Judge in Floyd case opens door for an acquital.

[Rigby5]

Of course prior criminal history should be considered....just as a lack of a prior history should be considered.

In a criminal court case the jury is not supposed to know the record of the accused, that way they can come to a fair conclusion about the case instead of the persons life. In this instance it's the police record of the supposed victim, and I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't mind all the evidence being known, including past similar arrests.

But it would be wrong to enter evidence that was totally irrelevant and intended to just demean the character of the victim, with the intend of making a jury not care that the person died.
That would be like entering evidence of their religion or something irrelevant.
And it is not clear there is any relevancy to a past drug arrest because Floyd did not resist then either.

How about all the use of force reports on the police?

That is a good point, in that Chauvin had used excessive force before.

 

[otto105]

Of course prior criminal history should be considered....just as a lack of a prior history should be considered.

In a criminal court case the jury is not supposed to know the record of the accused, that way they can come to a fair conclusion about the case instead of the persons life. In this instance it's the police record of the supposed victim, and I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't mind all the evidence being known, including past similar arrests.

But it would be wrong to enter evidence that was totally irrelevant and intended to just demean the character of the victim, with the intend of making a jury not care that the person died.
That would be like entering evidence of their religion or something irrelevant.
And it is not clear there is any relevancy to a past drug arrest because Floyd did not resist then either.

How about all the use of force reports on the police?

That is a good point, in that Chauvin had used excessive force before.

18 times

 

[Rigby5]

With due respect, I agree with most of what you have said in this thread. That should be evident in the number of likes I have made of your posts.

My "apples and oranges" assessment was based heavily on the difference between how the leftists view guns and drugs. They seem to want to:

• decriminalize all drug possession
• criminalize all gun possession (with exception of their own bodyguards)

I never said dope was a constitutional right.

This is true.

Recreational drugs are those people take for enjoyment and eventually become addicted to.

I stand corrected. I had not researched the accepted definition until just now. My bad.

...care for the topic title to see what one poster is writing about?

Not in this thread.

I never said dope was a constitutional right.

This is also true. I was merely reiterating the difference between the two; guns and drugs. As you said, the leftists assign blame to gun dealers and gun shows. I agree. And I say that they promote the business of drug dealers.

Dope and drugs are constitutional rights.
First of all, the constitution says rights are infinite, so then unenumerated, and are all valid until they infringe upon someone else. Only then can you make laws regulating anything.
And since dope/drugs harm no one else, it is unconstitutional to make laws against them.
Even more illegal is to make federal drug laws, since that would require explicit authorization for it in the Constitution.

Guns are also a constitutional right, but clearly guns can infringe upon others, so then some regulation could be legal.
Guns make much more sense to regulate than drugs/dope does.

wrong again,, just like if you force a bullet in someones chest you committed a crime,, forcing drugs in someone is also a crime,,,

Has anyone ever forced anyone to take drugs?
Drugs cost money and produce pleasure, so then what would the motive be for forcing drugs on someone?

People can be strong or weak. And once starting on a downward spiral, can not only screw their own lives over, but people close to them. Drugs at the level we do is a first world problem and there are people who are happy to provide them.

I do not have to be recommending drugs in order to realize there is no legal basis for criminalizing them.
There are lots of things people would be better off not doing, but that is not enough to criminalize something.
And every time they do criminalize something, like they did with alcohol during Prohibition, it only makes things worse, not better. The profits are higher, that entices more, but you can't use banks or police, so then violence skyrockets, etc.

 

[otto105]

How will OBiden and Kramalot Harris handle this. Shit Holes on Fire.

Ok. I give a long article and don't expect you to read it.

In my own words the judge is NOW ALLOWING evidence from Floyd's previous arrest. A carbon copy from the first except he didn't get up this time.

The judge reversed this decision sharply 90 degrees.

THERE: You don't have to read it now

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/26/wrong-ruling-could-let-suspect-george-floyds-killing-go-free/

So the cop is supposedly innocent because it'd been done before and he didn't die the first time? Er.....

Did I say the Cop really fucked up and will get 5 if that???...Yes I did.

