Murderer Chauvin loses appeal

[XponentialChaos]

So we both agree I don’t know if he’s competent or not but you believe I think he’s incompetent? Does that make any sense?

Yes.

 

[XponentialChaos]

If you can’t acknowledge that you did exactly what you criticized me for - avoiding a question - then I guess there’s nothing else to say.

We both have. However, I answered your questions when you insisted, which has only resulted in the conversation turning into a shit-fest, which I suspect was your goal due to your inability to defend your retarded arguments and blatant lies.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Sounds like that's your problem, not mine. Liar.

Yes.

How?

We both have. However, I answered your questions when you insisted,

So did I.

which has only resulted in the conversation turning into a shit-fest, which I suspect was your goal due to your inability to defend your retarded arguments and blatant lies.

There was nothing to defend. Everything I said was opinion.

The shitfest started because you couldn’t disagree and let it go. You’ve spent days and pages pointlessly telling me my argument is stupid.

You are solely responsible for starting this shitfest.

 

[XponentialChaos]

How?

I don’t even know where to begin with that one. What part of that doesn’t make sense to you? Knowing something and believing something obviously aren’t the same thing, and I suspect you know that, so I don’t know where the breakdown is.

So did I.

Another lie. You have yet to address the lie that I showed you.

There was nothing to defend. Everything I said was opinion.

Bullshit. You said you didn’t for, an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Chauvin until after the trial. That’s objectively false. A lie. Address your lie.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I don’t even know where to begin with that one. What part of that doesn’t make sense to you?

What doesn’t make sense is you not accepting me saying I don’t question his competence in spite of both of us agreeing I don’t know and my not having an opinion on the matter.

There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve me on this point, other than that you used it to avoid the question.

And no, you disbelieved me before your concocted accusation of lying ever came up so that’s no excuse.

Knowing something and believing something obviously aren’t the same thing, and I suspect you know that, so I don’t know where the breakdown is.

The breakdown is why you disbelieved in the first place.

Another lie. You have yet to address the lie that I showed you.

Address your hypocrisy.

Bullshit. You said you didn’t for, an opinion on the guilt or innocence of Chauvin until after the trial. That’s objectively false. A lie. Address your lie.

Bullshit. I’m talking about my argument on the manner of Floyd’s death.

I’m not addressing anything about lying with your hypocrisy hanging out there like a dead rat.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What doesn’t make sense is you not accepting me saying I don’t question his competence in spite of both of us agreeing I don’t know and my not having an opinion on the matter.

There is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve me on this point, other than that you used it to avoid the question.

Once again, I've explained exactly why I disagree with you on that:

"In my opinion, you have articulated points that reflect that you think very negatively of Baker's competence in the handling of Floyd's death. You've stated that you think he's wrong, that he was not objective in his analysis, and that he allowed outside pressure to influence him into into screwing Chauvin over. If all of this is true, then an innocent man was ultimately thrown in prison for a very long time over Baker's mistakes. That, to me, describes incompetence. So I disagree with you on your claim that you have withheld an opinion about Baker's competence."

I'm not required to agree with you on everything you say. That doesn't make me a liar for disagreeing with you. And that was all before you proved how big of a liar you are.

I’m not addressing anything about lying with your hypocrisy hanging out there like a dead rat.

See, this is what I mean by you sticking to a lie when you know it's a lie because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You know damn well that you got caught in a lie and you're desperately trying not to answer for it. You're a liar. It has been PROVEN to you. You're going to make up any bullshit you can to avoid answering for it.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Once again, I've explained exactly why I disagree with you on that:

"In my opinion, you have articulated points that reflect that you think very negatively of Baker's competence in the handling of Floyd's death.

If I think negatively on anything it’s what I see as his actions, not him.

Saying I think he erred in judgment on this case and saying he’s an incompetent pathologist are two different things.

My opinion that he was swayed by pressure is not based on nothing, it’s based on the fact that others applied pressure to get him to add neck compression to the report, which he then did.

Beyond this case, I have nothing on which to base an opinion of incompetence. If I knew there were similar cases in his past then yes, I might opine incompetence. At this point I have nothing I can reasonably say are signs of overall professional incompetence.

I reserve my truly negative feelings for fucks like Maxine Waters and others like her for essentially calling for a foreordained guilty verdict.

I truly detest that woman.

You've stated that you think he's wrong, that he was not objective in his analysis, and that he allowed outside pressure to influence him into into screwing Chauvin over.

Except, if he was swayed by pressure, I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing. But again, I don’t even know that much.

If all of this is true, then an innocent man was ultimately thrown in prison for a very long time over Baker's mistakes.

This sort of thing has happened before. Why is it so unthinkable or impossible in this case?

That, to me, describes incompetence. So I disagree with you on your claim that you have withheld an opinion about Baker's competence."

I'm not required to agree with you on everything you say. That doesn't make me a liar for disagreeing with you. And that was all before you proved how big of a liar you are.

Everything I just said about Baker’s competence I’ve told you before two or three times. Why you chose to see negativity, I can’t even begin to guess.

So you’ve been bleating incessantly and harping about my argument being stupid because you’re too dense to read obvious tells in plain English.

See, this is what I mean by you sticking to a lie when you know it's a lie because you don't want to admit you're wrong. You know damn well that you got caught in a lie and you're desperately trying not to answer for it. You're a liar. It has been PROVEN to you. You're going to make up any bullshit you can to avoid answering for it.

Like you did when you finally decided to “answer” my question. To avoid answering, you claimed I do think he’s incompetent so you wouldn’t have to explain why it was relevant because you knew it wasn’t.

 

[XponentialChaos]

If I think negatively on anything it’s what I see as his actions, not him.

Saying I think he erred in judgment on this case and saying he’s an incompetent pathologist are two different things.

My opinion that he was swayed by pressure is not based on nothing, it’s based on the fact that others applied pressure to get him to add neck compression to the report, which he then did.

Beyond this case, I have nothing on which to base an opinion of incompetence. If I knew there were similar cases in his past then yes, I might opine incompetence. At this point I have nothing I can reasonably say are signs of overall professional incompetence.

I reserve my truly negative feelings for fucks like Maxine Waters and others like her for essentially calling for a foreordained guilty verdict.

I truly detest that woman.


Except, if he was swayed by pressure, I’m sure he thought he was doing the right thing. But again, I don’t even know that much.


This sort of thing has happened before. Why is it so unthinkable or impossible in this case?


Everything I just said about Baker’s competence I’ve told you before two or three times. Why you chose to see negativity, I can’t even begin to guess.

You can say what you want. I still disagree with you on that and I’ve stated exactly why. If you don’t like that, then that’s your problem, not mine.

So you’ve been bleating incessantly and harping about my argument being stupid because you’re too dense to read obvious tells in plain English.

Your argument is stupid. You’re arguing that you’re more likely to be correct about the cause of death than the fucking medical examiner. That’s not just stupid - that’s beyond retarded.

Like you did when you finally decided to “answer” my question. To avoid answering, you claimed I do think he’s incompetent so you wouldn’t have to explain why it was relevant because you knew it wasn’t.

You’re not fooling anyone, liar. You and I both know you got caught in a lie. You and I both know you trying really hard not to admit you’re wrong when you know you’re wrong. It’s not working.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You can say what you want. I still disagree with you on that and I’ve stated exactly why. If you don’t like that, then that’s your problem, not mine.

It never was my problem. I made my case and you disagreed. But then you spent days telling me how retarded it was to no purpose whatsoever.

Your argument is stupid. You’re arguing that you’re more likely to be correct about the cause of death than the fucking medical examiner.

With the same elements factored in, the odds are 50-50.

You’re not fooling anyone, liar.

No need to try to fool anyone; your avoidance of the question was there for all to see.

You and I both know you got caught in a lie. You and I both know you trying really hard not to admit you’re wrong when you know you’re wrong. It’s not working.

Wrong about what?

 

[XponentialChaos]

It never was my problem. I made my case and you disagreed. But then you spent days telling me how retarded it was to no purpose whatsoever.

Clearly you did have a problem with it. You said I'm a liar because I disagreed with you. Once again, you're full of shit.

With the same elements factored in, the odds are 50-50.

You think it's 50-50 between who is right about the cause of death - you and the medical examiner. You're an idiot and that's completely retarded.

 

[XponentialChaos]

My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.

You didn’t have an opinion on whether Chauvin killed Floyd or not?

