quote:

Originally posted by Ironbutt:
The defense needs to do a demonstration for the jury. Take a non-fentanyl & non-meth using member of the jury, handcuff them, lay them on the floor, then hold them there with a knee on their neck. After 10 or 15 minutes the jury member can get up all by themselves, not short of breath, take a bow, and say, "Drugs are bad, mmkay."

This exactly

Should do that to each member of the jury, not just one.

The Lieutenant's testimony is interesting.

Give us a bullet list of what he’s saying....some of us can’t watch it.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
Give us a bullet list of what he’s saying....some of us can’t watch it.

I'll let someone else go down that road.

You don't really like this forum, do you, cheni? By that, I mean you don't like the members in general.

Oh, now you're going to get quiet.

I could only stand 45 mins of that video link.
Wow, where is journalism?
All I heard was them making multiple statements (their opinions) of LEO being guilty.

Reminds me of why I really dislike the bias in media.

quote:

Reminds me of why I really dislike the bias in media.

^^^^^^^^^^^
I particularly hate the phrase, "Now I am going to tell you what just happened." The newscaster used to read the news from printed copy{which they wrote}. Following the news there might be another newscaster who offers an editiorial, which was clearly labeled as such.

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:
The Lieutenant's testimony is interesting.

That lieutenant is a dimwit.

Attorney: Can you tell us what hold for EMS is?
Lieutenant: Yes, it's when we hold them for EMS.

He was serious.

That's only one example. There were several more "brilliant" answers.

I wonder...when it is Chauvin's side time to speak, would WP give the same amount of time and coverage to those details?

Chauvin Trial Day 5 Wrap-Up: Poorly Informed Witnesses Provide State with Poorly Informed Opinions

https://lawofselfdefense.com/c...y-informed-opinions/

I just fast forward through the commentary. I'm just interested in the trial.

Why do you think I don't like the members in general?

Have I been mean to any members?

It seems some members don't agree that putting a knee on the neck of a passed out handcuffed man for 5 min. is wrong.

Some members called me obtuse, blind, having ignorance, and having an agenda.

You warned me to "cool it" so ya, now i'm getting quiet.

I just said the LT. testimony was interesting and provided a link which had it in it. One has to decide if they want to listen to the talking head during court room breaks. I do not.

As for bullet points. That seemed like something some other member would be better at than me. And why stick my head out any farther than I already have.

I just thought people should listen to the LT. testimony.

I won't comment anymore if that is your advise. I'll just share the trial videos but I won't be responsible for editing out the commentary for the members.

No one answered LS1 GTO's Question either.

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:
You warned me to "cool it" so ya, now i'm getting quiet.

You have four posts on this page alone. Discounting your response to me, that leaves three posts from you on this page alone. Is that your idea of getting quiet?

You didn't answer my question. Do you like the members in general? It's the members who make up the forum. It's not the various sections, or the framework for the forum or any of that. What makes the forum is the members, and the members of this forum are decidedly conservative. And here you come into this thread posing questions such as "Even if the evidence doesn't convince the jury, can we just find him guilty anyway? You know, to make a point."

Now, just who do you think you're fooling when you tell us that you are watching the trial in order to make a decision as to guilt or innocence?

You're about as unbiased as Louis Farrakhan. You want this man to go to jail regardless of the evidence. You want me to leave you alone and you want to be taken seriously here? Then, cut the shit. Be honest about all of this. Your opinion is your opinion, but I can't stand dishonesty.

quote:

I just thought people should listen to the LT. testimony.

^^^^^^^^^
Who is LT? How do I distinguish him from WP? Are they related to WTF??? Please explain. Acronyms or abbreviations are very annoying.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

I just thought people should listen to the LT. testimony.

^^^^^^^^^
Who is LT? How do I distinguish him from WP? Are they related to WTF??? Please explain. Acronyms or abbreviations are very annoying.

Lieutenant. The Lieutenant's testimony is included n the video Cheni posted.

OK thanks. How about WP. Washington Post???

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:

It seems some members don't agree that putting a knee on the neck of a passed out handcuffed man for 5 min. is wrong.

The question at hand is whether or not it was murder. The moral question is not on trial. Chauvin being a piece of shit human being (if that is your belief) is completely irrelevant to this trial.

Your inability, whether deliberate or not, to understand the facts of this case is what is perplexing to most members. The man wasn't suffocated. So why do you keep on insisting that he was?

I had the 1 one post about the LT. Testimony being interesting. Then I responded to a request for bullet points with a statement. I then shared a video of todays testimony so every member could watch for themselves (that kind of was an extra post because I didn't group the two. Sorry

Then I answered 2 two posts from you directly.

Now I am going to answer another from you.

1- "You have four posts on this page alone. Discounting your response to me, that leaves three posts from you on this page alone. Is that your idea of getting quiet?
just answered.

2-a- "You didn't answer my question. Do you like the members in general? It's the members who make up the forum. It's not the various sections, or the framework for the forum or any of that. What makes the forum is the members, and the members of this forum are decidedly conservative."
Yes I like the members in general. I asked why you think I don't. Is it simply because most don't agree with me about knees on necks?

Does that make me not a conservative?


"And here you come into this thread posing questions such as "Even if the evidence doesn't convince the jury, can we just find him guilty anyway? You know, to make a point."

I don't think I said this word for word, not sure why you used quotes?. Are you talking about me asking a question about jury nullification?

I think its a fair question. It wasn't answered like most of my questions. And LS1GTO's question.

Do you want me to stop commenting?


Might as well answer Balze Halze in this post too.

"The question at hand is whether or not it was murder. The moral question is not on trial. Chauvin being a piece of shit human being (if that is your belief) is completely irrelevant to this trial."

It was like a murder for 5 min. with 3 men on top after he passed out. In my opinion. Intentional murder? nope.

"Your inability, whether deliberate or not, to understand the facts of this case is what is perplexing to most members. The man wasn't suffocated. So why do you keep on insisting that he was?" Because I watched him die on video from 6 different angles. The ME hasn't even testified yet. Why do you keep insisting he wasn't suffocated?

Have you watched all of the testimony in the trial by witnesses and the video evidence presented so far? I have posted the youtube videos here in this thread so everyone can watch.

Oh ya and rackrack called a 27 year police veteran who has been a detective for 20 years a dimwit. Probably because he doesn't agree or something. The white Sargent testified that he had never heard of the term "hold for EMS" so.