Floyd verdict thread (moments away)

[lantern2814]

I can't help but wonder what may happen still because you know that there are going to be people who are not happy with the verdict and we all know that they have already been shown how to play a certain game thanks to those who have already done the looting, rioting, and torching. I wonder how many cops are now going to turn in their badges.

God bless you and them always!!!

Holly

I don’t think there are many cops who support what Chauvin did.

He made their jobs harder

I don't know if all the blame should be dumped on him. To me, it may be the public who has only made their jobs harder because you know that there is always going to be people out there who are not happy when someone who isn't wearing the uniform dies.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

The public expects the police to do their jobs with professionalism and compassion

Chauvin didn’t.
I don’t see many police saying......I would have done the same thing

During the trial it was revealed that he acted according to restraint training taught in Minneapolis.

His Supervisors testified otherwise

And the actual trainer showed them to be liars. His word outranks theirs.

 

[lantern2814]

View attachment 482510

That has nothing to do with the fact that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. NOTHING!

It estbalished the fact that he was a piece of sorry shit that you asshole dimit Libtards have treated like a saint. Shame on you! Pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

No one is treating him like a saint dipshit! He is being treated as a victim which he was. He has his problems and made some bad choices, but did he deserve to die? Don't be a coward. SAmswer the fucking question

You are a liar. As usual. Glorifying a drug addicted, pregnant woman assaulting piece of shit. Victim? He did it to himself asshole. Now STFU.

 

[Slade3200]

The jury was intimidated.

With a quick verdict, the Jury was outraged

The jury was afraid for their lives. After being doxxed. Try telling the truth for once.

Ask them

I bet more will say they were outraged by Chauvins abuse

So threatening the jury is okay with you. Enjoy the appeal win for Chauvin. And then thank Maxine for us.

Do you ever get tired of being flat out wrong?! Haha you crack me up. The village idiot

 

[struth]

I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?

Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?

I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned

So in this case you think the judge explained the law incorrectly and the jury got it wrong and the 2nd degree charge will be overturned?

If the judge said what you posted, then yes....as I have linked the Minn Stat, that shows what you posted was incorrect.

You are half right. I sited the wrong section of the law. The second part I referenced was referring to a protective order. The first part is what I should have sited and that refers to unintentional death caused by the act of a felony which in this case would be assault which was clearly beyond the bounds of his duty’s given the circumstances of the situation as testified to by his police chief.

i addressed that...this is the state’s felony murder law. Under the felony murder rule the assault merges. So still wouldn’t apply, and thus should be over turned

The assault merges with what?

The death...thereby can't be the felony used to prove felony murder....because it is in fact the direct cause of the death.

Different then say a robbery...where the intent was never to kill, but due to the dangerous act, someone was killed, that intent to rob, can be used as the felony to convict of the unintented homicide....thus felony murder would apply.

I’m not following your logic. The officer isn’t being charged with an intention to kill, that would be first degree. He was charged with second degree because he committed a felony assault by sitting on Floyd as he pled for his life and ended up dying. The cop intended to make Floyd suffer and it ended up killing him which is why he was charged with felony murder. What am I missing?

I didn't say he was...

The felony assault would merge under the Felony murder merger rule...thoses making second degree not proper.

the felony assault would merge making two separate charges 1. assault and 2. 2nd degree murder not proper... the charge of Second degree murder would swallow the assault and it would fit the laws definition If the officer is believed to have unlawfully intended to inflict harm on Floyd which the jury found him guilty of.

No....I've posted this before and I'll do it again...https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule#:~:text=The%20felony%2Dmurder%20rule%20originated%20in%20England%20under%20the%20Common%20Law.&text=This%20is%20known%20as%20the,weapon%20are%20included%20in%20murder.

" Felony-urder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. "

You’re example said it right there... “If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. " he was charged with murder

He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder in Minn, which does not fit the allegations. Their Second Degree Murder stat is their felony murder stat.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

View attachment 482510

That has nothing to do with the fact that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. NOTHING!

