Derek Chauvin Trial

For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.

In memory of our lost political forum members. :cry:

Moderator: Biker

What does UJR think the outcome will be? Innocent, Guilty, Hung Jury/Mistrial

Poll ended at Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:09 pm

Innocent
3
15%
Guilty
7
35%
Mistrial/Hung Jury
0
No votes
Shit's gonna be set on fire
9
45%
Erick Gifford is Leet
1
5%
 
Total votes: 20

User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#501

Post by Burn1dwn »

"The thing is, he was honest about his underlying belief, which is that he felt very favorably about Black Lives Matter," Osler said. "The attorneys knew that. And they also knew that that attitude based off lived experience is not a reason to bar jury service."

Osler said it is important to note that Nelson ended with peremptory strikes to burn. Peremptory strikes are used when an attorney believes a potential juror cannot be impartial.

"We can't expect that we can form a truly diverse jury without a truly diverse range of lived experiences," Osler said. "Part of what comes to the surface is that if we want a jury of our peers, we find out what our peers had gone through."

"We can't write off Black jurors because they have lived their lives as Black people," Osler said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ch ... l-n1266337
User avatar
pork
Grouchy old fart.
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
Location: frisco

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#502

Post by pork »

there are black jurors and then there are black jurors that lied about marching over the act that they were going to be the juror on.

yes...juries should be diverse. yes they should be full of life experiences. they should also be picked based on the full merit of what they are sworn to in their statements. the dude would have never made the jury pool had he disclosed it.
User avatar
Burn1dwn
Non-Gay Omar
Posts: 3735
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#503

Post by Burn1dwn »

pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:27 pm there are black jurors and then there are black jurors that lied about marching over the act that they were going to be the juror on.

yes...juries should be diverse. yes they should be full of life experiences. they should also be picked based on the full merit of what they are sworn to in their statements. the dude would have never made the jury pool had he disclosed it.
You need to read the article. He disclosed everything including his favorable view of BLM which he sees as statement and not a movement or organization. He also disclosed his neutral view on Blue Lives Matter which he thinks is competing with BLM when they shouldn't be competing ideas.

This is all because he bought a souvenir at the MLK rally that has something Al Sharpton said on it. Not because he was caught lying or misrepresenting his ideals.
User avatar
pork
Grouchy old fart.
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
Location: frisco

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#504

Post by pork »

Burn1dwn wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:44 pm
pork wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:27 pm there are black jurors and then there are black jurors that lied about marching over the act that they were going to be the juror on.

yes...juries should be diverse. yes they should be full of life experiences. they should also be picked based on the full merit of what they are sworn to in their statements. the dude would have never made the jury pool had he disclosed it.
You need to read the article. He disclosed everything including his favorable view of BLM which he sees as statement and not a movement or organization. He also disclosed his neutral view on Blue Lives Matter which he thinks is competing with BLM when they shouldn't be competing ideas.

This is all because he bought a souvenir at the MLK rally that has something Al Sharpton said on it. Not because he was caught lying or misrepresenting his ideals.
i have to find the article i read...it was pointing to him not disclosing the marching in a rally. let me try and find it.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#505

Post by Animal »

Burn1dwn wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 11:12 pm
"The thing is, he was honest about his underlying belief, which is that he felt very favorably about Black Lives Matter," Osler said. "The attorneys knew that. And they also knew that that attitude based off lived experience is not a reason to bar jury service."

Osler said it is important to note that Nelson ended with peremptory strikes to burn. Peremptory strikes are used when an attorney believes a potential juror cannot be impartial.

"We can't expect that we can form a truly diverse jury without a truly diverse range of lived experiences," Osler said. "Part of what comes to the surface is that if we want a jury of our peers, we find out what our peers had gone through."

"We can't write off Black jurors because they have lived their lives as Black people," Osler said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ch ... l-n1266337
I read all of that. And I would say that if the only thing he did was attend the DC rally and he bought a T shirt just because he wanted a shirt as memorabilia and that is the end of the story in regards to his participation, then its probably not a big deal. They also mention in the article that there is such a thing as a "Schwartz Hearing" where jurors are questioned on these kind of things after a case to determine if it had any influence on their outcome. That is interesting.

Now, if something else were to come out that this juror was much more involved in the Floyd riots or the anti-police movement, then that would be different. I mean, some of FLoyd's family spoke at that rally that he might have been at.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#506

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:50 pm That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#507

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 am
Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:50 pm That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
Yep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.

