@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

@freemo @Nudhul @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @coolboymew you got BTFO, cuck, take the L like your girlfriend takes D

Definition and interpretation are clear? Cool.

mn.gov/law-library/

Poast case law, faggot.

@Godcast @freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Nudhul @coolboymew

@job384

Already posted the **legal** definition of neglegance and i will repeat it here:

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).

As you can clear see negligence does not imply in the definition that it is unintentional.

You can find the legal definition here with direct links citing official resources to back up the definition:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @coolboymew @Nudhul

@freemo @job384 @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @coolboymew The outcome of negligence must be unintentional or else any application of it wouldn't make sense.

If someone driving a car failed to look before making a turn and ran over a mother and child crossing the street, then the driver would be guilty of negligent driving.

If we were to use your reasoning of negligence not having to be unintentional, then you could say the driver being lazy or absent minded had intended to grind some people under their vehicle through their failure to look before turning.

@Nudhul

You are trying to apply a common definition of negligence as the technical legal one, they are not the same. There are very specific legal tests for negligence and none of them have anything to do with intent. Legal words do not follow the same rules as common english.

You can see the legal definition I gave earlier along with a great deal more detail in this link which explains the legal tests one uses to determine if something is negligence. You can clearly see the legal definition and legal tests in no way care about intent:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew jesus fucking christ dude are you just not capable of critical thinking? the CONSEQUENCE of negligence must be unintentional. i never fucking once said ever that the negligent actions themselves were unintended.

@Nudhul

What what about the legal definition requires the **consequence** of the action to be unintended... no where in the legal definition does it state that must be the case.

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew

@Nudhul

The test for negligance as stated at the link I shared is the following:

1) the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff

2) defendant's breach of that duty

3) plaintiff's sufferance of an injury

4) proof that defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause)

Can you do those things if you intend for the consequence of your actions? If I intend to kill someone, can i do something that kills someone and satisfy those 4 rules? Obviously the answer is yes.

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew

@freemo @Nudhul @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @job384 @coolboymew Chauvin got railroaded to appease the nigger mob. End of story.

@Godcast

the mob influencing it or not there is no way you can excuse a man continuing to strangle someone for 3 minutes after it was confirmed his heart stopped.

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @job384 @coolboymew @Nudhul

@freemo @Godcast @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @job384 @coolboymew never happened dude. there was no strangulation. it never occured.

@Nudhul

Irrelevant, after knowing his heart stopped he prevented fellow officers and a registered nurse from recussitating him while he sat on his chest and lifeless bodt for 3 more minutes. Arguing over if you call t strangulation or not doesnt even matter

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew What you mean to say is that he disallowed random bystanders from commandeering the scene, which was the correct course of action.

@Nudhul

No, how is his fellow police officer, who identified Floyd as not having a post and suggesting he should try to help him, and Chauvin refusing to let him do CPR on a man with no heartbeat in any way what you just described?

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew what does CPR do to someone with no heartbeat?

nothing at all.

@Nudhul

Are you nuts. The point of CPR is literally to get someone whose heart has stopped to start again. That is literally the entire point of CPR.

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew

@freemo @Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew no it's not dude. it's meant to keep their heart going if the pulse is weak. only an AED can restart someone's heart and only if it stopped within seconds of the application.

@Nudhul

God you are a dumbass.. No if you feel a pulse you are suppose to stop compressions. The only time you do compressions is when the heart is stopped, first rule of CPR (I am cpr certified btw).

@Bubbul @ChristiJunior @Godcast @job384 @coolboymew