I would like to thank, in advance of MLB season, everyone in this thread for reminding me why certain people are on my ignore list. Solid work, amigos.
I have not seen the indictment, so I have no idea what he was charged with, if anything, besides the robbery. The charges are irrelevant to the crimes committed. Assuming the statement of probable cause is true (which I will do, given his conviction by plea to a first degree felony armed robbery with a firearm) in addition to robbery he committed aggravated assault (using or exhibiting a deadly weapon while threatening someone with serious bodily injury or death) under Texas Penal Code section 22.02 and burglary (entering a habitation and committing a felony, theft, or assault) under section 30.02. Many times a defendant will be charged with or enter a plea deal for only one count, even though multiple crimes are committed in a single course of action. If he pointed a gun at someone, then he assaulted them, under both Texas statutory law and common law.
I don't understand the passion to defend extrajudicial public executions. Wasn't Timothy McVeigh safely apprehended during a traffic stop while with an armed weapon? Or that asian spa guy that killed 8 people? Or all those school shooters. I thought our laws were structured to give people their day in court even if they blow up government buildings with people inside or kill forced into the industry sex workers or kill children even.
So just so I’m straight here.... the entire premise of the argument on the right is that George Floyd deserved to get murdered right? I mean there’s really no way around what posters like the Tomtro guy is arguing. So if vigilante justice is what the right wants, how do they never get pressed to give an opinion on how when it is that anytime there is a Dylan Roof that gets apprehended, they get served Burger King on their way to jail by the cops and get a full trial?? If the right wants to be consistent (hint... they don’t) shouldn’t they be pissed off when cops don’t murder white people at apprehension when they are suspected mass shooters? They don’t want to be consistent and they really don’t want to argue this point they are making. It’s simply a tactic to avoid talking plainly about what happened so we can continue to avoid changes happening as an outcome of the GF or any other racist killing by cops. The way black people are policed is a societal tool for intimidation and everyone on the right knows this and encourages systematic tools they feel holds their place in society. It’s really just plainly that simple.
Yes. Even if George Floyd had been a serial killer doesn't mean Chauvin as a police officer can kill him. It will be a very dangerous world if it is acceptable for police to kill or harm suspects while apprehending them and holding them in custody based on past character. At that point we might as well dispense with courts.
your beginning premise is off therefore I didn’t read the rest. Nowhere did I ever say that someone deserved to die. Actually I did say that if it was intentional murder that the cop should fry. So, basically, you just need to read things without putting your own spin on it.
There is literally no other way to interpret the argument’s ultimate conclusion. ... but George Floyd was a terrible person ... is providing justification. There’s just no other way to interpret.
this is entirely irrelevant. Nobody is defending the “execution”. We are trying to find out if it actually was an “execution” in court.
The fact that you couldn’t just say the cop should be brought to justice for murdering a black man and had to bumble about for pages and pages of nonsense proves my point.
Again in one sentence you prove my point. You insert a debate tactic as a tool to not just call a situation what it is and take a defense position in the end for the rights insistence on stopping social justice.
Okay. If you were Chauvin's judge and had sole power to determine his guilt or innocence, what would it be? If guilty, what are your charges against Chauvin and what is the sentencing?
as I have said repeatedly, I have to see how the trial goes to make up my mind. Exactly like the judge and jury has to do.Please lets not expect the judge/jury to already have a verdict ready.
So you're a coward. See, I think Chauvin is guilty of first degree murder. I don't need to be a judge or a part of the jury to have an opinion on this. Coward.
