I am outraged by what happened on Jan 6. I don't think it was a coup attempt, though I'm willing to be proved wrong by some evidence. I think the security that allowed anywhere near the Capital is outrageous. I think there was violence egged on by a President who has a screw loose and doesn't get the concept of governance. I'm also glad I don't live anywhere near downtown Portland or Seattle. But let's call it both ways.concordtom said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:The outrage claimed by political elites in both parties of the Capital being taken over for a few hours, like say the capital square of Seattle was for weeks, or attendant violence when the same could be said for Portland for one of a hundred or so nights, seems well, rather elitist and hypocritical. Clearly the Democrats chose to ignore, and continue to ignore, those indiscretions in the name of their political well being. I doubt that the actors in Portland and Seattle remain as much out of the sphere as the right hate groups parading around the capital. Both also have their few followers and supporters among elected officials, though at the Presdential level this county should be embarrassed. Then again, Biden in the first debate in response to a question directly about those rioting in Portland "for over 100 night" said those groups rioting and occupying were not the problem, the police were the problem. No message there, huh?Unit2Sucks said:wifeisafurd said:You seem to continue to myopically ignore that certain left groups called for rioting and there was in fact rioting, because that doesn't fit your narrative. Instead you revert to the Hilary Clinton myopic swan song of a vast right wing conspiracy.Unit2Sucks said:What myopia? Why do you think it is that conservatives are absolutely obsessed with rioting (except when it's right wing extremists and mainstream Trumpers)? Your comment that the "most stupid thing the left could do" which implies that the organized "left" is somehow involved in rioting. That's fantasy fueled by right wing media and their Maxine Waters fantasies. The democratic party and its leaders are not responsible for or involved in organized rioting, certainly not to the extent and degree to which the republican party and its leaders were involved in January 6.wifeisafurd said:Is that you Dajo? This is the myopia that has me disengaging from a lot of posters. At least Yogi reads the posts and doesn't ignore them. There was the usual in Portland and some other cities that doesn't get repotted on the news sites you frequent, but calls by the anarchist types to riot in other cities (like the Bay Area) to show the verdict calls for racial justice and police reform far have gone unanswered and if they stay unanswered, will be better for pushing through actual police reforms.Unit2Sucks said:No one on the left is rioting or talking about rioting. You are falling for right wing talking points attempt to detract from the fact that they failed to acknowledge the injustices being perpetrated by our police forces and other institutions.wifeisafurd said:Nine plus minutes of chocking someone changes the benefit of doubt in my book. The juries too.concordtom said:OaktownBear said:You have a very vivid imagination.concordtom said:Oh, I'm wounded. Mortally wounded.BearForce2 said:I know for sure I don't care about you.concordtom said:ha ha haBearForce2 said:OaktownBear said:You lose.BearForce2 said:
For all BI leftists, don't loot, burn down other people's property, or hurt other people while you're peacefully protesting.
My property is intact.
that's all you care about, right?
Look, I imagine you are a respectable enough person. If I passed you in the street, met you socially, I'm sure we could have a fine conversation.
But your rationality here on BI is just whack, and I really don't understand how that happens.
It's a mystery of society.
Trumpism is a complete joke, and you've been brainwashed.
I had initially tried to give Derek Chauvin benefit of the doubt, too.
The most stupid thing the left could do right now is too riot.
I'm not sure what the "organized left" even means, but it sounds blissfully to be whatever you want it to include, or not, dependent on the moment. I certainly did not use the term, nor did I come close to suggesting the leaders of the Democratic Party suggested there be riots. I said what I said, and you sir not only ignored what Is said or postings of tweets by representatives of left wings organizations calling for civil unrest, you took it one step further and simply made stuff up and inserted it to qualify my language to fit your narrative. I'm willing to concede that Trump was involved in January 6th, and acknowledged in my post that the post verdict rioting was fortunately on a small scale. Try actually responding to what is said, without a knee jerk reaction to conspiracies, lest you lose credibility.
Lol that you think it's a concession to acknowledge the obvious fact that Trump played a role in the Jan 6 insurrection.
I did respond to what you said and what you said was the product of a right wing media narrative that attempts to smear progressives with the uncoordinated actions of apolitical actors. I suppose antifa isn't apolitical but nor are they left wing or progressive or what have you. They are outside the political sphere. You can't claim the same for the right wing extremists who have Republicans in congress (and previously, the White House) carrying their water.
It bears repeating that I don't condone rioting but nor do I pretend that rioting is affiliated in any way with the Democratic Party or organized progressive politics. People aren't rioting because of anything Maxine Waters has said or done. If it weren't for Fox News hysterics, no one would know who she is. Fox is the only one giving her a national platform and even that is it enough to cause her to influence people across the nation. When rioting occurs its largely from people taking advantage of the moment and/or economically frustrated people. It's quite different from the insurrection supported and fomented by Trump and other Republican leaders.
But hypocrisy notwithstanding, you continue to restate what I said to go define your narrative of some right wing conspiracy around my intent. And the number of red herrings continue. I never discussed or referenced Maxine Waters. I don't know what Maxine Waters had to do with certain leftist groups tweeting for a show of force. The judge said what she said may be grounds for an appeal, but I'm willing to bet the next level court will disagree. And predictably some of the GOP jumped on that. What does that have to do with my comment? Was she now a left wing group calling for action AFTER the verdict came down? Go back and read my post. Was Fox News making those tweets? Was there a reference to progressive politics? Did I mention AOC, Warren, Bernie or any other progressive politician. Did I mention any group that was exerting their right to protest peacefully? What you did was connect me to a demonized group of people rather than discredit what I said. That has become more the norm on this board, and you get the lack of meaningful dialog you deserve.
The comparison of Portland / Seattle to the Capitol insurrection is laughable. And yes, I laughed.
I don't really know why Portland can't handle it's business. I also don't care much. It has no impact on me. Same with whatever happened in Seattle a year ago. As much as I rail against state's rights on this board I do believe states and localities serve a good purpose in resolving their local crime issues without the use of an overly powerful Federal police force. Portland should handle their business.
But a Trump mob invaded the Capitol with the intent to halt the peaceful transfer of power in America. Yes, that is a big problem for all of us.
Yeah, wife, you need to get a grip if you are going to try and downplay the severity of what happened on Jan 6. You're a very smart guy and don't engage in emotional snipes or rants rhetoric. So, what up with that that you can't be outraged at what happened on Jan 6?
Trump lamely attempted a coup. He tried to get Ukraine to do it years ago. He tried to get Raffensburger in GA to do it after the election. He tried to get a mob to do it. No doubt he tried lots of other stuff we don't know about (including who knows what it 2016) and he'd have been fine if that mob killed pence or Pelosi or any number of others who were walking in the opposite direction of him on 5th Ave. No doubt he always wanted to put that theory to the test.
But, I must be "elite" for being outraged at Jan 6, right?
Well, yes, I do qualify, for I am highly educated and once worked in that building, so that technically qualifies me. But you'd apparently sideline my outrage on that basis alone.
Meanwhile, you're like "Portland... Seattle..."
I don't get it.
Be outraged, wife.
It was like the Cuban missile crisis, disaster nearly averted.
Verdict has been reached after 11 hours
23,155 Views |
236 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by going4roses
Floyd was not Chaviin's first run in with excess force. He is a serial bad apple.sycasey said:dajo9 said:sycasey said:Sure, but you can say the same for lots of people who are in prison, and the liberal/progressive argument for them is that we should provide a path to rehabilitation rather than just locking people up (or executing them). I actually agree with that, but that also means that I'm not going to let go of my principles just because the offender was a cop. I hope Chauvin can be rehabilitated too.BearNIt said:The Floyd family doesn't have the opportunity for restorative justice, Floyd is dead. There is no restorative justice for those families that have lost loved ones to bad cops who saw their loved ones as less than human and perpetrated the ultimate violence.sycasey said:going4roses said:
This part needs to be told
I'm not sure "more punishment" is really the line the BLM movement (or liberals/progressives in general) should be taking.
Chauvin should have been convicted. No argument there. But what happened to the idea of restorative justice?
I don't believe in restorative justice for murderers
For multiple offenders I might agree. For one instance I think there is a chance.
NOT a coup attemptwifeisafurd said:I am outraged by what happened on Jan 6. I don't think it was a coup attempt, though I'm willing to be proved wrong by some evidence. I think the security that allowed anywhere near the Capital is outrageous. I think there was violence egged on by a President who has a screw loose and doesn't get the concept of governance. I'm also glad I don't live anywhere near downtown Portland or Seattle. But let's call it both waysconcordtom said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:The outrage claimed by political elites in both parties of the Capital being taken over for a few hours, like say the capital square of Seattle was for weeks, or attendant violence when the same could be said for Portland for one of a hundred or so nights, seems well, rather elitist and hypocritical. Clearly the Democrats chose to ignore, and continue to ignore, those indiscretions in the name of their political well being. I doubt that the actors in Portland and Seattle remain as much out of the sphere as the right hate groups parading around the capital. Both also have their few followers and supporters among elected officials, though at the Presdential level this county should be embarrassed. Then again, Biden in the first debate in response to a question directly about those rioting in Portland "for over 100 night" said those groups rioting and occupying were not the problem, the police were the problem. No message there, huh?Unit2Sucks said:wifeisafurd said:You seem to continue to myopically ignore that certain left groups called for rioting and there was in fact rioting, because that doesn't fit your narrative. Instead you revert to the Hilary Clinton myopic swan song of a vast right wing conspiracy.Unit2Sucks said:What myopia? Why do you think it is that conservatives are absolutely obsessed with rioting (except when it's right wing extremists and mainstream Trumpers)? Your comment that the "most stupid thing the left could do" which implies that the organized "left" is somehow involved in rioting. That's fantasy fueled by right wing media and their Maxine Waters fantasies. The democratic party and its leaders are not responsible for or involved in organized rioting, certainly not to the extent and degree to which the republican party and its leaders were involved in January 6.wifeisafurd said:Is that you Dajo? This is the myopia that has me disengaging from a lot of posters. At least Yogi reads the posts and doesn't ignore them. There was the usual in Portland and some other cities that doesn't get repotted on the news sites you frequent, but calls by the anarchist types to riot in other cities (like the Bay Area) to show the verdict calls for racial justice and police reform far have gone unanswered and if they stay unanswered, will be better for pushing through actual police reforms.Unit2Sucks said:No one on the left is rioting or talking about rioting. You are falling for right wing talking points attempt to detract from the fact that they failed to acknowledge the injustices being perpetrated by our police forces and other institutions.wifeisafurd said:Nine plus minutes of chocking someone changes the benefit of doubt in my book. The juries too.concordtom said:OaktownBear said:You have a very vivid imagination.concordtom said:Oh, I'm wounded. Mortally wounded.BearForce2 said:I know for sure I don't care about you.concordtom said:ha ha haBearForce2 said:OaktownBear said:You lose.BearForce2 said:
For all BI leftists, don't loot, burn down other people's property, or hurt other people while you're peacefully protesting.
My property is intact.
that's all you care about, right?
Look, I imagine you are a respectable enough person. If I passed you in the street, met you socially, I'm sure we could have a fine conversation.
But your rationality here on BI is just whack, and I really don't understand how that happens.
It's a mystery of society.
Trumpism is a complete joke, and you've been brainwashed.
I had initially tried to give Derek Chauvin benefit of the doubt, too.
The most stupid thing the left could do right now is too riot.
I'm not sure what the "organized left" even means, but it sounds blissfully to be whatever you want it to include, or not, dependent on the moment. I certainly did not use the term, nor did I come close to suggesting the leaders of the Democratic Party suggested there be riots. I said what I said, and you sir not only ignored what Is said or postings of tweets by representatives of left wings organizations calling for civil unrest, you took it one step further and simply made stuff up and inserted it to qualify my language to fit your narrative. I'm willing to concede that Trump was involved in January 6th, and acknowledged in my post that the post verdict rioting was fortunately on a small scale. Try actually responding to what is said, without a knee jerk reaction to conspiracies, lest you lose credibility.
Lol that you think it's a concession to acknowledge the obvious fact that Trump played a role in the Jan 6 insurrection.
I did respond to what you said and what you said was the product of a right wing media narrative that attempts to smear progressives with the uncoordinated actions of apolitical actors. I suppose antifa isn't apolitical but nor are they left wing or progressive or what have you. They are outside the political sphere. You can't claim the same for the right wing extremists who have Republicans in congress (and previously, the White House) carrying their water.
It bears repeating that I don't condone rioting but nor do I pretend that rioting is affiliated in any way with the Democratic Party or organized progressive politics. People aren't rioting because of anything Maxine Waters has said or done. If it weren't for Fox News hysterics, no one would know who she is. Fox is the only one giving her a national platform and even that is it enough to cause her to influence people across the nation. When rioting occurs its largely from people taking advantage of the moment and/or economically frustrated people. It's quite different from the insurrection supported and fomented by Trump and other Republican leaders.
But hypocrisy notwithstanding, you continue to restate what I said to go define your narrative of some right wing conspiracy around my intent. And the number of red herrings continue. I never discussed or referenced Maxine Waters. I don't know what Maxine Waters had to do with certain leftist groups tweeting for a show of force. The judge said what she said may be grounds for an appeal, but I'm willing to bet the next level court will disagree. And predictably some of the GOP jumped on that. What does that have to do with my comment? Was she now a left wing group calling for action AFTER the verdict came down? Go back and read my post. Was Fox News making those tweets? Was there a reference to progressive politics? Did I mention AOC, Warren, Bernie or any other progressive politician. Did I mention any group that was exerting their right to protest peacefully? What you did was connect me to a demonized group of people rather than discredit what I said. That has become more the norm on this board, and you get the lack of meaningful dialog you deserve.
The comparison of Portland / Seattle to the Capitol insurrection is laughable. And yes, I laughed.
I don't really know why Portland can't handle it's business. I also don't care much. It has no impact on me. Same with whatever happened in Seattle a year ago. As much as I rail against state's rights on this board I do believe states and localities serve a good purpose in resolving their local crime issues without the use of an overly powerful Federal police force. Portland should handle their business.
But a Trump mob invaded the Capitol with the intent to halt the peaceful transfer of power in America. Yes, that is a big problem for all of us.
Yeah, wife, you need to get a grip if you are going to try and downplay the severity of what happened on Jan 6. You're a very smart guy and don't engage in emotional snipes or rants rhetoric. So, what up with that that you can't be outraged at what happened on Jan 6?
Trump lamely attempted a coup. He tried to get Ukraine to do it years ago. He tried to get Raffensburger in GA to do it after the election. He tried to get a mob to do it. No doubt he tried lots of other stuff we don't know about (including who knows what it 2016) and he'd have been fine if that mob killed pence or Pelosi or any number of others who were walking in the opposite direction of him on 5th Ave. No doubt he always wanted to put that theory to the test.
But, I must be "elite" for being outraged at Jan 6, right?
Well, yes, I do qualify, for I am highly educated and once worked in that building, so that technically qualifies me. But you'd apparently sideline my outrage on that basis alone.
Meanwhile, you're like "Portland... Seattle..."
I don't get it.
Be outraged, wife.
It was like the Cuban missile crisis, disaster nearly averted.
- Event advertised in advance by the President
- Urged on by the President and a series of speakers the day of
- The day of being the certification of the election that resulted in the President's loss
- An advance team probed and breached the perimeter leading the way
- The larger mob then followed into the Capitol
- Chants of "1776" and "Hang Mike Pence"
- Vocal support for a coup among many participants
- Violence against the police defending the Capitol
- A search within the Capitol for the President's opponents
- Security suspiciously lax
- Security instructed to not look for any pro-Trump, only anti-Trump
- National guard suspiciously late
NOT a coup attempt
that sounds a little like the Dam White defense. Good that this jury didn't buy the clogged artery defense after watching a guy get chocked out for 9 minutes plus, not to mention tons of evidence that being choked to death was what killed Floyd and would have killed anyone.concordtom said:wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
Yeah, Shapiro is wicked smart, but that he sometimes goes where he goes, he merely erodes his own credibility. I view him as a fairly dangerous person to listen to. So I don't!! He's missing a component of "humanity".
One additional angle the prosecution missed, methinks...
The defense introduced evidence that Floyd's arteries were 80% blocked? So he maybe died of natural heart attack cause?
Studies show that the Standard American Diet (SAD) causes even 20 year olds to have clogged arteries to something like 50% clogged. Famous study of US soldiers killed in Vietnam by bullets, they already had hardening of the arteries. Probably some /all of the jurors had heart disease similar to Floyd. And the judge and prosecutors and defense counsel, too. They should have brought in an expert on that. Defense tried to make it abnormal and that he was near death because of it. No way. I'm sure many BI'ers are at 90%.
Pretty shocking findings. Don't eat meat:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8335815/
Also, when you get past a certain age, get the calcium CT scan periodically. Good point on arteries. I rarely eat red meat, have less meat generally and try to rely on plant protein more. Upside is I'm now losing weight.
I don't agree they missed it. The goal is to get a conviction, not to win every point. You try and do the latter and you confuse everyone. They did not want this case to be an argument about Floyd's health and get dueling cardiologists talking over the heads of the jury about blockage. You run the risk that they don't understand either, then they see reasonable doubt.concordtom said:wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
Yeah, Shapiro is wicked smart, but that he sometimes goes where he goes, he merely erodes his own credibility. I view him as a fairly dangerous person to listen to. So I don't!! He's missing a component of "humanity".
One additional angle the prosecution missed, methinks...
The defense introduced evidence that Floyd's arteries were 80% blocked? So he maybe died of natural heart attack cause?
Studies show that the Standard American Diet (SAD) causes even 20 year olds to have clogged arteries to something like 50% clogged. Famous study of US soldiers killed in Vietnam by bullets, they already had hardening of the arteries. Probably some /all of the jurors had heart disease similar to Floyd. And the judge and prosecutors and defense counsel, too. They should have brought in an expert on that. Defense tried to make it abnormal and that he was near death because of it. No way. I'm sure many BI'ers are at 90%.
Pretty shocking findings. Don't eat meat:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8335815/
I have always said this about the OJ trial. The prosecution was fixated on using DNA evidence because they thought it was a slam dunk. Well, it was, but once you went there, it was a battle of experts on an issue the jury didn't understand. It opened up so many arguments for the defense who could spend hours and hours taking pot shots at the science with their experts and put doubt in the jury's mind about whether the evidence was properly handled. 5 years before, the prosecution would have gone in and said - "we found blood all over his house" and that would have been it. Now, the prosecution probably lost on jury selection, but by getting way to into the weeds on the blood evidence, they gave the jury a reason to believe the defense on an issue they didn't need to prove their case.
