Guilty On All Counts!!!

[LQC]

they only said murder so that the US wouldnt erupt in riots that night- it looks like a mistrial coming thanks to that idiot juror who lied in his oath

Only a small, screeching portion of the population (relative to the population of the country as a whole), would have rioted, vandalized, looted and committed arson. Then they would have claimed it was all so “peaceful”.

 

[Klingsor]

The charge and conviction of “Murder” was purely political. Chauvin did not set out to murder anyone that day, let alone Floyd. Reckless? Yes. Murder? No.

Murder is not defined by what you "set out to do" that day.

 

[Industrialsize]

The charge and conviction of “Murder” was purely political. Chauvin did not set out to murder anyone that day, let alone Floyd. Reckless? Yes. Murder? No.

It doesn't matter what he set out to do. Here is the criminal code under which Chauvin was convicted. Notice the use of the word UNINTENTIONAL:

 

[LQC]

Murder is not defined by what you "set out to do" that day.

Oh yes, it is. Murder is premeditated. Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd.

 

[LQC]

It doesn't matter what he set out to do. Here is the criminal code under which Chauvin was convicted. Notice the use of the word UNINTENTIONAL:
View attachment 35366601

“Unintentional Murder”? That’s laughable. No, that’s ludicrous, and should be challenged at the Supreme Court level. Last I checked, causing the death of someone unintentionally was manslaughter. Minnesota really has it’s head up its ass, doesn’t it?

 

[Industrialsize]

“Unintentional Murder”? That’s laughable. No, that’s ludicrous, and should be challenged at the Supreme Court level. Last I checked, causing the death of someone unintentionally was manslaughter. Minnesota really has it’s head up its ass, doesn’t it?

I'm just guessing, you're not an attorney?

 

[LQC]

I'm just guessing, you're not an attorney?

What difference does that make?

 

[Industrialsize]

What difference does that make?

It's the reason why you think Minnesota Criminal Statutes are unconstitutional when they are not.

 

[3HandsfulofDick]

What difference does that make?

You mind if I put my knee on your neck for a while until you stop breathing? We can call that unintentional murder ...

 

[LQC]

You mind if I put my knee on your neck for a while until you stop breathing? We can call that unintentional murder ...

That would be manslaughter, given the situation Chauvin and Floyd were in at the time.

 

[Industrialsize]

That would be manslaughter, given the situation Chauvin and Floyd were in at the time.

Given Minnesota Criminal Codes: It's second degree murder.

 

[LQC]

It's the reason why you think Minnesota Criminal Statutes are unconstitutional when they are not.

Laws are made by the People, through their elected representatives. I didn’t say “unconstitutional”, I said “ludicrous”. The statute and the people of the state of Minnesota (or at least, those responsible for having the law written that way) are ludicrous. “Unintentional Murder” is an oxymoron, and one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard.

 

[LQC]

Given Minnesota Criminal Codes: It's second degree murder.

It’s quite obvious Minnesota criminal codes need some rewriting.

 

[Industrialsize]

Laws are made by the People, through their elected representatives. I didn’t say “unconstitutional”, I said “ludicrous”. The statute and the people of the state of Minnesota (or at least, those responsible for having the law written that way) are ludicrous. “Unintentional Murder” is an oxymoron, and one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard.

You most certainly did: "and should be challenged at the Supreme Court level"

(predicting a quick flame-out)

 

[LQC]

You most certainly did: "and should be challenged at the Supreme Court level"

(predicting a quick flame-out)

Challenging something at the Supreme Court doesn’t have to always involve the Constitution. You could petition to have any case heard at the Supreme Court. It’s just a matter of whether the court would accept hearing the case.

 

[njfellow2002]

he actually did lie on the form. It was to do with marching in protests and he did

Not the way the question(s) were phrased.

 

[Industrialsize]

Challenging something at the Supreme Court doesn’t have to always involve the Constitution. You could petition to have any case heard at the Supreme Court. It’s just a matter of whether the court would accept hearing the case.

You need remedial civics education:

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

What is it that you think the Supreme Court does?

 

[LQC]

Not the way the question(s) were phrased.

Maybe not, but that’s a total cop-out.

 

[LQC]

You need remedial civics education: View attachment 35368901
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

Oh no I don’t.

 

[Industrialsize]

Oh no I don’t.

So what is the purpose of the Supreme Court? What do ALL the cases they hear have in common?