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

[IceTrayDaGang]

I already told you why I will not. Repeatedly asking me to wastes time.

now it's a waste of your time to prove me wrong?

[The Big Dunn]

The Big Dunn

Cant quote your last post, "Go read slowly and carefully what I said about the King cops and OJ juries."

I did, and for the king's case YOU said the trial was moved to a town where there's no black people and that the jury was mostly all whites... So that leads me to my question again that a jury's verdict is not always the right call then? Or are you telling me that "in the case of Rodney King, the verdict was the right call"??

What else did I write? If you stop the silliness and read the whole post and try to comprehend it, it’s clear to anyone that reads above a 6th grade level that I don’t think every jury call is correct.

As you pointed out, I clearly stated the King cops verdict was not right imo. I said same about the OJ verdict.

You literally just posted the same thing I said yesterday. So clearly you are just wasting time.

[ShoulderRoll]

Shoulder he didn’t say he did. You are interpreting what he said that way just to argue it.

He didn’t say what you’re saying here. He used a lot of if’s and coulds. You also parsed part of the article without going to the bottom where he clarifies all of this.

Ahh got it- he clarifies his points because he is under oath and didn’t want to perjure himself. you float the idiotic conspiracy with no proof that It might be because of what black people outside might do.

Damn man, your hatred is making you post insane stuff.

The medical examiner literally said that the levels of fentanyl in Floyd’s system were fatal under normal circumstances. It is what it is.

[The Big Dunn]

The medical examiner literally said that the levels of fentanyl in Floyd’s system were fatal under normal circumstances. It is what it is.

Read what he wrote again.

"If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3," Baker told investigators.

In another new document, Baker said, "That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances."

But then Baker added, "I am not saying this killed him."

You parsed out just that part in a completely dishonest way to make it appear that he didn’t clarify his statement.

You’re better than this. Least you used to be.

[ShoulderRoll]

It’s obvious that juries don’t always make the right call. That shouldn’t be a controversial position to take.

[IceTrayDaGang]

What else did I write? If you stop the silliness and read the whole post and try to comprehend it, it’s clear to anyone that reads above a 6th grade level that I don’t think every jury call is correct.

As you pointed out, I clearly stated the King cops verdict was not right imo. I said same about the OJ verdict.

You literally just posted the same thing I said yesterday. So clearly you are just wasting time.

Ok, so that leads back to my question that a jury's verdict is not always the right call, RIGHT?? Because you said the verdict for GF is the right call, but the verdict for 1992 is not the right call. SO A JURY'S VERDICT IS NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT CALL.

[ShoulderRoll]

Read what he wrote again.

Did the medical examiner write that the levels of fentanyl in Floyd’s system were fatal under normal circumstances, yes or no?

[The Big Dunn]

Did the medical examiner write that the levels of fentanyl in Floyd’s system were fatal under normal circumstances, yes or no?

No. He said the following;

"If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3," Baker told investigators.

In another new document, Baker said, "That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances."

But then Baker added, "I am not saying this killed him."

You can’t parse out a piece and make it seem like he said nothing before or after it to clarify his position.

You’re making yourself look extremely bad here.

[The Big Dunn]

Ok, so that leads back to my question that a jury's verdict is not always the right call, RIGHT?? Because you said the verdict for GF is the right call, but the verdict for 1992 is not the right call. SO A JURY'S VERDICT IS NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT CALL.

I said this yesterday. Why are you wasting time?

[IceTrayDaGang]

I said this yesterday. Why are you wasting time?

So bump it! Why are you making it so hard? If you said this yesterday, show me and we can end this here. A jury's verdict is not always right. Agree or disagree? Since it seems like yes or no is scaring you off from answering this lol.