BLM, tool of the Marxist

[Jdsizzleslice]

and so because he’s high it’s ok to kill him?

He’s handcuffed on the ground... how is he resisting?

No that's not what ram is saying. He is saying we are dealing with a dumbass narcissist, not a racist here.

[jimboston]

and so because he’s high it’s ok to kill him?

He’s handcuffed on the ground... how is he resisting?

No that's not what ram is saying. He is saying we are dealing with a dumbass narcissist, not a racist here.

He’s justifying the actions of the cop.

Wether it was a race motivated murder or just murder due to ignorance and bad policing... it’s still not good.

[The ram]

Bodycam footage of floyd's arrest

https://youtu.be/YPSwqp5fdIw

No racism, just a man high as a kite on uppers trying to resist arrest. He's brought out of his car and constantly claims he can't get into a police car because he's claustrophobic.

This is another complete idiot. Capitalism is racism kiddies. We need a black militia for education. You really couldn't make this shit up


https://youtu.be/XqWGlLKCxE8

and so because he’s high it’s ok to kill him?

He’s handcuffed on the ground... how is he resisting?

Ah man you again show your inability to decipher words put together. You should wait for your daddy to return home before posting. I'm quite a lazy writer and just expect people to understand what my few words mean. I'll pretend to be your daddy jimbo son ( see that little play with your username?).

Ok, for those that are even just a little bit worldly would realise that drugs make the heart rate rise. Which will lead to what jimbo son?

You obviously didn't bother to watch the video, because not once was the piece of shit floyd lying down. You don't deem his refusal to get into a police car as resisting arrest?

Did you watch the second video? Are you connecting the dots between blm and Marxism yet? Come on jimbo son, you can do it.

[The ram]

and so because he’s high it’s ok to kill him?

He’s handcuffed on the ground... how is he resisting?

No that's not what ram is saying. He is saying we are dealing with a dumbass narcissist, not a racist here.

He’s justifying the actions of the cop.

Wether it was a race motivated murder or just murder due to ignorance and bad policing... it’s still not good.

There you go again jimbo son. I'm not justifying anything, I'm explaining the circumstances and how MSM and the Marxist globalists lie and prey on your emotions to gain their objective.

[Jdsizzleslice]

and so because he’s high it’s ok to kill him?

He’s handcuffed on the ground... how is he resisting?

No that's not what ram is saying. He is saying we are dealing with a dumbass narcissist, not a racist here.

He’s justifying the actions of the cop.

Wether it was a race motivated murder or just murder due to ignorance and bad policing... it’s still not good.

Jim... Did you watch the body cam footage all the way through? There's no way this was murder.

This doesn't justify the actions of the police officer. Stating that he wasn't racist does not equivocate that his actions were somehow justified.

False equivalency.

There you go again jimbo son. I'm not justifying anything, I'm explaining the circumstances and how MSM and the Marxist globalists lie and prey on your emotions to gain their objective.

Pretty spot on.

[riskllama]

[jimboston]

I guess it’s ok to support murder in this forum.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I guess it’s ok to support murder in this forum.

Murder? Jim you clearly didn't watch the leaked body-cam footage. Please go watch all of it before you make another post. Highly suggested.

George Floyd stated that he couldn't breath BEFORE he was placed onto the ground. He mentioned that he was claustrophobic. Police wanted to keep him in the vehicle and roll the window down. He ASKED to be placed onto the ground outside the vehicle. How is that murder? Murder had to be pre-meditated. It seems like the officers followed some, if not most, of the inquiries made by George Floyd.

We can say this is not murder whilst also not justifying the actions of the officer. They made two mistakes during the body-cam that I saw:
1. Premeditated escalation by drawing the firearm too soon during the initial confrontation. Although the officer put the firearm back into his holster when he got out of the car, it no doubt escalated the situation when it did not call for it.
2. The kneeling on the neck. No excuse for that.

Can we be logical and reasonable here and come to the realization that this was not as simple of a story that we were being let to believe by the MSM? We can criticize the actions of the officers whilst also criticizing the stupid over-charging given by the Minnesota judge. Set your emotions aside and look at this from an objective viewpoint instead of insinuating those who don't agree with you support murder.

Assault? Sure.
Manslaughter? You could make an argument for (albeit not a strong one).
Murder? Absolutely not.

[Dukasaur]

I guess it’s ok to support murder in this forum.

Murder? Jim you clearly didn't watch the leaked body-cam footage. Please go watch all of it before you make another post. Highly suggested.