It estbalished the fact that he was a piece of sorry shit that you asshole dimit Libtards have treated like a saint. Shame on you! Pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

No one is treating him like a saint dipshit! He is being treated as a victim which he was. He has his problems and made some bad choices, but did he deserve to die? Don't be a coward. SAmswer the fucking question

You are a liar. As usual. Glorifying a drug addicted, pregnant woman assaulting piece of shit. Victim? He did it to himself asshole. Now STFU.

Derek Chauvin’s dope-fiend defense is part of an old playbook. But it’s outdated. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Slade3200]

I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?

Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?

I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned

So in this case you think the judge explained the law incorrectly and the jury got it wrong and the 2nd degree charge will be overturned?

If the judge said what you posted, then yes....as I have linked the Minn Stat, that shows what you posted was incorrect.

You are half right. I sited the wrong section of the law. The second part I referenced was referring to a protective order. The first part is what I should have sited and that refers to unintentional death caused by the act of a felony which in this case would be assault which was clearly beyond the bounds of his duty’s given the circumstances of the situation as testified to by his police chief.

i addressed that...this is the state’s felony murder law. Under the felony murder rule the assault merges. So still wouldn’t apply, and thus should be over turned

The assault merges with what?

The death...thereby can't be the felony used to prove felony murder....because it is in fact the direct cause of the death.

Different then say a robbery...where the intent was never to kill, but due to the dangerous act, someone was killed, that intent to rob, can be used as the felony to convict of the unintented homicide....thus felony murder would apply.

I’m not following your logic. The officer isn’t being charged with an intention to kill, that would be first degree. He was charged with second degree because he committed a felony assault by sitting on Floyd as he pled for his life and ended up dying. The cop intended to make Floyd suffer and it ended up killing him which is why he was charged with felony murder. What am I missing?

I didn't say he was...

The felony assault would merge under the Felony murder merger rule...thoses making second degree not proper.

the felony assault would merge making two separate charges 1. assault and 2. 2nd degree murder not proper... the charge of Second degree murder would swallow the assault and it would fit the laws definition If the officer is believed to have unlawfully intended to inflict harm on Floyd which the jury found him guilty of.

No....I've posted this before and I'll do it again...https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule#:~:text=The%20felony%2Dmurder%20rule%20originated%20in%20England%20under%20the%20Common%20Law.&text=This%20is%20known%20as%20the,weapon%20are%20included%20in%20murder.

" Felony-urder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. "

You’re example said it right there... “If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. " he was charged with murder

He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder in Minn, which does not fit the allegations. Their Second Degree Murder stat is their felony murder stat.

You are mistaken. It fits the allegation. Unintentional murder through the act of committing a felony assault. What do you think that act falls under according to Min law?

 

[struth]

I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?

Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?

I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned

So in this case you think the judge explained the law incorrectly and the jury got it wrong and the 2nd degree charge will be overturned?

If the judge said what you posted, then yes....as I have linked the Minn Stat, that shows what you posted was incorrect.

You are half right. I sited the wrong section of the law. The second part I referenced was referring to a protective order. The first part is what I should have sited and that refers to unintentional death caused by the act of a felony which in this case would be assault which was clearly beyond the bounds of his duty’s given the circumstances of the situation as testified to by his police chief.

i addressed that...this is the state’s felony murder law. Under the felony murder rule the assault merges. So still wouldn’t apply, and thus should be over turned

The assault merges with what?

The death...thereby can't be the felony used to prove felony murder....because it is in fact the direct cause of the death.

Different then say a robbery...where the intent was never to kill, but due to the dangerous act, someone was killed, that intent to rob, can be used as the felony to convict of the unintented homicide....thus felony murder would apply.

