

Well, aren’t you the regular little miss instien for spotting that error.

 

Consider this post a gentle pat on the head for your accomplishment, ya feckin geeniass ya...

 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Who ya gonna believe? Chauvin or your lyin eyes?  Did someone say pier pressure? That might be on the dockit.

Let's sea if it floats. It might just be a raft of lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

What if Convict Chauvin is a ... wait for it... a ...

 

democRAT?

Two cheeks of the same arse, which are full of shíte.

 

What do I win ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Voyageur said:

is this ok?

.image.jpeg.a5201c828830b63aa1bad0c5fd196a01.jpeg

 

 

Kinda depends on which person is the democRAT and which is the American, doesn't it?  Something about that fella on the bottom of that exchange that makes me think democRAT.  Can't put my finger on it....  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know white "CHRISTERS", feel  very THREATENED,. by the rest of us. Please leave us alone. This is a free country. DOG BLESS AMERICA.11111

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The first question asked: 'Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?' 

The second asked: 'Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?'

That photo was not a demonstration, march or a protest. It was at a celebration of MLK's I Have A Dream speech in DC.

Thanks for that factual post . .  

Don't know how the guy answered the first question, but there can be few black folks in Minneapolis who did not have "someone close" in the demos. 

Again, don't know how he answered, but few black Minneapolis-ians could answer "no". 

And right, the MLK event was a rally/celebration, not a demo/march/protest. 

Our PA Reich seems to think that the juror was not capable of judging the facts and law of the case. 

They do not know that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

 

Our PA Reich seems to think that the juror was not capable of judging the facts and law of the case. 

 

They are not concerned with facts and law.

Their support of The Former Guy is proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
44 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Our PA Reich seems to think that the juror was not capable of judging the facts and law of the case. 

 

They are not concerned with facts and law.

Their support of The Former Guy is proof.

^ this ^

And they also get pissed off when you make the leap of faith to suppose that because they think Chauvin's trial was UNFAIR that they are bigoted and in favor of police brutality against blacks.

Seems like a pretty easy connection to me.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Olsonist said:

The first question asked: 'Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?' 

The second asked: 'Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?'

That photo was not a demonstration, march or a protest. It was at a celebration of MLK's I Have A Dream speech in DC.

The juror was black. It's clear that, with the Elk, that is enough to get him tossed off that jury.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Um,

I wasn’t a juror ya dummy and if I’d been summoned,  I would have as declared that I believed the cop to be guilty, which would, get this, have disqualified me from serving.

Clearly that knobhead of a juror wanted his pathetic 15 minutes of fame so he lied during the vetting process. It sure would be nice to see him pay for that crime and for wasting taxpayer resources.

 

 

He didn’t lie.  In fact he affirmatively stated during voir dire that he supported BLM.  Defense counsel was either ineffective or was out of challenges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fakenews said:

He didn’t lie.  In fact he affirmatively stated during voir dire that he supported BLM.  Defense counsel was either ineffective or was out of challenges.

I've been looking for a source for his response during voir dire. Where did you find it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

They are not concerned with facts and law.

Their support of The Former Guy is proof.

You mean, Like the fact that the law requires people to be honest when filing out the juror pool questionnaire?
 

 

You fecker are stoopieder that the republicans and that’s quite the achievement.

 

Congratulations!!!
 

lol

lol 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

He didn’t lie.  In fact he affirmatively stated during voir dire that he supported BLM.  Defense counsel was either ineffective or was out of challenges.

I’d like to see proof of that and if it is in fact true, the lawyer(s) responsible for this fuck up should foot the bill for the retrial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I've been looking for a source for his response during voir dire. Where did you find it? 

I heard it on Dan Abrams show and CNN haven’t seen a print source yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I've been looking for a source for his response during voir dire. Where did you find it? 

It was a questionnaire.

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JurorQuestionnaire12222020.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/us/jury-george-floyd-derek-chauvin-trial.html

Also, it wasn't mentioned in the motion to dismiss. It's just a sideshow with a lower standard of proof, being a sideshow and all.

