This is the left....

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,805
Sandusky Sailing Club
El Mariachi said:
Do you know ANYTHING at all about Maxine Waters? You ignorant fuk? Seriously....look up her track record.....then get back to us in a couple daze. The bitch is not only a fuking racist of the Nth degree.. .. she's dumber than two dead clams in a paper bag.....
How about some cites about her "track record"? 

What has she done that is so awful ?? 

What evidence do you have that she is racist ?? 

Your name-calling is not persuasive . . not at all ?  

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
I don't think what Waters said was helpful. I don't think we need to have protests become more confrontational, I think we need consistent and persistent messaging and demands for justice. Regardless of the outcome of this trial, there is a lot of work to be done. We should not look at the outcome of this one trial as something that should change the approach or direction of the racial justice movement. That leaves way too much power in the hands of just one person out of twelve on the jury to turn the nation in one direction or another. This is and should be bigger than that. 

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,284
Curious. Do you think black people should take it, you know, lying down?
No.  I think people should stay the fuck out of trials in progress. Especially elected officials.

The system is designed to present all admissible evidence, in a very systematic fashion, to selected people in the room.  The rules are copiously explained to all of them.  They are to ignore any outside influences, and as difficult as that can be for any human being, it is made far more difficult when some stupid ass elected official is basically calling for a verdict and inferring consequence if that verdict is not reached.  It is flat out irresponsible.   I simply cannot fathom how anyone would evaluate it as otherwise. 

If the cop is found not guilty, we need to know why, and consider re-examining laws, procedures, rules, and process.    Alternatively, to have verdicts decided on the streets is a very, very dangerous precedent, regardless of the justification. 

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,218
11,742
Earth
No.  I think people should stay the fuck out of trials in progress. Especially elected officials.

The system is designed to present all admissible evidence, in a very systematic fashion, to selected people in the room.  The rules are copiously explained to all of them.  They are to ignore any outside influences, and as difficult as that can be for any human being, it is made far more difficult when some stupid ass elected official is basically calling for a verdict and inferring consequence if that verdict is not reached.  It is flat out irresponsible.   I simply cannot fathom how anyone would evaluate it as otherwise. 

If the cop is found not guilty, we need to know why, and consider re-examining laws, procedures, rules, and process.    Alternatively, to have verdicts decided on the streets is a very, very dangerous precedent, regardless of the justification. 
I agree that it is irresponsible, but I need to hear it from the jurors as to whether or not they knew about Rep. Waters' comments before reaching a verdict or an impasse. The motion for mistrial would have been argued and discussed with the jury out of the room. I would be surprised if the jury were not instructed prior to trial to avoid watching the news until after the trial. 

It is imperative that Officer Chauvin receive a fair trial. I think he has. The Judge has been careful to keep stuff out of the record that would open pathways to appeal. This verdict will not be decided on the street, though there are undoubtedly several million people who watched Mr. Floyd's slow agonizing death. It's a lot simpler to gaslight that one jury than to convince several million that they didn't see what their eyes saw. 

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,373
4,204
New Oak City
@benwynnI fathom it as otherwise.

While I agree with some of your explanation--the system is designed to present all admissible evidence--this is not a grand jury. It is a public trial. That evidence is presented to the jury and it is presented to us. Now the Tucker Carlsons can imagine that Waters broke some law; that would be imagining. The judge can tut tut that there will be some consequences and that in my mind is as bad as any interpretation of what Waters said. Be that all as is may be, that evidence is presented to us as well and the jury knows that.

What Waters said is no different from what Biden said, praying for the “right verdict”. I simply cannot fathom how anyone would evaluate that as otherwise.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,373
4,204
New Oak City
Judging from Ben's well considered response, I think I was specific enough. I think he understood my question clearly; he can say otherwise if he thinks otherwise. And I understand his response. Lake of clarity is not the problem here. This is just two adults disagreeing. Not to suck too much dick here, but Ben well knows he's one of my favorite posters. I've said it a few times.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,805
Sandusky Sailing Club
El Mariachi said:
You kneed to be a little more specific here.....
And you do as well. 

Still waiting for ANYTHING in way way of evidence about Auntie Maxine's badness. 

Your posts are typical of the Reich . .  

nothing more than juvenile name calling. 

 

Voyageur

Super Anarchist
3,920
969
On The Borderline
flyod-site-1-white-box-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg


he looks alive at this point

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,284
It's a lot simpler to gaslight that one jury than to convince several million that they didn't see what their eyes saw. 
I am surprised that you would consider factors to consider to reach a verdict are as simple as an observation of video from a camera phone. 

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,218
11,742
Earth
I am surprised that you would consider factors to consider to reach a verdict are as simple as an observation of video from a camera phone. 
There is plenty of eyewitness testimony in the record from this trial for the jury to know what happened, but the jury also saw the video. 

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,284
@benwynnI fathom it as otherwise.

While I agree with some of your explanation--the system is designed to present all admissible evidence--this is not a grand jury. It is a public trial. That evidence is presented to the jury and it is presented to us. Now the Tucker Carlsons can imagine that Waters broke some law; that would be imagining. The judge can tut tut that there will be some consequences and that in my mind is as bad as any interpretation of what Waters said. Be that all as is may be, that evidence is presented to us as well and the jury knows that.

What Waters said is no different from what Biden said, praying for the “right verdict”. I simply cannot fathom how anyone would evaluate that as otherwise.
I didn't say it was any different.  Biden is just as much an idiot for making that comment. 

As for your pointing out that this is a public trial, the jury is supposed to avoid new reports, and only consider what is presented at trial.  The public, in general, has been watching all the sideline bullshit.  And it is my understanding that while the jury is now sequestered, they were not when Waters introduced the idea that the verdict they reach will have consequences.   A juror should be making a decision based on the evidence at hand and the rules thereof, not making a decision based on the future safety of them, their families, and their community.  Maybe you feel differently.

 

benwynn

Super Anarchist
25,275
2,284
There is plenty of eyewitness testimony in the record from this trial for the jury to know what happened, but the jury also saw the video. 
As well as very specific direction as to what is needed for each charge, and what statements to disregard.  The opinion from someone who watched every single minute of that trial, giving the attention to it at the level of a juror has some merit.   I doubt Maxine gave it this amount of attention, given she should have other shit to do.  And I would be surprised if half of the people on the receiving end of Maxine's comments watched much of the trial, if at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,373
4,204
New Oak City
Verdict is in. I'll assume that means no hung jury which I think was Chauvin's best chance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts




Top