The Derek Chauvin Trial

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

If they are going to use the defense of they were simply following their master then they will have go on the stand and answer Prosecution questions.

Not necessarily. Although they will have the right to go on the stand if they choose to do so.

0 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

They will have to go on the stand and answer questions the prosecutor present to them.

They will have the option to do so. They will not be required to do it.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Uh huh. And yet, you still can't find any arguent against what I said. It is reasonable to expect of a person of any colour....to be aware of all the issues I said...before shooting a person of any colour in the victims own home. It ius not reasonable for a shooter to have turned a blind eye to the mountain of facts she faced, no matter her race, and no matter the victims race.

Such an expectation doesn't change for race.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The fact that your position is absurd and unreasonable is a pretty good argument against it.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Well now that you said that, I have to add you to the list of people who think this thread (or any other) is better because you post on it.
By a quick calculation (and I haven’t checked my math yet so don’t hold me to it) that list now has a grand total of
1 person on it.

I think threads are made better when Max posts on them.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

And I wasn't, so it's a moot point.

You have no business impugning someone's intelligence if you cannot even point out anything untrue in their posts.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think that list is actually 3.
But who is counting.

I'm one of the three I presume.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Nope. Just an opinion on your part. No argument on your part. No justification. The only reason you argue is the shooter was white, and the victim was black....just like you've argued each and every other conflict between a white person and black person....for you, the white person is in the right every time, the black person is in the wrong.

Thing is - for me, it wouldn't matter the skin colour - any person who shot another person in such circumstances would be in the wrong. It just happens that on these forums, such posts come to light because of the racial tensions in your country. I post based on who I think is in the wrong - and can articulate it without ignoring anything, and able to see from both perspectives. You post based on race.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Wrong. The fact that your position is absurd and unreasonable is very much an argument against it.

Absurd and unreasonable positions are bad positions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And yet you are not able to articulate why you think it absurd.

It is very easy make claims. Another thing to articulate why / actually back it up.

You've gotten into a habit of this, despite your claims to truth / honesty / dealing in reality / facts.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Wrong. I have articulated why your position is absurd.

Again: "It is possible for an honest mistake to be unreasonable."

"Your list of claims as to why it could not be an honest mistake are all completely untrue. Not one of those factors precludes it from being an honest mistake."

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

"It is possible for an honest mistake to be unreasonable."

We actually agree on this - to a degree. So you have not articulated why it is absurd.

The degree is - 'honest' mistakes are reasonable only if they hadn't considered something obvious - ie. an honest oversight. People can call such a single oversight unreasonable (which doesn't make it so when it is honest). Honest oversight is the big part of honest mistake. Unfortunately, the officer would have had to:
- not see/consider the different doormat
-not see the different furniture
- not see the different set up
- not see the guy was sitting on a couch
- not consider why the guy was sitting on a couch
- not see the guy wa in evening / home clothes
- not consider why the guy was in evening / home clothes
- not see the guy looked innocent (ie. not like a hardened criminal)
- not consider why he looked (not like a hardened criminal)
- not see his first reaction
- not consider why his first reaction was not consistent with a home intruder / but a defender
- not hear the words coming out of his mouth
- not consider why the words coming out of his mouth were not consistent with a home invader
- not consider why ALL of this was not consistent with her belief in her being in her own home
- not ask 'what are you doing in my appartment'

These from an officer who should have:
- greater observation skills than the average person
- more practised analytical skills than the average person
- question more (internally in this case) than the average person

Individually - you are quite right - she honestly may not have seen one part, or honestly overlooked a part. However as I said previously - it is all of it together that creates the issue.

Basically you are playing word games with 'honest' and 'unreasonable' and how people apply them. You don't apply any actual argument to 'honest' or 'unreasonable' or 'reasonable'.

All you have is a chant with no substance. A chant we even agree on - to a degree. But nothing of any actual substance on your part that you can articulate.

