Chauvin Trial - Day 2

I hope everyone's pumped for some more BLM peaceful protests when Chauvin gets exonerated.

originally posted by: Schmoe11
I hope everyone's pumped for some more BLM peaceful protests when Chauvin gets exonerated.

I've got my popcorn and youtube livestream stations ready. Bluetopia is going to burn.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: LSU2018

Expect the jurors children to be attacked by disgusting left wing extremists and violent terrorist groups
Along with the children and families of the Defense lawyers

And expect the media and the current administration to openly support that

I didnt think cellphones would be allowed inside a courtroom

“But she said she didn’t forward them”. Only a total moron would believe that.
I bet my life that she was messaged with a request : “get photos of those jurors so we can attack their children when they deliver the verdict”

These people are disgusting

Oh you know it.... She nervously chuckled and said "no your honor, I didn't forward them to anyone. I'll delete them now."

She forwarded them and she'll be excused for it by the media and democrats. They need to send their threats and bully the jurors before this thing is over.

originally posted by: Schmoe11
I hope everyone's pumped for some more BLM peaceful protests when Chauvin gets exonerated.

If they weren't already shut down from COVID lockdowns or destroyed from the last round of "peaceful" protests then they better start praying.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
The VAST MAJORITY of police officers are fine, upstanding people

A ‘thug’ among them is an extreme anomaly. Very very VERY few officers fall into that category

Various studies have shown that there are actually only a relative handful of bad cops, usually found in bad departments, because it starts at the top, so of course the vast majority of bad cops are found in bad departments (because good departments don't tolerate bad cops). Perhaps more telling is that the worst departments are also usually found in the most corrupt cities/counties. It becomes a systemic problem within those communities, but it is not a systemic problem within the nation as a whole.

Distinctions are important. Distinctions are necessary. Distinctions identify the actual problems to be addressed. And this is a problem that does need to be discussed and addressed. It doesn't help good cops when we protect the bad cops in their name. Exactly the opposite.

Side note: 97% of all people who are killed during an altercation with police are male.
Does that mean that police are sexist and hate males and want to kill males?
Or does it only prove that the vast majority of criminals are male?

The raw numbers tell us nothing, but we don't have to guess either. Given that about 98% of all violent crime is committed by males, and therefore the proportions between male perps/convictions and the male shooting rate balances, it is reasonable to attribute the police actions to the well documented and established male pattern violence, rather than just misandry.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Breakthestreak

...She was caught taking pictures of everything (jurors) and tried to act ignorant about it after the judge put her up. He made her delete the photos and she claimed they hadn't been sent to anyone...

She just gave the defense cause for the defense to request a mistrial and have all charges dropped... or they would have to start over again.

The defense could also use it as cause for an appeal in the case of a conviction.

Damn idiot.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Breakthestreak

...She was caught taking pictures of everything (jurors) and tried to act ignorant about it after the judge put her up. He made her delete the photos and she claimed they hadn't been sent to anyone...

She just gave the defense cause for the defense to request a mistrial and have all charges dropped... or they would have to start over again.

The defense could also use it as cause for an appeal in the case of a conviction.

Damn idiot.

We'll probably never know, but I would be willing to bet that she was paid off to go in there and get pictures. And of course, act stupid if caught as if she has no clue what a very high profile case like this means.

a reply to: LSU2018

I'm sure not betting against you!!!

She knew what she was doing. Whatever her ultimate purpose for those photos. They could cause much damage in several ways, and there's no way she did not know that.

Something similar happened to me long long ago. I was attending a murder trial for the man who killed a very dear family member. A self-annointed "trial watcher" took pics of my cousin and I in court while the trial was in session, and the jury was clearly in the background. Ironically enough, it was a CNN reporter who caught her, told the bailiff -- who removed her from the courtroom, made her delete the photos, then confiscated her phone -- and told me as well. I contacted a well known legal blogger who was following the case, and who I knew she had been in contact with, and he then gave her a talking to about what she had done and the potential consequences. Sure enough, the very next day the defense entered a motion to declare a mistrial and dismiss. It was not granted, but if those pics had ever gone public, it most likely would have been.

I'm all for complete disclosure and sunshine as the best disinfectant, but taking photos of a jury in session does not serve that purpose. Exactly the opposite. It threatens the case itself. But it also puts a target on the jurors' backs. It's dangerous.

So is anyone watching today.

I was hoping to see the defense finish off the last witness from yesterday.

a reply to: Boadicea

Now there's a witness on the stand, who was recording from his car with his fiance inside. They purposely muted the audio so the jury can't hear the conversation he's having with his fiance. I'd imagine there are a lot of anti-white, anti-police expletives being said and the prosecution doesn't want people hearing it. Other way around and I guarantee it plays.

originally posted by: crappiekat
So is anyone watching today.

I was hoping to see the defense finish off the last witness from yesterday.

I think they'd already finished her off. She was asked one question and let go afterwards. I'm waiting for their lunch recess so I can go pee and grab snacks from Kroger. Lol.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Boadicea

Now there's a witness on the stand, who was recording from his car with his fiance inside. They purposely muted the audio so the jury can't hear the conversation he's having with his fiance.

To be clear, the court/prosecution muted the audio? Or did the couple mute the audio while recording?

If it was the prosecution, do you know if they motioned the court specifically to do so? I'm shocked that this would be granted. Let 'em rip and let their words speak for themselves. This is a courtroom!!! This is where we're supposed to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right?

I'd imagine there are a lot of anti-white, anti-police expletives being said and the prosecution doesn't want people hearing it. Other way around and I guarantee it plays.

Hmmm... I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were true, but another possibility that popped into my head is that this couple knew Floyd, and were speaking about Floyd in incriminating terms from personal knowledge, which the prosecution doesn't want the jury to hear. I know that Floyd had an SOP when he was stopped by cops. If the couple knew this, and said something like "There's old George doing the I-can't-breathe-routine again..." that would be absolute poison for the prosecution!

Do you know if the witness was asked if he personally knew Floyd? Or knew of him?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: LSU2018

Have they hung Chauvin yet?

Is it "hung" or "hanged"?

I never get those two right.

You and your ewill weftists hanging cops on a regular basis in that alternative universe again (again).

Relax! Why don't you take a knee on my neck and jump around a little for freedumb?

This is what happens when Bad meets Stupid.

originally posted by: Connector

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Connector

originally posted by: spacedoubt

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: oloufo

LOL...so you consider Chauvin heavy? And no....you can't choke someone by pushing on the back of their neck.

You folks that believe this have absolutely NO critical thinking.

Dude was saying he can't breathe the whole time....do you see the irony in that? If you don't then you should think harder. I bolded the important part so you have a small hint.

He was not choked.... for the thousandth time.
So much for your irony.

Being choked out is not necessarily just cutting off oxygen. It can simply be cutting off blood to the brain. In wrestling, it's called going to sleep, taking a nap. If pressure is released immediately, no problem, no harm. If pressure continues, game over.

Please show me ANY video of any wrestler/fighter puts pressure on only the back of the neck and someone goes out.....please.

and finally, how quickly it can happen when blood flow is altered.

As I said earlier.....a video of a knee on the back of a neck causing this. None of your did tgat....all were applying pressure to the artery on the side of the neck.

Know why you can't find one......because it can't happen.

a reply to: Boadicea

To be clear, the court/prosecution muted the audio? Or did the couple mute the audio while recording?

If it was the prosecution, do you know if they motioned the court specifically to do so? I'm shocked that this would be granted. Let 'em rip and let their words speak for themselves. This is a courtroom!!! This is where we're supposed to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right?

What I'm watching on TV is delayed, so I just now saw this part. Anyways....


Talking to the witness who recorded the video, the prosecutor said, "Now, I will tell you we have deleted the audio from this video. The conversation that you and your fiance had is not important to the video."


He made no mention of any motion.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

Talking to the witness who recorded the video, the prosecutor said, "Now, I will tell you we have deleted the audio from this video. The conversation that you and your fiance had is not important to the video."

He made no mention of any motion.

Thank you!

That's rather cryptic though. I can't imagine they were talking about anything except what they were watching and recording...

Curiouser and curiouser!

originally posted by: BrokenCircles
a reply to: Boadicea

To be clear, the court/prosecution muted the audio? Or did the couple mute the audio while recording?

If it was the prosecution, do you know if they motioned the court specifically to do so? I'm shocked that this would be granted. Let 'em rip and let their words speak for themselves. This is a courtroom!!! This is where we're supposed to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right?

What I'm watching on TV is delayed, so I just now saw this part. Anyways....


Talking to the witness who recorded the video, the prosecutor said, "Now, I will tell you we have deleted the audio from this video. The conversation that you and your fiance had is not important to the video."


He made no mention of any motion.

That's going to backfire on them. Maybe the defense will play it WITH audio.

You guys need to start showing some professionalismness in this thread. Its embarrassing. Lol.

Floyd had a history of violent crime. The store owner gave him two opportunities to either return the cigarettes or give him real money for them before calling the cops.

The people Floyd was with told officers he had taken two percocets when he came back to the car from the store and was passing out from them.

He had fentanyl and meth in his system as well.

He had a history of lying to police, had multiple warrants served on that vehicle.

He resisted arrest for 15 minutes.

He ASKED to be taken out of the cop car and put on the ground.

The officers tried to de-escalate the situation multiple times. They told him they weren't going to shoot him, told him they would roll down the window in the squad car, told him they'd turn on the air conditioner and open the sunroof. Told him they wouldnt leave him alone...

He "couldn't breathe" as they were cuffing him...

He could move his head and speak while he was on the ground with a knee on his neck.

The autopsy report showed NO asphyxiation. He died of a heart attack. Probably from mixing uppers and downers.



Police officers are required to arrest people who pose a threat to themselves or others, and are supposed to arrest and hold mentally ill people for their safety until their mental health can be evaluated. This would include people high out of their mind who become belligerent.

These officers did everything by the book. End of story.

originally posted by: rounda
You guys need to start showing some professionalismness in this thread. Its embarrassing. Lol.

Floyd had a history of violent crime. The store owner gave him two opportunities to either return the cigarettes or give him real money for them before calling the cops.

The people Floyd was with told officers he had taken two percocets when he came back to the car from the store and was passing out from them.

He had fentanyl and meth in his system as well.

He had a history of lying to police, had multiple warrants served on that vehicle.

He resisted arrest for 15 minutes.

He ASKED to be taken out of the cop car and put on the ground.

The officers tried to de-escalate the situation multiple times. They told him they weren't going to shoot him, told him they would roll down the window in the squad car, told him they'd turn on the air conditioner and open the sunroof. Told him they wouldnt leave him alone...

He "couldn't breathe" as they were cuffing him...

He could move his head and speak while he was on the ground with a knee on his neck.

The autopsy report showed NO asphyxiation. He died of a heart attack.



Police officers are required to arrest people who pose a threat to themselves or others, and are supposed to arrest and hold mentally ill people for their safety until their mental health can be evaluated. This would include people high out of their mind who become belligerent.

These officers did everything by the book. End of story.

Ok, thanks for your superior knowledge on this and basically telling everyone else that it's over, finished, caput, because you say so.

I am enjoying all the comments in the thread and have been watching the trial on tv. So far the witness that to me, seems the most credible and reasonable is Christopher Martin, the store clerk that served George Floyed on that day.

Was pretty disgusted with the fact that the Managers at the store kept repeatedly telling Martin to go outside and confront the three of them about the counterfeit money even though he offered to have it taken out of his pay.

Not good people to work for, if they are so hard up for $20 they should have dealt with it themselves.
As I understand it the manager was also carrying.