I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
User avatar
pork
Grouchy old fart.
Posts: 4040
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:48 pm
Location: frisco

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#508

Post by pork »

the judge wasnt throwing out all of the moving work that was done over a statement made by the congresswoman. what he said was if you lose she probably tee'd you up for a great appeal. lets go to then end and then after the decision we can figure it out. if they won they obviously wouldn't have appealed the decision.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#509

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 am
Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:50 pm That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
Yep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.

I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
Do you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#510

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 am
Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:50 pm That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
Yep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.

I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
Do you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.
:lol: Yeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#511

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:20 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 am
Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm
CaptQuint wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:50 pm That Judge could have said he thinks Derek is a good dude and deserves a medal. His opinion is as important as yours in the matter.
actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
Yep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.

I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
Do you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.
:lol: Yeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.
Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
And what do you think these words mean exactly?

Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#512

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:52 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:20 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 am
Animal wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 10:54 pm

actually, his opinion, since he is a judge and all, is a bit more meaningful than mine or yours on the matter (since we aren't judges and stuff).

But the point is, every time you post the quotes of the judge from that day, you always leave out that same sentence. The ones that makes you look stupid.
The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
Yep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.

I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
Do you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.
:lol: Yeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.
Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
And what do you think these words mean exactly?

Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
I know exactly what it means , you fucking idiot. It means that judges hate mistrials and they hate their cases to be appealed. But guess what? They only have control over one of those two outcomes. They get to decide which ones are mistrials. And that number averages below 4%. Because they hate mistrials. It looks bad on them and it wastes money.

But, as you say, they probably don't like their cases to be appealed, either. But they have no say in that outcome. And over 20% of all cases, like this one, are appealed. Because of shit like this. Which he pointed out very clearly in easy to understand language.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#513

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:55 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:52 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:20 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:18 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 2:00 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:40 am

The judge heard the moron to dismiss and he ruled against it. That tells you his opinion of it. You don't seem to understand that.
Yep. I got his opinion very explicitly. Since he said what it was.

I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
Do you understand that judges don't actually want to be overturned on appeal? He stated two things, that it might be grounds for appeal and that he did not believe that appeal would succeed.
:lol: Yeah, just read into it and suggest things you think he meant. I'm just going by what words mean.
Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
And what do you think these words mean exactly?

Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?
I know exactly what it means , you fucking idiot. It means that judges hate mistrials and they hate their cases to be appealed. But guess what? They only have control over one of those two outcomes. They get to decide which ones are mistrials. And that number averages below 4%. Because they hate mistrials. It looks bad on them and it wastes money.

But, as you say, they probably don't like their cases to be appealed, either. But they have no say in that outcome. And over 20% of all cases, like this one, are appealed. Because of shit like this. Which he pointed out very clearly in easy to understand language.
Just going to ignore the fact that the Judge clearly and explicitly stated he did not think it would matter then? Mmmkay.

I did not in fact say they don't like their cases to be appealed, something they indeed do not control. I said they don't like their cases to be overturned - because then they done goofed. And that is in fact something they have a degree of control over, by, for example, granting a motion for a mistrial if they think it would succeed on appeal.

Are you capable of digging real deep, like a big boy, and trying to comprehend what the judge actually said about this? The thing I just quoted for you. What. Does. It. Say.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#514

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:59 pm
Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
And what do you think these words mean exactly?

Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?


Just going to ignore the fact that the Judge clearly and explicitly stated he did not think it would matter then? Mmmkay.

I did not in fact say they don't like their cases to be appealed, something they indeed do not control. I said they don't like their cases to be overturned - because then they done goofed. And that is in fact something they have a degree of control over, by, for example, granting a motion for a mistrial if they think it would succeed on appeal.

Are you capable of digging real deep, like a big boy, and trying to comprehend what the judge actually said about this? The thing I just quoted for you. What. Does. It. Say.
Why does your dumb fucking ass keep leaving out the one sentence that the Judge added to all of that which says exactly what I am talking about? Why did you intentionally leave that out? Is it because it makes you look fucking stupid?

He said this ------> I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.

Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later. If this was all written in hieroglyphs or something debatable, I would say you might have a point and I am mis-interpreting what a symbol means. But these are words that he spoke out of his mouth in a language that I speak.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#515

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:59 pm
Cahill wrote:This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
And what do you think these words mean exactly?

Since you dodged the question, I assume you in fact don't understand that judges do not want to be overturned on appeal?