I’m not following your logic. The officer isn’t being charged with an intention to kill, that would be first degree. He was charged with second degree because he committed a felony assault by sitting on Floyd as he pled for his life and ended up dying. The cop intended to make Floyd suffer and it ended up killing him which is why he was charged with felony murder. What am I missing?

I didn't say he was...

The felony assault would merge under the Felony murder merger rule...thoses making second degree not proper.

the felony assault would merge making two separate charges 1. assault and 2. 2nd degree murder not proper... the charge of Second degree murder would swallow the assault and it would fit the laws definition If the officer is believed to have unlawfully intended to inflict harm on Floyd which the jury found him guilty of.

No....I've posted this before and I'll do it again...https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule#:~:text=The%20felony%2Dmurder%20rule%20originated%20in%20England%20under%20the%20Common%20Law.&text=This%20is%20known%20as%20the,weapon%20are%20included%20in%20murder.

" Felony-urder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. "

You’re example said it right there... “If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. " he was charged with murder

He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder in Minn, which does not fit the allegations. Their Second Degree Murder stat is their felony murder stat.

You are mistaken. It fits the allegation. Unintentional murder through the act of committing a felony assault. What do you think that act falls under according to Min law?

I just highlighted that the felony assault...can not be used for the felony murder.

what he did, was 3rd degree, or manslaughter both proper charges and both could be convicted.

Or, they could have argued he had the intent to kill...and use the second degree stat in Minn. I think that would have been tougher to prove

 

[Slade3200]

I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?

Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?

I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned

So in this case you think the judge explained the law incorrectly and the jury got it wrong and the 2nd degree charge will be overturned?

If the judge said what you posted, then yes....as I have linked the Minn Stat, that shows what you posted was incorrect.

You are half right. I sited the wrong section of the law. The second part I referenced was referring to a protective order. The first part is what I should have sited and that refers to unintentional death caused by the act of a felony which in this case would be assault which was clearly beyond the bounds of his duty’s given the circumstances of the situation as testified to by his police chief.

i addressed that...this is the state’s felony murder law. Under the felony murder rule the assault merges. So still wouldn’t apply, and thus should be over turned

The assault merges with what?

The death...thereby can't be the felony used to prove felony murder....because it is in fact the direct cause of the death.

Different then say a robbery...where the intent was never to kill, but due to the dangerous act, someone was killed, that intent to rob, can be used as the felony to convict of the unintented homicide....thus felony murder would apply.

I’m not following your logic. The officer isn’t being charged with an intention to kill, that would be first degree. He was charged with second degree because he committed a felony assault by sitting on Floyd as he pled for his life and ended up dying. The cop intended to make Floyd suffer and it ended up killing him which is why he was charged with felony murder. What am I missing?

I didn't say he was...

The felony assault would merge under the Felony murder merger rule...thoses making second degree not proper.

the felony assault would merge making two separate charges 1. assault and 2. 2nd degree murder not proper... the charge of Second degree murder would swallow the assault and it would fit the laws definition If the officer is believed to have unlawfully intended to inflict harm on Floyd which the jury found him guilty of.

No....I've posted this before and I'll do it again...https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule#:~:text=The%20felony%2Dmurder%20rule%20originated%20in%20England%20under%20the%20Common%20Law.&text=This%20is%20known%20as%20the,weapon%20are%20included%20in%20murder.

" Felony-urder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. "

You’re example said it right there... “If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. " he was charged with murder

He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder in Minn, which does not fit the allegations. Their Second Degree Murder stat is their felony murder stat.

You are mistaken. It fits the allegation. Unintentional murder through the act of committing a felony assault. What do you think that act falls under according to Min law?

I just highlighted that the felony assault...can not be used for the felony murder.

what he did, was 3rd degree, or manslaughter both proper charges and both could be convicted.

