AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:16 pm
In your refusal to admit you can see what the judge said, sure. You could not be more clear. It's really pathetic.
Look, you tedious, stupid, prick. Read this.
Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pm
Now the part that you cropped out means that he did not declare a mistrial because he did not think it warranted it. However, he clearly stated that it might end up getting the case overturned later.
If your dumb ass cannot figure out what those fucking words mean, then there is no hope for you. The rest of your life will be as much of a waste as it has been up to this point.
Yes, he said it 'may' be grounds for appeal but he does not think that appeal would succeed. Which part aren't you grasping?
This goes back to what I’ve been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function. I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Judge Peter Cahill: (07:48)
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don’t think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice his jury. They have been told not to watch the news, I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot.
What does that say, you dumb fuck?
in a fucking Nut Shell, it says that he thinks it might be reason to have the case overturned. Now you can keep repeating this and twisting it in any direction you want, but that's what the fuck he said.
No, you're nearly there but you're still missing his clearly stated conclusion about that concern. Can you spot it, dimwit?
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 10:17 pm
by Animal
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:15 pm
No, you're nearly there but you're still missing his clearly stated conclusion about that concern. Can you spot it, dimwit?
if you are this retarded in real life, I have no idea how you survive.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:15 pm
No, you're nearly there but you're still missing his clearly stated conclusion about that concern. Can you spot it, dimwit?
if you are this retarded in real life, I have no idea how you survive.
I genuinely don't understand how grownups can think this is a form of arguing, you're just refusing to admit you can read something. It's just so pathetic.
The judge rejected the claim. If he thought it would succeed then that is a mistrial. It's pretty simple.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:15 pm
No, you're nearly there but you're still missing his clearly stated conclusion about that concern. Can you spot it, dimwit?
if you are this retarded in real life, I have no idea how you survive.
I genuinely don't understand how grownups can think this is a form of arguing, you're just refusing to admit you can read something. It's just so pathetic.
The judge rejected the claim. If he thought it would succeed then that is a mistrial. It's pretty simple.
you are wrong, you pathetic loser. he said it might succeed. If he thought it would not succeed he would have said it wouldn't succeed. But, he did not say that, which makes you as wrong as your are stupid.
If I tell you that if we were to have a footrace, you might win. And then I tell you that I will not race you, then that doesn't mean that I said you could not win that footrace. It means I chose not to race you today. plain and fucking simple.
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 10:15 pm
No, you're nearly there but you're still missing his clearly stated conclusion about that concern. Can you spot it, dimwit?
if you are this retarded in real life, I have no idea how you survive.
I genuinely don't understand how grownups can think this is a form of arguing, you're just refusing to admit you can read something. It's just so pathetic.
The judge rejected the claim. If he thought it would succeed then that is a mistrial. It's pretty simple.
you are wrong, you pathetic loser. he said it might succeed. If he thought it would not succeed he would have said it wouldn't succeed. But, he did not say that, which makes you as wrong as your are stupid.
If I tell you that if we were to have a footrace, you might win. And then I tell you that I will not race you, then that doesn't mean that I said you could not win that footrace. It means I chose not to race you today. plain and fucking simple.
He fucking did say he thought it would not succeed you absolute fucking moron, in the quote you keep refusing to admit you can see.
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 10:51 pm
by Animal
Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pm He said this ------> I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.
^ Right there is what he said. In his own words.
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 10:54 pm
by AnalHamster
And did he say anything after that, perhaps anything I have quoted several times that you have to pretend you cannot see, something which gives his own view on the likelihood of success?
What was it he said next, you pathetic, cowardly, moron?
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Thu May 06, 2021 11:26 pm
by pork
i dont want to step in the way of your pillow fight but animal isnt wrong. the judge said what he said...what he said after doesn't impact the fact that he said this could be the reason for an appeal.
carry on
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Fri May 07, 2021 12:49 am
by dot
pork wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:26 pm
i dont want to step in the way of your pillow fight but animal isnt wrong. the judge said what he said...what he said after doesn't impact the fact that he said this could be the reason for an appeal.
carry on
Hammy’s point is that in the same breath as the defense would have grounds for appeal, he points out that the same judge doesn’t think it would succeed and definitely does not in the defense’s attempt immediately after the fact as he denied that motion for mistrial.
pork wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 11:26 pm
i dont want to step in the way of your pillow fight but animal isnt wrong. the judge said what he said...what he said after doesn't impact the fact that he said this could be the reason for an appeal.
carry on
Hammy’s point is that in the same breath as the defense would have grounds for appeal, he points out that the same judge doesn’t think it would succeed and definitely does not in the defense’s attempt immediately after the fact as he denied that motion for mistrial.
stop changing his words. He didn't say it was "grounds for an appeal". He said "...something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Fri May 07, 2021 12:56 am
by dot
Animal wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 12:53 am
stop changing his words. He didn't say it was "grounds for an appeal". He said "...something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."
And then what was said, midget? Note how the motion for mistrial on those grounds went and the judge's reasoning for it. You can't accept part of his logic and reject the rest you don't agree with.
Animal wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 12:53 am
stop changing his words. He didn't say it was "grounds for an appeal". He said "...something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned."
And then what was said, midget? Note how the motion for mistrial on those grounds went and the judge's reasoning for it. You can't accept part of his logic and reject the rest you don't agree with.
wow. another screwball that is as stupid as AH.
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Fri May 07, 2021 1:01 am
by dot
So it's true. You can't read. Let Quint know to come on by with his lawyer meme of you since it's quite relevant at the moment.
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Fri May 07, 2021 1:07 am
by Animal
dot wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 1:01 am
So it's true. You can't read. Let Quint know to come on by with his lawyer meme of you since it's quite relevant at the moment.
Animal wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 6:15 pm He said this ------> I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned... I trust they are following those instructions and that there is not in any way a prejudice to the defendant beyond the articles that we’re talking specifically about the facts of this case. A Congresswoman’s opinion really doesn’t matter a whole lot
^ Right there is what he said. In his own words.
Yep, certainly is. You just have to pretend you can't see the rest of what he said because you're a big baby
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Fri May 07, 2021 11:27 pm
by Antknot
disco.moon wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 10:59 pm
I can't believe y'all are still fucking arguing about this shit.
Really? You're not a noob.it shouldn't surprise you.
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Sat May 08, 2021 12:22 am
by CaptQuint
Federal grand jury charges 4 former Minneapolis cops with violating George Floyd’s civil rights, AP reports
Judge Cahill finds aggravating factors in Chauvin sentencing
Former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin could spend an extended time in prison following a judge's ruling today on aggravated factors in the murder of George Floyd.
Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill's ruling will pave the way for a longer sentence for the former Minneapolis officer, who was convicted in April on murder and manslaughter counts.
In his ruling, Judge Cahill determined several facts support what's known as an aggravated durational departure.
He says that Chauvin abused his position of trust and authority, treated Floyd with particular cruelty, acted with children present, and committed the acts as a group with the active participation of at least three other officers.
Under Minnesota sentencing guidelines, he would have faced a presumptive sentence of 12 1/2 years for second-degree murder. But prosecutors asked for what is known as an upward departure.
Chauvin's attorney had argued that prosecutors did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were aggravating factors at play.
Experts have said that even with the upward departure, Chauvin will likely get no more than 30 years.
Chauvin is scheduled to be sentenced on June 25. Chauvin waived his right to have the jury determine his sentence, so Cahill, who also presided over his trial, will make the decision.
CaptQuint wrote: ↑Thu May 13, 2021 1:26 am
Judge Cahill finds aggravating factors in Chauvin sentencing
Former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin could spend an extended time in prison following a judge's ruling today on aggravated factors in the murder of George Floyd.
Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill's ruling will pave the way for a longer sentence for the former Minneapolis officer, who was convicted in April on murder and manslaughter counts.
In his ruling, Judge Cahill determined several facts support what's known as an aggravated durational departure.
He says that Chauvin abused his position of trust and authority, treated Floyd with particular cruelty, acted with children present, and committed the acts as a group with the active participation of at least three other officers.
Under Minnesota sentencing guidelines, he would have faced a presumptive sentence of 12 1/2 years for second-degree murder. But prosecutors asked for what is known as an upward departure.
Chauvin's attorney had argued that prosecutors did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there were aggravating factors at play.
Experts have said that even with the upward departure, Chauvin will likely get no more than 30 years.
Chauvin is scheduled to be sentenced on June 25. Chauvin waived his right to have the jury determine his sentence, so Cahill, who also presided over his trial, will make the decision.
And the verdict- 22 1/2 years. I believe if you'll check post #13, I predicted 20. Still predicting the whole trial will be overturned on appeal down the line.
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:36 pm
by AnalHamster
It won't. Post conviction relief in America is incredibly rare, the burden of proof is reversed.
Re: Derek Chauvin Trial
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:49 pm
by CentralTexasCrude
AnalHamster wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 8:36 pm
It won't. Post conviction relief in America is incredibly rare, the burden of proof is reversed.
Hard to tell. I'm predicting appeal relief just because of the media hysteria (understatement) over this case. Winning an appeal 3 years later doesn't mean his next trial will end any different. Like I said in my original post, he deserves 20 years for the sheer stupidity of kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed suspect for almost 10 minutes.
wow.