Derek Chauvin Trial

[Tiberius]

Boy, the racist and misogynistic kkk people must hate this testimony, a black attorney prosecuting a white police officer, by questioning a female medical expert. 

 

What would Robert E Lee say? Lol 

[Tiberius]

The prosecution is having a very good day. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Boy, the racist and misogynistic kkk people must hate this testimony, a black attorney prosecuting a white police officer, by questioning a female medical expert. 

 

What would Robert E Lee say? Lol 

Is any of that really commentary necessary? You seem to see racists around every corner. And for that I pray for and pity your miserable existence. I hope one day you’ll figure out that’s no way to go through life. Cheer up buttercup!

[Tiberius]

44 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Is any of that really commentary necessary? You seem to see racists around every corner. And for that I pray for and pity your miserable existence. I hope one day you’ll figure out that’s no way to go through life. Cheer up buttercup!

Touched a nerve there! 

 

My statement was right on. Is that why you—and b-man— got upset? 

 

I think its its obvious that the racist are cheering for Chauvin to go free. They do not see anything wrong with what happened there. Aside from the outrage, of course. 

[SoCal Deek]

59 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Touched a nerve there! 

 

My statement was right on. Is that why you—and b-man— got upset? 

 

I think its its obvious that the racist are cheering for Chauvin to go free. They do not see anything wrong with what happened there. Aside from the outrage, of course. 

Huh? I'm not upset. You're apparently the one living your life in fear of every sort of racism. The rest of us are just going about our daily lives.

[B-Man]

 

 

and no,

 

this does not mean that Officer Chauvin shouldn't receive some punishment.

 

It is to counterbalance those on PPP who are gleefully calling the trial a rout.

 

You need to read multiple sources.

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

and no,

 

this does not mean that Officer Chauvin shouldn't receive some punishment.

 

It is to counterbalance those on PPP who are gleefully calling the trial a rout.

 

You need to read multiple sources.

 

 

I watched it live, yes, it’s a rout 

[Motorin']

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

and no,

 

this does not mean that Officer Chauvin shouldn't receive some punishment.

 

It is to counterbalance those on PPP who are gleefully calling the trial a rout.

 

You need to read multiple sources.

 

 

 

Your circle jerk is sickening. 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Motorin'

[B-Man]

 

36 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I watched it live, yes, it’s a rout 

 

Would anyone who speaks Tibsyese tell him that this is the prosecution section of the trial.........😆

 

 

6 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Your circle jerk is sickening. 

 

Learn how to read a reply, before showing your ignorance.

 

 

 

[Motorin']

39 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Would anyone who speaks Tibsyese tell him that this is the prosecution section of the trial.........😆

 

 

 

Learn how to read a reply, before showing your ignorance.

 

 

 

 

You, Jack Posobiec, Ben Shapiro, you're all wacking your small penises publicly in hopes of an aquital. ***** you. 

 

Anyone who watched the medical examiner's testimony that Posobiec posted and concluded that Floyd died due to his medical condition and not the stress of physical constraint, air and neck constriction, is a sadistic *****. Again, ***** you. 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Motorin'

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

You, Jack Posobiec, Ben Shapiro, you're all wacking your small penises publicly in hopes of an aquital. ***** you. 

 

Anyone who watched the medical examiner's testimony that Posobiec posted and concluded that Floyd died due to his medical condition and not the stress of physical constraint, air and neck constriction, is a sadistic *****. Again, ***** you. 

 

I don’t know Ben Shapiro’s stance, I don’t know Jack Posobiec, and I’m not sure how you go from a post to a Twitter account to wrestling the bald headed champion (lightweight division) in public, but your journey is uniquely yours.  I think you’re out of line, but that’s just me.  
 

I didn’t watch the testimony, but what was your takeaway?  
 

Second question, if a conviction on a lesser charge is the outcome—or the jury chooses to acquit, will you accept the verdict as fair?  

[Unforgiven]

9 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I don’t know Ben Shapiro’s stance, I don’t know Jack Posobiec, and I’m not sure how you go from a post to a Twitter account to wrestling the bald headed champion (lightweight division) in public, but your journey is uniquely yours.  I think you’re out of line, but that’s just me.  
 