No, I didn’t. I usually reserve judgment until more info comes out. Especially in cases like this when woke imbeciles want to hang someone just to make a point, rather than waste any time on guilt or innocence.

You less than a month after Floyd was killed:

"I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.“

You lied. You're clinging to a lie, that you know is a lie, because you don't want to admit you're wrong. Proof is right here. Address it. I'll be happy to keep shoving this in your face until you grow the balls to answer for it. I suggest you try being honest this time because you know you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Clearly you did have a problem with it. You said I'm a liar because I disagreed with you. Once again, you're full of shit.

You lied because it isn't true

You think it's 50-50 between who is right about the cause of death - you and the medical examiner. You're an idiot and that's completely retarded.

So You've said.

You less than a month after Floyd was killed:

"I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.“

You lied. You're clinging to a lie, that you know is a lie, because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

Wrong about what?

Proof is right here. Address it.

When you address your hypocrisy, I will.

I'll be happy to keep shoving this in your face until you grow the balls to answer for it. I suggest you try being honest this time because you know you're not fooling anyone.

You gonna answer for your hypocrisy?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Clearly you did have a problem with it. You said I'm a liar because I disagreed with you. Once again, you're full of shit.

You lied because it isn't true

So you’re claiming that I‘m lying for disagreeing with you. That’s your argument. You’re an idiot.

 

[XponentialChaos]

My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.

You didn’t have an opinion on whether Chauvin killed Floyd or not?

No, I didn’t. I usually reserve judgment until more info comes out. Especially in cases like this when woke imbeciles want to hang someone just to make a point, rather than waste any time on guilt or innocence.

You less than a month after Floyd was killed:

"I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.“

You’ve proven you’re a liar. You would rather cling to a lie, that you know isn’t true, than admit you’re wrong.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So you’re claiming that I‘m lying for disagreeing with you. That’s your argument. You’re an idiot.

I'm saying you lied when you claim I lied.

You less than a month after Floyd was killed:

"I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.“

You’ve proven you’re a liar. You would rather cling to a lie, that you know isn’t true, than admit you’re wrong.

Are you expecting a different response in light of your hypocrisy?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'm saying you lied when you claim I lied.

So you think I’m lying unless I agree with what you say.

 

[XponentialChaos]

My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.

You didn’t have an opinion on whether Chauvin killed Floyd or not?

No, I didn’t. I usually reserve judgment until more info comes out. Especially in cases like this when woke imbeciles want to hang someone just to make a point, rather than waste any time on guilt or innocence.

You less than a month after Floyd was killed:

"I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.“

Whatever bullshit argument you’re trying to make really doesn’t matter. You’ve already proven you’re a liar. And on top of that, you’ve proven that you would rather stick to an argument that you know is wrong than admit that I’m right even when the proof is right there in your face. You’ve proven that you’re dishonest which discredits what you say here and in the future. You lose, liar.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

So you think I’m lying unless I agree with what you say.

Nope.

You less than a month after Floyd was killed:

"I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.“

Whatever bullshit argument you’re trying to make really doesn’t matter. You’ve already proven you’re a liar. And on top of that, you’ve proven that you would rather stick to an argument that you know is wrong than admit that I’m right even when the proof is right there in your face. You’ve proven that you’re dishonest which discredits what you say here and in the future. You lose, liar.

(...)

 

[XponentialChaos]

Nope.

That‘s exactly what you’re arguing. You’re claiming that I’m a liar if I don’t agree with you. Even you know this is another dumb argument of yours. Do you actually believe it or are you, yet again, just sticking to a dumb argument because you don’t want to admit you’re wrong?

 

[XponentialChaos]

My point is, I didn’t assume anything before the trial. You did.

You didn’t have an opinion on whether Chauvin killed Floyd or not?

No, I didn’t. I usually reserve judgment until more info comes out. Especially in cases like this when woke imbeciles want to hang someone just to make a point, rather than waste any time on guilt or innocence.

You less than a month after Floyd was killed:

"I think a combination of drugs, his heart condition and the stress of the situation caused him to have a heart attack. He very clearly did not want to get in the cruiser and getting arrested got him torqued up. I don't know why but whatever his reason was, he was willing to try to bullshit his way out of it.

I've no doubt he had trouble breathing but it wasn't because of anything Chauvin was doing.“

You really damaged your credibility with this one, liar. Don’t forget what happened here. I sure won’t.