Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

[whutTHEYsay]

the thug would be alive today

If he was not arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death by slow suffocation by a killer cop and three accomplices in uniform so fucking stupid to do it in front of witnesses with I-phones clicked on video.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Anyone with any intelligence will consider him more credible than you on matters regarding pathology.

As they should.

Great. So we should find him more credible than you when he says it was a homicide and you say it wasn't. Finally we agree.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Care to address your lie this time, liar?


View attachment 870646

What would be the point? You lied when you first said I lied.

So we’re both liars. Congratulations to us.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Great. So we should find him more credible than you when he says it was a homicide and you say it wasn't. Finally we agree.

Actually, no, we don’t.

I think he bent to pressure and that this had nothing to do with his expertise.

Does he know more than me about pathology? Of course. Were his findings entirely based on pathology? In my opinion, no.

I think he bent to the will and pressure of public anger, the opinions of prosecutors and other pathology experts and the specter of inevitable riots if Chauvin were acquitted.

Judging by your obsession with my argument, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that, if Chauvin had been acquitted, you would still think him guilty.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What would be the point? You lied when you first said I lied.

So we’re both liars. Congratulations to us.

So you admit you lied. Can you specifically show what I lied about? Or are you just lying again?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Does he know more than me about pathology? Of course. Were his findings entirely based on pathology? In my opinion, no.

You’re welcome to hold any stupid opinion you want. We agree that, on matters regarding pathology, he’s more credible than you are. There’s no reason any intelligent person would consider your stupid opinion more likely than his expert opinion.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Judging by your obsession with my argument, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that, if Chauvin had been acquitted, you would still think him guilty.

You’re going to need to be very specific with what you’re trying to say. If he was acquitted during the trial then that would make him, by definition, not guilty. So I would not consider him guilty. However, based on the medical examiner reports concluding “homicide”, I would believe that the jury made the wrong conclusion, and I would disagree with the jury on their decision.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So you admit you lied. Can you specifically show what I lied about? Or are you just lying again?

Already told you.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You’re welcome to hold any stupid opinion you want.

So are you.

We agree that, on matters regarding pathology, he’s more credible than you are.

Yes. I never suggested otherwise.

There’s no reason any intelligent person would consider your stupid opinion more likely than his expert opinion.

Yea, yea so you say (a hundred times).

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You’re going to need to be very specific with what you’re trying to say. If he was acquitted during the trial then that would make him, by definition, not guilty. So I would not consider him guilty.

I’m betting you would anyway. As it is, I’m pretty sure you thought him guilty before the trial.

However, based on the medical examiner reports concluding “homicide”, I would believe that the jury made the wrong conclusion, and I would disagree with the jury on their decision.

Of course you would.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Already told you.

You made a vague accusation and now you're shriveling up instead of backing up your claim. I specifically showed you your lie. You can't do the same, liar.

 

[XponentialChaos]

There’s no reason any intelligent person would consider your stupid opinion more likely than his expert opinion.

Yea, yea so you say (a hundred times).

I do say and you fail to explain why any intelligent person should find your input more likely than his because you have a stupid opinion. QED.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I’m betting you would anyway. As it is, I’m pretty sure you thought him guilty before the trial.

Of course I thought he was guilty before the trial. I saw the video they released immediately after it happened. I still wanted the analysis from the medical examiner though. What's your point?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You made a vague accusation and now you're shriveling up instead of backing up your claim. I specifically showed you your lie. You can't do the same, liar.

View attachment 870773

You made a direct accusation, so?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I do say and you fail to explain why any intelligent person should find your input more likely than his because you have a stupid opinion. QED.

This shit’s getting surreal.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Of course I thought he was guilty before the trial.

So you had an opinion. Go figure.

I saw the video they released immediately after it happened. I still wanted the analysis from the medical examiner though. What's your point?

My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.

And what is the point of splitting your responses into two or three posts?

 

[XponentialChaos]

You made a direct accusation, so?

That you admitted to.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That you admitted to.

Wrong. You accused me of lying about my thoughts on Baker’s competence.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Wrong. You accused me of lying about my thoughts on Baker’s competence.

You insisted I answer. So I did. Then you threw a whiny hissy fit about me telling you what I truly believe in response to your question. Yes, I do think you’re questioning Baker’s competence. If that still bothers you, that’s entirely your problem, not mine.

 

[XponentialChaos]

So you had an opinion. Go figure.

My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.

You didn’t have an opinion on whether Chauvin killed Floyd or not?