Or, they could have argued he had the intent to kill...and use the second degree stat in Minn. I think that would have been tougher to prove

How would that be tough to prove? The cop sat on Floyd while he cried for his life, begged for his mother and repeated that he couldn’t breath and then he died and had no pulse and the cop stayed on top on him for 2 more minutes. I don’t think intent to harm or kill is hard to prove at all. It’s all on video

 

[struth]

I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?

Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?

I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned

So in this case you think the judge explained the law incorrectly and the jury got it wrong and the 2nd degree charge will be overturned?

If the judge said what you posted, then yes....as I have linked the Minn Stat, that shows what you posted was incorrect.

You are half right. I sited the wrong section of the law. The second part I referenced was referring to a protective order. The first part is what I should have sited and that refers to unintentional death caused by the act of a felony which in this case would be assault which was clearly beyond the bounds of his duty’s given the circumstances of the situation as testified to by his police chief.

i addressed that...this is the state’s felony murder law. Under the felony murder rule the assault merges. So still wouldn’t apply, and thus should be over turned

The assault merges with what?

The death...thereby can't be the felony used to prove felony murder....because it is in fact the direct cause of the death.

Different then say a robbery...where the intent was never to kill, but due to the dangerous act, someone was killed, that intent to rob, can be used as the felony to convict of the unintented homicide....thus felony murder would apply.

I’m not following your logic. The officer isn’t being charged with an intention to kill, that would be first degree. He was charged with second degree because he committed a felony assault by sitting on Floyd as he pled for his life and ended up dying. The cop intended to make Floyd suffer and it ended up killing him which is why he was charged with felony murder. What am I missing?

I didn't say he was...

The felony assault would merge under the Felony murder merger rule...thoses making second degree not proper.

the felony assault would merge making two separate charges 1. assault and 2. 2nd degree murder not proper... the charge of Second degree murder would swallow the assault and it would fit the laws definition If the officer is believed to have unlawfully intended to inflict harm on Floyd which the jury found him guilty of.

No....I've posted this before and I'll do it again...https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule#:~:text=The%20felony%2Dmurder%20rule%20originated%20in%20England%20under%20the%20Common%20Law.&text=This%20is%20known%20as%20the,weapon%20are%20included%20in%20murder.

" Felony-urder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. "

You’re example said it right there... “If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. " he was charged with murder

He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder in Minn, which does not fit the allegations. Their Second Degree Murder stat is their felony murder stat.

You are mistaken. It fits the allegation. Unintentional murder through the act of committing a felony assault. What do you think that act falls under according to Min law?

I just highlighted that the felony assault...can not be used for the felony murder.

what he did, was 3rd degree, or manslaughter both proper charges and both could be convicted.

Or, they could have argued he had the intent to kill...and use the second degree stat in Minn. I think that would have been tougher to prove

How would that be tough to prove? The cop sat on Floyd while he cried for his life, begged for his mother and repeated that he couldn’t breath and then he died and had no pulse and the cop stayed on top on him for 2 more minutes. I don’t think intent to harm or kill is hard to prove at all. It’s all on video

I just think it would be tougher to prove he had the intent to kill v. he didn't have the intent to kill. Proving intent is always a tough thing.

I don't think intent to harm is hard...but intent to kill would have been harder.

 

[Slade3200]

I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?

Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?

I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned

So in this case you think the judge explained the law incorrectly and the jury got it wrong and the 2nd degree charge will be overturned?

If the judge said what you posted, then yes....as I have linked the Minn Stat, that shows what you posted was incorrect.

You are half right. I sited the wrong section of the law. The second part I referenced was referring to a protective order. The first part is what I should have sited and that refers to unintentional death caused by the act of a felony which in this case would be assault which was clearly beyond the bounds of his duty’s given the circumstances of the situation as testified to by his police chief.

i addressed that...this is the state’s felony murder law. Under the felony murder rule the assault merges. So still wouldn’t apply, and thus should be over turned

The assault merges with what?

The death...thereby can't be the felony used to prove felony murder....because it is in fact the direct cause of the death.