Did I mean the prev take down when the idiot swaaallered all his dope and didn't croak?...Yes I did


That is one outstanding avatar btw..................LOLOL

Do you even know what “hang on sloppy” means?

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

How will OBiden and Kramalot Harris handle this. Shit Holes on Fire.

Ok. I give a long article and don't expect you to read it.

In my own words the judge is NOW ALLOWING evidence from Floyd's previous arrest. A carbon copy from the first except he didn't get up this time.

The judge reversed this decision sharply 90 degrees.

THERE: You don't have to read it now

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/26/wrong-ruling-could-let-suspect-george-floyds-killing-go-free/

So the cop is supposedly innocent because it'd been done before and he didn't die the first time? Er.....

Did I say the Cop really fucked up and will get 5 if that???...Yes I did.

Did I mean the prev take down when the idiot swaaallered all his dope and didn't croak?...Yes I did


That is one outstanding avatar btw..................LOLOL

Do you even know what “hang on sloppy” means?

Sloopy is the Devils Child waiting to damned us all to eternity.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Of course prior criminal history should be considered....just as a lack of a prior history should be considered.

In a criminal court case the jury is not supposed to know the record of the accused, that way they can come to a fair conclusion about the case instead of the persons life. In this instance it's the police record of the supposed victim, and I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't mind all the evidence being known, including past similar arrests.

But it would be wrong to enter evidence that was totally irrelevant and intended to just demean the character of the victim, with the intend of making a jury not care that the person died.
That would be like entering evidence of their religion or something irrelevant.
And it is not clear there is any relevancy to a past drug arrest because Floyd did not resist then either.

Don't resist arrest. Don't be an ass hole. You'll live to pass phony bills another day.

Look at what that bastard did to our country.

I can't wait to watch Minneshithole burn. May every shit hole burn to the fucking ground.

What did George Floyd do to our country?

Additionally, a shithole is defined by anywhere you are at.

He was an ass hole that resisted arrest and caused a meltdown. It was frightening watching shit holes burn last Summer. Now I will cheer it on like Kramalot Harris did

I never lived near a semi shit hole in my life. Who would want a life of such misery and sorrow. I would take suicide as the other option to a Shit Hole.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Of course prior criminal history should be considered....just as a lack of a prior history should be considered.

In a criminal court case the jury is not supposed to know the record of the accused, that way they can come to a fair conclusion about the case instead of the persons life. In this instance it's the police record of the supposed victim, and I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't mind all the evidence being known, including past similar arrests.

But it would be wrong to enter evidence that was totally irrelevant and intended to just demean the character of the victim, with the intend of making a jury not care that the person died.
That would be like entering evidence of their religion or something irrelevant.
And it is not clear there is any relevancy to a past drug arrest because Floyd did not resist then either.

Don't resist arrest. Don't be an ass hole. You'll live to pass phony bills another day.

Look at what that bastard did to our country.

I can't wait to watch Minneshithole burn. May every shit hole burn to the fucking ground.

What did George Floyd do to our country?

Additionally, a shithole is defined by anywhere you are at.

He was an ass hole that resisted arrest and caused a meltdown. It was frightening watching shit holes burn last Summer. Now I will cheer it on like Kramalot Harris did

I never lived near a semi shit hole in my life. Who would want a life of such misery and sorrow. I would take suicide as the other option to a Shit Hole.

Like 40 black people died in the riots over a black man being killed?

The irony cannot be lost on even the most dumb fuck lefty.

 

[asaratis]

While I don't agree with all of the concluding remarks in this video, it is the best compilation of documented evidence I have seen so far in this case. Well worth watching (and listening) in its entirety!

It makes me wonder just how violently those who will settle for nothing less than Chauvin's head on a pike will react if and when he is acquitted.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Of course prior criminal history should be considered....just as a lack of a prior history should be considered.

In a criminal court case the jury is not supposed to know the record of the accused, that way they can come to a fair conclusion about the case instead of the persons life. In this instance it's the police record of the supposed victim, and I can't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

I don't mind all the evidence being known, including past similar arrests.