George Floyd stated that he couldn't breath BEFORE he was placed onto the ground. He mentioned that he was claustrophobic. Police wanted to keep him in the vehicle and roll the window down. He ASKED to be placed onto the ground outside the vehicle. How is that murder? Murder had to be pre-meditated. It seems like the officers followed some, if not most, of the inquiries made by George Floyd.

We can say this is not murder whilst also not justifying the actions of the officer. They made two mistakes during the body-cam that I saw:
1. Premeditated escalation by drawing the firearm too soon during the initial confrontation. Although the officer put the firearm back into his holster when he got out of the car, it no doubt escalated the situation when it did not call for it.
2. The kneeling on the neck. No excuse for that.

Can we be logical and reasonable here and come to the realization that this was not as simple of a story that we were being let to believe by the MSM? We can criticize the actions of the officers whilst also criticizing the stupid over-charging given by the Minnesota judge. Set your emotions aside and look at this from an objective viewpoint instead of insinuating those who don't agree with you support murder.

Assault? Sure.
Manslaughter? You could make an argument for (albeit not a strong one).
Murder? Absolutely not.

You admit the kneeling on the neck was inexcusable. The kneeling on the neck was the cause of death. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors to try to excuse the kneeling on the neck, which even you have admitted was inexcusable.

It doesn't matter if he was claustrophobic, schizophrenic, hadn't paid his rent in three years, and had sex with Imelda Marcos. He wouldn't have died if someone didn't have a knee on his neck. You can do mental backflips to avoid calling it murder, like you did with the video of the guy slaughtered in the hallway, but clear away the debris and you have one man unlawfully killed by another.

[riskllama]

i don't even know why you bother, Duk...

[Jdsizzleslice]

You admit the kneeling on the neck was inexcusable. The kneeling on the neck was the cause of death. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors to try to excuse the kneeling on the neck, which even you have admitted was inexcusable.

Medical Examiner's report showed he had drugs in his system and had pre-existing heart conditions. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the kneeling on the neck was the cause of death, since he verbally expressed that he could not breathe prior to him being on the ground.

Duk, watch the entire body-cam video.

Is it so controversial to say that the officer shouldn't have knelt on his neck but that that may have not been the cause of death? Causation does not equal Correlation.

It doesn't matter if he was claustrophobic, schizophrenic, hadn't paid his rent in three years, and had sex with Imelda Marcos. He wouldn't have died if someone didn't have a knee on his neck.

Not factually proven or disproven at this point, considering all the other circumstances in this case and the new footage we have seen.

You can do mental backflips to avoid calling it murder, like you did with the video of the guy slaughtered in the hallway,

Incorrect, the guy wasn't slaughtered in the hallway in the other post, just like George Floyd wasn't targeted in this situation. Mental backflips aren't needed to correctly assess a situation that can be clearly seen with logic and reason instead of emotion.

but clear away the debris and you have one man unlawfully killed by another.

Murder is a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt with premeditated actions before death. That didn't happen in this case.

A more likely charge should be Involuntary Manslaughter. But since they didn't charge him with that, it's looking more likely like all officers will walk. It's a shame.

A killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional or negligent act leading to death. A drunk driving–related death is typically involuntary manslaughter (see also vehicular homicide, causing death by dangerous driving, gross negligence manslaughter and causing death by criminal negligence for international equivalents). Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional", because the killer did not intend for a death to result from their intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.

Put aside your feelings and emotions and look at this with everything that we know. We can criticize wrongdoing and also acknowledge the truth about what did or did not happen.

[jimboston]

Murder is a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt with premeditated actions before death. That didn't happen in this case.

i don’t care what wiki says... murders happen every day without people getting convicted.
That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a murder, it just means there wasn’t a conviction.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

[mookiemcgee]

You admit the kneeling on the neck was inexcusable. The kneeling on the neck was the cause of death. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors to try to excuse the kneeling on the neck, which even you have admitted was inexcusable.

Medical Examiner's report showed he had drugs in his system and had pre-existing heart conditions. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the kneeling on the neck was the cause of death, since he verbally expressed that he could not breathe prior to him being on the ground.

You are being a little choosy with which fact's you've included here.

First of all the ME report you are paraphrasing did determine the death was a homicide (both reports did).

Secondly, the autopsy performed afterwards independantly by the former NY ME Dr. Michael said unequivocally "Floyd died as a result of compression on his neck and back from the officer, which interfered with blood flow and his breathing."

So if you argument here is that the officer didn't commit murder, basically the only argument you are making is that a jury has not found him guilty of murder... You keep telling everyone to watch the video... What exactly are you seeing in the bodycam video that justifies homicide? Whatever it is I am not seeing it.

Is it so controversial to say that the officer shouldn't have knelt on his neck but that that may have not been the cause of death? Causation does not equal Correlation.

Yes, as mentioned two separate autopsies listed the cause of death as a homicide. That implies causation. You cannot die of homicide by drug overdose, you cannot die of homicide by pre-existing heart conditions. You only die of homicide when another person kills you.

Put aside your feelings and emotions and look at this with everything that we know. We can criticize wrongdoing and also acknowledge the truth about what did or did not happen.

Ok, I did. Still feel like this traffic stop involving an unarmed man and ended with him being choked to death is a homicide. Your turn, put aside you feelings look at the og video again, the full 9-10 mintues of it. This officer unnecessarily killed a human being.

[riskllama]

seems relevant...

[Jdsizzleslice]

You admit the kneeling on the neck was inexcusable. The kneeling on the neck was the cause of death. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors to try to excuse the kneeling on the neck, which even you have admitted was inexcusable.

Medical Examiner's report showed he had drugs in his system and had pre-existing heart conditions. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the kneeling on the neck was the cause of death, since he verbally expressed that he could not breathe prior to him being on the ground.

You are being a little choosy with which fact's you've included here.

First of all the ME report you are paraphrasing did determine the death was a homicide (both reports did).

Secondly, the autopsy performed afterwards independantly by the former NY ME Dr. Michael said unequivocally "Floyd died as a result of compression on his neck and back from the officer, which interfered with blood flow and his breathing."

So if you argument here is that the officer didn't commit murder, basically the only argument you are making is that a jury has not found him guilty of murder... You keep telling everyone to watch the video... What exactly are you seeing in the bodycam video that justifies homicide? Whatever it is I am not seeing it.

Is it so controversial to say that the officer shouldn't have knelt on his neck but that that may have not been the cause of death? Causation does not equal Correlation.

Yes, as mentioned two separate autopsies listed the cause of death as a homicide. That implies causation. You cannot die of homicide by drug overdose, you cannot die of homicide by pre-existing heart conditions. You only die of homicide when another person kills you.

Put aside your feelings and emotions and look at this with everything that we know. We can criticize wrongdoing and also acknowledge the truth about what did or did not happen.

Ok, I did. Still feel like this traffic stop involving an unarmed man and ended with him being choked to death is a homicide. Your turn, put aside you feelings look at the og video again, the full 9-10 mintues of it. This officer unnecessarily killed a human being.

From June 4. Conflicting information from one ME report to other ME reports, according to you.

This medical examiner's report does not mention asphyxiation. However, according to prosecutors, in charging documents filed last week, early results "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

My question is in the Minneapolis jurisdiction, do the ME's have the power to declare more than just cause of death? Homicide isn't a cause of death so I'd be interested to see if their statement saying it was homicide was opinion or legally within their purview to declare. ME's role can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

To prove murder you need beyond reasonable doubt that a) he definitely had intentions to kill and b) killed Floyd. The first is not true, from the body-cam there was no pre-meditated intent to kill Floyd. So the charge should be changed to Involuntary Manslaughter if you were going to hold the officer responsible for Floyd's death, and even then there may be doubts as to if manslaughter will stick. The rest of your points talk about homicide but here the discussion is really about whether or not this was homicide. Based on the evidence, this seems to not be murder but manslaughter. The officers were overcharged. They should be held accountable, but not for murder.

[mookiemcgee]

You admit the kneeling on the neck was inexcusable. The kneeling on the neck was the cause of death. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors to try to excuse the kneeling on the neck, which even you have admitted was inexcusable.

Medical Examiner's report showed he had drugs in his system and had pre-existing heart conditions. There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the kneeling on the neck was the cause of death, since he verbally expressed that he could not breathe prior to him being on the ground.

You are being a little choosy with which fact's you've included here.

First of all the ME report you are paraphrasing did determine the death was a homicide (both reports did).

Secondly, the autopsy performed afterwards independently by the former NY ME Dr. Michael said unequivocally "Floyd died as a result of compression on his neck and back from the officer, which interfered with blood flow and his breathing."

So if you argument here is that the officer didn't commit murder, basically the only argument you are making is that a jury has not found him guilty of murder... You keep telling everyone to watch the video... What exactly are you seeing in the bodycam video that justifies homicide? Whatever it is I am not seeing it.

