The Trial of Derek Chauvin - Judgement(?) Day(?) has arrived!

Outcome?

  • Guilty of Murder

    Votes: 75 7.6%
  • Not Guilty of Murder (2nd/3rd), Guilty of Manslaughter

    Votes: 397 40.0%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 221 22.3%
  • Mistrial

    Votes: 299 30.1%

  • Total voters
    992
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you autistic idiots with free time at least occasionally say what the actual fuck is going on instead of memeing because as a wage slave I have no idea what's going on today.

Cross examination of the defense's use-of-force expert where the prosecutor is trying to pick into the guy's threat assessment.

"Passing a 20 is a low-level crime and would not produce a justifiable use of force, correct?"

And so forth.
 
Why's this guy all smiles? I might have too small of a brain but unless the jury is entirely made of redditors I don't see what he's going for here.
 
There's a saying that, if I may paraphrase, say something like: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
People like you are always the first to scream for a cop when your shit gets stolen.

Yeah, we're the ones brainwashed, because we can have a point of view other than 'Chauvin murdered Floyd'.
Miss this whole site with your basic-bitch normie-tier whitey-hating nigger apologism.
Bullshit. Those "rough men" are soldiers, not cops. Cops are the most cowardly pussies on earth and I would never call one in a million years. The only thing that makes me happier than a dead nigger is a dead cop.
 
Government officials aren't voted in unanimously, as far as I'm aware.
Also, none of the jurors selected supported the idea of "defunding the police," which was a specific question asked of all potential jurors. I think one of them (it might have been the backup juror) said he thought police resources could be better-distributed to combat other issues in the community, but couldn't be any more specific than that.
Never said they were unanimously voted in. They were voted in by a large supporting population of the public. And people lie all the time what makes you think any of these jurors are telling the truth.? What reasonably sane person would wanna be on this trial serving as a juror knowing that if they vote no not guilty they could have their lives ruined Once there information gets doxed
 
I dunno, I think this cross isn't going well for the defense. Prosecutor seems to be picking apart the "reasonable use of force" argument.
They're doing a decent job but if you look at reddit you would think he's on the floor crying. They're legit just calling him racist because he's a white cop.
 
I dunno, I think this cross isn't going well for the defense. Prosecutor seems to be picking apart the "reasonable use of force" argument.

Disagree. The prosecution seems to be going for semantic trickery.

He seems to be going for the idea that Floyd never should have been on the ground in the first place, as if the chimpery in the back of the police car was supposed to be met with the cops helping him to his feet, uncuffing him, and letting him go.
 
That antiauthority larp from the kinds of people who went crying to teachers in school when someone called them a faggot are hilarious though. Hell go call them a faggot on their comment and I guarantee they'll go crying to a janny. The anarchy they seem to want won't go the way they think it will.
Seriously, what the fuck is reddit's problem with schools?
Take a swig every time they make a school or capeshit analogy. You'll black out within minutes.
reddit moment.png
 
Disagree. The prosecution seems to be going for semantic trickery.

He seems to be going for the idea that Floyd never should have been on the ground in the first place, as if the chimpery in the back of the police car was supposed to be met with the cops helping him to his feet, uncuffing him, and letting him go.
I think the way the witness is responding to the cross is interesting. In contrast to some of the prosecution's witnesses, he hasn't really argued with the questioning whatsoever. He's talking in a way where I can predict his answer before it comes out. I'm wicked curious if this is more or less effective on the jury than the more argumentative demeanor from the other witnesses
There will obviously be a recross, interested to hear that as well
 
I think the way the witness is responding to the cross is interesting. In contrast to some of the prosecution's witnesses, he hasn't really argued with the questioning whatsoever. He's talking in a way where I can predict his answer before it comes out. I'm wicked curious if this is more or less effective on the jury than the more argumentative demeanor from the other witnesses
There will obviously be a recross, interested to hear that as well
It might be simply because I generally like this witness, but maybe it's because he knows he's telling the truth and he isn't gonna get tripped up. The state's witnesses were all playing fuck fuck games with the truth to get to their points. This guy isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back