What Is The Highest Charge Derek Chauvin Should Have Been Convicted Of?

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Here's your MUTHUFUKIN' RACIST INTENT!

pretty sure Goergie got a knee on his neck because he was high as fuck and flailing, not because he's got more melanin.

Just because a white guy kills a black guy doesn't mean it's automatically a hate crime, no matter how much they want it to be.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

they had doubts. an alternate juror said one of them was what would happen if they acquitted Chauvin. the jurors were afraid of the riots that would have happened if they returned no convictions. so they went for everything.



and guess what? those radials still riot over it. proving "justice" isn't their game plan. anarchy is.

And that is proof that"what would happen if we acquitted" was factored into the decision.

[DesWad]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Here's your MUTHUFUKIN' RACIST INTENT!

still offers no proof of how much weight and force is being given. two knees and he is obviously putting weight on the other one too.

It also offers no proof of racism.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

pretty sure Goergie got a knee on his neck because he was high as fuck and flailing, not because he's got more melanin.

Just because a white guy kills a black guy doesn't mean it's automatically a hate crime, no matter how much they want it to be.

You used that same flailing-bullshit-of-an-excuse about the bitch-ass cop losing the fight against the homeless man in the pig-killing video in L.A. How the fuck can anyone think he was "flailing" while being pinned down on the floor with a knee on his neck and handcuffed? Only racists would say that.

You're just justifying a hate-crime-murderer's stupidity. Or his homicidal tendencies. It proves he meant to kill him. The jury saw it and proclaimed it with the verdict. Like it or not. The world knows it. Racists deny it. Point blank.

Originally Posted by DTickler

still offers no proof of how much weight and force is being given. two knees and he is obviously putting weight on the other one too.

It also offers no proof of racism.

It offers all the proof any reasonable person needs to know. One: he meant to kill him; and two: he's a racist. Period.










Suck it.

Or not?

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You used that same flailing-bullshit-of-an-excuse about the bitch-ass cop losing the fight against the homeless man in the pig-killing video in L.A. How the fuck can anyone think he was "flailing" while being pinned down on the floor with a knee on his neck and handcuffed? Only racists would say that.

You're just justifying a hate-crime-murderer's stupidity. Or his homicidal tendencies. It proves he meant to kill him. The jury saw it and proclaimed it with the verdict. Like it or not. The world knows it. Racists deny it. Point blank.

Explain to me which part of Chauvin's knee-to-neck was racist aside your flimsy-ass excuse that Chauvin is White, and Floyd was black.

Did Chauvin call Floyd the n-word or something? Did he offer him some grape drank, watermelon, or a menthol cigarette to calm him down?

Or are you on some white-savior-complex bullshit?

[VerySkeptical]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

https://www.calculator.net/percent-c...y=18#pctcommon

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 213 civilians having been shot, 30 of whom were Black, in the first three months of 2021.




30 is 14.084507042254% of 213.


The rate at which black Americans are killed by police is more than twice as high as the rate for white Americans.
Blacks 36 per million
Whites 15 per million

50 is @23.5% of 213.
50 is 2.5380710659898E-5% of 197,000,000
30 is 7.1428571428571E-5% of 42,000,000
Most people can see "black" isn't the critical information. The critical information isn't provided. Since this thread is partly about intent, in my opinion the intent of this poster was to conceal the fact that poverty is the critical information missing.
All impoverished Americans, regardless of race, are more inclined to commit a crime than an affluent Americans.
That being said, it is still an individual's choice to commit a crime or not.


The fact is that Black people, proportionately commit more crimes than Whites. Therefore you would expect the ethnicity of those committing the most crimes would be higher than any other ethinicity regardless of the % of the population. Cops go where the crime is and confront the criminals regardless of ethnicity.


Until this is said by the President of the United States and admitted to by the Black population, this narrative of targeting Blacks simply because of the color of their skin, is a fallacy.
We could, after admitting to these facts, discuss why we think Blacks commit more crimes than Whites, like lack of educational opportunity or that the opportunity is there but not taken advantage of. Out of wedlock births with every study ever done shows this to be a contributing factor to generational poverty than can lead to crime and of course being told by half the population that they are a victim of White oppressors and always will be no matter how hard they try. Problem with that theory, there are far to many cases to prove that theory wrong.

Sorry slick. Impoverished people commit more crimes than people with means. And yes, most of the impoverished are people of color. They don't commit crimes because they are black. The crimes are committed because of poverty.
The problem with your theory (actually what proves it to be completely wrong) is that it doesn't follow educated or affluent blacks to the suburbs.

Saying there is systemic racism is not the same as "of course being told by half the population that they are a victim of White oppressors and always will be no matter how hard they try." Who tells them that?
But it's tough to have a discussion when people like you won't acknowledge underlying issues. When will Trumpys admit those facts?

The schools serve higher population densities with fewer resources. There are fewer economic opportunities.
A certain % of blacks rise above the poverty, etc. and a certain % of whites from the suburbs fail to increase or even maintain their overwhelming initial advantage. The higher opportunity level also contains a safety net almost nonexistent in the inner city. When adults can barely support themselves you don't see them supporting their adult children or sending them to school.
Your mention out-of-wedlock children but not that that circumstance contributes to generational poverty no matter what race is involved.
As the level and severity of educational and economic challenges rise, fewer people overcome them. Whites or blacks.

Wasn't Trump sued over racial discriminations in housing? Yes he was. He changed his behavior and his countersuit was dismissed so it's obvious who lost. A corporate version of "nolo contendere".









https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

After all this has been said, now we can get back to the OP.That is unless the crime stat people want to continue to hijack this thread.
Don't worry gnadster. I'll let the mods know.

[gnadfly]

Nobody's worried about you. Skeptical.

[GastonGlock]

Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"]Sorry slick. Impoverished people commit more crimes than people with means. And yes, most of the impoverished are people of color. They don't commit crimes because they are black. The crimes are committed because of poverty.
The problem with your theory (actually what proves it to be completely wrong) is that it doesn't follow educated or affluent blacks to the suburbs.

Saying there is systemic racism is not the same as "of course being told by half the population that they are a victim of White oppressors and always will be no matter how hard they try." Who tells them that?
But it's tough to have a discussion when people like you won't acknowledge underlying issues. When will Trumpys admit those facts?

The schools serve higher population densities with fewer resources. There are fewer economic opportunities.
A certain % of blacks rise above the poverty, etc. and a certain % of whites from the suburbs fail to increase or even maintain their overwhelming initial advantage. The higher opportunity level also contains a safety net almost nonexistent in the inner city. When adults can barely support themselves you don't see them supporting their adult children or sending them to school.
Your mention out-of-wedlock children but not that that circumstance contributes to generational poverty no matter what race is involved.
As the level and severity of educational and economic challenges rise, fewer people overcome them. Whites or blacks.

Wasn't Trump sued over racial discriminations in housing? Yes he was. He changed his behavior and his countersuit was dismissed so it's obvious who lost. A corporate version of "nolo contendere".

Yuup, pretty much. I don't think we have a "systemic racism" issue, we have a "systemic classism" problem that looks like racism.

What's considered "black culture" has a ton in common with other impoverished cultures all over the world.

[rexdutchman]

Whata bout the guy from dallas Timpa

[DesWad]

Keep an eye out on the Noor appeal case and soon to appeal Chauvin. Noor is especially important.

[winn dixie]

Goof grief!

Motive intent racism were not proved in the trial!

All labels that were attached for a narrative!

[Strokey_McDingDong]

Chauvin should have won an Emmy.

[DesWad]

GOP won this thread

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by DTickler

GOP owns this forum

FTFY

[pfunkdenver]

If anyone thinks the "GOP" won the argument, they are mistaken.

Derek Chauvin, at best, killed a man unintentionally. The man he killed was not a killer. It's certainly not something to celebrate.