Derek Chauvin (The murderer of #GeorgeFloyd) has just officially been convicted of murder by the grand jury, finally justice!

#Derek #DerekChauvin #Chauvin #Floyd #Trial

@freemo Justice my ass, what a grotesque, subhuman sack of shit you are.

@ChristiJunior LAWL, ok buddy.. i mean the dude was literally caught red handed murdering someone.. The guy was dead (or at least unconscious) and the man continued to strangle him for another 4 minutes and physically stopped other cops from checking on his safety... There is no sane reason anyone could side witht he cop on this.

@freemo The massive, hulking career criminal had repeatedly cried wolf and was resisting arrest. You don't take chances with creatures like that, and you can't just assume the idiot is drugged out of his mind and a physical wreck due to his own stupid choices. Involuntary Manslaughter at absolute worst, under mitigating circumstances.

@ChristiJunior @freemo here's a good vid on why you do not relax around drugged individual
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d2-iK5Dcy0

@coolboymew
Who said anything about relaxing. Once he was immobile you cuff his feet and hands, no relaxing needed. There is no excuse for strangling a man for 4 minutes after he is unconscious.
@ChristiJunior

@freemo @ChristiJunior If I am not mistaken, retards were congregating around the police, putting them in a really bad spot

@coolboymew
They were, but they were also completely docile until he literally died then one dude started creeping up but immediately backed down. Either way its not a free ticket to kill someone or denying other cops the right ti check on his safety. Once he was unconscious him continuing to strangle him was obvious intent to murder.
@ChristiJunior

@freemo @ChristiJunior

>They were, but they were also completely docile

Irrelevant. The fact remains that it adds to the difficulty that you got someone that is completely out of his mind, the dude was completely far gone and could not even understand a single fucking word they told him and could not even comply with orders

Drugged individuals can go from 0 to 100 real fucking quick and having idiots congregating around increased the pressure ten fold

@coolboymew @freemo @ChristiJunior the one question i don't see anyone asking and its kind of irrelevant to the trial is if he knew there was fentanyl in his drugs or not because there is a big problem with fentanyl being snuck into other drugs without the buyers knowledge and sometimes the dealer doesn't know either, its a mystery where its getting into the supply chain and a big problem for the dealers so they are actually unhappy this is happening and obviously the users who dying of overdoses are not happy with the situation either. If he was on fentanyl . When i first heard he was on drugs I thought it was a myth and disinformation but in the trial it was revealed that he was in fact on drugs, which doesn't really effect the verdict anyways

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @freemo if you check the video, you can clearly see that he is high as fuck and can barely even understand the orders

@coolboymew
I never denied that. Does t change the fact the Chauvin continued to sit on his neck even after he was told he had no pulse... No other evidence of any kind makes hi. I. Ocent when thst fact is true.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior I just checked back, bullshit

There was no professional on the scene to give a confirmation, the passerbys are NOT professionals and the retards in the crowd were being quite belligerent really making the situation worse

@coolboymew @freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior you're arguing with a leftist who believes in the cnn unreality narrative.

@Nudhul @coolboymew @Bubbul @freemo And that a nonsensical verdict after blatant jury intimidation is Justice.

@ChristiJunior @Bubbul @coolboymew @freemo he's guilty of MURDER and NEGLIGENT homicide simultaniously and this dude thinks that makes any sense. he was also somehow strangled to death despite no damage to his neck and a blood oxygen level of 98%.

@Nudhul
It makes sense because they are served simultaneously so they dont actually represent additional penalties. It is common practice to do this incase the stronger charge doesnt stick.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew it's only common practice in socialist kangaroo courts to convict someone of contradictory charges to ensure *something* sticks.

@Nudhul
They arent contradictory. One is second degree murser the other is 3rd degree. Literally a lesser form of the other.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew if you think they aren't contradictory then you don't know what the charges entail. simple as.

@Nudhul
I am well aware.. he wanted to kill the man but he didnt plan it before hand (second degree) and in doing so he acted neglegently (third degree). This isnt rocket science.

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew so in your mind, derek wanted to kill george, but not in a manner in which a person with lethal intent would kill someone?

do you understand why that doesn't make sense?

@Nudhul
Not what i said, nor is it what 3rd degree means in context. 3rd degree is not exclusionary of second degree. 3rd degree only suggests the action was negligent, it does not require that negligence to be unintentional.

Anyone convinced guilty of second degree is always automatically guilty of third degree, though you cant always try someone for both at the same time, that depends on the state, but guilt of one always implies guilt in a lesser degree.

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew how can neigence not be unintentional? the definition of negligence requires the outcome to be unintentional.

@Nudhul

Incorrect, the legal definition of negligence makes no assumptions about i tent. This is the legal definition:

A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew You defined the mode of action in which negligence is carried out. You didn't disprove my point.

@Nudhul
I doubt you would thing anything disproves your point honestly.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew Awww have you given up already? Saying you're wrong won't make you a bad person, y'know.

@Nudhul
I mean the legal definition is rather clear. I just cant make you not stupid so you can understand.
@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew you can't infer point B from point A and you think you have grounds to call anyone stupid?

@Nudhul

The legal definition is clear, and courts have for a very long time interpreted it exactly as I stated. You have offered no counter evidence from a legal standpoint, just a constant stream of childish insults. So yes i have the right.

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew