Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
So the question is, @GreenRiverGatorz and @dflea, my always-pressing inferior, How does my ass taste?
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Couple of questions:
1) What if your friend said that he thought he was guilty of manslaughter but not murder - how would you have reacted?
2) What if your friend said that based on the overall fairness of the trial (including some really questionable public comments leading up to the jury deliberating, which I'm sure that that's what he was referencing) he expects that the outcome to get overturn during the appeal process - how would you react?
I guarantee that you can count on one hand the number of times that a judge immediately after the verdict concedes to a defense attorney that they have a good avenue to get the case overturned
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
I remember watching a crazy amount of the OJ Trial because it largely took place in the summer of 1994 and being out of school it was literally the only thing you watched on TV during the day when you were home for the summer
When the case went to the jury, the outcome seemed pretty obvious to me and when people would ask me about it, they were incredulous that I'd have the following opinion:
1) Do I think that OJ committed the murders - Yes
2) Do I think that OJ committed the murders beyond a reasonable doubt - No
Based on that, as the famous words go "if it don't fit you must acquit"
There's obviously a lot of inequities in the judicial system and it would definitely be beneficial to clean up those inequities. But in high profile cases, the evidence is often there and really it comes down to applying the facts directly against the law.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
Looks like one of the Trump Dick Suckers gang got triggered.
LOL
If you don't understand why 2nd degree murder is still murder maybe you can go Ask Jeeves?
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
The challenge I have with any explanation to anything being tied to it being "systemic" is that it really doesn't get to the root of what is causing the systemic element
I'm not naïve to the fact that there are different treatments throughout our judicial system based on a number of factors ...
But until we get down to the root causes of the issue, we're not solving anything.
In the end, I'm interested in solutions. What I see right now (in society in general, notably from governmental leadership on all sides) is a lot of rhetoric that focuses on division and festering the problem instead of actually trying to find solutions.
I guarantee that you can count on one hand the number of times that a judge immediately after the verdict concedes to a defense attorney that they have a good avenue to get the case overturned
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Couple of questions:
1) What if your friend said that he thought he was guilty of manslaughter but not murder - how would you have reacted?
2) What if your friend said that based on the overall fairness of the trial (including some really questionable public comments leading up to the jury deliberating, which I'm sure that that's what he was referencing) he expects that the outcome to get overturn during the appeal process - how would you react?
I don’t deal in hypotheticals?
I think those are just legal interpretations and don’t have a major problem with it. The manslaughter/murder one might be a little tricky. It implies, to me, that you don’t think a cop can ever murder someone in that situation. I mean the video is really bad and if that’s not enough for you to go all the way, how bad would it have be to get there?
The Trumpers positions on this are monstrous. Nothing that you said here approaches that.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
The evidence is overwhelming that black people don’t get fair trials in America. But fair trials aren’t a problem until a cop puts his knee on someone’s neck for 9 minutes.
Is it possible that some people are consistent advocates of fair trials, regardless of circumstance?
Of course. I had a conservative friend express to me that he thought it was clear Chauvin was guilty but he was concerned about the fairness of the trial. Friend, not former friend.
But a lot of people on the right reject any notion that black people don’t get fair trials. If someone doesn’t think it’s possible that black people aren’t getting fair trials but they bitch about the fairness of this trial, there might be a reason for that. A crystal clear, confederate flag in the capitol, reason.
Firewall protected and what do you want to bet that they compare apples to dog shit? Black Kid with multiple priors gets busted for robbery. White Kid with no priors gets busted for robbery. See, the black kid got sent to prison and the white kids got probation. Racism!!!!
Those things are accounted for in the studies.
Since you're a proven liar and your source isn't publicly accessible I don't believe you.
Well, you also believe the people doing criminal justice studies aren’t smart enough to realize there’s different types of crimes so I can live with this.
Your source is an opinion not facts
2% of poor white kids and 10% of rich black kids going to jail isn’t an opinion.
Whatever our fucked up relationship is now, I put it on all of our old shit that the numbers on this are really bad. That they account for income, that they account for the types of crimes and criminal records. It’s really bad. I know you can’t go here because our justice SYSTEM giving unequal outcome based on RACE, kinda hurts your whole “no systemic racism” bit but it’s real and anyone with half a brain can see it.
You just have no data to back it up
Unequal outcome based on income is provable
I have no vested interest in proving the state to be pure
I'll leave that to the statist worshippers like you who want to give the state total control of your life
Good luck
Great point. The system is racist and discriminates against black people! Lets give more power and money to the system!!!!
It's really mind boggling ...
Those that speak up the most about the status quo are those most disillusioned with our government
Yet, those same people want to give the government more power
The idea being that by giving DIFFERENT LEADERS the power everything will change
History teaches us that the more power that you give government the more that they'll abuse it.
At the core, that's why the United States was founded on the concept of "We The People" ... it was always about de-centralizing governmental power and authority ... it's why there's a separation of Federal and State rights.
Yet everything we're doing right now is the antithesis of what this country was founded on ... MORE power to the federal government ... MORE centralization and emphasis on the federal government ... eliminating the freedom of the people as a means of checks and balances
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
So the question is, @GreenRiverGatorz and @dflea, my always-pressing inferior, How does my ass taste?
Your bolded is where I somewhat struggle with Minnesota's law as written and the verdict ...
Obviously we can see the outcome of the action leading to death
The question for me would be can we conclude and prove that the actions were intended to effect the death of the person? We can prove that they did. Can we prove the intent? That's much more of a dicey proof in my mind.
Without seeing the facts of the case directly, it's hard for me to really opine one way or another. Manslaughter would seem to be a slam dunk here.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE. Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years: (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
So the question is, @GreenRiverGatorz and @dflea, my always-pressing inferior, How does my ass taste?
He was charged with second degree unintentional murder, you stupid fucking faggot. Explain how that requires intent, being how it's UNINTENTIONAL. Tell it to the state of Minnesota if you don't like it, idiot - it isn't my fucking law.
Get the fuck outta here, teacher's kid. Go eat your own ass, retard.
Not surprised. This decision didn't really matter, other than the rioting, because it's going to be appealed so LIPO. The guy wasn't going to get a fair trial. There is no way anyone can convince me he intended to kill Floyd.
Intention to kill is not required for 2nd degree murder.
Then how is it a murder?
You don't know what you're talking about.
That's the law. Pretty cut and dry shit. Unless you're a fucking idiot.
How does my ass taste?
Not flea or gatorz but I always assume your ass tastes like a combination of shit, SFGbob's dick, and whatever flavor lube you two use when you go at each other.
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
Foster Law School graduate heard from claiming other people are doing what he just fucking did.
Comments
609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
So the question is, @GreenRiverGatorz and @dflea, my always-pressing inferior, How does my ass taste?
Bad cops will continue being bad cops though until all are fired or put in prison.
141 studies demonstrating racial bias in the criminal justice system.
You refusing to believe something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been proven.
1) What if your friend said that he thought he was guilty of manslaughter but not murder - how would you have reacted?
2) What if your friend said that based on the overall fairness of the trial (including some really questionable public comments leading up to the jury deliberating, which I'm sure that that's what he was referencing) he expects that the outcome to get overturn during the appeal process - how would you react?
Nice handle, too. Press much?
I'll leave you @dflea, @GreenRiverGatorz and @HairyBallsDawg "the faggot trio" to frantically google "Minnesota Second Degree Murder" while jerking each other off.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done here, flyweights.
Enjoy eating my shit.
When the case went to the jury, the outcome seemed pretty obvious to me and when people would ask me about it, they were incredulous that I'd have the following opinion:
1) Do I think that OJ committed the murders - Yes
2) Do I think that OJ committed the murders beyond a reasonable doubt - No
Based on that, as the famous words go "if it don't fit you must acquit"
There's obviously a lot of inequities in the judicial system and it would definitely be beneficial to clean up those inequities. But in high profile cases, the evidence is often there and really it comes down to applying the facts directly against the law.
LOL
If you don't understand why 2nd degree murder is still murder maybe you can go Ask Jeeves?
I'm not naïve to the fact that there are different treatments throughout our judicial system based on a number of factors ...
But until we get down to the root causes of the issue, we're not solving anything.
In the end, I'm interested in solutions. What I see right now (in society in general, notably from governmental leadership on all sides) is a lot of rhetoric that focuses on division and festering the problem instead of actually trying to find solutions.
I think those are just legal interpretations and don’t have a major problem with it. The manslaughter/murder one might be a little tricky. It implies, to me, that you don’t think a cop can ever murder someone in that situation. I mean the video is really bad and if that’s not enough for you to go all the way, how bad would it have be to get there?
The Trumpers positions on this are monstrous. Nothing that you said here approaches that.
Those that speak up the most about the status quo are those most disillusioned with our government
Yet, those same people want to give the government more power
The idea being that by giving DIFFERENT LEADERS the power everything will change
History teaches us that the more power that you give government the more that they'll abuse it.
At the core, that's why the United States was founded on the concept of "We The People" ... it was always about de-centralizing governmental power and authority ... it's why there's a separation of Federal and State rights.
Yet everything we're doing right now is the antithesis of what this country was founded on ... MORE power to the federal government ... MORE centralization and emphasis on the federal government ... eliminating the freedom of the people as a means of checks and balances
It's not going to change until people stand up to the leftist cocksuckers
Obviously we can see the outcome of the action leading to death
The question for me would be can we conclude and prove that the actions were intended to effect the death of the person? We can prove that they did. Can we prove the intent? That's much more of a dicey proof in my mind.
Without seeing the facts of the case directly, it's hard for me to really opine one way or another. Manslaughter would seem to be a slam dunk here.
Get the fuck outta here, teacher's kid. Go eat your own ass, retard.
Now I guess we wait and see if the usual race hustlers have enough juice to squeeze out a few riots so they can raise more money.
At least Cable news has plenty of material to continue conditioning us all to hate each other, so that’s nice.