I didn’t watch the testimony, but what was your takeaway?  
 

Second question, if a conviction on a lesser charge is the outcome—or the jury chooses to acquit, will you accept the verdict as fair?  

Only the electric chair would truly satiate these monsters rage.

Leftists are exactly what they proclaim to hate.

[Tiberius]

13 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Would anyone who speaks Tibsyese tell him that this is the prosecution section of the trial.........😆

 

 

 

Learn how to read a reply, before showing your ignorance.

 

 

 

Yes, and they have laid out their case perfectly. 

 

The “he was a drug fiend who died of an overdose but was also like a wild drugged out beast ready to kill” defense is falling flat. 

 

But you might get lucky, one dirty racist on the jury and your thug might go free. Probably will get hired by Trump for the next attempt to overthrow the government 

10 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I don’t know Ben Shapiro’s stance, I don’t know Jack Posobiec, and I’m not sure how you go from a post to a Twitter account to wrestling the bald headed champion (lightweight division) in public, but your journey is uniquely yours.  I think you’re out of line, but that’s just me.  
 

I didn’t watch the testimony, but what was your takeaway?  
 

Second question, if a conviction on a lesser charge is the outcome—or the jury chooses to acquit, will you accept the verdict as fair?  

The only way this isn’t a conviction is if there are racists on the jury. And that might be true. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yes, and they have laid out their case perfectly. 

 

The “he was a drug fiend who died of an overdose but was also like a wild drugged out beast ready to kill” defense is falling flat. 

 

But you might get lucky, one dirty racist on the jury and your thug might go free. Probably will get hired by Trump for the next attempt to overthrow the government 

The only way this isn’t a conviction is if there are racists on the jury. And that might be true. 

We know race and subjectivity can influence court cases, we know juries are selected to maximize the likelihood of a favorable outcome on both sides, it seems silly to debate that.  
 

So, conviction on any count is sufficient for you?  in other words, a conviction is righteous and just? On the flip side, if, say one of the members of the jury vote to acquit, it’s a farce even if that member of the jury is a person of color? 

[SoCal Deek]

13 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

You, Jack Posobiec, Ben Shapiro, you're all wacking your small penises publicly in hopes of an aquital. ***** you. 

 

Anyone who watched the medical examiner's testimony that Posobiec posted and concluded that Floyd died due to his medical condition and not the stress of physical constraint, air and neck constriction, is a sadistic *****. Again, ***** you. 

 

You clearly have no idea how a trial works. Maybe you’ve never been involved in one. Now... I’m not saying that the officer is guilty or not guilty but if you think expert testimony is anything other than a scripted and rehearsed dance you’re kidding yourself. The attorney knows the questions he’s going to ask and the witness has practiced the answer. It’s true on both sides: prosecution and defense. Don’t get too worked up about what any single witness has to say. It’s all a script. 

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

We know race and subjectivity can influence court cases, we know juries are selected to maximize the likelihood of a favorable outcome on both sides, it seems silly to debate that.  
 

So, conviction on any count is sufficient for you?  in other words, a conviction is righteous and just? On the flip side, if, say one of the members of the jury vote to acquit, it’s a farce even if that member of the jury is a person of color? 

Having watched a lot of the trial it’s pretty obvious he is guilty. Therefore, of course I think a conviction is justice. 

 

You want justice, right? 

 

Why do you think people are actually defending this guy? 

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You clearly have no idea how a trial works. Maybe you’ve never been involved in one. Now... I’m not saying that the officer is guilty or not guilty but if you think expert testimony is anything other than a scripted and rehearsed dance you’re kidding yourself. The attorney knows the questions he’s going to ask and the witness has practiced the answer. It’s true on both sides: prosecution and defense. Don’t get too worked up about what any single witness has to say. It’s all a script. 

This is so stupid. Expert witnesses testify on the expertise. And when a long list of them all come to the same conclusions, even across different areas of expertise, that is significant. 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

18 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

You, Jack Posobiec, Ben Shapiro, you're all wacking your small penises publicly in hopes of an aquital. ***** you. 