Back on the Floyd issue, it is amazing how conservatives, whether it is Floyd or Sicknick suddenly think we have all these people coincidentally dropping dead during the commission of a crime. Good luck with that if you rob a liquor store and the cashier has a heart attack while you are pointing a gun at him. You will have the book thrown at you and conservatives will be lining up to cheer your demise. Pretty soon they are just going to argue that the cause of death during every conservative crime is "heart failure" since ultimately that is what we all die of. It is ludicrous to believe that Floyd would have had a heart attack at that point without a guy kneeling on his neck. Whether the physical cause of death was heart attack or asphyxiation is irrelevant to Chauvin. Chauvin caused his death.
Really?wifeisafurd said:Floyd was not Chaviin's first run in with excess force. He is a serial bad apple.sycasey said:dajo9 said:sycasey said:Sure, but you can say the same for lots of people who are in prison, and the liberal/progressive argument for them is that we should provide a path to rehabilitation rather than just locking people up (or executing them). I actually agree with that, but that also means that I'm not going to let go of my principles just because the offender was a cop. I hope Chauvin can be rehabilitated too.BearNIt said:The Floyd family doesn't have the opportunity for restorative justice, Floyd is dead. There is no restorative justice for those families that have lost loved ones to bad cops who saw their loved ones as less than human and perpetrated the ultimate violence.sycasey said:going4roses said:
This part needs to be told
I'm not sure "more punishment" is really the line the BLM movement (or liberals/progressives in general) should be taking.
Chauvin should have been convicted. No argument there. But what happened to the idea of restorative justice?
I don't believe in restorative justice for murderers
For multiple offenders I might agree. For one instance I think there is a chance.
I haven't heard anything about that.
All good points!OaktownBear said:I don't agree they missed it. The goal is to get a conviction, not to win every point. You try and do the latter and you confuse everyone. They did not want this case to be an argument about Floyd's health and get dueling cardiologists talking over the heads of the jury about blockage. You run the risk that they don't understand either, then they see reasonable doubt.concordtom said:wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
Yeah, Shapiro is wicked smart, but that he sometimes goes where he goes, he merely erodes his own credibility. I view him as a fairly dangerous person to listen to. So I don't!! He's missing a component of "humanity".
One additional angle the prosecution missed, methinks...
The defense introduced evidence that Floyd's arteries were 80% blocked? So he maybe died of natural heart attack cause?
Studies show that the Standard American Diet (SAD) causes even 20 year olds to have clogged arteries to something like 50% clogged. Famous study of US soldiers killed in Vietnam by bullets, they already had hardening of the arteries. Probably some /all of the jurors had heart disease similar to Floyd. And the judge and prosecutors and defense counsel, too. They should have brought in an expert on that. Defense tried to make it abnormal and that he was near death because of it. No way. I'm sure many BI'ers are at 90%.
Pretty shocking findings. Don't eat meat:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8335815/
I have always said this about the OJ trial. The prosecution was fixated on using DNA evidence because they thought it was a slam dunk. Well, it was, but once you went there, it was a battle of experts on an issue the jury didn't understand. It opened up so many arguments for the defense who could spend hours and hours taking pot shots at the science with their experts and put doubt in the jury's mind about whether the evidence was properly handled. 5 years before, the prosecution would have gone in and said - "we found blood all over his house" and that would have been it. Now, the prosecution probably lost on jury selection, but by getting way to into the weeds on the blood evidence, they gave the jury a reason to believe the defense on an issue they didn't need to prove their case.
Back on the Floyd issue, it is amazing how conservatives, whether it is Floyd or Sicknick suddenly think we have all these people coincidentally dropping dead during the commission of a crime. Good luck with that if you rob a liquor store and the cashier has a heart attack while you are pointing a gun at him. You will have the book thrown at you and conservatives will be lining up to cheer your demise. Pretty soon they are just going to argue that the cause of death during every conservative crime is "heart failure" since ultimately that is what we all die of. It is ludicrous to believe that Floyd would have had a heart attack at that point without a guy kneeling on his neck. Whether the physical cause of death was heart attack or asphyxiation is irrelevant to Chauvin. Chauvin caused his death.
I'm no lawyer, ha ha ha.
I'm glad to hear that you are outraged. I recommend you rehearse saying that over and over again, particularly at cocktail parties. And I wouldn't bring up "oh, but the BLM rioters" in the same paragraph when you express your outrage.wifeisafurd said:I am outraged by what happened on Jan 6. I don't think it was a coup attempt, though I'm willing to be proved wrong by some evidence. I think the security that allowed anywhere near the Capital is outrageous. I think there was violence egged on by a President who has a screw loose and doesn't get the concept of governance. I'm also glad I don't live anywhere near downtown Portland or Seattle. But let's call it both ways.concordtom said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:The outrage claimed by political elites in both parties of the Capital being taken over for a few hours, like say the capital square of Seattle was for weeks, or attendant violence when the same could be said for Portland for one of a hundred or so nights, seems well, rather elitist and hypocritical. Clearly the Democrats chose to ignore, and continue to ignore, those indiscretions in the name of their political well being. I doubt that the actors in Portland and Seattle remain as much out of the sphere as the right hate groups parading around the capital. Both also have their few followers and supporters among elected officials, though at the Presdential level this county should be embarrassed. Then again, Biden in the first debate in response to a question directly about those rioting in Portland "for over 100 night" said those groups rioting and occupying were not the problem, the police were the problem. No message there, huh?Unit2Sucks said:wifeisafurd said:You seem to continue to myopically ignore that certain left groups called for rioting and there was in fact rioting, because that doesn't fit your narrative. Instead you revert to the Hilary Clinton myopic swan song of a vast right wing conspiracy.Unit2Sucks said:What myopia? Why do you think it is that conservatives are absolutely obsessed with rioting (except when it's right wing extremists and mainstream Trumpers)? Your comment that the "most stupid thing the left could do" which implies that the organized "left" is somehow involved in rioting. That's fantasy fueled by right wing media and their Maxine Waters fantasies. The democratic party and its leaders are not responsible for or involved in organized rioting, certainly not to the extent and degree to which the republican party and its leaders were involved in January 6.wifeisafurd said:Is that you Dajo? This is the myopia that has me disengaging from a lot of posters. At least Yogi reads the posts and doesn't ignore them. There was the usual in Portland and some other cities that doesn't get repotted on the news sites you frequent, but calls by the anarchist types to riot in other cities (like the Bay Area) to show the verdict calls for racial justice and police reform far have gone unanswered and if they stay unanswered, will be better for pushing through actual police reforms.Unit2Sucks said:No one on the left is rioting or talking about rioting. You are falling for right wing talking points attempt to detract from the fact that they failed to acknowledge the injustices being perpetrated by our police forces and other institutions.wifeisafurd said:Nine plus minutes of chocking someone changes the benefit of doubt in my book. The juries too.concordtom said:OaktownBear said:You have a very vivid imagination.concordtom said:Oh, I'm wounded. Mortally wounded.BearForce2 said:I know for sure I don't care about you.concordtom said:ha ha haBearForce2 said:OaktownBear said:You lose.BearForce2 said:
For all BI leftists, don't loot, burn down other people's property, or hurt other people while you're peacefully protesting.
My property is intact.
that's all you care about, right?
Look, I imagine you are a respectable enough person. If I passed you in the street, met you socially, I'm sure we could have a fine conversation.
But your rationality here on BI is just whack, and I really don't understand how that happens.
It's a mystery of society.
Trumpism is a complete joke, and you've been brainwashed.
I had initially tried to give Derek Chauvin benefit of the doubt, too.
The most stupid thing the left could do right now is too riot.
I'm not sure what the "organized left" even means, but it sounds blissfully to be whatever you want it to include, or not, dependent on the moment. I certainly did not use the term, nor did I come close to suggesting the leaders of the Democratic Party suggested there be riots. I said what I said, and you sir not only ignored what Is said or postings of tweets by representatives of left wings organizations calling for civil unrest, you took it one step further and simply made stuff up and inserted it to qualify my language to fit your narrative. I'm willing to concede that Trump was involved in January 6th, and acknowledged in my post that the post verdict rioting was fortunately on a small scale. Try actually responding to what is said, without a knee jerk reaction to conspiracies, lest you lose credibility.
Lol that you think it's a concession to acknowledge the obvious fact that Trump played a role in the Jan 6 insurrection.
I did respond to what you said and what you said was the product of a right wing media narrative that attempts to smear progressives with the uncoordinated actions of apolitical actors. I suppose antifa isn't apolitical but nor are they left wing or progressive or what have you. They are outside the political sphere. You can't claim the same for the right wing extremists who have Republicans in congress (and previously, the White House) carrying their water.
It bears repeating that I don't condone rioting but nor do I pretend that rioting is affiliated in any way with the Democratic Party or organized progressive politics. People aren't rioting because of anything Maxine Waters has said or done. If it weren't for Fox News hysterics, no one would know who she is. Fox is the only one giving her a national platform and even that is it enough to cause her to influence people across the nation. When rioting occurs its largely from people taking advantage of the moment and/or economically frustrated people. It's quite different from the insurrection supported and fomented by Trump and other Republican leaders.
But hypocrisy notwithstanding, you continue to restate what I said to go define your narrative of some right wing conspiracy around my intent. And the number of red herrings continue. I never discussed or referenced Maxine Waters. I don't know what Maxine Waters had to do with certain leftist groups tweeting for a show of force. The judge said what she said may be grounds for an appeal, but I'm willing to bet the next level court will disagree. And predictably some of the GOP jumped on that. What does that have to do with my comment? Was she now a left wing group calling for action AFTER the verdict came down? Go back and read my post. Was Fox News making those tweets? Was there a reference to progressive politics? Did I mention AOC, Warren, Bernie or any other progressive politician. Did I mention any group that was exerting their right to protest peacefully? What you did was connect me to a demonized group of people rather than discredit what I said. That has become more the norm on this board, and you get the lack of meaningful dialog you deserve.
The comparison of Portland / Seattle to the Capitol insurrection is laughable. And yes, I laughed.
I don't really know why Portland can't handle it's business. I also don't care much. It has no impact on me. Same with whatever happened in Seattle a year ago. As much as I rail against state's rights on this board I do believe states and localities serve a good purpose in resolving their local crime issues without the use of an overly powerful Federal police force. Portland should handle their business.
But a Trump mob invaded the Capitol with the intent to halt the peaceful transfer of power in America. Yes, that is a big problem for all of us.
Yeah, wife, you need to get a grip if you are going to try and downplay the severity of what happened on Jan 6. You're a very smart guy and don't engage in emotional snipes or rants rhetoric. So, what up with that that you can't be outraged at what happened on Jan 6?
Trump lamely attempted a coup. He tried to get Ukraine to do it years ago. He tried to get Raffensburger in GA to do it after the election. He tried to get a mob to do it. No doubt he tried lots of other stuff we don't know about (including who knows what it 2016) and he'd have been fine if that mob killed pence or Pelosi or any number of others who were walking in the opposite direction of him on 5th Ave. No doubt he always wanted to put that theory to the test.
But, I must be "elite" for being outraged at Jan 6, right?
Well, yes, I do qualify, for I am highly educated and once worked in that building, so that technically qualifies me. But you'd apparently sideline my outrage on that basis alone.
Meanwhile, you're like "Portland... Seattle..."
I don't get it.
Be outraged, wife.
It was like the Cuban missile crisis, disaster nearly averted.
I also agree with Dajo's "NOT A COUP" post. Except that he forgot to include Ukraine and Raffensburger of GA. Those are very important aspects of the coup.
In the end, it was the MOST pathetic coup attempt ever, as AnarchistBear poster will remind us, but a coup attempt nonetheless! Don't be fooled by how pathetic it was - that's only because DJT is a complete poosey who fails readily at so many of his endeavors.
concordtom said:I'm glad to hear that you are outraged. I recommend you rehearse saying that over and over again, particularly at cocktail parties. And I wouldn't bring up "oh, but the BLM rioters" in the same paragraph when you express your outrage.wifeisafurd said:I am outraged by what happened on Jan 6. I don't think it was a coup attempt, though I'm willing to be proved wrong by some evidence. I think the security that allowed anywhere near the Capital is outrageous. I think there was violence egged on by a President who has a screw loose and doesn't get the concept of governance. I'm also glad I don't live anywhere near downtown Portland or Seattle. But let's call it both ways.concordtom said:dajo9 said:wifeisafurd said:The outrage claimed by political elites in both parties of the Capital being taken over for a few hours, like say the capital square of Seattle was for weeks, or attendant violence when the same could be said for Portland for one of a hundred or so nights, seems well, rather elitist and hypocritical. Clearly the Democrats chose to ignore, and continue to ignore, those indiscretions in the name of their political well being. I doubt that the actors in Portland and Seattle remain as much out of the sphere as the right hate groups parading around the capital. Both also have their few followers and supporters among elected officials, though at the Presdential level this county should be embarrassed. Then again, Biden in the first debate in response to a question directly about those rioting in Portland "for over 100 night" said those groups rioting and occupying were not the problem, the police were the problem. No message there, huh?Unit2Sucks said:wifeisafurd said:You seem to continue to myopically ignore that certain left groups called for rioting and there was in fact rioting, because that doesn't fit your narrative. Instead you revert to the Hilary Clinton myopic swan song of a vast right wing conspiracy.Unit2Sucks said:What myopia? Why do you think it is that conservatives are absolutely obsessed with rioting (except when it's right wing extremists and mainstream Trumpers)? Your comment that the "most stupid thing the left could do" which implies that the organized "left" is somehow involved in rioting. That's fantasy fueled by right wing media and their Maxine Waters fantasies. The democratic party and its leaders are not responsible for or involved in organized rioting, certainly not to the extent and degree to which the republican party and its leaders were involved in January 6.wifeisafurd said:Is that you Dajo? This is the myopia that has me disengaging from a lot of posters. At least Yogi reads the posts and doesn't ignore them. There was the usual in Portland and some other cities that doesn't get repotted on the news sites you frequent, but calls by the anarchist types to riot in other cities (like the Bay Area) to show the verdict calls for racial justice and police reform far have gone unanswered and if they stay unanswered, will be better for pushing through actual police reforms.Unit2Sucks said:No one on the left is rioting or talking about rioting. You are falling for right wing talking points attempt to detract from the fact that they failed to acknowledge the injustices being perpetrated by our police forces and other institutions.wifeisafurd said:Nine plus minutes of chocking someone changes the benefit of doubt in my book. The juries too.concordtom said:OaktownBear said:You have a very vivid imagination.concordtom said:Oh, I'm wounded. Mortally wounded.BearForce2 said:I know for sure I don't care about you.concordtom said:ha ha haBearForce2 said:OaktownBear said:You lose.BearForce2 said:
For all BI leftists, don't loot, burn down other people's property, or hurt other people while you're peacefully protesting.
My property is intact.
that's all you care about, right?
Look, I imagine you are a respectable enough person. If I passed you in the street, met you socially, I'm sure we could have a fine conversation.
But your rationality here on BI is just whack, and I really don't understand how that happens.
It's a mystery of society.
Trumpism is a complete joke, and you've been brainwashed.
I had initially tried to give Derek Chauvin benefit of the doubt, too.
The most stupid thing the left could do right now is too riot.
I'm not sure what the "organized left" even means, but it sounds blissfully to be whatever you want it to include, or not, dependent on the moment. I certainly did not use the term, nor did I come close to suggesting the leaders of the Democratic Party suggested there be riots. I said what I said, and you sir not only ignored what Is said or postings of tweets by representatives of left wings organizations calling for civil unrest, you took it one step further and simply made stuff up and inserted it to qualify my language to fit your narrative. I'm willing to concede that Trump was involved in January 6th, and acknowledged in my post that the post verdict rioting was fortunately on a small scale. Try actually responding to what is said, without a knee jerk reaction to conspiracies, lest you lose credibility.
Lol that you think it's a concession to acknowledge the obvious fact that Trump played a role in the Jan 6 insurrection.
I did respond to what you said and what you said was the product of a right wing media narrative that attempts to smear progressives with the uncoordinated actions of apolitical actors. I suppose antifa isn't apolitical but nor are they left wing or progressive or what have you. They are outside the political sphere. You can't claim the same for the right wing extremists who have Republicans in congress (and previously, the White House) carrying their water.
It bears repeating that I don't condone rioting but nor do I pretend that rioting is affiliated in any way with the Democratic Party or organized progressive politics. People aren't rioting because of anything Maxine Waters has said or done. If it weren't for Fox News hysterics, no one would know who she is. Fox is the only one giving her a national platform and even that is it enough to cause her to influence people across the nation. When rioting occurs its largely from people taking advantage of the moment and/or economically frustrated people. It's quite different from the insurrection supported and fomented by Trump and other Republican leaders.
But hypocrisy notwithstanding, you continue to restate what I said to go define your narrative of some right wing conspiracy around my intent. And the number of red herrings continue. I never discussed or referenced Maxine Waters. I don't know what Maxine Waters had to do with certain leftist groups tweeting for a show of force. The judge said what she said may be grounds for an appeal, but I'm willing to bet the next level court will disagree. And predictably some of the GOP jumped on that. What does that have to do with my comment? Was she now a left wing group calling for action AFTER the verdict came down? Go back and read my post. Was Fox News making those tweets? Was there a reference to progressive politics? Did I mention AOC, Warren, Bernie or any other progressive politician. Did I mention any group that was exerting their right to protest peacefully? What you did was connect me to a demonized group of people rather than discredit what I said. That has become more the norm on this board, and you get the lack of meaningful dialog you deserve.
The comparison of Portland / Seattle to the Capitol insurrection is laughable. And yes, I laughed.
I don't really know why Portland can't handle it's business. I also don't care much. It has no impact on me. Same with whatever happened in Seattle a year ago. As much as I rail against state's rights on this board I do believe states and localities serve a good purpose in resolving their local crime issues without the use of an overly powerful Federal police force. Portland should handle their business.
But a Trump mob invaded the Capitol with the intent to halt the peaceful transfer of power in America. Yes, that is a big problem for all of us.
Yeah, wife, you need to get a grip if you are going to try and downplay the severity of what happened on Jan 6. You're a very smart guy and don't engage in emotional snipes or rants rhetoric. So, what up with that that you can't be outraged at what happened on Jan 6?
Trump lamely attempted a coup. He tried to get Ukraine to do it years ago. He tried to get Raffensburger in GA to do it after the election. He tried to get a mob to do it. No doubt he tried lots of other stuff we don't know about (including who knows what it 2016) and he'd have been fine if that mob killed pence or Pelosi or any number of others who were walking in the opposite direction of him on 5th Ave. No doubt he always wanted to put that theory to the test.