Just going to ignore the fact that the Judge clearly and explicitly stated he did not think it would matter then? Mmmkay.

I did not in fact say they don't like their cases to be appealed, something they indeed do not control. I said they don't like their cases to be overturned - because then they done goofed. And that is in fact something they have a degree of control over, by, for example, granting a motion for a mistrial if they think it would succeed on appeal.

Are you capable of digging real deep, like a big boy, and trying to comprehend what the judge actually said about this? The thing I just quoted for you. What. Does. It. Say.
Why does your dumb fucking ass keep leaving out the one sentence that the Judge added to all of that which says exactly what I am talking about? Why did you intentionally leave that out? Is it because it makes you look fucking stupid?

He said this ------> I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.

Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later. If this was all written in hieroglyphs or something debatable, I would say you might have a point and I am mis-interpreting what a symbol means. But these are words that he spoke out of his mouth in a language that I speak.
He said first that it may be grounds for appeal, and then he ruled on whether it was grounds for a mistrial. He said the following:
This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
What did he say?

You understand you are dodging a question which simply asks you if you are capable of reading? Why do you think that is? What did he say about this thing you are pretending he thought completely overturned the whole trial? You pathetic fucking baby.
User avatar
Stapes
World's Only Blue Collar Guy
Posts: 12853
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:50 pm
Location: Port St Lucie former Dirty Jerzey

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#516

Post by Stapes »

Maxine Waters is the least reason this thing would get appealed..... Mr. MLK is the poison fruit and I don't think even that has much of a chance.
I blame Biker.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#517

Post by Animal »

Stapes wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:21 pm Maxine Waters is the least reason this thing would get appealed..... Mr. MLK is the poison fruit and I don't think even that has much of a chance.
I really don't think it does either. And even if something did rise to the level of creating an appeal, its not going to matter in the end. But it creates news stories.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#518

Post by AnalHamster »

What a pathetic little mental midget you are.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#519

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 pm What a pathetic little mental midget you are.
fuck off you repetitious hair splitting faggot. your circle logic is old.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#520

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:27 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 pm What a pathetic little mental midget you are.
fuck off you repetitious hair splitting faggot. your circle logic is old.
Asking you what the judge said isn't circular logic you pathetic tit, it's asking if you can read and then admit what you have read. You can't.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#521

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:11 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:27 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 pm What a pathetic little mental midget you are.
fuck off you repetitious hair splitting faggot. your circle logic is old.
Asking you what the judge said isn't circular logic you pathetic tit, it's asking if you can read and then admit what you have read. You can't.
my god, you fucking idiot. i couldn't have been any more clear.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#522

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:14 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:11 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:27 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 8:15 pm What a pathetic little mental midget you are.
fuck off you repetitious hair splitting faggot. your circle logic is old.
Asking you what the judge said isn't circular logic you pathetic tit, it's asking if you can read and then admit what you have read. You can't.
my god, you fucking idiot. i couldn't have been any more clear.
In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#523

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:16 pm In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
Look, you tedious, stupid, prick. Read this.
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pm Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later.
If your dumb ass cannot figure out what those fucking words mean, then there is no hope for you. The rest of your life will be as much of a waste as it has been up to this point.
User avatar
AnalHamster
Doctor Chaser
Posts: 6471
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:46 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#524

Post by AnalHamster »

Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:21 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:16 pm In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
Look, you tedious, stupid, prick. Read this.
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pm Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later.
If your dumb ass cannot figure out what those fucking words mean, then there is no hope for you. The rest of your life will be as much of a waste as it has been up to this point.
Yes, he said it 'may' be grounds for appeal but he does not think that appeal would succeed. Which part aren't you grasping?
This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
What does that say, you dumb fuck?
User avatar
Animal
The Great Pretender
Posts: 28041
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 pm

Re: Derek Chauvin Trial

#525

Post by Animal »

AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:56 pm
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:21 pm
AnalHamster wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 9:16 pm In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
Look, you tedious, stupid, prick. Read this.
Animal wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pm Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later.
If your dumb ass cannot figure out what those fucking words mean, then there is no hope for you. The rest of your life will be as much of a waste as it has been up to this point.
Yes, he said it 'may' be grounds for appeal but he does not think that appeal would succeed. Which part aren't you grasping?
This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.

Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
What does that say, you dumb fuck?
in a fucking Nut Shell, it says that he thinks it might be reason to have the case overturned. Now you can keep repeating this and twisting it in any direction you want, but that's what the fuck he said.
Post Reply