Different then say a robbery...where the intent was never to kill, but due to the dangerous act, someone was killed, that intent to rob, can be used as the felony to convict of the unintented homicide....thus felony murder would apply.

I’m not following your logic. The officer isn’t being charged with an intention to kill, that would be first degree. He was charged with second degree because he committed a felony assault by sitting on Floyd as he pled for his life and ended up dying. The cop intended to make Floyd suffer and it ended up killing him which is why he was charged with felony murder. What am I missing?

I didn't say he was...

The felony assault would merge under the Felony murder merger rule...thoses making second degree not proper.

the felony assault would merge making two separate charges 1. assault and 2. 2nd degree murder not proper... the charge of Second degree murder would swallow the assault and it would fit the laws definition If the officer is believed to have unlawfully intended to inflict harm on Floyd which the jury found him guilty of.

No....I've posted this before and I'll do it again...https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule#:~:text=The%20felony%2Dmurder%20rule%20originated%20in%20England%20under%20the%20Common%20Law.&text=This%20is%20known%20as%20the,weapon%20are%20included%20in%20murder.

" Felony-urder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. "

You’re example said it right there... “If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. " he was charged with murder

He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder in Minn, which does not fit the allegations. Their Second Degree Murder stat is their felony murder stat.

You are mistaken. It fits the allegation. Unintentional murder through the act of committing a felony assault. What do you think that act falls under according to Min law?

I just highlighted that the felony assault...can not be used for the felony murder.

what he did, was 3rd degree, or manslaughter both proper charges and both could be convicted.

Or, they could have argued he had the intent to kill...and use the second degree stat in Minn. I think that would have been tougher to prove

How would that be tough to prove? The cop sat on Floyd while he cried for his life, begged for his mother and repeated that he couldn’t breath and then he died and had no pulse and the cop stayed on top on him for 2 more minutes. I don’t think intent to harm or kill is hard to prove at all. It’s all on video

I just think it would be tougher to prove he had the intent to kill v. he didn't have the intent to kill. Proving intent is always a tough thing.

I don't think intent to harm is hard...but intent to kill would have been harder.

He doesn’t need intent to kill. He only needs intent to harm. 3rd degree is depraved mind, firing into a crowd type of stuff. Being reckless. While I think that certainly does apply here you also can’t deny this went a step further as he was focused on a subject, ignoring pleas for help and inflicting harm until and after the death of Floyd.

To be honest I don’t understand why the protective order element is in the law. I don’t see how that changes anything. But I know this case falls in between premeditation and recklessness. The judge explained clearly that an intention to inflict harm which causes death would be considered 2nd degree murder

 

[struth]

I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.

Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?

Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Sec. 609.19 MN Statutes

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?

I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned

So in this case you think the judge explained the law incorrectly and the jury got it wrong and the 2nd degree charge will be overturned?

If the judge said what you posted, then yes....as I have linked the Minn Stat, that shows what you posted was incorrect.

You are half right. I sited the wrong section of the law. The second part I referenced was referring to a protective order. The first part is what I should have sited and that refers to unintentional death caused by the act of a felony which in this case would be assault which was clearly beyond the bounds of his duty’s given the circumstances of the situation as testified to by his police chief.

i addressed that...this is the state’s felony murder law. Under the felony murder rule the assault merges. So still wouldn’t apply, and thus should be over turned

The assault merges with what?

The death...thereby can't be the felony used to prove felony murder....because it is in fact the direct cause of the death.

Different then say a robbery...where the intent was never to kill, but due to the dangerous act, someone was killed, that intent to rob, can be used as the felony to convict of the unintented homicide....thus felony murder would apply.

I’m not following your logic. The officer isn’t being charged with an intention to kill, that would be first degree. He was charged with second degree because he committed a felony assault by sitting on Floyd as he pled for his life and ended up dying. The cop intended to make Floyd suffer and it ended up killing him which is why he was charged with felony murder. What am I missing?