But, I must be "elite" for being outraged at Jan 6, right?
Well, yes, I do qualify, for I am highly educated and once worked in that building, so that technically qualifies me. But you'd apparently sideline my outrage on that basis alone.
Meanwhile, you're like "Portland... Seattle..."
I don't get it.
Be outraged, wife.
It was like the Cuban missile crisis, disaster nearly averted.
I also agree with Dajo's "NOT A COUP" post. Except that he forgot to include Ukraine and Raffensburger of GA. Those are very important aspects of the coup.
In the end, it was the MOST pathetic coup attempt ever, as AnarchistBear poster will remind us, but a coup attempt nonetheless! Don't be fooled by how pathetic it was - that's only because DJT is a complete poosey who fails readily at so many of his endeavors.
I just wanted to reinforce that bringing up the SEA/PDX protests (etc.) against police brutality in the context of the insurrection supported by the leaders of the Republican party is an outrageous false equivalence and I am surprised WIAF would go there.
There are lots of things that he could have brought up that would have been more relevant like the LIBERATE MICHIGAN / Whitmer kidnap murder plot or perhaps the anti-lockdown protests from last year, but WIAF chose to raise something completely unrelated. Nor did he bring up other unrelated matters like the Bundys / Sovereign Citizens or Timothy McVeigh or other right wing extremists that are orthogonal to the modern Republican party. Heck, he could have mentioned the Proud Boys, boogaloos or other groups given cover by the modern Republican party which would have been more relevant to what us going on with the conservative movement right now.
So please WIAF spare us the faux outrage when we call out the false equivalence. I'm happy that WIAF says he's outrages at the Jan 6 insurrection but I don't consider it a "concession", particularly when he chooses to make these ridiculous false equivalences. The insurrection was terrible in and of itself and there was no need to provide any irrelevant context in an attempt to both sides this issue. There is no other side here, not when it comes to that horrible attack on our government.
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into sone anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into sone anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
You are right, the BLM isn't comparable. In the Seattle Capital Hill take over, the police actually were ordered away by politicians. The renamed area then went into self-policing, which meant the six-block radius of the city's government buildings and gentrified residences were under the control of openly armed watchmen patrols on the streets for weeks, not hours, during which government did not function. Four people were shot, and one died purportedly when first responders were prevented from reaching the victim. At that point, Seattle politicians finally forced the police to reclaim the area. Residences were looted, property destroyed, and government buildings plundered and shot full of bullet holes. So where was the big unprecendented investigation? Where is Dajo's laundry list for a purported governmental take-over? Where are the rinky-dink conspiracy charges, charges for resisting arrest, destroying property, weapon charges, or even four murder or attempted murder charges? Where is your disdain mister no equivalence?
You can disagree with someone over a court judgement but that's a far cry from pushing a conspiracy theory. You and I both don't know if the jury were influenced by outside forces but Shapiro is entitled to his own opinion.wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
I'm not pushing a conspiracy theory, nor is it a matter of why we disagree, because he doesn't even present arguments. I recited a summary of testimony at the trial. There is a real disconnect with what was being said outside the courthouse, where people are talking about race, and what went on in court, where race was not addressed. Any discussion that Floyd was killed because he was black was not permitted. The government had to prove the elements of the crime, and none of those elements had to do with race. There was no hate crime allegation or an assertion that the motive behind Cauvin's actions were racially motivated.BearForce2 said:You can disagree with someone over a court judgement but that's a far cry from pushing a conspiracy theory. You and I both don't know if the jury were influenced by outside forces but Shapiro is entitled to his own opinion.wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
I don't know of any criminal law commentator who followed the trial who feels differently than the evidence produced at trial was not overwhelming. But Shapiro, without citing any evidence or specific knowledge, asserted the theory that the jury was bullied by what was being said outside, rather than relying on the evidence. He should at least say why he has that opinion. He comes off as not knowing the specifics of the trial. My opinion is somebody with a degree from HLS should know better.
Going back to Shapiro's tweet in the earlier post, he didn't say the jurors where "bullied". Maybe you read this somewhere else, but you can't deny there was a campaign to convict Chauvin before and during the trial. Shapiro is blaming the left and the media, they wanted this trial to be about race even though race may not have been addressed in court. The left succeeded and in the court of public opinion, most will view this case through the lens of race. Back in the courtroom, there were signs that perhaps outside forces were influencing the jury since the defense called for a mistrial and was denied. It's not only Shapiro who's saying this, see Alan Dershowitz, another HLS guy:wifeisafurd said:I'm not pushing a conspiracy theory, nor is it a matter of why we disagree, because he doesn't even present arguments. I recited a summary of testimony at the trial. There is a real disconnect with what was being said outside the courthouse, where people are talking about race, and what went on in court, where race was not addressed. Any discussion that Floyd was killed because he was black was not permitted. The government had to prove the elements of the crime, and none of those elements had to do with race. There was no hate crime allegation or an assertion that the motive behind Cauvin's actions were racially motivated.BearForce2 said:You can disagree with someone over a court judgement but that's a far cry from pushing a conspiracy theory. You and I both don't know if the jury were influenced by outside forces but Shapiro is entitled to his own opinion.wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
I don't know of any criminal law commentator who followed the trial who feels differently than the evidence produced at trial was not overwhelming. But Shapiro, without citing any evidence or specific knowledge, asserted the theory that the jury was bullied by what was being said outside, rather than relying on the evidence. He should at least say why he has that opinion. He comes off as not knowing the specifics of the trial. My opinion is somebody with a degree from HLS should know better.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/549692-dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury?utm_source=thehill&utm_medium=widgets&utm_campaign=es_recommended_content
More comments from Shapiro:
Mmm kay ...
How (are) you gonna win when you ain’t right within…
His tweet said: "There is widespread recognition on the Left, both among media and politicians, that the enormous public pressure campaign was crucial to achieving the Chauvin conviction."
This says that the jury was swayed by a public pressure campaign. I'm fine if you want to replace the word "bully" with "pressure", to me it is the same thing, just couched in more PC language. I see Shapiro actually tried to explain himself, and he and I don't agree on why the jury did what it did. Again, I believe the criminal lawyers who have commented have uniformly said the evidence presented at trial was overwhelming. I'm more than willing to listen to any actual authority in criminal law that Ben or you can provide with an opposing opinion.
This says that the jury was swayed by a public pressure campaign. I'm fine if you want to replace the word "bully" with "pressure", to me it is the same thing, just couched in more PC language. I see Shapiro actually tried to explain himself, and he and I don't agree on why the jury did what it did. Again, I believe the criminal lawyers who have commented have uniformly said the evidence presented at trial was overwhelming. I'm more than willing to listen to any actual authority in criminal law that Ben or you can provide with an opposing opinion.
Ben should take a deep dive in a shallow pool.
Sometimes I feel bad for lawyers. Forced to look at the real world through the lens of a law book.wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into sone anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).
Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days.
Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened.
