Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: BIG BIG K4M WEIGHS IN ON THE DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL

  1. #1
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,561
    Mentioned
    261 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default BIG BIG K4M WEIGHS IN ON THE DEREK CHAUVIN TRIAL

    I'LL MAKE THIS SHORT AND SWEET Y'ALL. READY.

    THE NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF A PROTOCOL RESTRAINT IS ALL THE FUCK THEY GOT HERE. THAT'S IT.

    THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF ANY MOTIVATION ON CHAUVIN'S PART TO MURDER FLOYD.

    NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF A PROTOCOL RESTRAINT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE TO KILL.

    ITS NEGLIGENT APPLICATION. HE HELD IT FOR TOO LONG, HIS BOOT WASN'T FULLY ON THE GROUND, ETC....IT WAS A NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF A PROTOCOL RESTRAINT

    LETS FOCUS HERE ON THE HARD REALITY. HARD REALITY. THE ONLY EVIDENCE HERE IS OF WRONGFUL DEATH, NOT MURDER.

    THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FLOYD OWED HIM MONEY...NO EVIDENCE FLOYD SLEPT WITH CHAUVIN'S GIRL...NO EVIDENCE FLOYD HAD DAMAGING INFO ON CHAUVIN HE WAS GOING TO EXPOSE...NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING THAT COULD BE REMOTELY CONSTRUED AS A MOTIVAITON TO KILL FLOYD

    THE FACT HE NEGLIGENT APPLIED A PROTOCOL RESTRAINT MANUEVER TO RESTRAIN AN UNRULY INDIVIDUAL IS NOT EVIDENCE OF RACISM OR INTENT TO MURDER.

    THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC HAS JUST GONE BATSHIT CRAZY.

    LISTEN, FOLKS. THIS IS ALL YOU HAVE. A POLICE OFFICER. IN THE LINE OF DUTY. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. CONFRONTS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE INDIVIDUAL IS UNRULY...ON DRUGS. OFFICER APPLIES A MANEUVER THAT EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN THE COUNTRY IS TAUGHT BUT THE OFFICER PERFORMED IT IN A NEGLIGENT MANNER. THAT'S ALL THESE EXPERTS ARE SHOWING...ALL THEY ARE SHOWING IS THAT CHAUVIN NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED A MANEUVER A PROTOCOL RESTRAINT THAT EVERY POLICE OFFICER IN THE COUNTRY IS TAUGHT. HE JUST NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED IT AND THE GUY DIED. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE. THAT IS NOT MURDER NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT. BECAUSE HIS FOOT WAS OFF THE GROUND ONLY SHOWS NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF THE MANEUVER.

    THAT IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS A WRONGFUL DEATH...NOT MURDER. WRONGFUL DEATH. NOT MURDER. A PROTOCOL IS NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED AND AN INDIVIDUAL DIES AS THE RESULT. THAT'S WRONGFUL DEATH. THAT IS NOT MURDER. USE THE EXAMPLE OF A HOSPITAL THAT HAS A PROTOCOL FOR LOCKING A PATIENT'S BED RAIL EVERY NIGHT WHEN THEY GO TO SLEEP BECAUSE THEY FALL IF THEY WALK ALONE AND THEY WILL TRY TO GET UP AND WALK ALONE IF THERE IS NO BED RAIL. THE CNA FAILS TO PROPERLY LOCK THE BED RAIL AND THE PATIENT GETS UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, FALLS AND BREAKS THEIR NECK. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHARGE THE CNA WITH FIRST DEGREE MURDER. THE CNA IS NOT GUILTY OF MURDER BUT NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF A PROTOCOL. I.E. WRONGFUL DEATH. MURDER IS ABSURD. THE FACT THIS GUY IS BEING TRIED FOR MURDER IS A SHAM...IT IS A TOTAL SHAM. NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF A PROTOCOL RESTRAINT MANEUVER IS NOTHING MORE THAN NEGLIGENCE. TO SHOW MURDER THERE NEEDS TO BE PROOF OF MOTIVATION ABOVE AND BEYOND THE FACT OF A NEGLIGENT APPLICATION OF A PROTOCOL RESTRAINT. THERE IS ZERO ZERO ZERO EVIDENCE OF MOTIVATION. ALL YOU HAVE HERE IS WRONGFUL DEATH. IF THE JURY LETS THIS GUY WALK THEY CAME TO THE RIGHT DECISION BECAUSE ALL THE STATE HAS HERE IS A WRONGFUL DEATH AND THAT'S NOT EVEN A CRIME.

  2. #2
    ouronis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    TIM
    ref to ptr to self
    Posts
    2,061
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I tend to agree that outright murder is not the right charge, but you could argue manslaughter since he told him he couldn't breathe.

  3. #3
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    10,957
    Mentioned
    1121 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not saying that this is about race, but how would this trial go if the cop were black and had shot one person before, was involved in one fatal shooting, had 17 previous complaints filed against him, and the dead man a Fox News employee?

    Of course, justice demands that a person be judged for the crime of which he is accused, not the crimes he might have committed previously, but still, how would the trial go?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •