I mean how good can they be if they let this shit still happen? We keep hearing about the good cops, I hope its true, but I don't know for a fact it is. What we see are enabling cops, and killer cops.
Chauvin Found Guilty of All Charges
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
You're both wrong. The Dark Ages were called that because of the lack of written records. At least that was the idea. However, this period is no longer 900 years. It is restricted mostly to the 400-600 AD, and mostly in Britain. No one knows what the fuck transpired in Britain at the time. For all we know, maybe there really was a king Arthur in 5th century.
It might be worth mentioning that the term "Dark age" or a local analogue is not even used throughout Europe. It was always linked to how to present the past and this obviously varies wildly depending on who you talk to.
I mean, if the English want to pretend that 1066 is where it starts to get better again, this is one thing but that sentiment won't really be shared by those who draw (part of) their authority from Charlemagne.
I mean, if the English want to pretend that 1066 is where it starts to get better again, this is one thing but that sentiment won't really be shared by those who draw (part of) their authority from Charlemagne.
Arguably, things got much, much worse for the English in 1066.
The English of the era were Anglo-Saxons and culturally assimilated ancient Britons. They were taken over by a Franco-Norsemen warrior caste and brutally subjugated. These English commoners were therefore ruled by a French-speaking Norman nobility with their own parallel culture who merely viewed England as one part of their greater empire. The two eventually merged into what became the modern English largely because the Kings of England needed to motivate their Anglo-Saxon subjects to go and fight for them, which they did by making their nobility speak English and be more appealing to their Anglo-Saxon peasants.
Oh, there's lots to argue about there.
For one, slavery was banned under the Norman regime, but not under the Anglo-Saxon. If you were a slave, you might have viewed the conquest and the harrowing as not that big a deal. Of course, slaves were only a very small part of the population, but enough to muddy the issue.
That specific usage of the term is only really recent, and is very much not what the user originally was referring to. Like, the question here is "were the early middle ages an exceptionally ignorant backwards corrupt hellhole of a time period", and why would people believe that's the case. Academics trying to reclaim the phrase "dark ages" to mean something more reasonable than that is sort of beside the point.
Doesn't surprise me that nearly half of these spoiled bitches would think that. Just goes to show that have them don't care about black people or people of color. Unless it's convenient or they got the money. And even if that person is black or if a different races rich, they'll still look down upon them for not being white.
As for the Mr defense attorney, that's nice of all, but I don't feel bad for Chauvin. He knew what he was doing was wrong and beyond unnecessary. Floyd is human too. One that begged for his life to breathe, and the cop refused to listen. And the others just sit and watch not interfering.
www.google.com
Almost half of Republicans say Chauvin jury reached wrong verdict: poll
Nearly half of all Republicans questioned in a new poll said that they believe former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was wrongly convicted of murdering George Floyd.A total of 46 per…
thehill.com
As for the Mr defense attorney, that's nice of all, but I don't feel bad for Chauvin. He knew what he was doing was wrong and beyond unnecessary. Floyd is human too. One that begged for his life to breathe, and the cop refused to listen. And the others just sit and watch not interfering.
Minnesota AG reveals he 'felt a little bad' for Derek Chauvin after guilty verdict: 'He's a human being'
Besides showing compassion for Derek Chauvin, Keith Ellison also revealed that he was unsure of what the verdicts would be up until the moment they were read.
Apparently one of the jurors lied on the jury selection process by claiming he wasn't at a blm protest when there's evidence of him being there and wearing clothing about this case which could lead to a mistrial. Welp, time to board up minnesota again I guess.
Link? Forgive me, but after the months of stolen election "proof", Hunter Biden laptop "proof", and COVID is a hoax "proof", I'm a bit skeptical.
Seems legit, though the spin they wanna give it will vary based on politics I imagine.