I didn't say he was...

The felony assault would merge under the Felony murder merger rule...thoses making second degree not proper.

the felony assault would merge making two separate charges 1. assault and 2. 2nd degree murder not proper... the charge of Second degree murder would swallow the assault and it would fit the laws definition If the officer is believed to have unlawfully intended to inflict harm on Floyd which the jury found him guilty of.

No....I've posted this before and I'll do it again...https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+Rule#:~:text=The%20felony%2Dmurder%20rule%20originated%20in%20England%20under%20the%20Common%20Law.&text=This%20is%20known%20as%20the,weapon%20are%20included%20in%20murder.

" Felony-urder cannot be charged if all the elements of the felony are included in the elements of murder. This is known as the merger doctrine, which holds that if the underlying felony merges with the killing, the felony cannot constitute felony-murder. For example, all of the elements of Assault and Battery with a deadly weapon are included in murder. If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. "

You’re example said it right there... “If a killing, therefore, occurred during the course of this crime, the accused would be charged with murder. " he was charged with murder

He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder in Minn, which does not fit the allegations. Their Second Degree Murder stat is their felony murder stat.

You are mistaken. It fits the allegation. Unintentional murder through the act of committing a felony assault. What do you think that act falls under according to Min law?

I just highlighted that the felony assault...can not be used for the felony murder.

what he did, was 3rd degree, or manslaughter both proper charges and both could be convicted.

Or, they could have argued he had the intent to kill...and use the second degree stat in Minn. I think that would have been tougher to prove

How would that be tough to prove? The cop sat on Floyd while he cried for his life, begged for his mother and repeated that he couldn’t breath and then he died and had no pulse and the cop stayed on top on him for 2 more minutes. I don’t think intent to harm or kill is hard to prove at all. It’s all on video

I just think it would be tougher to prove he had the intent to kill v. he didn't have the intent to kill. Proving intent is always a tough thing.

I don't think intent to harm is hard...but intent to kill would have been harder.

He doesn’t need intent to kill. He only needs intent to harm. 3rd degree is depraved mind, firing into a crowd type of stuff. Being reckless. While I think that certainly does apply here you also can’t deny this went a step further as he was focused on a subject, ignoring pleas for help and inflicting harm until and after the death of Floyd.

To be honest I don’t understand why the protective order element is in the law. I don’t see how that changes anything. But I know this case falls in between premeditation and recklessness. The judge explained clearly that an intention to inflict harm which causes death would be considered 2nd degree murder

not for 2nd degree..please take the time to read the stat i provided repeatedly

 

[lantern2814]

The jury was intimidated.

With a quick verdict, the Jury was outraged

The jury was afraid for their lives. After being doxxed. Try telling the truth for once.

Ask them

I bet more will say they were outraged by Chauvins abuse

So threatening the jury is okay with you. Enjoy the appeal win for Chauvin. And then thank Maxine for us.

Do you ever get tired of being flat out wrong?! Haha you crack me up. The village idiot

I told you to go fuck yourself boing boing boy. Now claiming Waters didn’t say what she said. And that it didn’t taint the evidence jury. The village idiot here is you asshole. Now STFU you uneducated Dimtard parrot

 

[lantern2814]

View attachment 482510

That has nothing to do with the fact that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. NOTHING!

It estbalished the fact that he was a piece of sorry shit that you asshole dimit Libtards have treated like a saint. Shame on you! Pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

No one is treating him like a saint dipshit! He is being treated as a victim which he was. He has his problems and made some bad choices, but did he deserve to die? Don't be a coward. SAmswer the fucking question

You are a liar. As usual. Glorifying a drug addicted, pregnant woman assaulting piece of shit. Victim? He did it to himself asshole. Now STFU.

Derek Chauvin’s dope-fiend defense is part of an old playbook. But it’s outdated. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was Floyd a dope fiend or not? Yes he was. That’s not a cop out. It’s called truth. Something you and yours don’t like hearing.

