Not gonna lie, I'm about to run out of popcorn.

The ability to bring a case has nothing to do with making an arrest. Those who make the arrest aren't even the people who're going to make the case. Quite frankly, nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about. Least of all you.

>goomshill cites constitutional law precedent
>liberals cite tears

There's nothing in Constitutional Law that prevents law enforcement from arresting those who commit crimes the moment they witness or find evidence of crimes being committed. Nothing. Zero. The opposite is, in fact, true.

You keep crying because there was evidence of a crime, and a guy was arrested. If you see something wrong with the charges, please note specifically what your issues are. Otherwise, quit with your liberal tears and shut the fuck up.

Thanks. ♥

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 4 2020 11:14pm

>Goom makes an extreme analogy
>Goom cites legal precedent to show that what happens in his analogy was bad
>Goom ignores facts about the case that are inconvenient to his argument while literally the entire rest of the forum, left and right, disagree with him
>Goom goes LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU


Seriously, this is a very weird time for PaRD where me, Bob, Scaly, Fender, and disembodied head all agree.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 4 2020 11:18pm

Maybe try to think of it this way. I'll use an analogy.

Say it's 1958. White girl gets pregnant and for w/e reason accuses black guy of rape. Whole town comes out and hangs black kid. We KNOW that's not right.

Today, with G. Floyd we have a similar situation. Whether the police officer is guilty or not... isn't this pretty much just like the mob rule in the 1958 example.
Even IF, the police officer gets adequate representation, and a some what fair judge... is there really any chance for a... truly fair trial. Minneapolis in toto, has already convicted this police officer.
Hell, half the country has already convicted him.

Can this police officer get an even remotely fair trial...in the US at this time?

Remove fender from that list. Fender's entire point is that everything is racism, and this was a racist act.

I've seen no evidence indicating that is the case. Police brutality? Certainly. Wrongful death/involuntary murder? Absolutely. Racism? I won't say no, but I see no evidence.

Literally everything else in your post sounds good. Carry on.



That's not an analogy. That's not even a simile.

You've literally just attempted to compare a false accusation followed by a lynching to video evidence followed by due process. What's wrong with you?

Edit: Just to note that while you are granted a jury of your peers, you are not granted an unbiased jury. And no trial can be considered "fair" because innocence is presumed. When there is any presumption, there's an inherent bias.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 4 2020 11:34pm

Probably, my fault, but you're missing my point.
I'm not talking about the evidence or what happened to G. Floyd.

I'm asking one simple question. Can that police officer get a jury anywhere oin the US that isn't already biased?

We are supposed to be guaranteed a trial by a fair and impartial jury of our peers. Do you think, that at this time, that police officer can get a fair and impartial jury, anywhere in the US?
Because, by law, if he can't... then the case must be dismissed or delayed or something.

In other words, if he can't get a trial with a fair and impartial jury of his peers... he can't be convicted at least.


/e I would assume that by default the same holds true for the judge in the trial. What will be going through that judges head, if he happens to be the one that's lets that police officer... off the hook.
His career and possibly his life will be over.



/ee tl;dr version... all this protesting and rioting may just get the police officer... off the hook. Whether he was guilty or not of causing G. Floyd's death.

Keep in mind, that the trial will have to determine if the officer kneeling on his neck, was ACTUALLY the cause of death.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 4 2020 11:40pm

See my edit. But I saw your response before you made it. Juries are inherently biased. Towards innocent. That's the only presumption that exists.

I honestly believe Chauvin is guilty of several crimes. I'd have zero issue whatsoever providing an innocence verdict were I on the jury. I don't give a shit about he said she said. Only evidence. And starting from "Innocent until proven" it's entirely possible to instill that doubt.

The problem isn't what people think today. Sure, you can find 12 people who haven't seen the news or heard of the case. Easily. Sure, you can find people who don't give a shit whatsoever. The problem is, one of the first pieces of evidence that's going to be shown to that jury is the Facebook Live video, in it's entirety, that shows what happened.

The EXACT same thing that has "biased" nearly everyone with a TV or Computer against Chauvin would have an impact on any reasonable Jury: Evidence.

Anyhow, I fail to see your point because you've failed to make one.

See my /ee edit.

The prosecution has to PROVE that it wasn't a heart condition or too many drugs that killed G. Floyd. I saw a video of an officer kneeling on a young woman's neck (during these protests). A fellow office pulled him off the young woman... she bounced up cussin' and spittin' like no one's business. The defense is gonna show that video too, and try to prove that G. Floyd wouldn't have died if he wasn't wacked out on 3-4 drugs at the time.

I'm NOT trying to defend the officer. I'm just saying that the prosecution will have to PROVE beyond the shadow of a doubt, that ONLY the knee of the officer, killed G. Floyd.

Add to that, the judge's responsibility to disallow at minimum, any conviction, if he believes the jury is NOT fair and impartial.



And I don't care if you live in a cabin in the Rockies. There is no one, by now, who hasn't heard about this incident. They surely heard about the riots, etc., and natural curiosity would have them trying to find out what caused the riots.


/e PLUS, the defense will be able to say, because of the coroner's report, that G. Floyd had cardio vascular disease and was infected with covid-19, and had 3-4 narcotics in his system as well.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jun 4 2020 11:52pm

That's false. That's simply not how involuntary manslaughter and/or wrongful death charges work. The prosecution only has to PROVE that unlawful brutality by police contributed to the death.

Listen, I'm not a lawyer, but your argument has so many holes, I'm starting to feel like I should be. STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME LOOK GOOD!

Asshole.