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I heard it on Dan Abrams show and CNN haven’t seen a print source yet.

The closest I can find is a blank version of the questionnaire that they filled out:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-jury-questions/4c54ccb3edf65018/full.pdf

See question 7. "Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?"

He answered "No" according to this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/

Did he participate in any of the demonstrations defined in question 7? He says he went to an MLK anniversary march in DC.  DC ain't Minneapolis. 

Abuse of discretion standard applies. Good luck meeting it on that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

It's bullshit for bullshitters.  But lets see how it plays out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The closest I can find is a blank version of the questionnaire that they filled out:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-jury-questions/4c54ccb3edf65018/full.pdf

See question 7. "Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?"

He answered "No" according to this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/

Did he participate in any of the demonstrations defined in question 7? He says he went to an MLK anniversary march in DC.  DC ain't Minneapolis. 

Abuse of discretion standard applies. Good luck meeting it on that. 

 

I look forward to @Sea warrior lobbing an insult your way, and following it with an "lol".

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I look forward to @Sea warrior lobbing an insult your way, and following it with an "lol".

Me no clicky on linky because
NYT and Wapo n shit...
 

That’d be like heavens forbid, clicking on fox 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

He didn’t lie.  In fact he affirmatively stated during voir dire that he supported BLM.  Defense counsel was either ineffective or was out of challenges.

 

24 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

I’d like to see proof of that and if it is in fact true, the lawyer(s) responsible for this fuck up should foot the bill for the retrial.

If FN is right and he wasn't challenged during voir dire, there won't be a retrial on those grounds.

You don't get a new trial because you fucked up the first time.

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

 

If FN is right and he wasn't challenged during voir dire, there won't be a retrial on those grounds.

You don't get a new trial because you fucked up the first time.

lol

Again, the juror thing wasn’t mentioned in the motion. It’s just sideshow nonsense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

Me no clicky on linky because
NYT and Wapo n shit...
 

That’d be like heavens forbid, clicking on fox 

 

lol

So, you prefer to remain willfully ignorant.  No surprise.

"I don't click on links that might disagree with my preconceived notions." (likely Sea warrior quote)

Can I get an lol?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

 

If FN is right and he wasn't challenged during voir dire, there won't be a retrial on those grounds.

You don't get a new trial because you fucked up the first time.

lol

Good 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, you prefer to remain willfully ignorant.  No surprise.

"I don't click on links that might disagree with my preconceived notions." (likely Sea warrior quote)

Can I get an lol?

Hey ejit, you do know that there  are plenty of other sources for obtaining news without clicking on those links and rewarding bad behavior?

 

 

 

Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

Hey ejit, you do know that there  are plenty of other sources for obtaining news without clicking on those links and rewarding bad behavior?

 

 

 

Lol

Of course there are.  Got any reliable sources that support your claim?

5 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Clearly that knobhead of a juror wanted his pathetic 15 minutes of fame so he lied during the vetting process. It sure would be nice to see him pay for that crime and for wasting taxpayer resources.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Of course there are.  Got any reliable sources that support your claim?

 

I don’t know about you it anytime I’ve been summoned for jury duty I declared all relevant interests and potential conflicts of interest in the case.

 

Just so that what we are witnessing with this case would be avoided and shit"

 

Too much to ask of the idiots?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Um,

I wasn’t a juror ya dummy and if I’d been summoned,  I would have as declared that I believed the cop to be guilty, which would, get this, have disqualified me from serving.

Clearly that knobhead of a juror wanted his pathetic 15 minutes of fame so he lied during the vetting process. It sure would be nice to see him pay for that crime and for wasting taxpayer resources.

 

 

How could you believe anything without hearing the evidence?

 

 

lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that several jurors were asked during jury selection about Both BLM and police and that a number said they supported both which a reasonable person would be wont to do....

Big nothing burger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

I don’t know about you it anytime I’ve been summoned for jury duty I declared all relevant interests and potential conflicts of interest in the case.

 

Just so that what we are witnessing with this case would be avoided and shit"

 

Too much to ask of the idiots?

