Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
To much TV.
If they need to get a gang member. They wait for the gang unit to arrive and arrest them.
If the person they want is known to carry a weapon. They wait for the SWAT to arrive and arrest them.
If a person kidnap's someone and crosses state lines. Then the FBI gets involved as well as state troopers.
If someone is shooting up a place. The normal police go in.
Detectives don't kick down doors. They do the detecting and nothing more.
Stop watching TV and making things up you know nothing about.
And you can't get the simple things right.
But you pass judgment on the officer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Third degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that Chauvin showed a reckless disregard for human life. Kneeling on someone's neck for 9 minutes even after they've lost consciousness is a reckless disregard for human life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Where did I say they kick doors in? You do like to put words in people's mouths. Seem to me you just don't like that this officer has thrown Chauvin under the bus. Its fair to say he knows more than anyone on this UK tech forum. But so many of you think you are experts, the irony is hilarious. From your posts on here you've already cleared him. So you've passed judgement.
I showed that you watch to much TV and live in nana land.
You was wrong but can't admit it. Just goes to show what a gross person you are. Shame on you.
Again wrong. The detective was never asked about the manual. But maybe he will be asked next week. Again wrong on so many levels.
I have family in the US police force and Army
You operate on feelings, emotions, rainbows, unicorns and entitlements.
Last edited:
Overly simplistic, he was following a police procedure - argument then becomes how unreasonable was it, we’re then talking about maybe the first 5 mins being reasonable but Chauvin going a bit too far. That doesn’t necessarily warrant 3rd degree murder.
Secondly there is the obvious issue of reasonable doubt re: the drugs, those + the anxiety re: the arrest could have been the cause regardless of any knee.
It’s not as simple as you try to make out.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
And the irony here is your doing exactly the same, by claiming everyone that doesnt agree with you claims to be an expert. No one has said anything remotely close to that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
I showed that you watch to much TV and live in nana land.
You was wrong but can't admit it. Just goes to show what a gross person you are. Shame on you.
Again wrong. The detective was never asked about the manual. But maybe he will be asked next week. Again wrong on so many levels.
I have family in the US police force and Army
You operate on feelings, emotions, rainbows, unicorns and entitlements.
Ah we've hit the personal insult stage have we.
Lets wait and see shall we, although if/when he is found guilty I wouldn't be surprised to hear how the jurors only convicted because of fear of what a not guilty verdict would bring.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
I think you probably need to read through this thread again. Plenty of posters claiming he isn't guilty of anything.
Still can't admit you're wrong.
It's nothing to do with the court out come. Your making things up and believing them. then twisting things as normal.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jul 2020
- Posts
- 796
can't see why, if the guy was already cuffed, there was the need for the long neck kneeling as well?
Look at the police manual.
It's pinning the person.
Watch the real video if I was you.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
What ever view they form is their opinion on the matter, at no point were they claiming to be experts. People are allowed to have an opinion that differs from your own, that is how debate works, you may never see their point of view and they may never see yours, that is where the truth comes into it and that is where the court and jury will use evidence and facts to decide an outcome.
The prosecution have feelings and emotion, the defence have evidence and facts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Haha so your opinion is "the prosecution have feelings and emotion, the defence have evidence and facts" and you expect me to take that well thought out opinion seriously?
Where did I say people aren't allowed to have a different opinion? I am allowed to disagree with their opinion as they are with mine. In fact why am I even replying to this post as it is nonsense. There, that is my opinion of your post. Feel free to disagree.
Both have both...
And that's exactly what all governments claim - that they're doing it for the benefit of society as a whole. Someone has to decide what's for the benefit of society as a whole. If the state controls the means of production then the government decides what production is best for society. That's what that economic model is all about. How the government does that job doesn't change that.
Yes, you will. Me, for example. I think socialism is generally a mostly good idea to some extent. So I'm not disparaging socialism. What I'm also not doing is treating the entirety of all social, economic and political policies as being single positions in which only two sets are possible and in which one set is good and one set is evil. People can and do pick and choose and there's at least 3 different spectrums there anyway and at least 1 spectrum intersecting with each of those 3 to form at least 6 two dimensional charts. Which are still simplifications, but far more realistic ones.
I keep saying that reality is more complex than a left/right false dichotomy, especially one in which "left" and "right" are defined subjectively and thus mean different things to different people.
They considered it to be for the benefit of society as a whole. Which is what you described socialism as being. They also considered it to be essential for the very survival of humanity. If the terms are defined subjectively, then almost everything is socialism, left wing and right wing. It just depends on who you ask.
The nazis were conspiracy believing fanatics and that strongly affected everything they did. Their whole ideology was based on conclusions drawn from a mess of incorrect assumptions and wild conspiracy nutjobbery and made worse by having power (as is usually the case - power tends to corrupt). All that vileness affected their implementation of socialism, but it was still socialism. It's like coating a sofa with sewage. It's ruined, but it's still a sofa. It hasn't changed into something else. It's now a terrible sofa, but it is a sofa. Or, to put it another way, socialism done badly is still socialism. Socialism done evilly is still socialism. However socialism is implemented, it's still socialism.
Not really, no. They had control over those businesses and used it extensively. Under the nazis, the state controlled the means of production. It just did so through a thin facade.
Imagine you owned a company making a variety of widgets. One day a government representative turns up and tells you that your company will make the widgets that the government tells them to make. And if the government wants your company to stop making widgets and make doodads instead, your company will make doodads instead. Your company will make what the government tells it to make, when the government tells you to make it. Your job now is to do what's necessary to make that happen. If you don't do that, you will be replaced. You nominally own the company, but it's completely controlled by the state.
Governments claiming to their policies are in the best interest of society as a whole does not make them socialist. State control of the means of the production is communist, not socialist.
Anyway, whilst I agree with some of the some of the stuff you posted, about how things are over simplified and not just right/left, the idea that the Nazis were socialists, is I'm afraid completely, utterly and abjectly erroneous.
I'll try a different approach, since the terms are being defined wholly subjectively:
What do you mean by "socialism"?
Whatever I mean by it, it's not the Nazis
I'm talking about socialist policies, values etc, not an abstract Marxian ideal that's never even properly attempted never mind achieved.
And if there's one thing you must agree with, the Nazi's most certainly were not Marxists.
Last edited:
- Status