The left didn't want this case to be about race, the Defense attorneys did when they trotted out the tired racist tropes of a person of color being dangerous while handcuffed on the ground with cops on his body, having superhuman strength that required a knee on his neck for almost 10 minutes, a drug-induced death, and a dangerous crowd that had surrounded the cops who were just trying to do their job. The jury did not let the case be about race they chose instead to convict a bad cop who murdered a man slowly and deliberately by cutting off his ability to breathe. The jury didn't feel intimidated, the evidence spoke for itself and that is why the jury came back with their decision to convict so quickly.BearForce2 said:Going back to Shapiro's tweet in the earlier post, he didn't say the jurors where "bullied". Maybe you read this somewhere else, but you can't deny there was a campaign to convict Chauvin before and during the trial. Shapiro is blaming the left and the media, they wanted this trial to be about race even though race may not have been addressed in court. The left succeeded and in the court of public opinion, most will view this case through the lens of race. Back in the courtroom, there were signs that perhaps outside forces were influencing the jury since the defense called for a mistrial and was denied. It's not only Shapiro who's saying this, see Alan Dershowitz, another HLS guy:wifeisafurd said:I'm not pushing a conspiracy theory, nor is it a matter of why we disagree, because he doesn't even present arguments. I recited a summary of testimony at the trial. There is a real disconnect with what was being said outside the courthouse, where people are talking about race, and what went on in court, where race was not addressed. Any discussion that Floyd was killed because he was black was not permitted. The government had to prove the elements of the crime, and none of those elements had to do with race. There was no hate crime allegation or an assertion that the motive behind Cauvin's actions were racially motivated.BearForce2 said:You can disagree with someone over a court judgement but that's a far cry from pushing a conspiracy theory. You and I both don't know if the jury were influenced by outside forces but Shapiro is entitled to his own opinion.wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
I don't know of any criminal law commentator who followed the trial who feels differently than the evidence produced at trial was not overwhelming. But Shapiro, without citing any evidence or specific knowledge, asserted the theory that the jury was bullied by what was being said outside, rather than relying on the evidence. He should at least say why he has that opinion. He comes off as not knowing the specifics of the trial. My opinion is somebody with a degree from HLS should know better.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/549692-dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury?utm_source=thehill&utm_medium=widgets&utm_campaign=es_recommended_content
More comments from Shapiro:
Ben Shapiro... what a clown.BearForce2 said:Going back to Shapiro's tweet in the earlier post, he didn't say the jurors where "bullied". Maybe you read this somewhere else, but you can't deny there was a campaign to convict Chauvin before and during the trial. Shapiro is blaming the left and the media, they wanted this trial to be about race even though race may not have been addressed in court. The left succeeded and in the court of public opinion, most will view this case through the lens of race. Back in the courtroom, there were signs that perhaps outside forces were influencing the jury since the defense called for a mistrial and was denied. It's not only Shapiro who's saying this, see Alan Dershowitz, another HLS guy:wifeisafurd said:I'm not pushing a conspiracy theory, nor is it a matter of why we disagree, because he doesn't even present arguments. I recited a summary of testimony at the trial. There is a real disconnect with what was being said outside the courthouse, where people are talking about race, and what went on in court, where race was not addressed. Any discussion that Floyd was killed because he was black was not permitted. The government had to prove the elements of the crime, and none of those elements had to do with race. There was no hate crime allegation or an assertion that the motive behind Cauvin's actions were racially motivated.BearForce2 said:You can disagree with someone over a court judgement but that's a far cry from pushing a conspiracy theory. You and I both don't know if the jury were influenced by outside forces but Shapiro is entitled to his own opinion.wifeisafurd said:Shapiro is just wrong if he thinks juniors were bullied into a guilty pleas instead of by persuasive and overwhelming evidence. Floyd was clearly incapacitated for over the 9 minutes that Chauvin held his knee on his neck. The killing was recorded on film and witnessed by horrified members of the public and first responders, providing a rare level of unassailable corroboration. Then came police testimony that when a fellow officer said he thought Floyd was no longer conscious, Chauvin "didn't let up and didn't get up," and when a fellow officer said he couldn't find Floyd's pulse, he persisted in chocking Floyd for several minutes more. These circumstances supply evidence of depraved and intentional conduct to kill Floyd. Then came a bevy of experts who testified that Floyd died from low oxygen as a result of asphyxiation. The defense was left to argue that Floyd's medical condition somehow mitigated that he didn't die from being chocked for over 9 minutes. It took the jurors only 45 minutes to convict.BearForce2 said:I don't remember Ben Shapiro pushing conspiracy theories.BearNIt said:People who are not pushing conspiracy theories who didn't remain silent while Captain Catastrophe and his minions attempted to destroy this Republic.BearForce2 said:Who do you think are the top conservative idiots in the media and who do you think are the smart ones?BearNIt said:Shapiro is an idiot.BearForce2 said:going4roses said:
Still not listening
I heard you. Amerikkka needs to press the reset button.
By all accounts Shapiro is smart guy, He should have known better.
I don't know of any criminal law commentator who followed the trial who feels differently than the evidence produced at trial was not overwhelming. But Shapiro, without citing any evidence or specific knowledge, asserted the theory that the jury was bullied by what was being said outside, rather than relying on the evidence. He should at least say why he has that opinion. He comes off as not knowing the specifics of the trial. My opinion is somebody with a degree from HLS should know better.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/549692-dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury?utm_source=thehill&utm_medium=widgets&utm_campaign=es_recommended_content
More comments from Shapiro:
Did you watch the Chauvin Trial?wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into some anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
I did.
You sound like the Chauvin defense team.
"It's a complicated case."
"Hardly any arrests."
"They didn't have weapons."
"They were misled and just somehow ended up in the Capitol."
"Other situations have been worse," (now adding Chicago 1968 into the mix.)
But I'm going to follow the advice of the Prosecutors in their closing arguments: Believe My Eyes.
Wife - you're doing it again. You said you were outraged in your prior post, but now you are downplaying it again to a series of misdemeanors. Give me a break, man. Do you know how stupid you sound to some of us?
You once again sound like a complete apologist.
Here is zip-tie guy. Notice that he has a glock on his right hip.
Here he is posing with a longer gun. What is that on his hip in this picture from even before the election?
Here are the Oath Keepers on Jan 6. We've seen MANY images of them marching in parades with weapons - I'll spare you those photos. Are you going to tell me that they don't have pistols or other weapons stashed away on their bodies here?
Are you aware that Chauvin didn't use any guns on George Floyd, either.
And yet, he's still dead.
Tell me, what would have happened if the "embarrassingly lax security" had opened fire on the crowd to keep them from entering the White House? Tell me, wife. Please. I want to hear you speak to that point.
Also, please tell me, wife, what do you think would have happened to people like Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, or god forbid AOC, had they found her. Do you think they'd have raped AOC before they killed her? Perhaps not if she was on the capitol steps, but if a group of 10 men found her hiding in a closet, what would have happened wife?
No guns necessary.
But because the capitol steps did not turn into a mass death scene, you prefer to downplay it.
That's just wrong, man. Very wrong.
I believe my eyes and ears. It was a coup attempt. An incredibly weak coup attempt, but a coup attempt nonetheless.
You will. DOJ investigation. Or you can Google Chauvin run-ins.concordtom said:Really?wifeisafurd said:Floyd was not Chaviin's first run in with excess force. He is a serial bad apple.sycasey said:dajo9 said:sycasey said:Sure, but you can say the same for lots of people who are in prison, and the liberal/progressive argument for them is that we should provide a path to rehabilitation rather than just locking people up (or executing them). I actually agree with that, but that also means that I'm not going to let go of my principles just because the offender was a cop. I hope Chauvin can be rehabilitated too.BearNIt said:The Floyd family doesn't have the opportunity for restorative justice, Floyd is dead. There is no restorative justice for those families that have lost loved ones to bad cops who saw their loved ones as less than human and perpetrated the ultimate violence.sycasey said:going4roses said:
This part needs to be told
I'm not sure "more punishment" is really the line the BLM movement (or liberals/progressives in general) should be taking.
Chauvin should have been convicted. No argument there. But what happened to the idea of restorative justice?
I don't believe in restorative justice for murderers
For multiple offenders I might agree. For one instance I think there is a chance.
I haven't heard anything about that.
DOJ investigating if Derek Chauvin should be charged over 2017 arrest
https://mol.im/a/9505283
https://mol.im/a/9505283
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Tom, you just posted a picture of guy you said had a Glock. You said you eyes don't lie, but you just did. You just made this up, and I'm sure the five idiots that gave you thumbs-up are busy repeating your lie through out the internet. But that is okay because you were using the word Glock in a non-legal manner, so anything that is a holster must be Glock in Dayo kind of way.concordtom said:Did you watch the Chauvin Trial?wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into some anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
I did.
You sound like the Chauvin defense team.
"It's a complicated case."
"Hardly any arrests."
"They didn't have weapons."
"They were misled and just somehow ended up in the Capitol."
"Other situations have been worse," (now adding Chicago 1968 into the mix.)
But I'm going to follow the advice of the Prosecutors in their closing arguments: Believe My Eyes.
Wife - you're doing it again. You said you were outraged in your prior post, but now you are downplaying it again to a series of misdemeanors. Give me a break, man. Do you know how stupid you sound to some of us?
You once again sound like a complete apologist.
Here is zip-tie guy. Notice that he has a glock on his right hip.
Here he is posing with a longer gun. What is that on his hip in this picture from even before the election?
Here are the Oath Keepers on Jan 6. We've seen MANY images of them marching in parades with weapons - I'll spare you those photos. Are you going to tell me that they don't have pistols or other weapons stashed away on their bodies here?
Are you aware that Chauvin didn't use any guns on George Floyd, either.
And yet, he's still dead.
Tell me, what would have happened if the "embarrassingly lax security" had opened fire on the crowd to keep them from entering the White House? Tell me, wife. Please. I want to hear you speak to that point.
Also, please tell me, wife, what do you think would have happened to people like Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, or god forbid AOC, had they found her. Do you think they'd have raped AOC before they killed her? Perhaps not if she was on the capitol steps, but if a group of 10 men found her hiding in a closet, what would have happened wife?
No guns necessary.
But because the capitol steps did not turn into a mass death scene, you prefer to downplay it.
That's just wrong, man. Very wrong.
I believe my eyes and ears. It was a coup attempt. An incredibly weak coup attempt, but a coup attempt nonetheless.
On January 10, 2021, the zip tie guy, Eric Munchel was arrested. In the charges filed by the AG, he was dressed for combat," wearing "combat boots, military fatigues, a tactical vest, gloves, and a gaiter that covered all of his face except for his eyes" and a "taser at his hip."
Munchel, was labeled "zip-tie guy" after he was photographed in the Senate chamber holding the restraints. His appearance raised questions in the media about whether the "insurrectionists" intended to 'take lawmakers hostage." The problem was the evidence included in the filing was taken from videos recorded by Munchel himself: He kept an iPhone mounted to his chest that recorded him invading the Capitol building, prosecutors say (perhaps reflecting on the intelligence of the protestors generally). As noted in the arrest complaint, he "disarmed the handcuff and stun gun from police" and then a few minutes later "discarded the restraints." So much for hostage taking (but you know in a non-legal way you could say he intended to take hostages). But hey if he found AOC he clearly would have raped and killed here, right after his mother, a nurse, who invaded the Capital with, took a turn. In fact, he was going to blow up the capital with nuclear devise and you can prove it because the event was advertised in advance, blah, blah blah. The arrest charge is 3:21-mj-2669, MDTenn. Look it up. Or just get a job a Vox, and continuing spouting bull.