 

[Slade3200]

The jury was intimidated.

With a quick verdict, the Jury was outraged

The jury was afraid for their lives. After being doxxed. Try telling the truth for once.

Ask them

I bet more will say they were outraged by Chauvins abuse

So threatening the jury is okay with you. Enjoy the appeal win for Chauvin. And then thank Maxine for us.

Do you ever get tired of being flat out wrong?! Haha you crack me up. The village idiot

I told you to go fuck yourself boing boing boy. Now claiming Waters didn’t say what she said. And that it didn’t taint the evidence jury. The village idiot here is you asshole. Now STFU you uneducated Dimtard parrot

Haha. You think you telling me to go fuck my self somehow means anything?! Haha. Nobody gives a shit what Maxine Waters says there’s no way it tainted the jury. You’re wrong AGAIN!!

 

[Lastamender]

The jury was intimidated.

With a quick verdict, the Jury was outraged

The jury was afraid for their lives. After being doxxed. Try telling the truth for once.

Ask them

I bet more will say they were outraged by Chauvins abuse

So threatening the jury is okay with you. Enjoy the appeal win for Chauvin. And then thank Maxine for us.

Do you ever get tired of being flat out wrong?! Haha you crack me up. The village idiot

I told you to go fuck yourself boing boing boy. Now claiming Waters didn’t say what she said. And that it didn’t taint the evidence jury. The village idiot here is you asshole. Now STFU you uneducated Dimtard parrot

Haha. You think you telling me to go fuck my self somehow means anything?! Haha. Nobody gives a shit what Maxine Waters says there’s no way it tainted the jury. You’re wrong AGAIN!!

They would give a shit if Trump said it. Amazing double standards.

 

[Slade3200]

The jury was intimidated.

With a quick verdict, the Jury was outraged

The jury was afraid for their lives. After being doxxed. Try telling the truth for once.

Ask them

I bet more will say they were outraged by Chauvins abuse

So threatening the jury is okay with you. Enjoy the appeal win for Chauvin. And then thank Maxine for us.

Do you ever get tired of being flat out wrong?! Haha you crack me up. The village idiot

I told you to go fuck yourself boing boing boy. Now claiming Waters didn’t say what she said. And that it didn’t taint the evidence jury. The village idiot here is you asshole. Now STFU you uneducated Dimtard parrot

Haha. You think you telling me to go fuck my self somehow means anything?! Haha. Nobody gives a shit what Maxine Waters says there’s no way it tainted the jury. You’re wrong AGAIN!!

Thy would give a shit if Trump said it. Amazing double standards.

Who is they? And wouldn’t the same apply to those that excused everything Trump said but now all of sudden care about inflammatory rhetoric? Yes I agree. Total double standard. Both ways

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

View attachment 482510

That has nothing to do with the fact that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. NOTHING!

It estbalished the fact that he was a piece of sorry shit that you asshole dimit Libtards have treated like a saint. Shame on you! Pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

No one is treating him like a saint dipshit! He is being treated as a victim which he was. He has his problems and made some bad choices, but did he deserve to die? Don't be a coward. SAmswer the fucking question

You are a liar. As usual. Glorifying a drug addicted, pregnant woman assaulting piece of shit. Victim? He did it to himself asshole. Now STFU.

Derek Chauvin’s dope-fiend defense is part of an old playbook. But it’s outdated. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was Floyd a dope fiend or not? Yes he was. That’s not a cop out. It’s called truth. Something you and yours don’t like hearing.

Did Floyd has a drug problem ? Yes
Did Chauvin use excessive force that resulted in Floyd's death? YES
Did Floyd desive to die ?NO

End of fucking story!

 

[Flash]

View attachment 482510

That has nothing to do with the fact that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. NOTHING!

