bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?

---

No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.

---

Crime rates are increasing across the nation. I don't claim to need an ar15 for home protection bc i have a pistol and a shotgun for that. The ar15 is for fun bc shooting rifles is fun. I just spent a long weekend on a friends ranch and we had a nice array of high powered rifles that we used to shoot targets, tannerite, hogs among other things. Nobody got killed.

---

Crime rates aren't increasing. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to irrational fear.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

And I have no problem with the "shooting **** is fun" mentality. I just don't think that's reasonable justification for flooding the market with weapons that (in the wrong hands) can kill dozens of people in minutes.

---

January and February 2020 saw a combined homicide rate increase of 32.5 percent compared to the same time in 2019. March through May saw a 19.4 percent surge, while June through August experienced a 37.2 percent rate increase and September through December reported a 28.2 percent spike year-over-year.

In all, homicide rates in 2020 were 30 percent higher than in the year before, with 1,268 more murders in the 34-city sample alone, the NCCCJ found. Murders rose in 29 of the 34 cities examined, or 85 percent.

"Homicides increased in nearly all of the 34 cities in the sample," the experts wrote. "In the authors' view, urgent action is necessary to address these rapidly rising rates. Subduing the pandemic, increasing confidence in the police and the justice system and implementing proven anti-violence strategies will be necessary to achieve a durable peace in the nation's cities."

https://nypost.com/2021/02/01/americas-murder-rate-increase-in-2020-has-no-modern-precedent/#:~:text=January%20and%20February%202020%20saw,the%20same%20time%20in%202019.&text=Murders%20rose%20in%2029%20of,sample%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20experts%20wrote.

I actually speak to cops on a regular basis at my work and they tell me crime is increasing so I take their word for it. You don't like guns and probably have an irrational fear of them but that's ok.

After the Sandy Hook shooting, the Obama Administration commissioned the "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related violence" (2013).

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Among the findings of that report was this:

"Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"

Also, the study found that, far and away, suicides accounted for the majority of gun deaths, not homicides or accidents.

"Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States"

Certainly the report was meant to sell the Obama Administration's focus on gun control, but even that report was honest enough to admit that there are good, valid reasons for people to own and maintain guns.

As for how criminals gain access to guns, a 2016 DOJ study

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

found that criminals steal guns or buy them from illegal sources 75% of the time, and the remainder obtain them from family or friends.

So that fairy tale that legit gun dealers are the problem is bunk.

bear2be2 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"only between 0.5 and 1.3 percent of the roughly 36,000,000 American gun owners who claim self-defense as their primary motivation for gun ownership will actually use that weapon for defense purposes."

Only a moron or a completely dishonest person would claim that someone has to fire their weapon for it to be an effective deterrent.

---

I once rented a mother-in-law apartment in a questionable neighborhood from a guy who told me, "I have a shotgun and everyone knows it." No one bothered that house.

---

Most people whose kids shot and killed themselves or others with their guns likely said -- or at least thought -- something similar at one point. Every single one of those guns has a negative rating on the violent crimes prevented scale.

Anecdotal evidence goes both ways, and is thus pretty worthless to this discussion.

---

This guy was about 75 or 80 years old. There were no kids (or grandkids) It is impossible to conclude that his gun "had a negative rating in the violent crime (or non violent crime) prevented scale." The point is that the real or implied presence of a gun can alter the behavior of potential criminals in a meaningful, positive way. The weapon does not need to be actually fired.

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have some grossly mistaken ideas about gun owners, not to mention guns.

Maybe read up before your next post on that topic.

Or would that get in the way of your screeding?

---

No, I haven't mistaken anything. The stated motivation used most often by gun fetishists is based 100 percent on statistically irrational fear. The odds of needing any weapon for self-defense are astronomically small and shrinking alongside the violent crime rates.

Yet, you don't bring up the statistics here. Why? Because that's a fear you share.

---

Crime rates are increasing across the nation. I don't claim to need an ar15 for home protection bc i have a pistol and a shotgun for that. The ar15 is for fun bc shooting rifles is fun. I just spent a long weekend on a friends ranch and we had a nice array of high powered rifles that we used to shoot targets, tannerite, hogs among other things. Nobody got killed.

---

Crime rates aren't increasing. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to irrational fear.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/

And I have no problem with the "shooting **** is fun" mentality. I just don't think that's reasonable justification for flooding the market with weapons that (in the wrong hands) can kill dozens of people in minutes.

