What Is The Highest Charge Derek Chauvin Should Have Been Convicted Of?

Nice try. What % do blacks make up of the US population?

Blacks 13.4.
Whites 76.
So your lame numbers show how disingenuous your post is.
Blacks account for @40% for unarmed shootings with less than 14% of population.

Any other Trumpy stats?



Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

Here is your fatal mistake, this isn't about demographics based on population. This is about encounters with the police. Black people have far more encounters as they are responsible (like it or not) for more criminal activity. Adjusting for that the actual likelihood of being shot and/or killed for encountering the police means that many more black people would have been shot statistically but that is not the case. Maybe because it is a lie.
Yeah, I know, You're going to hold your breath because you can't have your own facts but it is what it is. Did Oprah have an encounter with the police last year? Nope, so she doesn't fit the narrative. Did I have an encounter with the police last year? Nope, so that doesn't fit the narrative. Because there are fewer black people in this country, Oprah's failure to get caught breaking the law has a larger impact on the statistics than myself participating in criminal activity.

Statistics, like comedy, is hard. Save it for the professionals.

6/57.

6 percent, the bulk of male blacks of adult age .. commit 57 percent of crime.

prove me wrong, hoehummer. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Another nice try. You posted the numbers for people shot by police. No mention of crime stats
After having your bullshit exposed and pushed in your face, you try to change things.
I proved you wrong in the post I replied to. They're your numbers.
Proving you wrong once wasn't enough?
Repost a coherent statement using your "6/57", include a link, and explain what it has to do with the OP.
In other words, your add on hijack posts as well as your attempts at salvaging any credibility don't mean shit to me.
You got caught using tje "liberal lie" card.
Just another Trumpy lie.

Really? He knelt on Floyds neck after he stopped moving. When the paramedics arrived they had to ask Chauvin to get off Floyd's neck.

How is it, that you know he didn't intend to commit murder? Telepathy? Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

How is it you know he did? Maybe you don't understand how our law is supposed to work. There must be/ should be evidence of intent like saying or writing "I intend to kill this person". Absent this "proof" of intent, the law requires beyond a reasonable doubt. It is reasonable to believe that Chauvin didn't intend to kill a man while being video taped. While it is possible through his arrogance that he thought he could do it and get away with it, proof of intent is still necessary or the defendant gets "beyond reasonable doubt". There was a charge that did not imply intent and that would have been the correct, reasonable charge.



We can all apply our guess at intent or not, the law calls for more and thank goodness it does even if it doesn't get applied by the jury.

Here is your fatal mistake, this isn't about demographics based on population. This is about encounters with the police. Black people have far more encounters as they are responsible (like it or not) for more criminal activity. Adjusting for that the actual likelihood of being shot and/or killed for encountering the police means that many more black people would have been shot statistically but that is not the case. Maybe because it is a lie.
Yeah, I know, You're going to hold your breath because you can't have your own facts but it is what it is. Did Oprah have an encounter with the police last year? Nope, so she doesn't fit the narrative. Did I have an encounter with the police last year? Nope, so that doesn't fit the narrative. Because there are fewer black people in this country, Oprah's failure to get caught breaking the law has a larger impact on the statistics than myself participating in criminal activity.

Statistics, like comedy, is hard. Save it for the professionals. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

What narrative? Not the OP or any narrative I was responding to. You didn't add any statistics.
Just your analysis of something we weren't discussing in detail. Something you can't have if you misrepresent right off the bat. Instead of correcting wacky, you tried to correct the person who corrected him. Proof you have no interest in honest discussion. Open your own thread.
I responded to a post with facts. This is off topic and I don't consider all your bullshit that is needed to keep you from looking like an ass.
He posted number and said here is proof. I posted facts that proved him wrong.
You saying I'm wrong means nothing without proof contrary to what I said. Get back on topic for the OP.

Didn't you say you were robbed? So you lied about no encountets with the police.
Typical.

https://www.calculator.net/percent-c...y=18#pctcommon

How is it you know he did? Maybe you don't understand how our law is supposed to work. There must be/ should be evidence of intent like saying or writing "I intend to kill this person". Absent this "proof" of intent, the law requires beyond a reasonable doubt. It is reasonable to believe that Chauvin didn't intend to kill a man while being video taped. While it is possible through his arrogance that he thought he could do it and get away with it, proof of intent is still necessary or the defendant gets "beyond reasonable doubt". There was a charge that did not imply intent and that would have been the correct, reasonable charge.