It estbalished the fact that he was a piece of sorry shit that you asshole dimit Libtards have treated like a saint. Shame on you! Pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

No one is treating him like a saint dipshit! He is being treated as a victim which he was. He has his problems and made some bad choices, but did he deserve to die? Don't be a coward. SAmswer the fucking question

You are a liar. As usual. Glorifying a drug addicted, pregnant woman assaulting piece of shit. Victim? He did it to himself asshole. Now STFU.

Derek Chauvin’s dope-fiend defense is part of an old playbook. But it’s outdated. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was Floyd a dope fiend or not? Yes he was. That’s not a cop out. It’s called truth. Something you and yours don’t like hearing.

Did Floyd has a drug problem ? Yes
Did Chauvin use excessive force that resulted in Floyd's death? YES
Did Floyd desive to die ?NO

End of fucking story!

The real end of the story is that street thug druggies may not "deserve" to die but the dumb sonofabitches seem to frequently find a way to do it. In this case the shithead tried to pass counterfeit money and resisted arrest. Bad things happen to dumb assholes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

View attachment 482510

That has nothing to do with the fact that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. NOTHING!

It estbalished the fact that he was a piece of sorry shit that you asshole dimit Libtards have treated like a saint. Shame on you! Pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

No one is treating him like a saint dipshit! He is being treated as a victim which he was. He has his problems and made some bad choices, but did he deserve to die? Don't be a coward. SAmswer the fucking question

You are a liar. As usual. Glorifying a drug addicted, pregnant woman assaulting piece of shit. Victim? He did it to himself asshole. Now STFU.

Derek Chauvin’s dope-fiend defense is part of an old playbook. But it’s outdated. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was Floyd a dope fiend or not? Yes he was. That’s not a cop out. It’s called truth. Something you and yours don’t like hearing.

Did Floyd has a drug problem ? Yes
Did Chauvin use excessive force that resulted in Floyd's death? YES
Did Floyd desive to die ?NO

End of fucking story!

The real end of the story is that street thug druggies may not "deserve" to die but the dumb sonofabitches seem to frequently find a way to do it. In this case the shithead tried to pass counterfeit money and resisted arrest. Bad things happen to dumb assholes.

Dude. You don't even know that he was aware of the fact that the note was counterfit. But that is really beside the point. You hateful, intollerant knuckle draggers are on the wrong side of history and public opinion

Chauvin verdict poll: Majority approve of guilty finding (usatoday.com)

Read this and then tell us again how you are right.

 

[Lastamender]

View attachment 482510

That has nothing to do with the fact that Floyd was murdered by Chauvin. NOTHING!

It estbalished the fact that he was a piece of sorry shit that you asshole dimit Libtards have treated like a saint. Shame on you! Pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

No one is treating him like a saint dipshit! He is being treated as a victim which he was. He has his problems and made some bad choices, but did he deserve to die? Don't be a coward. SAmswer the fucking question

You are a liar. As usual. Glorifying a drug addicted, pregnant woman assaulting piece of shit. Victim? He did it to himself asshole. Now STFU.

Derek Chauvin’s dope-fiend defense is part of an old playbook. But it’s outdated. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was Floyd a dope fiend or not? Yes he was. That’s not a cop out. It’s called truth. Something you and yours don’t like hearing.

Did Floyd has a drug problem ? Yes
Did Chauvin use excessive force that resulted in Floyd's death? YES
Did Floyd desive to die ?NO

End of fucking story!

The real end of the story is that street thug druggies may not "deserve" to die but the dumb sonofabitches seem to frequently find a way to do it. In this case the shithead tried to pass counterfeit money and resisted arrest. Bad things happen to dumb assholes.

Dude. You don't even know that he was aware of the fact that the note was counterfit. But that is really beside the point. You hateful, intollerant knuckle draggers are on the wrong side of history and public opinion

Chauvin verdict poll: Majority approve of guilty finding (usatoday.com)

Read this and then tell us again how you are right.

Projection. It is the mob dragging their knuckles. Mob rule.