---

January and February 2020 saw a combined homicide rate increase of 32.5 percent compared to the same time in 2019. March through May saw a 19.4 percent surge, while June through August experienced a 37.2 percent rate increase and September through December reported a 28.2 percent spike year-over-year.

In all, homicide rates in 2020 were 30 percent higher than in the year before, with 1,268 more murders in the 34-city sample alone, the NCCCJ found. Murders rose in 29 of the 34 cities examined, or 85 percent.

"Homicides increased in nearly all of the 34 cities in the sample," the experts wrote. "In the authors' view, urgent action is necessary to address these rapidly rising rates. Subduing the pandemic, increasing confidence in the police and the justice system and implementing proven anti-violence strategies will be necessary to achieve a durable peace in the nation's cities."

https://nypost.com/2021/02/01/americas-murder-rate-increase-in-2020-has-no-modern-precedent/#:~:text=January%20and%20February%202020%20saw,the%20same%20time%20in%202019.&text=Murders%20rose%20in%2029%20of,sample%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20experts%20wrote.

I actually speak to cops on a regular basis at my work and they tell me crime is increasing so I take their word for it. You don't like guns and probably have an irrational fear of them but that's ok.

---

Micro crime spikes don't trump macro trends. And the trend nationwide has been a dramatic decrease in crime of all types -- but especially violent crime -- since the early 1990s.

If two, three, five years from now, we find that 2020 started a crime surge that reversed the progress made in the three decades before it, then we'll have a real reason for concern. But until then, there's no reason to think a spike that occurred during an unprecedented period of turmoil in our country is creating a new crime landscape/reality. Certainly not to the point that you would change behaviors because of it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

After the Sandy Hook shooting, the Obama Administration commissioned the "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related violence" (2013).

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Among the findings of that report was this:

"Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"

Also, the study found that, far and away, suicides accounted for the majority of gun deaths, not homicides or accidents.

"Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States"

Certainly the report was meant to sell the Obama Administration's focus on gun control, but even that report was honest enough to admit that there are good, valid reasons for people to own and maintain guns.

As for how criminals gain access to guns, a 2016 DOJ study

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

found that criminals steal guns or buy them from illegal sources 75% of the time, and the remainder obtain them from family or friends.

So that fairy tale that legit gun dealers are the problem is bunk.

---

And you once again misunderstand/misinterpret my point, which is why I most often just ignore your nonsense. You're literally impossible with which to engage in a meaningful, good faith discussion. I never said that all criminals get their weapons legitimately. That so-called "fairy tale" is not only unrelated to the point I was making, it is irrelevant to my point.

My point has nothing to do with how criminals acquire guns. My point is when you flood the market with guns, as we have in this country, the likelihood increases that they fall into criminals' hands -- be it by legitimate or illegitimate means. The same dynamic exists with drugs (see the opioid crisis) or any other commodity. To suggest that increasing the supply of any product will only affect/increase the positive impacts of that product is beyond naive, it's absurd.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

robby44 said:

---

"That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X

---

The fatal bullets lodged throughout Malcolm X's chest and abdomen were put there by blacks....not cops.

---

Ok.

Now back to that foot on his neck.

---

I wasn't the one who brought up Malcolm X.

Now back to that double standard .

---

No, you weren't. You were the one who tried to obfuscate the point.

Now, back to the point.

---

Not true.

But you have always excelled in lying .

For you its just a way to pass the time .

Year after meaningless year.

---

And you keep running. Shock.

MLK made a valid point about oppression. Your response was that he was killed by Blacks.

You're a good Sassanach.

---

That was in reference to Malcolm X, not MLK Jr.

edit - saw the response after my post, but the point is still important.

Pretty weak to confuse Malcolm X with MLK but pretend the other guy is 'racist'.

---

I did confuse the two.

And I never called Canada a racist. Didn't even imply because I don't think he is one.

---

Then why use the boot on the neck phrase in response to him?

---

""That's Not A Chip On My Shoulder. That's Your Foot On My Neck" Malcolm X" was the quote I was referencing.

---

And why use that phrase?

---

This is a thread about Chauvin.

---

Answer the question. Why did you choose that phrase when answering Canada, if you were not implying racism?

---

I have given you the answer. Use your context skills.

---

The answer is that you will not admit to a cheap shot you tried.

Noted.

---

Again, you only think you can see hate where there is none, which suggests a lot more about you.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 just ignores any facts that get in the way of his rant.

The dominant fact in this thread, b2b2, is that the evidence destroys your claims, all of them.

