cheers
Protests following the killing of George Floyd
- Thread starter Abizzz
- Start date
If I used my hands to squeeze the life out of someone, what degree would you call that?
The length of time that leg was on his neck has to count for something.
Obama used the word thug to describe Baltimore protesters, ISIS terrorists and and many others.
OK thanks for clarifying I'm not familiar with the terminology and definitions. Still doesn't make any sense though.
There are so many reasons to attack Trump, but this is stupid. Like I posted above, Obama described Baltimore rioters as thugs.
If someone decides to kill another person on the spur of the moment, how is that 1st degree murder going to be proven without documentary evidence and so on? Or is premeditation measured only in terms of planning-time & physical evidence of that planning?
Well that clearly makes it ok and impossible for there to be anything wrong with the word.
It's quite clearly second degree murder.
A defence based around "people lying to police and faking injuries to get out of holds" holds weight if the cop is sitting on his back or pinning him by legitimate means. Not when he is kneeling on his neck.
A defence based around "people lying to police and faking injuries to get out of holds" holds weight if the cop is sitting on his back or pinning him by legitimate means. Not when he is kneeling on his neck.
Using your hands to choke someone to death might be easier to get a 2nd Degree charge out of... if the prosecution thought they could prove you definitely intended to kill the person with the choke rather than just hurt them and accidentally went to far. If they had evidence you planned ahead of time to kill the person using choking as the method, then that’s obviously a 1st Degree case.
I really don’t know why folks are acting like a 3rd degree murder isn’t a serious charge. There are strict definitions for the degrees of murder and based on the evidence present, 3rd Degree is the one that the defense is going to have the hardest time countering.
That was my jokeYou weren't the first one to mention shadow ban and I was just giving you shit for it
Just giving you some context. Did you vehemently argue against the use of the term “thugs” in 2015?
I’m not defending Trump, just pointing out the ridiculous arguments made by some here in the thread.
It holds weight if literally one juror has reasonable doubt that the police officer definitely intended for his knee to end the victim’s life.
Obama was wrong to use the term as well, I don’t really get what point you think you’re making here but I assure you you’re failing at it.
If you have your knee on somebodies neck and they tell you they can't breathe, you don't remove it and they die, you intended to kill them. Any juror who doubts that is not fit to sit on a jury.
A system that can't prove that is a broken system. The family of the victim shouldn't have to be told this crime was unintended simply because it's easier to make the charge stick.
bUt ObAmA
My point is that you attacking the use of the term is weak. Of all the things Trump has said, you decide to bash him for a term that is used quite frequently, and is not the dog whistle that some are claiming.
It was in fact I who was honeydicked.That was my joke
Go read the definitions of murder for Minnesota.
Which, again, is what he’s been charged with.
You’re smarter than that.
I think my point is very clear. Thug isn’t the dog whistle you think it is, and by quoting Obama, I’ve made my point.
It's almost like different people can use the same words and phrases while still engendering different reactions and conveying different meanings as a result of their history, social background, political opinions and prior actions. Because that's how communication works in the real world. Maybe something someone whose job depends heavily on effective communication should be aware of. Definitely something anyone commenting on the use of those words and phrases should be aware of.
I'm reading them here.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/murder-charges-in-minnesota-43141
Are there definitions somewhere else I'm missing?
Seems spot on in this case. Stonewall.
Invoking Obama doesn't invalidate "thug" being a dogwhistle in the US. I've spent a lot of time in the south being around all sorts of racists. I know a dog whistle when I hear one.
Trump is not Obama, and Trump's political base is not Obama's.
Yes it is. You’re wrong.
I was born and raised in the south. You’re inflating this.
I respectfully disagree.
Its been 48 hours since incident, top lawyers and investigators employed, plenty of VDO evidence, very few people involved so not hard to gather and interview .... so I also don't understand how they reached murder in 3rd degree.
The witnesses were telling Chauvin that Floyd was struggling to breathe so I can't see how cops can excuse themselves that they didn't know it was a possibility. Perhaps it's because Chavin has denied it, and they don't have confession from him or evidence from others that it was intentional?
USA will burn all over if he is only sentenced with murder in 3rd again.
Cool. You’re still wrong.
Profound.
That still doesn’t make the word “thug” any more/less racist.
Tell me a synonym that should be used to describe rioters/looters
Rioters/looters.
Tell me a term that “respectfully” describes looters and rioters
Looters and rioters.
How PC of you!
Thats your argument? No other descriptive words can be used?
Donald Trump mistook a black supporter for a protester and called him a “thug”
This black guy was standing waving a piece of paper around and he called him a thug. I wouldn't say waving a piece of paper in the air is very "thuggish" behaviour.
The video shows there's literally nothing to separate him from the other supporters other than him being black, yet he picks him out and calls him a thug. I don't see how Trump gets any benefit of the doubt.
This black guy was standing waving a piece of paper around and he called him a thug. I wouldn't say waving a piece of paper in the air is very "thuggish" behaviour.
The video shows there's literally nothing to separate him from the other supporters other than him being black, yet he picks him out and calls him a thug. I don't see how Trump gets any benefit of the doubt.
hi i'm an intelligent poster and definitely not racist, welcome to my ted talk on bullshit pedantry
Protesters, revolters, insurgents, demonstrators and many others. Thugs isn't a synonym of rioters, it's a synonym for criminals but in a rather individualistic way and it's also a constant state which isn't the case for rioters/looters.
And from 3rd Degree...
“This murder is not based on having the intent to kill. Third-degree murder is often charged as a depraved heart or mind crime ... Murder is charged when a person is killed and the defendant has an indifference to the sanctity of human life”
That is definitely provable to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
2nd Degree:
“Second degree murder can be charged when a defendant intentionally kills another human being but the murder is not premediated. Second-degree murder may result when a person kills out of an intense emotional response or impulse.”
You’d be asking the jury to beyond a reasonable doubt believe that death is exactly what was on the officer’s mind when he put his knee on the victim’s neck.
It’s not that the prosecutors are saying murder wasn’t committed here... They’re simply saying that 3rd Degree is what they feel confident they can convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt has happened.
If just 1 juror has doubt, and these jurors are selected by both the prosecution and defense so the defense will have identified some people they think they can sway, then the judge will have to declare a mistrial... and then what? The prosecution does not want that.
Sure, just try to avoid racially charged ones.
I know it’s asking a lot of you, and the generations of young black men who have been marginalised by society are an enormous inconvenience for you, but it’d be nice if you could stop adding to the problem and trying to reframe serious issues as being caused by minorities rather then the people who keep killing them.