But it would be wrong to enter evidence that was totally irrelevant and intended to just demean the character of the victim, with the intend of making a jury not care that the person died.
That would be like entering evidence of their religion or something irrelevant.
And it is not clear there is any relevancy to a past drug arrest because Floyd did not resist then either.

Don't resist arrest. Don't be an ass hole. You'll live to pass phony bills another day.

Look at what that bastard did to our country.

I can't wait to watch Minneshithole burn. May every shit hole burn to the fucking ground.

What did George Floyd do to our country?

Additionally, a shithole is defined by anywhere you are at.

He was an ass hole that resisted arrest and caused a meltdown. It was frightening watching shit holes burn last Summer. Now I will cheer it on like Kramalot Harris did

I never lived near a semi shit hole in my life. Who would want a life of such misery and sorrow. I would take suicide as the other option to a Shit Hole.

Like 40 black people died in the riots over a black man being killed?

The irony cannot be lost on even the most dumb fuck lefty.

I never realized how many paint chips they ate as children.

 

[airplanemechanic]

BREAKING: George Floyd's ex gf testifies about his past drug addiction:

Derek Chauvin trial: George Floyd's ex-girlfriend testifies about his drug use, their relationship

The trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who faces murder and manslaughter charges in connection with the death of George Floyd, continued into its fourth day on Thursday, with Floyd’s former girlfriend recalling how the pair met and their shared history of narcotics addiction.

www.foxnews.com

There went the prosecutions case. Acquittal is all but assured. Remember Chauvin is innocent until proven guilty. He doesn't have to prove innocence. Reasonable doubt is an ugly thing to a prosecutor.

 

[Rigby5]

BREAKING: George Floyd's ex gf testifies about his past drug addiction:

Derek Chauvin trial: George Floyd's ex-girlfriend testifies about his drug use, their relationship

The trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who faces murder and manslaughter charges in connection with the death of George Floyd, continued into its fourth day on Thursday, with Floyd’s former girlfriend recalling how the pair met and their shared history of narcotics addiction.

www.foxnews.com

There went the prosecutions case. Acquittal is all but assured. Remember Chauvin is innocent until proven guilty. He doesn't have to prove innocence. Reasonable doubt is an ugly thing to a prosecutor.

Not at all.
Past drug use means he would have a much higher drug tolerance, not less.
So then it is even more likely that Chauvin murdered Floyd.
And since Chauvin worked the same night clubs that Floyd did, as bouncers, then it is also likely Chauvin knew Floyd and deliberately murdered him for some reason.
There is no reasonable doubt.
Everyone saw Chauvin commit deliberate murder.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And since Chauvin worked the same night clubs that Floyd did, as bouncers, then it is also likely Chauvin knew Floyd and deliberately murdered him for some reason.
There is no reasonable doubt.

The media reports that I read stated he and Floyd never knew each other.

 

[lennypartiv]

That is a good point, in that Chauvin had used excessive force before.

Because some people deserve an ass whooping.

 

[airplanemechanic]

BREAKING: George Floyd's ex gf testifies about his past drug addiction:

Derek Chauvin trial: George Floyd's ex-girlfriend testifies about his drug use, their relationship

The trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who faces murder and manslaughter charges in connection with the death of George Floyd, continued into its fourth day on Thursday, with Floyd’s former girlfriend recalling how the pair met and their shared history of narcotics addiction.

www.foxnews.com

There went the prosecutions case. Acquittal is all but assured. Remember Chauvin is innocent until proven guilty. He doesn't have to prove innocence. Reasonable doubt is an ugly thing to a prosecutor.

Not at all.
Past drug use means he would have a much higher drug tolerance, not less.
So then it is even more likely that Chauvin murdered Floyd.
And since Chauvin worked the same night clubs that Floyd did, as bouncers, then it is also likely Chauvin knew Floyd and deliberately murdered him for some reason.
There is no reasonable doubt.
Everyone saw Chauvin commit deliberate murder.