 

Anyone who watched the medical examiner's testimony that Posobiec posted and concluded that Floyd died due to his medical condition and not the stress of physical constraint, air and neck constriction, is a sadistic *****. Again, ***** you. 

 

Anyone actually hoping for an acquittal is rooting for  more riots and anarchy. 

 

I just hope the conviction and sentence is enough to stave off more chaos. 

 

1) guy was alive and restrained 

2) officer did what what he did on camera  for prolonged period

3) guy was then dead.

4) Autopsy concluded death by homicide.  
 

The only question I see to be proven is to what degree did he intend to kill him. 
 

 

@Motorin' interested in your Ben Shapiro comment because while he is bias AF he’s smart and has a legal background. I downloaded his podcast, perhap not the one you are referring to, my take was he was more irritated at the media for no reporting some of the cross examination points. 
 

apparently there is a different camera body cam angle where it shows him kneeling on the shoulder blade, coroner admitted to lethal blood level of fentanyl and same biomechanics are observed in OD deaths. And there’s was a clip of Floyd they tried to influence to sound like ‘I took to many drugs.... And these were are cross examination of prosecution witnesses.
 

My prime  take away from him is the defense attorney are finding technical ways to generate benefit of doubt and an impartial media should report that. Seemed more about the sensationalism of media.

 

But I’m sure to your point, if acquitted he’d have and I told you so tour, which would likely result in lots of self administration as you suggest.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Having watched a lot of the trial it’s pretty obvious he is guilty. Therefore, of course I think a conviction is justice. 

 

You want justice, right? 

 

Why do you think people are actually defending this guy? 

This is so stupid. Expert witnesses testify on the expertise. And when a long list of them all come to the same conclusions, even across different areas of expertise, that is significant. 

 

 

Watching the trial on the telly is dramatically different than being empowered to decide the fate of the accused.  That’s why we don’t do trial by television with a button on your remote.  
 

Be that as it may, thanks for the reply.  I was just trying to gauge what your thoughts might be if he was convicted on the least severe charge, in this case manslaughter.  That would carry a sentence of 10 years (likely to be sentenced to 4 according to one legal site I looked at) v 40 for the most severe murder charge.  
 

Sounds like you’d be in favor of murder but would be comfortable justice was served with the manslaughter charge.      I’m not sure why acquittal = racism in your mind, mostly because juries do weird things all the time.  I don’t recall people screaming that the jury in the Casey Anthony trial were in favor of murdering children.  
 

 

[SoCal Deek]

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

This is so stupid. Expert witnesses testify on the expertise. And when a long list of them all come to the same conclusions, even across different areas of expertise, that is significant. 

 

 

Mind numbing ignorance on display here Tibs. Have you ever been an expert witness? I have. You’re paid to give the opinion that the prosecution or defense wants you to give...period! If you can’t, they’ll buy another expert witness. There’s no veering off script. Everything is rehearsed and if you’re not aware every WORD of your testimony has already been gone over in great depth before you ever sit down in the ‘witness’ chair.  You seem to think it’s a TV show where it’s all new to the participants...it’s not.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Mind numbing ignorance on display here Tibs. Have you ever been an expert witness? I have. You’re paid to give the opinion that the prosecution or defense wants you to give...period! If you can’t, they’ll buy another expert witness. There’s no veering off script. Everything is rehearsed and if you’re not aware every WORD of your testimony has already been gone over in great depth before you ever sit down in the ‘witness’ chair.  You seem to think it’s a TV show where it’s all new to the participants...it’s not.

I’m told a young Tibsy first became fascinated with the law after one Mr. Mike Brady cracked a case wide open when he threw his briefcase on the floor, causing a loud noise that resulted in a shady plaintiff turning his head sharply after claiming his range of motion was severely restricted. 
 

I tried to tell Tibsy that while the ploy was brilliant, that was in California and everyone knows that anything goes in Cali.  Leisure suits.  Perms.  Johnny Bravo. And yes, the briefcase gambit.   I told him straight up that that dog don’t hunt in Minnesota, but he won’t listen.