You said he lied.  We have seen the question asked.  How is his response a lie?  

el oh el

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Again, the juror thing wasn’t mentioned in the motion. It’s just sideshow nonsense.

Nothing but bullshit for bullshitters. Walsh is right on.
 

Not everyone was fortunate enough to be taught to tell the truth, and they’re going to do what their folks taught them to do. All we can hope is that they don’t pass on the gene before making the world a more honest place by departing from it. 

E46F15A0-688C-48A5-B2A0-9BC3D0886261.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

You said he lied.  We have seen the question asked.  How is his response a lie?  

el oh el

We will see what he actually did or did not do eventually.

You know, after the fuckheads on both sides have (people like yourself) have drawn as much political capital out of it as possible.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

We will see what he actually did or did not do eventually.

You know, after the fuckheads on both sides have (people like yourself) have drawn as much political capital out of it as possible.

 

 

12 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

Um,

I wasn’t a juror ya dummy and if I’d been summoned,  I would have as declared that I believed the cop to be guilty, which would, get this, have disqualified me from serving.

Clearly that knobhead of a juror wanted his pathetic 15 minutes of fame so he lied during the vetting process. It sure would be nice to see him pay for that crime and for wasting taxpayer resources.

 

 

So, did he lie or are you one of those fuckheads?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

anytime I’ve been summoned for jury duty

I shudder to think of you on any jury, on any case, in any court of law. 

Your cognition leaves a whole lot to be desired. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

 

So, did he lie or are you one of those fuckheads?

I’m not sure but I find it extremely difficult to believe that an attorney would allow someone who was an activist, appearing to support BLM  to sit on a jury in a trial like this.

Either the juror is a liar or the attorney is a nincompoop.

 


But, Let me ask you this, did the juror tell the truth in your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

I shudder to think of you on any jury, on any case, in any court of law. 

Your cognition leaves a whole lot to be desired. 

And I shudder to think of you lecturing any class, in any institute of learning.

Your cognitive abilities (among other character flaws) leaves a whole lot to be desired.


 

Now, forgive me for beginning a sentence with a conjunction, though thankfully, we’re in the colonies where education leaves much to be desired so it probably won’t be an issue...

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sea warrior said:

I’m not sure but I find it extremely difficult to believe that an attorney would allow someone who was an activist, appearing to support BLM  to sit on a jury in a trial like this.

Either the juror is a liar or the attorney is a nincompoop.

 


But, Let me ask you this, did the juror tell the truth in your opinion?

Given the questions were specific to 1) Minneapolis, and 2) "protests", I'd say no.  He attended a rally. In DC.

Don't like that his honest answers weren't used to dismiss him?  Too bad.  He didn't write the questionnaire.

The first question asked, "Did you, or someone close to you, participate in any of the demonstrations or marches against police brutality that took place in Minneapolis after George Floyd's death?"

The second asked, "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you, participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Linky

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

I shudder to think of you on any jury, on any case, in any court of law. 

Your cognition leaves a whole lot to be desired. 

He(she?) could be good for Rudy's Duh-fense strategy....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Whoops. Sorry, fans of police killing black men without repercussions. Federal indictments for George Floyd’s murderers. 
 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/552323-grand-jury-indicts-4-ex-police-officers-in-george-floyds-death

Who here supports killing of innocent black men without repercussions?
 

Serious question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Chauvin Trial will be found to be a mistrial because of idiot activist juror... 

Yups. 'Cuz all it takes is one moronic attention whore to fuk things up for everybody....

Link to post
Share on other sites

That might work on Fox but the courtroom tends to be a place where bullshit stops. I'd say there's a better chance of the Foxitus defense working. But lube up and give each other a stroke if it tickles your fancy to dream of another black person being taken down by this, though character assassination isn't quite as final as kneeling on a guy's neck for 9.5 minutes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

Chauvin Trial will be found to be a mistrial because of idiot activist juror... 

I doubt it. But just in case, there’s a backup plan. See post directly above yours. 

Link to post
Share on other sites