Charlie Kirk Sets B.L.M Supporter Straight On George Floyd

[IceTrayDaGang]

I answered that in the rest of the post. Stop wasting time pretending you don’t get my answer or point regarding this question

If you honestly believe this, why are you questioning the Chauvin verdict?

I just went back to page 33 and up and didnt see you answer this. A jury's decision is not always the right call.. yes or no.

[The Big Dunn]

Nowhere in the trial or any medical examiner report was the cause of death attributed to asphyxiation.

Floyd died because of cardiopulmonary arrest. Which obviously was contributed to by his clogged arteries, enlarged heart, and the drugs in his system. A neck restraint with the use of the legs was allowed by the police department. So the fact that Chauvin was charged with 2nd degree murder given these circumstances is exactly why some want him to get a retrial.

As far as him lying on the police report go ahead and bring charges on him for that. No issue there.

Huh? I guess you’re making a semantics argument. The medical examiner said officers' restraint of his body and compression of his neck were the primary causes.

While that isn’t specifically asphyxiation as you stated, it’s pretty clear it’s the primary factor.

He didn’t die because of that. That was proven incorrect at trial.

This hold was banned. I asked that you show where it was legal in the police rules. I didn’t see where you posted anything to support that.

The only people who seem to want a retrial are pro cop, far right wing voters that display hatred for black people.

I didn’t ask you that. I asked why did he lie on the report if he want guilty?

[The Big Dunn]

I just went back to page 33 and up and didnt see you answer this. A jury's decision is not always the right call.. yes or no.

I answered it in the last post you quoted. Stop wasting time.

[The Big Dunn]

Because I said a jury's verdict is not always right.

I believe the cops in the 1992 riot should have been found guilty... For Chauvin, I believe the verdict should be not guilty. And I explained my reason why.

No you claimed I said a jury’s verdict is what we always have to go with when I didn’t say that.

I agreed that’s gerrymandered jury isn’t always right. Chauvin faced a balanced and fair jury.

[IceTrayDaGang]

No you claimed I said a jury’s verdict is what we always have to go with when I didn’t say that.

I agreed that’s gerrymandered jury isn’t always right. Chauvin faced a balanced and fair jury.

YES!! and i said a jury's verdict is not always right.. are you confused?? you said the jury found chauvin guilty so he's guilty and why are we trying to dispute this (not in those exact words), so I said just because a jury found a person guilty or not guilty, it doesnt always mean that it's the right call!! Why do you always do this? All my post is on this thread.

[The Big Dunn]

YES!! and i said a jury's verdict is not always right.. are you confused?? you said the jury found chauvin guilty so he's guilty and why are we trying to dispute this (not in those exact words), so I said just because a jury found a person guilty or not guilty, it doesnt always mean that it's the right call!! Why do you always do this? All my post is on this thread.

I didn’t say a jury’s verdict was always right. You claimed I said that when you know I didn’t. You do this a lot when You’ve run out of or have no facts to support your point.

No I didn’t say this. You are purposely interpreting that incorrectly just to argue. The post you said you didn’t read tried to clarify any misunderstanding you had.

Perhaps if you read it we can move on.

In Chauvin’s case the jury made the correct decision based on the evidence and testimony.

Just because in other and in the past cases where gerrymandered juries made incorrect and racist verdicts, doesn’t mean the Chauvin jury did.

Again, if you have some facts to show the jury may have been bad, post them so we can discuss. Same as I did the King and OJ juries.

You keep babbling and regurgitating the same thing. It’s like you know you don’t have anything solid to support your point so you’re purposely doing this to prevent moving forward.

[IceTrayDaGang]

I didn’t say a jury’s verdict was always right. You claimed I said that when you know I didn’t. You do this a lot when You’ve run out of or have no facts to support your point.

No I didn’t say this. You are purposely interpreting that incorrectly just to argue. The post you said you didn’t read tried to clarify any misunderstanding you had.

Perhaps if you read it we can move on.

In Chauvin’s case the jury made the correct decision based on the evidence and testimony.

Just because in other and in the past cases where gerrymandered juries made incorrect and racist verdicts, doesn’t mean the Chauvin jury did.

Again, if you have some facts to show the jury may have been bad, post them so we can discuss. Same as I did the King and OJ juries.

You keep babbling and regurgitating the same thing. It’s like you know you don’t have anything solid to support your point so you’re purposely doing this to prevent moving forward.

YOU said the jury found Chauvin guilty so what's there to argue about.???

that's why I brought up the 1992 Rodney King case, and said the jury found those cops not guilty so why was there still an uproar.

Then you proceed to make assumption (you told us not to do this for the GF's case), that the trial was held in a different part of town where there's no blacks and that the jury was mostly all whites and that's why those cops were found not guilty.

[The Big Dunn]

YOU said the jury found Chauvin guilty so what's there to argue about.???

that's why I brought up the 1992 Rodney King case, and said the jury found those cops not guilty so why was there still an uproar.

Then you proceed to make assumption (you told us not to do this for the GF'ds case), that the trial was held in a different part of town where there's no blacks and the the jury was mostly all whites and that's why those cops were found not guilty.

You sure? Check post #316. You said this. Not me.

I think you just admitted I said “ something like that but not exactly in those words”. you interpreted it that way.

I thought you brought that up as a defense for you saying the Chauvin jury had to convict or there would be riots.

Either way, the key point I made is if the juries are gerrymandered then yes. Jury verdicts can be problematic or wrong. The Chauvin jury wasn’t gerrymandered. It was diverse. That is why I am confident they made a fair verdict based on facts.

Again, you clearly misunderstood that point, which I subsequently clarified in the post you said you didn’t read.

I said those juries were gerrymandered, which is different from the Chauvin jury, which is why they both gave bad verdicts.

[IceTrayDaGang]

You sure? Check post #316. You said this. Not me.

I think you just admitted I said “ something like that but not exactly in those words”. you interpreted it that way.

I thought you brought that up as a defense for you saying the Chauvin jury had to convict or there would be riots.

Either way, the key point I made is if the juries are gerrymandered then yes. Jury verdicts can be problematic or wrong. The Chauvin jury wasn’t gerrymandered. It was diverse. That is why I am confident they made a fair verdict based on facts.

Again, you clearly misunderstood that point, which I subsequently clarified in the post you said you didn’t read.

I said those juries were gerrymandered, which is different from the Chauvin jury, which is why they both gave bad verdicts.

So a jury's verdict is not always the right call? Yes or no?

[The Big Dunn]

So a jury's verdict is not always the right call? Yes or no?

Again I didn’t say that so why do you keep asking me?

It isn’t as cut and dry as you are pretending just to argue with me.

A gerrymandered jury’s verdict is not always the right call. IMO a fair and diverse jury produces a fair and accurate verdict based on facts that is right.

Can we move forward now.