Chauvin Verdict In

[DisneyJamieCA]

I watched most of the states case, missed some of the defense but I dont think the state proved beyond reasonable doubt, and it’s sad that those twelve did.

@lilypgirl I’m really confused. You told me you agree with the verdict, but you loved this post. So which is it?

 

[MillauFr]

So we are to assume the cops were in the wrong again with no facts or real information?

Did anyone here say that?

 

[lilypgirl]

Did I say as much?

I was not implying asking hence the sentence being structured like a question? I am not sure I could have made it any simpler for you.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I was not implying asking hence the sentence being structured like a question? I am not sure I could have made it any simpler for you.

It’s your use of the word “again” in your question. It speaks volumes and you’re not being genuine implying you were asking a simple question.

ETA: your question isn’t structurally as “simple” as you apparently think it is.

 

[lilypgirl]

Looks like somebody needs to take their own advice. (Not you if that's not clear lol)

Hello pot meet kettle!

 

[lilypgirl]

It’s your use of the word “again” in your question. It speaks volumes and you’re not being genuine implying you were asking a simple question.

You know what they say when we assume!

 

[luv2cheer92]

My goodness... at least I have some entertainment tonight.

 

[lilypgirl]

My goodness... at least I have some entertainment tonight.

Yes you are right my goodness!

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

You know what they say when we assume!

I added to that post at the same time you were commenting, so I’ll say it here too.

It’s the structure of your sentence. It isn’t as “simple” as you think it is. And I’m not assuming anything. Structurally, it’s how your question reads.

 

[Dan Murphy]

So we are to assume the cops were in the wrong again with no facts or real information?

You know what they say when we assume!

 

[luv2cheer92]

Yes you are right my goodness!

You know its hard to see your point of view when you say one thing, but then "love" a post stating the exact opposite thing you already stated. And yet you continue to ignore those asking you to clarify what you mean, and continue to just be condescending to everyone who is questioning you. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you really aren't doing yourself any favors to be taken seriously.

 

[luv2cheer92]

Must resist feeding the trolls, but sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

[underdesea]

I disagree with the verdict.

Huh. I'm sure no one saw that opinion coming.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

My goodness... at least I have some entertainment tonight.

That’ll come later on tonight, riots are almost guaranteed and available to live-stream.

 

[luv2cheer92]

That’ll come later on tonight, riots are almost guaranteed and available to live-stream.

I've gotten plenty in this thread, but thanks...

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Huh. I'm sure no one saw that opinion coming.

Your welcome

 

[usnuzuloose]

Oh, please lets not get this thread closed. I think we can have a good conversation about the issue.

 

[KayMichigan]

There was no way to defend what Chauvin did and i think the defense team knew it. They were making the dumbest arguments. Anybody with eyes saw what happened. Glad the jury reached the conclusions that they did, Chauvin deserved them.

 

[luv2cheer92]

Oh, please lets not get this thread closed. I think we can have a good conversation about the issue.

Some people were trying to. Unfortunately as all good threads go, somebody has to ruin it.

 

[DisneyJamieCA]

I'd like to bring your question back up before the thread gets locked. I'm not surprised there were three counts, but I don't understand how he could be convicted of all three. He only killed GF once. If they had assault (or other physical charge), I could understand.

I'm simply asking about the legalities. I am not surprised he was found guilty (I thought he deserved at least murder 3). I just don't understand how one death = two murder charges and a manslaughter.

To answer this question, what I’m reading is he only will get sentenced on one (the 2nd degree murder charge). So they charge all 3 in hopes at least one is guilty. So my understanding is that the jury found enough evidence for the most serious charge, which means by default the lesser two were also met.