I get that you are afraid of guns. No one is making you own one, but no, you don't get to ignore the rights of those who want and need their second amendment rights, and two farking bad if you don't like it.

---

I'm not ignoring your rights or anyone else's. I have yet to say a single word about your second amendment rights in this thread. I've only said -- quite accurately -- that gun ownership based on self-defense use is based on irrational fear. And that the gun lobby has deftly used that fear to create a society with a terribly unhealthy relationship with firearms.

CBS dangerously close to outing jurors.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

After the Sandy Hook shooting, the Obama Administration commissioned the "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related violence" (2013).

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Among the findings of that report was this:

"Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)"

Also, the study found that, far and away, suicides accounted for the majority of gun deaths, not homicides or accidents.

"Between the years 2000 and 2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States"

Certainly the report was meant to sell the Obama Administration's focus on gun control, but even that report was honest enough to admit that there are good, valid reasons for people to own and maintain guns.

As for how criminals gain access to guns, a 2016 DOJ study

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

found that criminals steal guns or buy them from illegal sources 75% of the time, and the remainder obtain them from family or friends.

So that fairy tale that legit gun dealers are the problem is bunk.

---

And you once again misunderstand/misinterpret my point, which is why I most often just ignore your nonsense. You're literally impossible with which to engage in a meaningful, good faith discussion. I never said that all criminals get their weapons legitimately. That so-called "fairy tale" is not only unrelated to the point I was making, it is irrelevant to my point.

My point has nothing to do with how criminals acquire guns. My point is when you flood the market with guns, as we have in this country, the likelihood increases that they fall into criminals' hands -- be it by legitimate or illegitimate means. The same dynamic exists with drugs (see the opioid crisis) or any other commodity. To suggest that increasing the supply of any product will only affect/increase the positive impacts of that product is beyond naive, it's absurd.

---

True: increasing the availability of guns will probably increase the likelihood of guns landing in the hands of those whose possession would be illegal.

But I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with restricting access to guns for law abiding citizens just because of what criminals have done or may do.

I also think you're right about not using a statistically brief spike to set policy, we just probably disagree what that policy should be. I don't think gun ownership is about fear, it's about a fundamental right.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 just ignores any facts that get in the way of his rant.

The dominant fact in this thread, b2b2, is that the evidence destroys your claims, all of them.

I get that you are afraid of guns. No one is making you own one, but no, you don't get to ignore the rights of those who want and need their second amendment rights, and two farking bad if you don't like it.

---

I'm not ignoring your rights or anyone else's. I have yet to say a single word about your second amendment rights in this thread. I've only said -- quite accurately -- that gun ownership based on self-defense use is based on irrational fear. And that the gun lobby has deftly used that fear to create a society with a terribly unhealthy relationship with firearms.

---

Social media and NRA mags aren't the real world. I live in the middle of I don't know how many gun owners. They own guns for lots of reasons. Mostly, they like to hunt. Some of them like to shoot. Some of the like the gadgetry. Some of them think an armed populace is a healthy thing for a government and criminals to remember, but that generally ranks way behind #s 1 and 2 in their mind. Some of them like to keep a gun by the nightstand or in the glovebox - again ranking way behind #s 1 and 2. A very small minority of them have protecting themselves at the forefront of their thinking. In fact, I don't know anyone who falls into that category.

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 just ignores any facts that get in the way of his rant.

The dominant fact in this thread, b2b2, is that the evidence destroys your claims, all of them.

I get that you are afraid of guns. No one is making you own one, but no, you don't get to ignore the rights of those who want and need their second amendment rights, and two farking bad if you don't like it.

---

I'm not ignoring your rights or anyone else's. I have yet to say a single word about your second amendment rights in this thread. I've only said -- quite accurately -- that gun ownership based on self-defense use is based on irrational fear. And that the gun lobby has deftly used that fear to create a society with a terribly unhealthy relationship with firearms.

---

You are, once again, trying - poorly - to turn Logic on its head.

You have produced no evidence at all to support the notion that gun ownership is based on "irrational fear", while ignoring considerable evidence that it's a rational decision.

I provided a link to government report confirming criminals don't get their guns from legit dealers, but you immediately ignored that and repeated the lie that there is a "flood of guns" that leads to crooks getting guns.

In fact, you have been very empty in providing any sort of evidence to back up your claims.

You are making a fool of yourself, and unless that was your goal, you may want to stop the farce.

