Charlie Kirk Sets B.L.M Supporter Straight On George Floyd

[The Big Dunn]

Yes!! all yall so damm serious in here, both sides... I figure a little laughter is needed to change the scenery in here.

That you think that is laughter is embarrassing.

[The Big Dunn]

come on... as another poster said it was a show trial, you really think chauvin thought it would be a smart idea to murder someone when everyone is filming it? the pressure he put on floydy shouldnt have killed him but he was in poor health and full of drugs, thats manslaughter not murder and if it was an approved restraint (i genuinely dont know) he shouildnt have got any sentence at all

As I said before he lost control. He was so excited choking a black man that went too far despite the cameras being there.

You keep trying to dance around this part- he filed a false police report. He lied because he knew he was wrong.

The local media detailed the story using that report. The people that saw it were so mad he lied they started posting videos to show what actually happened.

Stop with the racist speculations. You have no idea what pressure was put on him. Regurgitating lies proven false by witness testimony doesn’t make your argument valid.

It wasn’t approved according to testimony at trial.

We all get you- you want the white cop absolved because he killed a black man.

[IceTrayDaGang]

Yes for no reason. Was a different time in America. That case was moved to a part of California that was all white. I don’t believe the jury had any blacks on it. Had the jury been in LA where this went down, the jury would be completely different. That contributed to the anger and rage.

The community felt this was a terrible verdict made by a mostly white jury. Doesn’t in any way justify the riots and killing. But I do understand why they were so angry.

Reminder- two officers were found guilty of federal charges. Also King won his civil suit against LA.

I said the jury found him guilty because he got caught lying on the official police report, which killed his credibility. Coupled with the expert testimony and video evidence, he got found guilty.

Note this case wasn’t moved to small white suburb in Minnesota to give the defense an advantage like in the King case.

Also, a much different time. 30 years later the system adjusted to make sure verdicts like the King one didn’t happen again.

BUT the jury found those cops not guilty so why are you even trying to argue about this? Just like how you are bringing the jury into this saying Chauvin was found guilty, so why are folks trying to argue about this. I am pointing out to you that just because the jury found a person guilty or not guilty, it doesnt always mean it's the right call. That's all .............

[Hector Enrique]

As I said before he lost control. He was so excited choking a black man that went to far despite the cameras being there.

You keep trying to dance around this part- he filed a false police report. He lied because he knew he was wrong.

The local media detailed the story using that report. The people that saw it were so mad he lied they started posting videos to show what actually happened.

Stop with the racist speculations. You have no idea what pressure was put on him. Regurgitating lies proven false by witness testimony doesn’t make your argument valid.

It wasn’t approved according to testimony at trial.

We all get you- you want the white cop absolved because he killed a black man.

the only person out of control was floydy

[IceTrayDaGang]

That you think that is laughter is embarrassing.

Sorry for having a sense of humor... Damm bruh.

[The Big Dunn]

BUT the jury found those cops not guilty so why are you even trying to argue about this? Just like how you are bringing the jury into this saying Chauvin was found guilty, so why are folks trying to argue about this. I am pointing out to you that just because the jury found a person guilty or not guilty, it doesnt always mean it's the right call. That's all .............

I haven’t argued the verdict. I explained the difference in context in the situations.

You aren’t so dumb that you don’t realize how
Moving the trial to a town with no black people
impacted the verdict. You just gonna ignore it just to try and make the situations equal.

Yes but that is more likely with black victims, as the overwhelming difference in race of people released for false arrest/charges indicates.

The 6th ********* states that in all criminal prosecutions , the accused criminal has the right to a trial by an impartial jury of the state and district in which the individual allegedly committed a crime. Chauvin had that.

The LA cops that beat King had a partial jury outside of the district where the crime was committed.

Significant difference.

[The Big Dunn]

the only person out of control was floydy

See you still dancing around the fact Chauvin lied on the police report which is the primary reason he got convicted- he couldn’t testify on his own behalf because he compromised his honesty and integrity.

[Hector Enrique]

See you still dancing around the fact Chauvin lied on the police report which is the primary reason he got convicted- he couldn’t testify on his own behalf because he compromised his honesty and integrity.

you are too focused on the report, watch the video

[The Big Dunn]

you are too focused on the report, watch the video

You mean I am pointing out he lied on the report and that by doing so he compromised himself.

The video doesn’t change that or mitigate it in any way.

You just keep ignoring that because again you are fine that he lied in the report since it was a black dude that he killed.

[IceTrayDaGang]

I haven’t argued the verdict. I explained the difference in context in the situations.

You aren’t so dumb that you don’t realize how
Moving the trial to a town with no black people
impacted the verdict. You just gonna ignore it just to try and make the situations equal.

Yes but that is more likely with black victims, as the overwhelming difference in race of people released for false arrest/charges indicates.

The 6th ********* states that in all criminal prosecutions , the accused criminal has the right to a trial by an impartial jury of the state and district in which the individual allegedly committed a crime. Chauvin had that.

The LA cops that beat King had a partial jury outside of the district where the crime was committed.

Significant difference.

Once again, you are making excuses and picking and choosing when to believe the jury.. You said the jury found Chauvin guilty so what's there to argue about?

The jury found those cops not guilty so what's there to argue about?

The other poster suggested that the jury found Chauvin guilty because they didnt want a riot to happen (reason why OJ walked) and you call that dumb..

Now you are trying to say the 1992 case, the trial took place in a town with no black people, impacted the verdict?

Look in the mirror every once in a while my boy!