Truth Bomb on the Derek Chauvin Case! A must Listen.

[Realville]

Since I am unable to start a political topic or even get into the Political Forum I am posting this thread here. If someone has the ability to move this to political forum by all means please do. It would be much appreciated. Still do not known what is wrong with my account. Anyway this guy hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Derek Chauvin Case. Enjoy!

 

[5GallonBucket]

Nailed it

 

[tvc184]

I subscribe to his YouTube channel.  

[Realville]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I subscribe to his YouTube channel.  

I believe I may have to subscribe to his channel also. You can’t put it any plainer than that in reference to the Chauvin Case. Nice to see someone thinking for them self instead of believing all this hateful propaganda spewed out my the mainstream media.

 

[Ty Cobb]

I agree with this man 100%, biden is an idiot!!!

[SmashMouth]

But does he not believe Chauvin was guilty of a crime? - all race aside. My opinion is that George Floyd’s demise was not a racial event. But I also believe that Chauvin was guilty of murder3 (having nothing to do with race whatsoever). Biden, LeBum James, all the other morons trying to turn this into a “systemic racism” marker should go drown themselves. 

[tvc184]

18 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

But does he not believe Chauvin was guilty of a crime? - all race aside. My opinion is that George Floyd’s demise was not a racial event. But I also believe that Chauvin was guilty of murder3 (having nothing to do with race whatsoever). Biden, LeBum James, all the other morons trying to turn this into a “systemic racism” marker should go drown themselves. 

I honestly don’t know how they arrived at a murder charge when the state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to kill Floyd. I didn’t look at all of the testimony but I don’t know how the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd would not had died without the officer applying anything.

It was like, yes Floyd had a heart condition and yes he had taken a potentially fatal drug and yes he was struggling to breath before the officer held him down but trust us, the officer’s actions is what killed him.

Had this not being a racial incident and a police officer against a minority and with the same set of circumstances, I don’t believe it would be anywhere near a murder conviction. I have testified in murder cases, have spent time in detectives filing such cases and most of the time the DA would not even take something like this in my opinion.

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I honestly don’t know how they arrived at a murder charge when the state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to kill Floyd.

Under Minnesota state law, a person causing the death of another person, without intent of causing the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense, is guilty of murder in the second degree

Anyone guilty of third-degree murder under Minnesota state law caused the death of another person by perpetuating an act "eminently dangerous" to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, but without intent to cause death.

Intent was not a factor. By that definition, In Minnesota, he was convicted of murder 2 & 3. 

[baddog]

I’m always the skeptic, but I believe there is more to this story than what we know. 

[SmashMouth]

3 hours ago, baddog said:

I’m always the skeptic, but I believe there is more to this story than what we know. 

Could be. What are you thinking?

[baddog]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Could be. What are you thinking?

I just can’t let myself believe that a man, especially a cop, could murder someone in broad daylight, knowing there are plenty of witnesses and that it is being videoed. Evidence that could be tainted in certain towns controlled by leftists with agendas, mobs that can sway jurors, no change of venue, and not one juror who would hang the verdict, doesn’t sit right with me. It’s like everyone wanted the cop to be guilty for justice’s sake, yet none of the mob are satisfied.....”on to the next one” like Lebron James said. When a cop killing a criminal gets world news coverage, there is so much more to it than we can comprehend.

[CardinalBacker]

On 4/25/2021 at 8:26 AM, SmashMouth said:

Under Minnesota state law, a person causing the death of another person, without intent of causing the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense, is guilty of murder in the second degree

Anyone guilty of third-degree murder under Minnesota state law caused the death of another person by perpetuating an act "eminently dangerous" to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, but without intent to cause death.

Intent was not a factor. By that definition, In Minnesota, he was convicted of murder 2 & 3. 

To your first point, which other felony was Chauvin attempting to commit as required for a 2nd degree murder conviction?  Using a department approved restraint?

Secondly, you still have a problem with 3rd degree murder because it's specifically geared towards instances where the victim was "not selected," for lack of a better word.  Shooting into a crowd, throwing bricks off of an overpass into traffic, selling tainted drugs.  This charge was such a bad fit that the trial court tossed it initially and a superior court had it reinstated at the Attorney General's insistence.  

Here's what I think happened by example.  A few years ago I was on a jury in Orange County.  We were tasked with deciding the punishment that a man would receive... he'd already pleaded guilty to the crime, but wanted a jury to impose his sentence.  It was violent crime which left the defendant maimed... a brutal, brutal attack.  The maximum sentence was 40 years and a $10k fine... the defendant was in his mid 30s.  When we went back to deliberate, I kinda jumped in first and asked the point of the fine.... the money wouldn't go to the victim, but rather the state.  My thought was "this guy will be out in his mid 50s if he makes parole the first time... He'll have nothing and the odds are that most of his family will be long gone. And now he'll be trying to pay this fine to the state when he'll hopefully be trying to get re-established in society."  It just didn't make a lot of sense to me.  I made my point but then said that it wasn't a hill that I planned to die on.... Just my opinion and asked for others.  An older gentleman said that his opinion was that we should make the point that someone who committed this type of crime would get the maximum sentence allowed from the people in Orange County.  I was like... "I see."  It made sense, and I suspect that this is also what happened in Minneapolis.

 

[SmashMouth]

On 5/4/2021 at 8:54 AM, CardinalBacker said:

To your first point, which other felony was Chauvin attempting to commit as required for a 2nd degree murder conviction?  Using a department approved restraint?

Secondly, you still have a problem with 3rd degree murder because it's specifically geared towards instances where the victim was "not selected," for lack of a better word.  Shooting into a crowd, throwing bricks off of an overpass into traffic, selling tainted drugs.  This charge was such a bad fit that the trial court tossed it initially and a superior court had it reinstated at the Attorney General's insistence.  

Here's what I think happened by example.  A few years ago I was on a jury in Orange County.  We were tasked with deciding the punishment that a man would receive... he'd already pleaded guilty to the crime, but wanted a jury to impose his sentence.  It was violent crime which left the defendant maimed... a brutal, brutal attack.  The maximum sentence was 40 years and a $10k fine... the defendant was in his mid 30s.  When we went back to deliberate, I kinda jumped in first and asked the point of the fine.... the money wouldn't go to the victim, but rather the state.  My thought was "this guy will be out in his mid 50s if he makes parole the first time... He'll have nothing and the odds are that most of his family will be long gone. And now he'll be trying to pay this fine to the state when he'll hopefully be trying to get re-established in society."  It just didn't make a lot of sense to me.  I made my point but then said that it wasn't a hill that I planned to die on.... Just my opinion and asked for others.  An older gentleman said that his opinion was that we should make the point that someone who committed this type of crime would get the maximum sentence allowed from the people in Orange County.  I was like... "I see."  It made sense, and I suspect that this is also what happened in Minneapolis.

 

I didn’t post the entire law and statutes because it’s quite lengthy. I was specifically answering to the matter of intent not being a factor for those charges. If you read the whole shabang, legally (whether we agree or not), he could definitely take the hit for murder 3, and there’s even enough wiggle room for murder 2. 

[CardinalBacker]

3 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

I didn’t post the entire law and statutes because it’s quite lengthy. I was specifically answering to the matter of intent not being a factor for those charges. If you read the whole shabang, legally (whether we agree or not), he could definitely take the hit for murder 3, and there’s even enough wiggle room for murder 2. 

I just ripped off Ben Shapiro (whose legal mind is way better than mine) AND the fact that the trial court initially threw out Murder 3 as it shouldn't apply in cases like this on face value before an appeals court judge ordered it back in.  There has to be (in my mind) some ambiguity as to whether the charge applies or the trial court wouldn't have tossed it while leaving in Murder 2. 

But opinions are like b-holes.... I keep mine to myself.  

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I just ripped off Ben Shapiro (whose legal mind is way better than mine) AND the fact that the trial court initially threw out Murder 3 as it shouldn't apply in cases like this on face value before an appeals court judge ordered it back in.  There has to be (in my mind) some ambiguity as to whether the charge applies or the trial court wouldn't have tossed it while leaving in Murder 2. 

* But opinions are like b-holes.... I keep mine to myself.  

* Lmao. 

The Murder 3 & Manslaughter 2, if ran concurrently, won’t matter. It’s the Murder 2 that will get him the most time in the big house.