It's a little like your claim of anti-white racism on a thread where I argue why white police will beat a murder charge...easy to claim. Just no substance to your claim that you can articulate.

1 Reply

I didn't hear the entire story, but on local TV they reported that there is a bill to pardon Floyd for his Texas crimes. It requires Abbot's signature to become effective. Simple pandering to avoid making substantive change?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I didn't hear the entire story, but on local TV they reported that there is a bill to pardon Floyd for his Texas crimes. It requires Abbot's signature to become effective. Simple pandering to avoid making substantive change?

I don’t get that feeling, based on reading this article.

It looks to me like a fairly good faith effort to clear Floyd’s name,
after the drug arrests of the policeman (now indicted for murder) who arrested Floyd have all been thrown out as fraudulent. But I may be wrong - we shouldn’t ever underestimate politicians tendency to pander and grandstand.

1 Reply

@snood,

I am so mistrustful of these people that I probably read them wrong sometimes.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Totally understandable. I see no reason that any sane person would automatically take representatives of law enforcement or the “justice system” at their word.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Basically you are playing word games with 'honest' and 'unreasonable' and how people apply them.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out the clear fact that she made an honest mistake.

vikorr wrote:

You don't apply any actual argument to 'honest' or 'unreasonable' or 'reasonable'.

So what?

vikorr wrote:

All you have is a chant with no substance. A chant we even agree on - to a degree. But nothing of any actual substance on your part that you can articulate.

I have the actual reality that she genuinely made an honest mistake.

vikorr wrote:

It's a little like your claim of anti-white racism on a thread where I argue why white police will beat a murder charge...easy to claim. Just no substance to your claim that you can articulate.

Your denial of reality is evidence of your racism.

Non-racists admit that she made an honest mistake. Only anti-white racists refuse to admit that she made an honest mistake.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Ed, I’m going to paste here this quote that you posted in the ‘quote of the day’ thread last July. It might not seem to be relevant to this thread on first glance. But if one thinks about it for a second, it’s more than just tangentially connected. The
atmosphere in this country that is conducive to police brutality was definitely nurtured by Trump, with all his prodding of police “not to be too nice”, and pardoning murderous soldier war criminals, and things of that nature.

edgarblythe wrote:

“Donald Trump has been the worst president this country has ever had. And, I don't say that hyperbolically. He is. But he is a consequential president. And, he has brought this country in three short years to a place of weakness that is simply unimaginable if you were pondering where we are today from the day where Barack Obama left office. And, there were a lot of us on that day who were deeply skeptical and very worried about what a Trump presidency would be. But this is a moment of unparalleled national humiliation, of weakness.”

"When you listen to the President, these are the musings of an imbecile. An idiot. And I don't use those words to name call. I use them because they are the precise words of the English language to describe his behavior. His comportment. His actions. We've never seen a level of incompetence, a level of ineptitude so staggering on a daily basis by anybody in the history of the country whose ever been charged with substantial responsibilities.”
"It's just astonishing that this man is president of the United States. The man, the con man, from New York City. Many bankruptcies, failed businesses, a reality show, that branded him as something that he never was. A successful businessman. Well, he's the President of the United States now, and the man who said he would make the country great again. And he's brought death, suffering, and economic collapse on truly an epic scale."

"And, let's be clear. This isn't happening in every country around the world. This place. Our place. Our home. Our country. The United States. We are the epicenter. We are the place where you're the most likely to die from this disease. We're the ones with the most shattered economy. And we are, because of the fool that sits in the Oval Office behind the Resolute Desk.”

Because he evidently had prior knowledge about some scandalous behaviors carried out by colleagues of his at The Lincoln Project, Steve Schmidt has stepped back from commenting on current events.
I think that’s a damn shame, and a loss. I always looked forward to getting his take on things. To my mind, this man really ‘tells it like it is’.

1 Reply

Trump trampled down every decent thing in his path.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Trump trampled down every decent thing in his path.

...and it seems 99% of the republicans in congress are itching for him to come back and do it again.

0 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know