Chauvin juror defends participation in March on Washington after social media post surfaces
Sounds like it's gonna be flimsy. He's claiming it was a MLKJ celebration event. Likely they'll at it to their list of reasons for an appeal submission, the problem is defining what is and isn't an BLM protest march is gonna be tricky. This alone isn't going to be enough to change anything.
Well he had a shirt that was referencing kneeing on necks so even if it's not a BLM rally it's still about this case.
Though the bigger issue is that he lied about it, if he disclosed it and they let him be a juror anyways that's fine but lying implies that he's aware that he's biased and wants to hide that from the judge.
I think it will likely be reviewed in the appeal as to whether he misrepresented himself and could have entered the court with bias, but theres not enough here to justify declaring he outright lied in the selection process, at least in the articles linked. You can never say never, but under the current law it's extremely slim. Apparently this sort of thing is nigh impossible to make any difference in the appeal process.
Why would that matters? If Americans insist on the nonsensical system that people with no knowledge of the law and plenty of biases should be randomly picked off the street to help decide the law, then a random person they picked off the street to help decide law should be allowed to do so. Its how the weird system of jury duty works. You can't really boot someone from the jury bench for being unqualified or biased when the whole system is supposed to pick people who are unqualified and biased.
Basically the issue is he lied and said he hadn't been to a protest when he had been.
The idea is that you pick those random folks and then the lawyers debate between them and pick the viable jurors out of the larger group of picked people through asking them questions and having them answer truthfully under the penalty of law.
I have done jury duty once and basically they call like 30 people in the courtroom and ask em stuff but only 12 of those folks get picked and if they fill up those 12 spots (which they do one by one as they go and not all at the end) they don't even get to asking all 30 people stuff so if this guy had not lied they could theoretically have swapped him out with someone else that they hadn't gotten to yet which then could have switched up the outcome. In my case I was number 20something so they never even got to me before filling up their 12 folks but the folks that came before me were asked stuff that they had to be truthful about, the case was about drunk driving so like for example there was this one woman who literally thought laws shouldn't apply equitably cause alcohol affects people differently so someone may be more or less debilitated by the same amount of alcohol, and she was debating with the prosecutor about it, so they didn't allow her to be a juror. If she lied about her feelings but then was unmovable in finding the dude innocent because of this opinion then that'd be an issue.
I disagree, I think it’s one of the few dragons worth chasing. Never gonna catch it, but worth pursuing none the less.
I think one of the problems for high profile cases like this is finding someone who is impartial, non-biased and never heard of the events. Who in American didn't have an opinion after seeing the footage of George Floyd's murder? Who didn't have an opinion on the protests afterward? Who was so under a rock that they never formed an opinion on police brutality, black lives and racial history in America?
What I know about the us judicial system and jury selection is bad
To play devils advocate though I think the main issue is that (according to the article) this individual didn’t disclose the fact that he had some interaction with BLM. It’s a bit more sticky if you don’t disclose that you have interacted with something that is somewhat linked to a case in people’s minds. For example if a juror was taking part in a drunk driving/injury case and didn’t disclose they themselves were injured by a drunk driver or took part in ….MADD (not sure if that is the correct acronym sorry) that would be hiding their own personal bias.
That being said I’m in Canada and not the USA and all I know about court systems is what I have seen in true crime/crime fiction shows and books, so take what I said as you will.
I fully agree with this statement it would be next to impossible to find someone who didn’t have an opinion on any of these.
To play devils advocate though I think the main issue is that (according to the article) this individual didn’t disclose the fact that he had some interaction with BLM. It’s a bit more sticky if you don’t disclose that you have interacted with something that is somewhat linked to a case in people’s minds. For example if a juror was taking part in a drunk driving/injury case and didn’t disclose they themselves were injured by a drunk driver or took part in ….MADD (not sure if that is the correct acronym sorry) that would be hiding their own personal bias.
That being said I’m in Canada and not the USA and all I know about court systems is what I have seen in true crime/crime fiction shows and books, so take what I said as you will.