Wrong. It means he's a drug addict and drug addicts can be very unpredictable when high on drugs and confronted by cops. He was caught with drugs and had drugs in his system at the time of death.

Acquit.

 

[Rigby5]

And since Chauvin worked the same night clubs that Floyd did, as bouncers, then it is also likely Chauvin knew Floyd and deliberately murdered him for some reason.
There is no reasonable doubt.

The media reports that I read stated he and Floyd never knew each other.

{...

George Floyd and Police Officer Who Held Knee on Neck Worked Security at the Same Club Together

According to several news reports, both Derek Chauvin and George Floyd were bouncers at the same club for more than a decade
By Steve Helling
May 29, 2020 01:47 PM

The Minneapolis police officer and the unarmed black man who died in his custody this week both worked as security guards for the same Minneapolis club, according to multiple news reports.
George Floyd and the now-fired police officer Derek Chauvin had overlapping shifts at the El Nuevo Rodeo club, former owner Maya Santamaria told KTSP Eyewitness News. (Chauvin was taken into custody by authorities on Friday.)
"Chauvin was our off-duty police for almost the entirety of the 17 years that we were open," Santamaria told the station. "They were working together at the same time, it's just that Chauvin worked outside and the security guards were inside."
...}

George Floyd and Police Officer Who Held Knee on Neck Worked Security at the Same Club Together

According to several news reports, both Derek Chauvin and George Floyd were bouncers at the same club for more than a decade

people.com

It seems impossible that the 2 could work the same nightclub for a decade and not run into each other.
Even someone working the parking lot would have to come in, to use the restrooms, clock in, check schedule, warm up, etc.

 

[lennypartiv]

Using or manufacturing counterfeit money is a violation of the United States Code and can be considered criminal fraud. Counterfeiting of currency is not a minor
As that shows and as I said...passing a counterfeit note less than $1,000 is a misdemeanor in Minnesota, IF they can prove intent.
He was being arrested by a STATE LEO so Federal law was not the issue

People like that need to be taught a lesson.

 

[Rigby5]

That is a good point, in that Chauvin had used excessive force before.

Because some people deserve an ass whooping.

If they deserve it, then a judge decides, not police.

 

[Rigby5]

BREAKING: George Floyd's ex gf testifies about his past drug addiction:

Derek Chauvin trial: George Floyd's ex-girlfriend testifies about his drug use, their relationship

The trial for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who faces murder and manslaughter charges in connection with the death of George Floyd, continued into its fourth day on Thursday, with Floyd’s former girlfriend recalling how the pair met and their shared history of narcotics addiction.

www.foxnews.com

There went the prosecutions case. Acquittal is all but assured. Remember Chauvin is innocent until proven guilty. He doesn't have to prove innocence. Reasonable doubt is an ugly thing to a prosecutor.

Not at all.
Past drug use means he would have a much higher drug tolerance, not less.
So then it is even more likely that Chauvin murdered Floyd.
And since Chauvin worked the same night clubs that Floyd did, as bouncers, then it is also likely Chauvin knew Floyd and deliberately murdered him for some reason.
There is no reasonable doubt.
Everyone saw Chauvin commit deliberate murder.

Wrong. It means he's a drug addict and drug addicts can be very unpredictable when high on drugs and confronted by cops. He was caught with drugs and had drugs in his system at the time of death.

Acquit.

Except drugs harm the rights of no one else, and that means the police should have no jurisdiction over drugs at all.
And no, he was not caught with any drugs.
He had drugs in this system, but they were not the cause of death according to the autopsy.

 

[lennypartiv]

Because some people deserve an ass whooping.

If they deserve it, then a judge decides, not police.

Why not both?

 

[Rigby5]

Using or manufacturing counterfeit money is a violation of the United States Code and can be considered criminal fraud. Counterfeiting of currency is not a minor
As that shows and as I said...passing a counterfeit note less than $1,000 is a misdemeanor in Minnesota, IF they can prove intent.
He was being arrested by a STATE LEO so Federal law was not the issue

People like that need to be taught a lesson.

Not by police.
That would be considered lynching due to being without trial.