Munchel faces one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. He was not charged with carrying a weapon...duh. But, you know, in a non-legal way, he was carrying a Glock, so he should at least be charged on the internet.
But you saw it with your own eyes....
I'm not sure what planet this rant was from, but a 10 year old can look at my post and:concordtom said:Did you watch the Chauvin Trial?wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into some anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
I did.
You sound like the Chauvin defense team.
"It's a complicated case."
"Hardly any arrests."
"They didn't have weapons."
"They were misled and just somehow ended up in the Capitol."
"Other situations have been worse," (now adding Chicago 1968 into the mix.)
But I'm going to follow the advice of the Prosecutors in their closing arguments: Believe My Eyes.
Wife - you're doing it again. You said you were outraged in your prior post, but now you are downplaying it again to a series of misdemeanors. Give me a break, man. Do you know how stupid you sound to some of us?
1) Know I didn't say anything about complicated cases.
2) Know I Indicated there ware many, many arrests, but that none of them were for charges that would in any manner indicate conduct of ovethrowing the government or any simpler conduct
3) See that 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon,
I have no idea what being mislead and ending up in the capital or other situations being worse has to do with the Couvin case but I'm sure you can make something up Mr. Glock. But that same 10 year old will be able to determine that I never said what happened in Chicago was worse (just that the gross exaggerations made by John Mitchell about what happened were parallel) or that the demonstrators were mislead (in fact they were egged on by Trump).
I guess it is just hard to insist those 35 people went in facing 1200 armed police on duty in the Capital building on January 6th trying to take over the government, and raping and killing (your words) with pepper spray flag poles, etc. so you just make stuff-up.
That's Dajo, Mr. Dajo, to you.wifeisafurd said:Tom, you just posted a picture of guy you said had a Glock. You said you eyes don't lie, but you just did. You just made this up, and I'm sure the five idiots that gave you thumbs-up are busy repeating your lie through out the internet. But that is okay because you were using the word Glock in a non-legal manner, so anything that is a holster must be Glock in Dayo kind of way.concordtom said:Did you watch the Chauvin Trial?wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into some anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
I did.
You sound like the Chauvin defense team.
"It's a complicated case."
"Hardly any arrests."
"They didn't have weapons."
"They were misled and just somehow ended up in the Capitol."
"Other situations have been worse," (now adding Chicago 1968 into the mix.)
But I'm going to follow the advice of the Prosecutors in their closing arguments: Believe My Eyes.
Wife - you're doing it again. You said you were outraged in your prior post, but now you are downplaying it again to a series of misdemeanors. Give me a break, man. Do you know how stupid you sound to some of us?
You once again sound like a complete apologist.
Here is zip-tie guy. Notice that he has a glock on his right hip.
Here he is posing with a longer gun. What is that on his hip in this picture from even before the election?
Here are the Oath Keepers on Jan 6. We've seen MANY images of them marching in parades with weapons - I'll spare you those photos. Are you going to tell me that they don't have pistols or other weapons stashed away on their bodies here?
Are you aware that Chauvin didn't use any guns on George Floyd, either.
And yet, he's still dead.
Tell me, what would have happened if the "embarrassingly lax security" had opened fire on the crowd to keep them from entering the White House? Tell me, wife. Please. I want to hear you speak to that point.
Also, please tell me, wife, what do you think would have happened to people like Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, or god forbid AOC, had they found her. Do you think they'd have raped AOC before they killed her? Perhaps not if she was on the capitol steps, but if a group of 10 men found her hiding in a closet, what would have happened wife?
No guns necessary.
But because the capitol steps did not turn into a mass death scene, you prefer to downplay it.
That's just wrong, man. Very wrong.
I believe my eyes and ears. It was a coup attempt. An incredibly weak coup attempt, but a coup attempt nonetheless.
On January 10, 2021, the zip tie guy, Eric Munchel was arrested. In the charges filed by the AG, he was dressed for combat," wearing "combat boots, military fatigues, a tactical vest, gloves, and a gaiter that covered all of his face except for his eyes" and a "taser at his hip."
Munchel, was labeled "zip-tie guy" after he was photographed in the Senate chamber holding the restraints. His appearance raised questions in the media about whether the "insurrectionists" intended to 'take lawmakers hostage." The problem was the evidence included in the filing was taken from videos recorded by Munchel himself: He kept an iPhone mounted to his chest that recorded him invading the Capitol building, prosecutors say (perhaps reflecting on the intelligence of the protestors generally). As noted in the arrest complaint, he "disarmed the handcuff and stun gun from police" and then a few minutes later "discarded the restraints." So much for hostage taking (but you know in a non-legal way you could say he intended to take hostages). But hey if he found AOC he clearly would have raped and killed here, right after his mother, a nurse, who invaded the Capital with, took a turn. In fact, he was going to blow up the capital with nuclear devise and you can prove it because the event was advertised in advance, blah, blah blah. The arrest charge is 3:21-mj-2669, MDTenn. Look it up. Or just get a job a Vox, and continuing spouting bull.
Munchel faces one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. He was not charged with carrying a weapon...duh. But, you know, in a non-legal way, he was carrying a Glock, so he should at least be charged on the internet.
But you saw it with your own eyes....
Sometimes I feel bad when people don't use words when they don't understand what they mean. A coup is to seize power. Standard dictionary stuff. Which is pretty much how the stature reads. US Capitol breach 'almost textbook' sedition, legal expert sayshttps://www.freep.com local michigan 2021/01/06dajo9 said:Sometimes I feel bad for lawyers. Forced to look at the real world through the lens of a law book.wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into sone anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).
Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days.
Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened.
The problem is that you actually need evidence that protestors went into the Capital with the idea of seizing the government, which you don't have, despite knowing what happened based on your textbook review of Salon, Vox, and others or republish tweets. That you would think a few nut jobs armed with things like pepper spray went in to seize the government from the 1,200 armed officers on duty in the Capital building on Jan. 6 and a list of such things as the protestors knew about the the protest before they went the to the protest, or chanted things (because no one ever chants things like that at protests), or protestors were there the day of certification to protest the certification of what they thought was a stolen election (wow...), or other conspiratorial drivel, says more about you then the intent of the protestors.
Oh yes, we all know what happened in our own agenda. Maybe coup means Cal will seize the Rose Bowl, in a non-legal sort of way.
Thanks Mr. Dajo. I actually like our back and forth.concordtom said:That's Dajo, Mr. Dajo, to you.wifeisafurd said:Tom, you just posted a picture of guy you said had a Glock. You said you eyes don't lie, but you just did. You just made this up, and I'm sure the five idiots that gave you thumbs-up are busy repeating your lie through out the internet. But that is okay because you were using the word Glock in a non-legal manner, so anything that is a holster must be Glock in Dayo kind of way.concordtom said:Did you watch the Chauvin Trial?wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into some anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
I did.
You sound like the Chauvin defense team.
"It's a complicated case."
"Hardly any arrests."
"They didn't have weapons."
"They were misled and just somehow ended up in the Capitol."
"Other situations have been worse," (now adding Chicago 1968 into the mix.)
But I'm going to follow the advice of the Prosecutors in their closing arguments: Believe My Eyes.
Wife - you're doing it again. You said you were outraged in your prior post, but now you are downplaying it again to a series of misdemeanors. Give me a break, man. Do you know how stupid you sound to some of us?
You once again sound like a complete apologist.
Here is zip-tie guy. Notice that he has a glock on his right hip.
Here he is posing with a longer gun. What is that on his hip in this picture from even before the election?
Here are the Oath Keepers on Jan 6. We've seen MANY images of them marching in parades with weapons - I'll spare you those photos. Are you going to tell me that they don't have pistols or other weapons stashed away on their bodies here?
Are you aware that Chauvin didn't use any guns on George Floyd, either.
And yet, he's still dead.
Tell me, what would have happened if the "embarrassingly lax security" had opened fire on the crowd to keep them from entering the White House? Tell me, wife. Please. I want to hear you speak to that point.
Also, please tell me, wife, what do you think would have happened to people like Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence, or god forbid AOC, had they found her. Do you think they'd have raped AOC before they killed her? Perhaps not if she was on the capitol steps, but if a group of 10 men found her hiding in a closet, what would have happened wife?
No guns necessary.
But because the capitol steps did not turn into a mass death scene, you prefer to downplay it.
That's just wrong, man. Very wrong.
I believe my eyes and ears. It was a coup attempt. An incredibly weak coup attempt, but a coup attempt nonetheless.
On January 10, 2021, the zip tie guy, Eric Munchel was arrested. In the charges filed by the AG, he was dressed for combat," wearing "combat boots, military fatigues, a tactical vest, gloves, and a gaiter that covered all of his face except for his eyes" and a "taser at his hip."
Munchel, was labeled "zip-tie guy" after he was photographed in the Senate chamber holding the restraints. His appearance raised questions in the media about whether the "insurrectionists" intended to 'take lawmakers hostage." The problem was the evidence included in the filing was taken from videos recorded by Munchel himself: He kept an iPhone mounted to his chest that recorded him invading the Capitol building, prosecutors say (perhaps reflecting on the intelligence of the protestors generally). As noted in the arrest complaint, he "disarmed the handcuff and stun gun from police" and then a few minutes later "discarded the restraints." So much for hostage taking (but you know in a non-legal way you could say he intended to take hostages). But hey if he found AOC he clearly would have raped and killed here, right after his mother, a nurse, who invaded the Capital with, took a turn. In fact, he was going to blow up the capital with nuclear devise and you can prove it because the event was advertised in advance, blah, blah blah. The arrest charge is 3:21-mj-2669, MDTenn. Look it up. Or just get a job a Vox, and continuing spouting bull.
Munchel faces one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. He was not charged with carrying a weapon...duh. But, you know, in a non-legal way, he was carrying a Glock, so he should at least be charged on the internet.
But you saw it with your own eyes....
If investigators release actual facts (and opposed to supposition, rumor or just plain make believe) pointing at protestors actually having the means and intent to seize control over the government, I'm willing to listen and change my mind. But right now the only facts in evidence point to a clash with a destructive and somewhat violent group of protestors.wifeisafurd said:Sometimes I feel bad when people don't use words when they don't understand what they mean. A coup is to seize power. Standard dictionary stuff. Which is pretty much how the stature reads. US Capitol breach 'almost textbook' sedition, legal expert sayshttps://www.freep.com local michigan 2021/01/06dajo9 said:Sometimes I feel bad for lawyers. Forced to look at the real world through the lens of a law book.wifeisafurd said:
Unit 2, Dajo and you sound like left wing versions of John Mitchell, complete with his rhetoric. The Biden Justice Department said in a March court filing that the Capitol attack "is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice." The government said it has issued a combined total of over 900 search warrants and the investigation has included more than 15,000 hours of surveillance and body-worn camera footage from multiple law enforcement agencies. The government has also gathered approximately 1,600 electronic devices, the results of hundreds of searches of electronic communication providers, over 80,000 reports and 93,000 attachments related to law enforcement interviews and other investigative steps, authorities said in a filing.
And what did we get for all that? 100 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, 35 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon and 350 were charged with wait for it - entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds. About 30 of these defendants have been charged with conspiracy which sounds mighty impressive until you see it is a charge that alleges they coordinated with others to commit an offense of entering the capital building and destroying property. So little John Mitchells, after the most unprecedented investigation of all time, you have managed to take charges typically levelled at demonstrators at a government building sit-in into a coup, insurrection, treason or whatever drivel you read on twitter. All the weight of the Federal law enforcement and not one charge of treason, sedition, or even advocating overthrowing the government (which by the way is a federal crime). Not even one piece of evidence in the thousands of pages of allegations even suggesting a coup motive.
The usual nut job display of Trump protestors, which were egged on by a Trump speech and found themselves remarkably going places they could never imagine inside the Capital building, through embarrassingly lax security, turned into sone anti-government coup, by what, your reading Vox or Salon or parroting pompous TV spoke holes? The revolution that didn't even have bullets and firearms, less military grade equipment. Those horrible dangerous weapons charges? Pepper spray, bear spray (must have been someone from BI), baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs sounds like your average demonstration in some cities. Oh yes, one guy had a stun gun. And the demonstrators got into a fight with the security forces. Think that might have happened at few demonstrations earlier that year? The Chicago 7 at least got charged with meaningful crimes: crossing state lines with intent to incite a riot, conspiracy, and teaching demonstrators how to construct incendiary devices. And they even occupied a public park for a few days, and seemingly at least said they were trying to subvert a major party convention from electing a certain Presidential candidate (though they probably had different motivations if the TV show is to be believed). And the demonstrators in Chicago basically got hit with the same charges as those lightweight Trump protestors.
Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).
Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days.
Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened.
The problem is that you actually need evidence that protestors went into the Capital with the idea of seizing the government, which you don't have, despite knowing what happened based on your textbook review of Salon, Vox, and others or republish tweets. That you would think a few nut jobs armed with things like pepper spray went in to seize the government from the 1,200 armed officers on duty in the Capital building on Jan. 6 and a list of such things as the protestors knew about the the protest before they went the to the protest, or chanted things (because no one ever chants things like that at protests), or protestors were there the day of certification to protest the certification of what they thought was a stolen election (wow...), or other conspiratorial drivel, says more about you then the intent of the protestors.
Oh yes, we all know what happened in our own agenda. Maybe coup means Cal will seize the Rose Bowl, in a non-legal sort of way.
Let's look at all the things that legally never happened as there were no judicial convictions.
- The Boston Tea Party
- The theft of Cherokee land
- Southern treason in the Civil War
- The numerous massacres of blacks that ended reconstruction
- The massacre at Wounded Knee
- The Tulsa race massacre
- The lynching my grandfather witnessed with his own eyes
- The many murders of the Civil Rights era
- Banks screwing over people in the Great Recession
This is just a partial list. You think these things happened? Find me the case code.
- The Boston Tea Party
- The theft of Cherokee land
- Southern treason in the Civil War
- The numerous massacres of blacks that ended reconstruction
- The massacre at Wounded Knee
- The Tulsa race massacre
- The lynching my grandfather witnessed with his own eyes
- The many murders of the Civil Rights era
- Banks screwing over people in the Great Recession
This is just a partial list. You think these things happened? Find me the case code.
dajo9 said:
Let's look at all the things that legally never happened as there were no judicial convictions.
- The Boston Tea Party
- The theft of Cherokee land
- Southern treason in the Civil War
- The numerous massacres of blacks that ended reconstruction
- The massacre at Wounded Knee
- The Tulsa race massacre
- The lynching my grandfather witnessed with his own eyes
- The many murders of the Civil Rights era
- Banks screwing over people in the Great Recession
This is just a partial list. You think these things happened? Find me the case code.
Brilliant, lol.
See, that's why I called you Mister Dajo.
Because here I was going to give the analogy of the nervous inexperienced drunk teenager who was at a party one Saturday night when his friends came up to him and told him about the girl who was passed out drunk in the bedroom downstairs. This was his big chance, they said, excitedly.
"Really?"
"Yeah, dude. And she's right there. All you gotta do is go in there and DO it!"
The teen started to get a hard-on at the thought.
"And what's more," the friends sermoned, "if you don't do it now, you'll never be a man. You've got to have strength to be a man!"
So the young man mustered his courage and marched downstairs.
The door was locked, so he knocked and said, "Hello? Can I come in?" He heard no response other than his friends who egged him on to go inside, their voices getting louder all the while.
Next, a few girls approached and said, "you can't go in there. You're not allowed to go in there." The encouraging friends pushed them away, leaving the virgin to face the door alone. Emboldened by his friends' path-clearing, he took a flagpole (which he just happened to be carrying - it said "Get Laid Tonight") and busted through the doorframe so he could climb through.
Once inside, he saw the girl laying on the bed. She was indeed "out", normal defense systems inoperable. At first, the virgin tried to wake her up. "Hello? Are you awake? Do you want to fool around? Do you want to have sex?"
"You want to have sex, right? That's why you came to this party. That's why you got drunk. That's why you came and laid down in bed, right? You want to lose your virginity, too. Now, we've got to be strong, and do it, or we'll never cross the rubicon!"
The idiot could hear his friends chanting outside: "do it, do it, do it!"
So, he proceeded to squeeze her titties and feel up her crotch. He pulled off her shirt and removed her bra. He licked her neck, and kissed her unresponsive lips. He unzipped his pants, and hers as well. He put on the condom he had brought to the party.
Now, here he was, in the inner chamber, all ready to go. But, suddenly, being a virgin, he didn't know what to do next. He lost his firmness as he wasted his time just roaming his hands all over her body. He took out his cellphone and began to take pictures of himself posing all over her. He stole her panties and tucked them inside his backpack as a souvenir. He smelled her hair and then wrote her a note on her thigh with a magic marker:
"I was here. I won the day. I'm a man!"
The fool spent a full 2 hours in that bedroom, examining that body. He tweeted and instagrammed. But, as the fervor of the party began to die down, he simply put his pants back on and left the room, proud of what he had done. Wow, that had never happened before! What a successful teenage night. He had gotten boobage! And ass! And proof! "The guys back at school will be surrounding me to hear all about it," he thought.
The next day, he woke up. Social media informed him that town police were investigating the massive party where he had been. There were reports that a girl may have been raped, as a female had shown up at the police station dazed and confused, and requesting a rape kit examination be done.
Scared, the boy began deleting photos from his phone. He deleted his Twitter and Instagram. He looked in his backpack and removed the panties and additional condoms. He burned them both, remembering the same brand packaging he'd left behind at the scene.
All morning long, he kept reminding himself that he didn't actually penetrate her, so no REAL crime could be charged. He wasn't guilty of anything more than minor property damage, he reasoned.
Police spent months interviewing hundreds of party goers, sifting through various texts and random new message boards they'd never heard of before. The local media debated the case. It all became so confusing to the town's people. What had actually happened?
So, tell me, Wife.
What's you take on this story?
The police took swab samples from inside the girl. No semen samples. No scratches or bruises on her. No evidence of rape. No harm, no foul?
.....Oh, one last part of this story I forgot to tell.
The name of that girl on the bed? Lady Liberty.
Did you know about this incident closer to home?
Bloody Island massacre - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Island_massacre
I had never heard about it until I read this brilliant book a couple of years ago:
Bloody Island massacre - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Island_massacre
I had never heard about it until I read this brilliant book a couple of years ago:
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Which is better for my story... the girl at the party - lady liberty or lady justice?
Maybe they are sisters.
Maybe I just like this sculpture better.
Maybe they are sisters.
Maybe I just like this sculpture better.
Featured Stories
See All
The Football Roster Post Spring - The Offensive Line Room
by Bear Insider
Bears Head To ACC Outdoor Championships
by Cal Athletics