He's guilty

Life is Golden said:
No similarities whatsoever.

No threats to burn cities to the ground in the OJ trial. And, nothing happened.

The jurors here were terrified for their lives, evidence be damned. That is clear after seeing the evidence.
Click to expand...

You think the jurors were intimated by rioters and looters? How so?
 
archives said:
Film did Chauvin in, tough to plant reasonable doubt when one can see events visually as they occurred, reason the prosecutors repeatedly showed the film
Click to expand...

I was regularly startled to see anyone who would opine on Chauvin's innocence without seeing all the video evidence available.

I don't think they value their credibility very much to risk it so casually by going out on a limb and defending someone who even allegedly could be found guilty of murder without seeing all the evidence.

Makes no sense to me unless they just wanted to get some practice fighting in an unpopular cause.

And that's a natural thing that someone who is learning and growing would do. They would challenge themselves by fighting a losing battle. They test themselves to better gauge their own abilities. And to become stronger and more formidable in debate.

A man's got to know his limitations (HD)

 
Althea said:
That I disagree with. You can hear them on video trying to do the right thing. Their training officer was ignoring them. There was a recent reversal of a cop being fired decades ago. She stopped another cop from strangling a perp. She was fired and stripped of her pension.

They corrected that last week.
Click to expand...

now you are standing in the way of progress.....you must be silenced.....
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Revenge is revenge and justice is justice.
Revenge isn't the state's function.
I know all about going Sicilian more than most, but that's not what the law is about,
Click to expand...
You said that he might actually prefer the death sentence. My suggestion is less torturous than the cocktails they use in capital cases.
 
Drummie123 said:
I was regularly startled to see anyone who would opine on Chauvin's innocence without seeing all the video evidence available.

I don't think they value their credibility very much to risk it so casually by going out on a limb and defending someone who even allegedly could be found guilty of murder without seeing all the evidence.

Makes no sense to me unless they just wanted to get some practice fighting in an unpopular cause.

And that's a natural thing that someone who is learning and growing would do. They would challenge themselves by fighting a losing battle. They test themselves to better gauge their own abilities. And to become stronger and more formidable in debate.

]
Click to expand...

Not sure what all that means, but as I noted, the video told the story, the defenses only route was looking for technicalities that might create doubt but it was next to impossible to discredit that which anyone could see on the film
 
Sailor said:
You might want to read up on what he said about Waters and politicians in general sticking their noses into this trial.
Click to expand...
I watched it on recording. He dismissed the claim, but was angry about ALL politicians who weighed in.

There was just as much pro Chauvin crap on t.v.. If you think the jurors were worried about Waters, Nelson thanks you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top