Red Mosquito

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Not to defend Waters, although I DO think that Americans are justified in losing their shit if there was an acquittal, but does anyone seriously believe that a juror expected a not guilty vote to result in peace in the streets until Maxine Waters told them otherwise?

So if he is convicted of manslaughter, but acquitted on murder, you would endorse violence as a response? think through what that means.

Personally, I think justice would be served if she was convicted of manslaughter.

Same

Wait, “she”?

Do you mean Chauvin or Waters?

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Not to defend Waters, although I DO think that Americans are justified in losing their shit if there was an acquittal, but does anyone seriously believe that a juror expected a not guilty vote to result in peace in the streets until Maxine Waters told them otherwise?

So if he is convicted of manslaughter, but acquitted on murder, you would endorse violence as a response? think through what that means.

Personally, I think justice would be served if she was convicted of manslaughter.

Based on the links McP provided before, I believe he could be convicted on murder 2. BUT, it's far more important to maintain the integrity of the system than to sacrifice this one asshole to keep the mob at bay because the moment we normalize violence in response to unpopular outcomes the whole thing is lost. The ends are less important than the means.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Not to defend Waters, although I DO think that Americans are justified in losing their shit if there was an acquittal, but does anyone seriously believe that a juror expected a not guilty vote to result in peace in the streets until Maxine Waters told them otherwise?

So if he is convicted of manslaughter, but acquitted on murder, you would endorse violence as a response? think through what that means.

Personally, I think justice would be served if she was convicted of manslaughter.

Based on the links McP provided before, I believe he could be convicted on murder 2. BUT, it's far more important to maintain the integrity of the system than to sacrifice this one asshole to keep the mob at bay because the moment we normalize violence in response to unpopular outcomes the whole thing is lost. The ends are less important than the means.

I get what you're saying, but I supposed if I were black, and society had been normalizing violence against my race from 1614 up to and beyond George Floyd's death, I might laugh and tell you to shove the "integrity of the system" up your ass.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Not to defend Waters, although I DO think that Americans are justified in losing their shit if there was an acquittal, but does anyone seriously believe that a juror expected a not guilty vote to result in peace in the streets until Maxine Waters told them otherwise?

So if he is convicted of manslaughter, but acquitted on murder, you would endorse violence as a response? think through what that means.

Personally, I think justice would be served if she was convicted of manslaughter.

Based on the links McP provided before, I believe he could be convicted on murder 2. BUT, it's far more important to maintain the integrity of the system than to sacrifice this one asshole to keep the mob at bay because the moment we normalize violence in response to unpopular outcomes the whole thing is lost. The ends are less important than the means.

I get what you're saying, but I supposed if I were black, and society had been normalizing violence against my race from 1614 up to and beyond George Floyd's death, I might laugh and tell you to shove the "integrity of the system" up your ass.

Great point, B!

I thought so.

If the average anti-cop person hears a guilty verdict (on their own without any influence) on "manslaughter" and acquitted on "murder", they would probably think justice was served and move on

If the average anti-cop person hears the guilty verdict from a news report that explains the charges to them, then they'd probably start rioting.

take for example, Jan 6th. There was a group of guys on the house floor reading through some papers and saw Ted Cruz's folder. They start reading and come to the conclusion that he objected to the electoral votes, and was not even on their side. It took another guy to let them know that object means he was against the certification for that particular state, and he was still on their side.


We'd probably be surprised at how many people don't know what words mean.

blueviper wrote:I
take for example, Jan 6th. There was a group of guys on the house floor reading through some papers and saw Ted Cruz's folder. They start reading and come to the conclusion that he objected to the electoral votes, and was not even on their side. It took another guy to let them know that object means he was against the certification for that particular state, and he was still on their side.

This is wonderful if it's true.

Manslaughter always sounded a lot worse to me than murder

verb_to_trust wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Not to defend Waters, although I DO think that Americans are justified in losing their shit if there was an acquittal, but does anyone seriously believe that a juror expected a not guilty vote to result in peace in the streets until Maxine Waters told them otherwise?

So if he is convicted of manslaughter, but acquitted on murder, you would endorse violence as a response? think through what that means.

Personally, I think justice would be served if she was convicted of manslaughter.

Based on the links McP provided before, I believe he could be convicted on murder 2. BUT, it's far more important to maintain the integrity of the system than to sacrifice this one asshole to keep the mob at bay because the moment we normalize violence in response to unpopular outcomes the whole thing is lost. The ends are less important than the means.

I get what you're saying, but I supposed if I were black, and society had been normalizing violence against my race from 1614 up to and beyond George Floyd's death, I might laugh and tell you to shove the "integrity of the system" up your ass.

Great point, B!

I'm not going to speak for black people, but one might assume after being subjected to extrajudicial violence for centuries that they would recognize how truly evil it is.


And weren't last season's top scoring rioters largely white people?

Bi_3 wrote:I'm not going to speak for black people, but one might assume after being subjected to extrajudicial violence for centuries that they would recognize how truly evil it is.

For most of those centuries, the violence was intrajudicial. One might reasonably assume that it is continuing if Chauvin walks free.

Bi_3 wrote:And weren't last season's top scoring rioters largely white people?

I've stopped trying to understand what drives these anarchist dummies.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:I'm not going to speak for black people, but one might assume after being subjected to extrajudicial violence for centuries that they would recognize how truly evil it is.

For most of those centuries, the violence was intrajudicial. One might reasonably assume that it is continuing if Chauvin walks free.

Bi_3 wrote:And weren't last season's top scoring rioters largely white people?

I've stopped trying to understand what drives these anarchist dummies.

Well, no, and that's the whole problem with resting the entire racial awakening of America on this case isnt it? It takes only one juror to claim to have reasonable about that Chauvin is guilty of the charges for him to go free and should that occur it does not mean the court legalized killing black people and it's dangerous to suggest so because it's a lie. For all we know that hypothetical juror could see the action as pro-Black in that it would reignited the protests and maybe make cowardly politicians scared of their cities burning (again) enact the long elusive "change" that's gonna fix everything.

Bi_3 wrote:For all we know that hypothetical juror could see the action as pro-Black in that it would reignited the protests and maybe make cowardly politicians scared of their cities burning (again) enact the long elusive "change" that's gonna fix everything.

How deep into the Q-Anon-net did you have to go for that one?

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:For all we know that hypothetical juror could see the action as pro-Black in that it would reignited the protests and maybe make cowardly politicians scared of their cities burning (again) enact the long elusive "change" that's gonna fix everything.

How deep into the Q-Anon-net did you have to go for that one?

I tried to think of something possible (union busting tactic), but highly unlikely, to illustrate that it could be things other than an attack on black people that produce a not-guilty verdict.

Weird page

BurtReynolds wrote:Weird page

a Bi_3 special

BurtReynolds wrote:Weird page

Yeah mainly because B won’t answer my question at the top!

Oh, sorry, Bammer. That was just a typo. I meant "he."

B doesn’t see gender.

4/5 wrote:B doesn’t see gender.

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Weird page

a Bi_3 special

Sometimes I even amaze myself