Guilty On All Counts!!!
- Thread starter CuriousGuy
- Start date
- LQC,
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, the final say, of the law of the land, so long as the court is willing to hear your case. But how about that ludicrous Minnesota law? How about the fact that “Unintentional Murder” is an oxymoron, because the very definition of the word “murder” is a premeditated act of killing? Kind of like the flies I murder with a swatter? Woke Progressive Liberals can masturbate and have wet dreams to the outcome of the Chauvin case, all day long. He wasn’t guilty of Murder.
The two questions that the defense is referencing were specific. If a question is " Do you own a red jacket" and you say "no"- (but own a blue one)-- you are not lying- The question is very specific. He did not lie regarding those two questions based on how they were asked. If a person attended protests in Chicago, and the question is "Did you ever attend protests in St. Louis?, it is not a lie to say 'no'- If you question was " Have you ever attended protests" -- Then it would be a lie to say no. The lawyers that wrote those questions should have cast a wider net.
Manslaughter is murder no matter how you are trying to flip it and regardless of intent
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,243
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 31,789
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
As far as "the law" and "the supreme court", you don't have a clue of what you speak.
I don't understand why you keep calling following the rules of his questionnaire a cop-out. You admit he followed the questionnaire, and that the lawyers that prepared it did it poorly, but still call the juror the one that lied.
- LQC,
No, manslaughter is not “murder”, but we all know how redefining things is the radical Liberal Left’s greatest passtime.
- LQC,
Technically he didn’t, but let’s look at the bigger picture here. I see and hear selective reasoning here.
If he technically didn't lie, he didn't lie..what more is there? Is a juror supposed to decide 'what they really meant' when a question was asked? We don't know what instructions the jury was given prior to the questionnaire, either. What bigger picture? There are only two questions in the entire package they are challenging.
Selective reasoning goes two ways. I often tell my wife she would be a terrible juror as she states something with absolute certainty without all the information--for example, she will say-: " that store is closed today"-- and I ask how she knows and she reports " there were no cars in front"--- Well, that doesn't mean the store is closed. It just means there are no cars in front. -- and then a simple phone call proves store is open. Selective reasoning.
See the jury questionnaire in the Derek Chauvin trial – Twin Cities
Here is the questionnaire, btw. I think question 7 is the one they are looking at.
IIn all honesty is doesn’t matter .. He was found innocent by his peers just as Chauvin was found guilty by his peers... The only difference is that they presented credible evidence at the Floyd trial .. Do you agree?
- LQC,
No, I think OJ was guilty of murder, and Chauvin was not. I disagree with the outcome of both trials. But I was asking Industrialsize.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,243
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 31,789
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I'm sorry, I'm done with our discussion. You need more education on the law and civics. Have a nice life.
You don’t dig your knee into someone neck and call it unintentional.
- LQC,
No, that was totally intentional. But I don’t think he was thinking,”I’m gonna literally kill you, sucka!”
