George Floyd Trial

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

George Floyd Trial

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Matov 31 Mar 21 7.33am
Watched the opening statements and was confused by one thing. The defence said there had only been a single autopsy? And that showed no signs of death by asphyxiation? Meaning that the cop on trial cannot have killed him? And if the prosecution are going to attack the findings of this report then surely (and I don't know how the system in the US works) then it would be like the equivalent of our CPS disputing the findings of our official coroner's office? State v State almost? Really happy to be educated on this one. Personally, I can see why a manslaughter charge might be able to stick because I guess you could argue that the cops had a duty of care to render medical help once Floyd fell unconscious but murder? Surely intent has to be proved rather than just poor/negligent judgement? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

31 Mar 21 7.33am

Watched the opening statements and was confused by one thing.

The defence said there had only been a single autopsy? And that showed no signs of death by asphyxiation? Meaning that the cop on trial cannot have killed him?

And if the prosecution are going to attack the findings of this report then surely (and I don't know how the system in the US works) then it would be like the equivalent of our CPS disputing the findings of our official coroner's office? State v State almost? Really happy to be educated on this one.

Personally, I can see why a manslaughter charge might be able to stick because I guess you could argue that the cops had a duty of care to render medical help once Floyd fell unconscious but murder?

Surely intent has to be proved rather than just poor/negligent judgement?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 31 Mar 21 9.07am
Originally posted by Matov Watched the opening statements and was confused by one thing. The defence said there had only been a single autopsy? And that showed no signs of death by asphyxiation? Meaning that the cop on trial cannot have killed him? And if the prosecution are going to attack the findings of this report then surely (and I don't know how the system in the US works) then it would be like the equivalent of our CPS disputing the findings of our official coroner's office? State v State almost? Really happy to be educated on this one. Personally, I can see why a manslaughter charge might be able to stick because I guess you could argue that the cops had a duty of care to render medical help once Floyd fell unconscious but murder? Surely intent has to be proved rather than just poor/negligent judgement? He OD'D after holding a gun to a pregnant womans tummy and dropping a few pills. There is a saying about rubbish!
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 31 Mar 21 9.07am

Originally posted by Matov

Watched the opening statements and was confused by one thing.

The defence said there had only been a single autopsy? And that showed no signs of death by asphyxiation? Meaning that the cop on trial cannot have killed him?

Personally, I can see why a manslaughter charge might be able to stick because I guess you could argue that the cops had a duty of care to render medical help once Floyd fell unconscious but murder?

Surely intent has to be proved rather than just poor/negligent judgement?

He OD'D after holding a gun to a pregnant womans tummy and dropping a few pills.
There is a saying about rubbish!

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 9.27am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Well let’s hope the families of the 19 people who died, 14,000 people arrested and owners of the property damaged in protests agree. They are separate issues. Huge, important, urgent and worthy of lengthy debate but separate. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 9.27am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Well let’s hope the families of the 19 people who died, 14,000 people arrested and owners of the property damaged in protests agree.

They are separate issues. Huge, important, urgent and worthy of lengthy debate but separate.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 9.32am
Originally posted by cryrst Not really as he was a scum bag and whiteness and white protectionism are/is on trial. Its written in a few articles but why let that suddenly get in the way of an excuse to loot and kill. This could be the straw. No-one other than the accused is on trial. Looting and killing must always be condemned but in the right place and at the right time. Those who want to see other things on trial, and those who think they are, are muddying the water so much that I see the potential for a miss-trial, which would be in no-one's interests. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 9.32am

Originally posted by cryrst

Not really as he was a scum bag and whiteness and white protectionism are/is on trial. Its written in a few articles but why let that suddenly get in the way of an excuse to loot and kill. This could be the straw.

No-one other than the accused is on trial.

Looting and killing must always be condemned but in the right place and at the right time.

Those who want to see other things on trial, and those who think they are, are muddying the water so much that I see the potential for a miss-trial, which would be in no-one's interests.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 31 Mar 21 9.42am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle They are separate issues. Huge, important, urgent and worthy of lengthy debate but separate. But they’re not separate; they are inextricably linked. What will happen if this policeman is acquitted? An acceptance that justice was served or mass riots?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

31 Mar 21 9.42am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

They are separate issues. Huge, important, urgent and worthy of lengthy debate but separate.

But they’re not separate; they are inextricably linked. What will happen if this policeman is acquitted? An acceptance that justice was served or mass riots?

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 31 Mar 21 9.52am
Originally posted by Matov Watched the opening statements and was confused by one thing. The defence said there had only been a single autopsy? And that showed no signs of death by asphyxiation? Meaning that the cop on trial cannot have killed him? And if the prosecution are going to attack the findings of this report then surely (and I don't know how the system in the US works) then it would be like the equivalent of our CPS disputing the findings of our official coroner's office? State v State almost? Really happy to be educated on this one. Personally, I can see why a manslaughter charge might be able to stick because I guess you could argue that the cops had a duty of care to render medical help once Floyd fell unconscious but murder? Surely intent has to be proved rather than just poor/negligent judgement? Yes I think so. It’s highly unlikely a cop is going to intentionally kill someone in view of people and camera phones from a few metres away. There’s never a need to hold your knee down on someone’s neck for nearly 9 minutes. It doesn’t take that long for the detainee to give up fighting back. Why he wasn’t cuffed during that 9 minutes should also be heard. But of course riots will happen because the death of Saint George Floyd didn’t mean a murder charge. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 31 Mar 21 9.52am

Originally posted by Matov

Watched the opening statements and was confused by one thing.

The defence said there had only been a single autopsy? And that showed no signs of death by asphyxiation? Meaning that the cop on trial cannot have killed him?

Personally, I can see why a manslaughter charge might be able to stick because I guess you could argue that the cops had a duty of care to render medical help once Floyd fell unconscious but murder?

Surely intent has to be proved rather than just poor/negligent judgement?

Yes I think so. It’s highly unlikely a cop is going to intentionally kill someone in view of people and camera phones from a few metres away. There’s never a need to hold your knee down on someone’s neck for nearly 9 minutes. It doesn’t take that long for the detainee to give up fighting back. Why he wasn’t cuffed during that 9 minutes should also be heard. But of course riots will happen because the death of Saint George Floyd didn’t mean a murder charge.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 9.59am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle But they’re not separate; they are inextricably linked. What will happen if this policeman is acquitted? An acceptance that justice was served or mass riots? That any subsequent rioting may well be "inextricably linked" to the verdict is no reason to link them to the trial itself. That must be kept free of any consequences and a verdict reached solely on the evidence. What happens afterwards is separate and needs to be handled separately. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 9.59am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

But they’re not separate; they are inextricably linked. What will happen if this policeman is acquitted? An acceptance that justice was served or mass riots?

That any subsequent rioting may well be "inextricably linked" to the verdict is no reason to link them to the trial itself.

That must be kept free of any consequences and a verdict reached solely on the evidence.

What happens afterwards is separate and needs to be handled separately.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 31 Mar 21 10.09am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle No-one other than the accused is on trial. Looting and killing must always be condemned but in the right place and at the right time. Those who want to see other things on trial, and those who think they are, are muddying the water so much that I see the potential for a miss-trial, which would be in no-one's interests. So when is the right time to condemn killing and looting then?
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 31 Mar 21 10.09am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No-one other than the accused is on trial.

Looting and killing must always be condemned but in the right place and at the right time.

Those who want to see other things on trial, and those who think they are, are muddying the water so much that I see the potential for a miss-trial, which would be in no-one's interests.

So when is the right time to condemn killing and looting then?

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 31 Mar 21 10.11am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That any subsequent rioting may well be "inextricably linked" to the verdict is no reason to link them to the trial itself. That must be kept free of any consequences and a verdict reached solely on the evidence. What happens afterwards is separate and needs to be handled separately. Sometimes wissy you show naivety but I beleive its for a reaction and you know fully what you write. I reckon you must be playing games and hold up Flash cards with our response just as you post. And today you have a winner! Edited by cryrst (31 Mar 2021 10.12am)
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 31 Mar 21 10.11am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That any subsequent rioting may well be "inextricably linked" to the verdict is no reason to link them to the trial itself.

That must be kept free of any consequences and a verdict reached solely on the evidence.

What happens afterwards is separate and needs to be handled separately.

Sometimes wissy you show naivety but I beleive its for a reaction and you know fully what you write.
I reckon you must be playing games and hold up Flash cards with our response just as you post.
And today you have a winner!

Edited by cryrst (31 Mar 2021 10.12am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 10.22am
Originally posted by cryrst So when is the right time to condemn killing and looting then? Whenever it happens. Prior to that effort needs to be made to explain that trials are fair and verdicts based on evidence but that grievances will be listened to and, where needed, changes made. And at the same time that anger is never an excuse for lawbreaking and won't be tolerated. It's a two-edged sword. Restoring and building confidence that the system is fair to all has to be matched by a zero tolerance of unlawful behaviour. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 31 Mar 21 10.22am

Originally posted by cryrst

So when is the right time to condemn killing and looting then?

Whenever it happens.

Prior to that effort needs to be made to explain that trials are fair and verdicts based on evidence but that grievances will be listened to and, where needed, changes made.

And at the same time that anger is never an excuse for lawbreaking and won't be tolerated.

It's a two-edged sword. Restoring and building confidence that the system is fair to all has to be matched by a zero tolerance of unlawful behaviour.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 31 Mar 21 10.32am
I have no interest whatsoever in a court case in a foreign country about the death of a callous violent criminal. If this guy had been White, no one would care.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

31 Mar 21 10.32am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

I have no interest whatsoever in a court case in a foreign country about the death of a callous violent criminal.

If this guy had been White, no one would care.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 31 Mar 21 11.07am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I have no interest whatsoever in a court case in a foreign country about the death of a callous violent criminal. If this guy had been White, no one would care. Yep, Whites have died during police restraints, one of which I've seen on video and not only didn't you see the massive media outcry you don't get riots. You also don't see murder convictions. The racial dynamic is a political device used by the progressives against the right and you're correct. If the guy dying is white they don't care about it. Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Mar 2021 11.07am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

31 Mar 21 11.07am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I have no interest whatsoever in a court case in a foreign country about the death of a callous violent criminal.

If this guy had been White, no one would care.

Yep, Whites have died during police restraints, one of which I've seen on video and not only didn't you see the massive media outcry you don't get riots. You also don't see murder convictions.

The racial dynamic is a political device used by the progressives against the right and you're correct. If the guy dying is white they don't care about it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Mar 2021 11.07am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

George Floyd Trial

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors