Was Ex police officer Derek Chauvin wrongly convicted !

[herfiehandbag]

I read that he received two sentences, both for over 20 years and both to run concurrently. One in the State Courts and one in the Federal Courts.

 

Trump can of course pardon the Federal conviction. There will doubtless be pressure on him to do so, but he would perhaps be ill advised. Appeals have been lodged and dismissed, and the reaction to a pardon would be phenomenal, given the crime and circumstances - perhaps most likely if the administration finds itself in trouble and wishes to create a distraction, and even put troops on the streets?

 

Even with a Federal pardon he will still have to serve his State sentence.

[FritsSikkink]

4 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I know he's lying.  Or at least speaking only in terms of his opinion.  People have been calling Trump racist (along with many other untrue things) since day one, but all they have as evidence is garbage like policies that happen to affect non-White people, but are perfectly legitimate.  Don't like terrorists or illegal immigrants?  Racist!

Dumb racist talk, only have to look at you history of hateful post about Thai people to start with.

[RetiredNavy71]

17 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

It's arse ...not ass 

Semantics my boy.  Either way is correct 

[BangkokReady]

16 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Dumb racist talk, only have to look at you history of hateful post about Thai people to start with.

 

No idea what you're talking about.  Sounds like you're lying, to be honest.

[riclag]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

No idea what you're talking about.  Sounds like you're lying, to be honest.

 

What do Thai’s have to do with Chauvin? More insults from ,The intolerant triggered left! There I said it for you!

[Felton Jarvis]

On 12/11/2024 at 7:37 PM, jimmybcool said:

 

Apparently a jury of 12 of Neeley's peers believe it was not murder.  I mean if you believe that Trump actually did something wrong in the Letitia James prosecution of fraud (and conviction) then you have to accept the not guilty result for Penny right?

A jury of 12 also let OJ SImpson off.  I suppose that means he was innocent.

[georgegeorgia]

On 12/13/2024 at 3:51 AM, FritsSikkink said:

Dumb racist talk, only have to look at you history of hateful post about Thai people to start with.

Oh Frits ,there's no need to wax lyrical the situation.

[jimmybcool]

1 hour ago, Felton Jarvis said:

A jury of 12 also let OJ SImpson off.  I suppose that means he was innocent.

Checking to see if the person I posted to will accept these verdicts blindly or not.  BTW per the law OJ was innocent.  The law isn't always right.

[Evil Penevil]

2 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

Checking to see if the person I posted to will accept these verdicts blindly or not.  BTW per the law OJ was innocent.  The law isn't always right.

 

You may be using "the law" as an informal synonym for the "court system" or "judicial system."  In any case, O. J. Simpson was found "not guilty" by the jury, which means the prosecutor did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the U.S., defendants in criminal trials are presumed innocent and are found guilty or not guilty.  There's no verdict of "innocent."  The burden of proof is always on the prosecution  to establish guilt.  A defendant does not have to prove his innocence.  Please note:  this applies to criminal trials before a judge or judge and jury.  Different rules apply in civil trials or on appeal of a criminal trial verdict to a higher court. 

 

 

[jimmybcool]

4 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

You may be using "the law" as an informal synonym for the "court system" or "judicial system."  In any case, O. J. Simpson was found "not guilty" by the jury, which means the prosecutor did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the U.S., defendants in criminal trials are presumed innocent and are found guilty or not guilty.  There's no verdict of "innocent."  The burden of proof is always on the prosecution  to establish guilt.  A defendant does not have to prove his innocence.  Please note:  this applies to criminal trials before a judge or judge and jury.  Different rules apply in civil trials or on appeal of a criminal trial verdict to a higher court. 

 

 

 

You are correct.  Not guilty does not infer innocent.  Frankly the OJ trial was a farce from beginning to end.  I wonder how the Trump haters will feel if his 39 "convictions" are overturned on appeal?  Oh well.  Getting caught up in personalities and politicians is a bad thing.  I don't care who is president so long as they do a better job than the current guy is doing and I suspect we have a better shot with Trump than Kamala.

[Felton Jarvis]

On 12/13/2024 at 1:35 AM, RetiredNavy71 said:

Semantics my boy.  Either way is correct 

Chaucer spelled it "ars".

[FritsSikkink]

20 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

No idea what you're talking about.  Sounds like you're lying, to be honest.

PM your real name and we will see.

[BangkokReady]

6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

PM your real name and we will see.

 

I don't see how that will help you to prove that you aren't a liar.

[FritsSikkink]

8 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I don't see how that will help you to prove that you aren't a liar.

I don't care that you call me a liar, racist boy.

[BangkokReady]

4 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

I don't care that you call me a liar, racist boy.

 

As I said, no idea what you're talking about.  You're lying.  🙄

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/14/2024 at 5:50 AM, Felton Jarvis said:

A jury of 12 also let OJ SImpson off.  I suppose that means he was innocent.

Legally yes.

[Felton Jarvis]

A plethora of rubes and crackers in this thread.  They actually seem to believe that conservatism is a virtue.

[BangkokReady]

2 hours ago, Felton Jarvis said:

A plethora of rubes and crackers in this thread.  They actually seem to believe that conservatism is a virtue.

 

Progress isn't good if it brings something bad. There's no need to make rushed or knee jerk progress. You also have to think very carefully about what people say when they claim to want to make things better. Often they are lying to simply get what they want.

 

Conservatism, mixed with very cautious and limited openness to progression is definitely a virtue. Progression for progression's sake is foolish to the extreme.

 

If a mad or evil leftist says they want to bring a change that benefits them, then lies about it to make it sound like it is desperately needed, a conservative who is ready to point out that they are lying and stop them is protecting the people and is a very positive thing.