Chauvin guilty on all counts

[Rhino]

If you’ve ingested cyanide and are now being combative and resisting arrest after committing a crime is it lawful to restrain you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't say ingest, but if I DID ingest something that would make me die, say, in 30 minutes, and you shot me dead at 10, you're still guilty, even if I was in the process of dying... You had intent.

 

[Younggun]

I didn't say ingest, but if I DID ingest something that would make me die, say, in 30 minutes, and you shot me dead at 10, you're still guilty, even if I was in the process of dying... You had intent.

Well that didn’t happen, so shooting someone in the head is irrelevant.

When you have to go this far for an argument it’s a bad sign for the logic you’re using.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

You seem ignorant of the Minnesota law.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

It doesn't look too hard to convince a jury of that... and the way the charges work, the charges can stack.

How can someone be convicted of both murder and manslaughter for a single killing? Aren't these two mutually exclusive?

Answer (1 of 5): What makes you think someone can be? It is very common to be charged with both so that if the murder charge doesn't stick the manslaughter charge might. If you are convicted on the murder charge, the manslaughter charge becomes moot.

www.quora.com

I take Ben Shapiro’s word that they don’t fit together.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mnpshooter]

I rewatched the entire video yesterday. I do not see any intent on the officers part to do anything but subdue him. When Floyd was on the ground the officers were talking back and forth with him about getting in the car. What I saw as a 27yr medic is Floyd probably went into sudden cardiac arrest due to a combo of his heart issues and stress from fighting the officers. Also possibly the drugs played a role. When someone goes from talking full words to suddenly unconscious it’s never a primary airway issue. The officers failing to render aid immediately is where they really screwed up.

 

[Rhino]

Well that didn’t happen, so shooting someone in the head is irrelevant.

When you have to go this far for an argument it’s a bad sign for the logic you’re using.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really. The judge is more of a legal expert than you and he thought it wasn't relevant evidence and the medical examiner didn't actually conclude that the drugs were the cause of death.

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

You want me to trust the police system and procedures, but you distrust the judicial system and procedures from the same basic government. I'd readily concede that both are flawed, but think you're being a tad hypocritical.

 

[Axxe55]

I didn't say ingest, but if I DID ingest something that would make me die, say, in 30 minutes, and you shot me dead at 10, you're still guilty, even if I was in the process of dying... You had intent.

Rhino, serious question for you.

The ME found in Floyd's body when doing the autopsy, almost four times the amount of Fentanyl of lethal dosage.

How did those drugs get into Floyd?
And why were they there?

Let me post this information about Fentanyl poisoning:

What is fentanyl? Uses, abuse, and side effects

Fentanyl is a potent opioid analgesic with a high misuse potential. Learn more about its medical uses and possible health risks here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

 

[Younggun]

Not really. The judge is more of a legal expert than you and he thought it wasn't relevant evidence and the medical examiner didn't actually conclude that the drugs were the cause of death.

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

You want me to trust the police system and procedures, but you distrust the judicial system and procedures from the same basic government. I'd readily concede that both are flawed, but think you're being a tad hypocritical.

You just posted a link showing just how jacked up on drugs Floyd really was.


And what exactly are you referring to as “not relevant evidence”?


You keep saying “the police system” as if it means everything that it pertains to is or isn’t justified. That it must be all or nothing. I have called out things I disagree with and actions I believe are wrong. I’ve said when I feel LE have gone too far. But those cases are not this case and a problem in one area of the legal system doesn’t make this a case of murder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

I didn't say ingest, but if I DID ingest something that would make me die, say, in 30 minutes, and you shot me dead at 10, you're still guilty, even if I was in the process of dying... You had intent.

No one was shot so that is a non sequitur, but never the less, if a use of deadly force was lawful and within policy, its not a crime.

Can you find an example of your argument using force that was applied lawfully and within policy?

The lawful use of force or deadly force cannot be a crime.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Lonesome Dove]

In other news!

 

[festering]

 

[Rhino]

No one was shot so that is a non sequitur, but never the less, if a use of deadly force was lawful and within policy, its not a crime.

Can you find an example of your argument using force that was applied lawfully and within policy?

The lawful use of force or deadly force cannot be a crime.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

Lawful *does not equal* moral and can be later proven a crime.

 

[Texas45]

Floyd Didndonuffin
He was a good boy
Juz be tryin turn hiz lifz round.


Same old poor innocent black drug dealer scenario.

If you black in merica in 2021 its a free pass to rape pillage and kill.

The woke culture will just look away til it comes around and wakes them.


Every cop in US should turn in badge and gun and let the fun begin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rhino]

Going way off topic here, how many of you would turn in a bro for having an SBR without a stamp? How many of you would say it serves him right even though the laws that make his SBR “illegal” are clearly unConstitutional and illogical?

How many of you really believe that prohibition is right? If someone has a lethal amount of vodka, is it ok to suffocate a man?

 

[dooladawg]

Going way off topic here, how many of you would turn in a bro for having an SBR without a stamp? How many of you would say it serves him right even though the laws that make his SBR “illegal” are clearly unConstitutional and illogical?

How many of you really believe that prohibition is right? If someone has a lethal amount of vodka, is it ok to suffocate a man?

Rhino, you are preaching to "some" of the choir... many others are out back having a smoke.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Lawful *does not equal* moral and can be later proven a crime.

Lawful in fact does mean "not a crime". The very definition of a crime is an act which is unlawful. Something lawful cannot then be a crime.

I would really enjoy you explain how you can reach your conclusion.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Going way off topic here, how many of you would turn in a bro for having an SBR without a stamp? How many of you would say it serves him right even though the laws that make his SBR “illegal” are clearly unConstitutional and illogical?

How many of you really believe that prohibition is right? If someone has a lethal amount of vodka, is it ok to suffocate a man?

Your logic would have a surgeon convicted of murder if a patient died on the table.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Lawful *does not equal* moral and can be later proven a crime.

I have to agree with @cycleguy2300 again. If something is lawful, then it's not a criminal act. It can be immoral, or even unethical and still be lawful. And the only way something lawful becomes a crime later is if the laws are changed. Even if that were to happen, the act at the time was lawful, and only those acts after the laws are changed then become unlawful.

 

[innominate]

Your logic would have a surgeon convicted of murder if a patient died on the table.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

It's harder to kill people than you would think. Lol. I've seen some shit as a nurse over the last 24 years. I saw something I haven't ever seen about an hour ago. I couldn't believe the lady was laughing and talking to us. The body is an amazing thing

Eta. I don't disagree with you on this case.

 

[Rhino]

I have to agree with @cycleguy2300 again. If something is lawful, then it's not a criminal act. It can be immoral, or even unethical and still be lawful. And the only way something lawful becomes a crime later is if the laws are changed. Even if that were to happen, the act at the time was lawful, and only those acts after the laws are changed then become unlawful.

This thread is begging for the Godwin treatment. If a law is immoral, and plenty have been, the act is still a crime, and jury nullification and such is part of our history, and that can be positive or negative.

 

[Rhino]

Your logic would have a surgeon convicted of murder if a patient died on the table.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

That’s a stupid assumption.