We can all apply our guess at intent or not, the law calls for more and thank goodness it does even if it doesn't get applied by the jury.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Seems like the jury decided this. Legally and appropriately.

Guilty on all counts.

Would you be questioning their judgment had the murdering Chauvin walked?

Not one juror with a doubt? The only benefit of the doubt I give the jury is if they were privy to evidence we have not seen. As for your other post- nobody can prove what someone else thinks. If this is the basis for how the jury voted then it is a mistrial.

How is it you know he did? Maybe you don't understand how our law is supposed to work. There must be/ should be evidence of intent like saying or writing "I intend to kill this person". Absent this "proof" of intent, the law requires beyond a reasonable doubt. ....

..... Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Like the knife attack that stopped because of expert marksmanship by a cop. The attacker said words to the effect that "I'm gonna kill you bitch."

https://www.calculator.net/percent-c...y=18#pctcommon

Sadly, the trend of fatal police shootings in the United States seems to only be increasing, with a total 213 civilians having been shot, 30 of whom were Black, in the first three months of 2021.




30 is 14.084507042254% of 213.


The fact is that Black people, proportionately commit more crimes than Whites. Therefore you would expect the ethnicity of those committing the most crimes would be higher than any other ethinicity regardless of the % of the population. Cops go where the crime is and confront the criminals regardless of ethnicity.


Until this is said by the President of the United States and admitted to by the Black population, this narrative of targeting Blacks simply because of the color of their skin, is a fallacy.
We could, after admitting to these facts, discuss why we think Blacks commit more crimes than Whites, like lack of educational opportunity or that the opportunity is there but not taken advantage of. Out of wedlock births with every study ever done shows this to be a contributing factor to generational poverty than can lead to crime and of course being told by half the population that they are a victim of White oppressors and always will be no matter how hard they try. Problem with that theory, there are far to many cases to prove that theory wrong.

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Statistics are racist. We are in a self feeding loop. More criminals don't comply. Cops have to kill them. Criminal families get big check. More incentivized criminals don't comply.

There must be/ should be evidence of intent like saying or writing "I intend to kill this person". Absent this "proof" of intent, the law requires beyond a reasonable doubt. It is reasonable to believe that Chauvin didn't intend to kill a man while being video taped.




Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Since the jury convicted, I'd say they saw "beyond a reasonable doubt"

You disagree. Too bad. The jury convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Since the jury convicted, I'd say they saw "beyond a reasonable doubt"

You disagree. Too bad. The jury convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt". Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

Or they saw what they where "expected to see". I guess you missed all my posts that said he should have been convicted of something, it just shouldn't have had "intent" attached to it to be fair and yes, that's my humble opinion which is still my right to have for awhile yet.


But if you saw "proof of intent", I wish you would share that proof with us or should I call you Adam Schiff?

Another nice try. You posted the numbers for people shot by police. No mention of crime stats
After having your bullshit exposed and pushed in your face, you try to change things.
I proved you wrong in the post I replied to. They're your numbers.
Proving you wrong once wasn't enough?
Repost a coherent statement using your "6/57", include a link, and explain what it has to do with the OP.
In other words, your add on hijack posts as well as your attempts at salvaging any credibility don't mean shit to me.
You got caught using tje "liberal lie" card.
Just another Trumpy lie.
Originally Posted by VerySkeptical

i expanded on my point of fact with more facts.


still waiting on you to refute any of those FACTS ..

Not one juror with a doubt? The only benefit of the doubt I give the jury is if they were privy to evidence we have not seen. As for your other post- nobody can prove what someone else thinks. If this is the basis for how the jury voted then it is a mistrial. Originally Posted by DTickler

They saw intent apparently. One day I hope one of them will share that proof of intent. Until that time I will continue to believe they didn't understand or didn't care what they were saying

Statistics, like comedy, is hard. Save it for the professionals. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Where did that come from?

Not one juror with a doubt? The only benefit of the doubt I give the jury is if they were privy to evidence we have not seen. As for your other post- nobody can prove what someone else thinks. If this is the basis for how the jury voted then it is a mistrial. Originally Posted by DTickler

They saw intent apparently. One day I hope one of them will share that proof of intent. Until that time I will continue to believe they didn't understand or didn't care what they were saying
Originally Posted by HedonistForever

they had doubts. an alternate juror said one of them was what would happen if they acquitted Chauvin. the jurors were afraid of the riots that would have happened if they returned no convictions. so they went for everything.



and guess what? those radials still riot over it. proving "justice" isn't their game plan. anarchy is.

Here's your MUTHUFUKIN' RACIST INTENT!