Jack and DP said:

---

CBS dangerously close to outing jurors.

---

Brooklyn Center is a suburb of about 31,000 people. It's quite a stretch to suggest that putting an individual in that pool is close to outing a juror, much less "dangerously close."

That's starting a Guess Who game with 31,000 cards flipped upward.

Robert Wilson said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bear2be2 just ignores any facts that get in the way of his rant.

The dominant fact in this thread, b2b2, is that the evidence destroys your claims, all of them.

I get that you are afraid of guns. No one is making you own one, but no, you don't get to ignore the rights of those who want and need their second amendment rights, and two farking bad if you don't like it.

---

I'm not ignoring your rights or anyone else's. I have yet to say a single word about your second amendment rights in this thread. I've only said -- quite accurately -- that gun ownership based on self-defense use is based on irrational fear. And that the gun lobby has deftly used that fear to create a society with a terribly unhealthy relationship with firearms.

---

Social media and NRA mags aren't the real world. I live in the middle of I don't know how many gun owners. They own guns for lots of reasons. Mostly, they like to hunt. Some of them like to shoot. Some of the like the gadgetry. Some of them think an armed populace is a healthy thing for a government and criminals to remember, but that generally ranks way behind #s 1 and 2 in their mind. Some of them like to keep a gun by the nightstand or in the glovebox - again ranking way behind #s 1 and 2. A very small minority of them have protecting themselves at the forefront of their thinking. In fact, I don't know anyone who falls into that category.

---

I'm speaking specifically about statistics and polling data, and roughly half of polled gun owners (right around 48 percent) state "self defense/home defense" as their primary motivation for gun ownership.

Those for whom self-defense is a primary motivation are acting out of a fear level that, statistically speaking, is disproportionate to the existing threat. If we're going to condemn, rather try to understand, the fears we deem irrational in others, why would that group deserve extra consideration?

And just for the record, that was my entire point with the post that started this whole discussion. Perhaps we should try to be more empathetic and try to understand why these fears exist in certain populations, so we can address them more reasonably, compassionately and, most importantly, effectively.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Maxine Waters should be given the Trump treatment and impeached for inciting violence. It will never happen. She is a black female Democrat. She can do and say whatever she damn well pleases.

---

Maxine Waters doesn't have the power or platform Trump had. Nor does she have the same level of influence on her constituents.

Waters should not be talking about this trial in that manner, and she deserves whatever criticism comes her way for doing so. But there's no reason to give her words more weight than they actually have.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Should be a mistrial. I'm shocked this jury wasn't fully sequestered. There's just NO WAY not one of them became aware of the threats of violence or pig's blood being smeared, and the latest with Maxine Waters encouraging all of it. Not with today's technology and hypermedia presence. Waters herself might've fouled it all up. How ironic. Judge really screwed up by not sequestering.

---

Some judges would prefer to rely on personal responsibility rather than the force of the state. Good on him.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Maxine Waters should be given the Trump treatment and impeached for inciting violence. It will never happen. She is a black female Democrat. She can do and say whatever she damn well pleases.

---

Maxine Waters doesn't have the power or platform Trump had. Nor does she have the same level of influence on her constituents.

Waters should not be talking about this trial in that manner, and she deserves whatever criticism comes her way for doing so. But there's no reason to give her words more weight than they actually have.

---

Just watched Maxine's comments on the local news and would bet they will be on the national news as well. She should be impeached.

---

Don't watch. You're just giving oxygen to the fire.

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Maxine Waters should be given the Trump treatment and impeached for inciting violence. It will never happen. She is a black female Democrat. She can do and say whatever she damn well pleases.

---

Maxine Waters doesn't have the power or platform Trump had. Nor does she have the same level of influence on her constituents.

Waters should not be talking about this trial in that manner, and she deserves whatever criticism comes her way for doing so. But there's no reason to give her words more weight than they actually have.

---

Just watched Maxine's comments on the local news and would bet they will be on the national news as well. She should be impeached.

---

Don't watch. You're just giving oxygen to the fire.

---

Don't watch the news? So somehow her inflammatory comments are my fault? Hmmmmmmm.

quash said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Maxine Waters should be given the Trump treatment and impeached for inciting violence. It will never happen. She is a black female Democrat. She can do and say whatever she damn well pleases.

---

Maxine Waters doesn't have the power or platform Trump had. Nor does she have the same level of influence on her constituents.

Waters should not be talking about this trial in that manner, and she deserves whatever criticism comes her way for doing so. But there's no reason to give her words more weight than they actually have.

