Rittenhouse yeah.. Potter.. yeah ok I could see it, but Chauvin? No way lol

Facts and logic to one side, feels to the other.

Personally I think the accused should be tried solely on the facts of a case, with the benefits of the constitutional protections they are supposedly guaranteed. But this is a democracy, and far more people think the accused should be tried based on larger socio-political narratives and appeasing mobs. Potter retained Earl Grey, one of the most lauded (and expensive) defense attorneys around, but I saw the mistakes unfolding every time he opened his mouth. He kept telling the jury about 'what our forefathers intended'. An idealist might be fooled into thinking that's a good argument, but a realist would recognize that a jury of prejudiced sin city residents would be instantly alienated by keywords they associate with the right wing. He tried to argue about the elements of a manslaughter conviction and the text of the statutes they are supposed to be deliberating on, when the prosecutors knew the jury would go back to that room and start talking about their feelings and emotional reactions and spent more time debating racial justice and equity than Kim Potter's mens rea. Chauvin never had a chance, I said at the time they would convict him of sodomy, regicide and debasing currency if they were on the docket

Imagine believing this. How is it that everytime a right wing hero murders someone, goons on the right are so quick to say "Floyd died of an overdose while he happened to be choked to death by Chauvin's knee", "Heather Heyer coincidentally died of a heart attacked after being run over by a Nazi", "Bryan Sicknick didn't die of being beaten with a fire extinguisher and maced he just HAPPENED to have a stroke right after"

goon-shill jumped to the defence of ahmaud arbery's murderers as well, so how can it surprise you that he was fine with chauvin?

Well some of us actually have the bare minimum mental capacity to register facts and form our views based upon them instead of the reverse.
Like how I read the Floyd autopsy and everything I've said since then has been a tired recitation of those facts
Or how I pointed out that Heyer died of heart damage after her coronal artery was severed, by James Field's car, you know, that basic forensic analysis again
Or how Brian Sicknick didn't die of being beaten with a fire extinguisher because that never actually happened and was completely fabricated and there was never any evidence of that, you know, facts.

I mean yea facts if you live in a fantasy land. Keep going though the world sees you all for what you are.

When you 'informed' yourself that Brian Sicknick died of being bashed in the head with a fire extinguisher, were you reading CNN?

They have a video of him being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. Do you get your fair and balanced takes from parler posts? Get real.

Please, post that video. I value your spectral evidence

Lol. Typical its a google search away.

Regardless how do the ghouls on the right always come up with alternative explanations when their terrorists murder someone? Why are you pivoting away so hard?