Is it so controversial to say that the officer shouldn't have knelt on his neck but that that may have not been the cause of death? Causation does not equal Correlation.

Yes, as mentioned two separate autopsies listed the cause of death as a homicide. That implies causation. You cannot die of homicide by drug overdose, you cannot die of homicide by pre-existing heart conditions. You only die of homicide when another person kills you.

Put aside your feelings and emotions and look at this with everything that we know. We can criticize wrongdoing and also acknowledge the truth about what did or did not happen.

Ok, I did. Still feel like this traffic stop involving an unarmed man and ended with him being choked to death is a homicide. Your turn, put aside you feelings look at the og video again, the full 9-10 mintues of it. This officer unnecessarily killed a human being.

From June 4. Conflicting information from one ME report to other ME reports, according to you.

This medical examiner's report does not mention asphyxiation. However, according to prosecutors, in charging documents filed last week, early results "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

My question is in the Minneapolis jurisdiction, do the ME's have the power to declare more than just cause of death? Homicide isn't a cause of death so I'd be interested to see if their statement saying it was homicide was opinion or legally within their purview to declare. ME's role can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

To prove murder you need beyond reasonable doubt that a) he definitely had intentions to kill and b) killed Floyd. The first is not true, from the body-cam there was no pre-meditated intent to kill Floyd. So the charge should be changed to Involuntary Manslaughter if you were going to hold the officer responsible for Floyd's death, and even then there may be doubts as to if manslaughter will stick. The rest of your points talk about homicide but here the discussion is really about whether or not this was homicide. Based on the evidence, this seems to not be murder but manslaughter. The officers were overcharged. They should be held accountable, but not for murder.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm guessing you aren't one either. At the very least I think I can safely say neither of us are experts in MN law... but my understanding is Chauvin's most severe charge is 2nd degree murder. I found the definition on the MN state gov's website, and while I don't feel comfortable (as I'm not a lawyer) trying to fully interpret it, here it is entirely unabridged:

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of 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 with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

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.

Since we aren't MN lawyers we should probably avoid a debate on their legal language, but 'unintentional murder' does seem like an reasonable interpretation of what happened. I would also add, i think MN is one of the places where they can basically charge you with 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter all in the same trail and the jury/judge can decide which (if any) the accused is guilty of, and feel free to do your own research but that is exactly what is happening here(from what I've read he's being charged with 2nd, 3rd and manslaughter). So if you want to claim he's being 'overcharged' then basically you just oppose the whole legal system in it current form in MN, because their setup leaves it up to the jury.

[mrswdk]

lol, so in US law there is first degree murder (deliberately killing someone), second degree murder (accidentally killing someone), voluntary manslaughter (deliberately killing someone), and involuntary manslaughter (accidentally killing someone). And apart from involuntary manslaughter they all carry the same punishment

I'm starting to see where jim gets his obsession with pointless semantics from. It trickles down from the top!

[jimboston]

To prove murder you need beyond reasonable doubt that a) he definitely had intentions to kill and b) killed Floyd. The first is not true, from the body-cam there was no pre-meditated intent to kill Floyd. So the charge should be changed to Involuntary Manslaughter if you were going to hold the officer responsible for Floyd's death, and even then there may be doubts as to if manslaughter will stick. The rest of your points talk about homicide but here the discussion is really about whether or not this was homicide. Based on the evidence, this seems to not be murder but manslaughter. The officers were overcharged. They should be held accountable, but not for murder.

You don’t need premeditation to prove “murder”.

You are confusing 1st Degree and 2nd Degree murder.... both are murder, one requires premeditation and the other does not.

Murder be murder man.

[jimboston]

I'm starting to see where jim gets his obsession with pointless semantics from. It trickles down from the top!

Please don’t associate me with JD here.

Language is a tool that can be used properly or abused.
JD’s misuse of language is not my fault.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Since we aren't MN lawyers we should probably avoid a debate on their legal language, but 'unintentional murder' does seem like an reasonable interpretation of what happened. I would also add, i think MN is one of the places where they can basically charge you with 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter all in the same trail and the jury/judge can decide which (if any) the accused is guilty of, and feel free to do your own research but that is exactly what is happening here(from what I've read he's being charged with 2nd, 3rd and manslaughter). So if you want to claim he's being 'overcharged' then basically you just oppose the whole legal system in it current form in MN, because their setup leaves it up to the jury.

I'm not a lawyer either, but unintentional murder mentioned in the statute is coupled with an intent to inflict, so then the proof must be upon the intent to inflict bodily harm on the individual. Based on the body-cam footage, and other circumstances, that's going to be hard to prove.

If the judicial system can stack charges in MN then manslaughter is still on the table, but we have heard nothing or seen any statements from the judge that the lower levels of manslaughter or 3rd degree murder have been added. The phrasing that was used that the charges were "upgraded" or something to that effect, suggesting that the prior charges no longer apply and are superseded by the new charges.

You don’t need premeditation to prove “murder”.

You are confusing 1st Degree and 2nd Degree murder.... both are murder, one requires premeditation and the other does not.

Murder be murder man.

My apologies on mixing up my phrasing between "premeditation" and "intent." Intent is the word I was trying to get across in my prior posts. The intent is not there for murder when you watch the videos.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Other interesting viewpoints on the new leaked footage:

[2dimes]

Why does it feel like your opinion of what the cop intended was to silence the perp and he did a bang up job of it.

[mookiemcgee]

Since we aren't MN lawyers we should probably avoid a debate on their legal language, but 'unintentional murder' does seem like an reasonable interpretation of what happened. I would also add, i think MN is one of the places where they can basically charge you with 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter all in the same trail and the jury/judge can decide which (if any) the accused is guilty of, and feel free to do your own research but that is exactly what is happening here(from what I've read he's being charged with 2nd, 3rd and manslaughter). So if you want to claim he's being 'overcharged' then basically you just oppose the whole legal system in it current form in MN, because their setup leaves it up to the jury.

I'm not a lawyer either, but unintentional murder mentioned in the statute is coupled with an intent to inflict, so then the proof must be upon the intent to inflict bodily harm on the individual. Based on the body-cam footage, and other circumstances, that's going to be hard to prove.

If the judicial system can stack charges in MN then manslaughter is still on the table, but we have heard nothing or seen any statements from the judge that the lower levels of manslaughter or 3rd degree murder have been added. The phrasing that was used that the charges were "upgraded" or something to that effect, suggesting that the prior charges no longer apply and are superseded by the new charges.

It is my understanding he is still facing all three charges. Initially he only faced the lower two charges, the third one was added (without the other two being removed). If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears/(eyes?).

https://www.startribune.com/two-fired-m ... 571009922/

"Chauvin, 44, of Oakdale, was charged last week and is being held in lieu of $1 million bail. He faces second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges and is scheduled to make his first appearance Monday."

[Jdsizzleslice]

Why does it feel like your opinion of what the cop intended was to silence the perp and he did a bang up job of it.

Stated many times that I don't think that the knee to the neck was appropriate, and condemned that action, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It is my understanding he is still facing all three charges. Initially he only faced the lower two charges, the third one was added (without the other two being removed). If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears/(eyes?).

https://www.startribune.com/two-fired-m ... 571009922/

"Chauvin, 44, of Oakdale, was charged last week and is being held in lieu of $1 million bail. He faces second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges and is scheduled to make his first appearance Monday."

Maybe I am missing some contextual language in a report like this, but upgrade seems (to me) to suggest what I mentioned earlier. Even this headline states the charge was added, but states in the report it was upgraded. Am I playing the semantics game?

[mookiemcgee]

Why does it feel like your opinion of what the cop intended was to silence the perp and he did a bang up job of it.

Stated many times that I don't think that the knee to the neck was appropriate, and condemned that action, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It is my understanding he is still facing all three charges. Initially he only faced the lower two charges, the third one was added (without the other two being removed). If you have evidence to the contrary I'm all ears/(eyes?).

https://www.startribune.com/two-fired-m ... 571009922/

"Chauvin, 44, of Oakdale, was charged last week and is being held in lieu of $1 million bail. He faces second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter charges and is scheduled to make his first appearance Monday."

Maybe I am missing some contextual language in a report like this, but upgrade seems (to me) to suggest what I mentioned earlier. Even this headline states the charge was added, but states in the report it was upgraded. Am I playing the semantics game?

I read alot of vague stuff in the national news, and I don't know what 'upgraded' mean in MN law. The few articles I found with real detail (like the star one I linked) are local news which I tend to trust more on details like this... time will tell? Personally I feel like stacking charges isn't really fair to defendants, it basically robs them of any chance of full acquittal and stacks the deck, but that a whole nother debate. My assumption is (if I'm correct about the stacking) he will be found guilty of some of the charges. I also feel they would probably have to go to Papa New Guinea to get a jury that hasn't been tainted at this point.