---

Just watched Maxine's comments on the local news and would bet they will be on the national news as well. She should be impeached.

---

Don't watch. You're just giving oxygen to the fire.

---

Agreed.

Granted, I don't watch a lot of news anymore, but I've only seen the Maxine Waters comments on tweets/posts by conservative sources. Every time you post or share crazy nonsense, you broaden its reach and increase the power of its influence.

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Should be a mistrial. I'm shocked this jury wasn't fully sequestered. There's just NO WAY not one of them became aware of the threats of violence or pig's blood being smeared, and the latest with Maxine Waters encouraging all of it. Not with today's technology and hypermedia presence. Waters herself might've fouled it all up. How ironic. Judge really screwed up by not sequestering.

---

Some judges would prefer to rely on personal responsibility rather than the force of the state. Good on him.

---

This might be the biggest trial since OJ. The judge's primary responsibility is to ensure a fair trial, not to relegate that to jurors' personal responsibility. The trial itself is a force of state, so what? The defense has a good case for dismissal.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Should be a mistrial. I'm shocked this jury wasn't fully sequestered. There's just NO WAY not one of them became aware of the threats of violence or pig's blood being smeared, and the latest with Maxine Waters encouraging all of it. Not with today's technology and hypermedia presence. Waters herself might've fouled it all up. How ironic. Judge really screwed up by not sequestering.

---

Some judges would prefer to rely on personal responsibility rather than the force of the state. Good on him.

---

This might be the biggest trial since OJ. The judge's primary responsibility is to ensure a fair trial, not to relegate that to jurors' personal responsibility. The trial itself is a force of state, so what? The defense has a good case for dismissal.

---

The defense has a lousy case for dismissal, lol. The judge met his burden.

So what? I appreciate when the state exercises restraint instead of overreach, that's what. That's actually one of the issues at play in this trial...

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Should be a mistrial. I'm shocked this jury wasn't fully sequestered. There's just NO WAY not one of them became aware of the threats of violence or pig's blood being smeared, and the latest with Maxine Waters encouraging all of it. Not with today's technology and hypermedia presence. Waters herself might've fouled it all up. How ironic. Judge really screwed up by not sequestering.

---

Some judges would prefer to rely on personal responsibility rather than the force of the state. Good on him.

---

This might be the biggest trial since OJ. The judge's primary responsibility is to ensure a fair trial, not to relegate that to jurors' personal responsibility. The trial itself is a force of state, so what? The defense has a good case for dismissal.

---

The defense has a lousy case for dismissal, lol. The judge met his burden.

So what? I appreciate when the state exercises restraint instead of overreach, that's what. That's actually one of the issues at play in this trial...

---

Oh, YOU appreciate it. Well then, that makes it all good....
(rolling eyes)

No, jury sequestration is not on trial here. If it was ok and called for in the George Zimmerman trial, it certainly was here. Defense has a good case for appeal.

I think the fair verdict is guilty of manslaughter. Anything else is likely to get thrown out as a mistrial.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Maxine Waters should be given the Trump treatment and impeached for inciting violence. It will never happen. She is a black female Democrat. She can do and say whatever she damn well pleases.

---

There is not a single poster on this message board who doesn't know this to be true.

Of course there are several who would rather remain silent than to publicly acknowledge the double standard.

I hope he is found "not guilty" on all counts. Let's quit soft-peddling and get it on. It's all gonna burn anyway.

redfish961 said:

---

Bypassing all of the comments and having watched the majority of the trial, if I was a juror, Chauvin would be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

He didn't plan it, but he participated in a manner that was reckless, indifferent, and uncaring.

I really wonder why some of the other officers aren't being tried....They could have intervened and chose not to.

---

That's not a crime. That's why they're not being tried.

Traditionally, you have a duty not to harm others. You don't have a duty to take affirmative acts to intervene or save.

redfish961 said:

---

Bypassing all of the comments and having watched the majority of the trial, if I was a juror, Chauvin would be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

He didn't plan it, but he participated in a manner that was reckless, indifferent, and uncaring.

I really wonder why some of the other officers aren't being tried....They could have intervened and chose not to.

Being former military, I back our veterans and the police until you give me a reason not to.

The other officers in this scenario could have helped to prevent this and not sure why nobody intervened.

Chauvin is guilty and his life was not in danger.

---

They can still be prosecuted. They may be going after the most egregious first, to see if they can make it stick.