Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
[tw]1865770177125601384[/tw]
Trump and his team are probably correct about this, to be honest. I can’t think of any argument against the 14th Amendment having a specific intent, and I’m open to the suggestion that it should be challenged. I’d find it a bit rich if Gorsuch, for instance, agreed with this, but it does seem like it had a specific intent that has been satisfied. So does it require a constitutional amendment to change?
Trump and his team are probably correct about this, to be honest. I can’t think of any argument against the 14th Amendment having a specific intent, and I’m open to the suggestion that it should be challenged. I’d find it a bit rich if Gorsuch, for instance, agreed with this, but it does seem like it had a specific intent that has been satisfied. So does it require a constitutional amendment to change?
Tapate50
Well-known member
Awful people.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Once again proving how easily duped you are. The medical examiner testified that Floyds death was from “cardiopulmonary arrest” from subdual and neck restraint. Heart disease and fentanyl were contributing factors but not the main cause. All this **** you say was brought up in court so its not like the jury never heard it.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Just a solid reminder that the supply of racism is less than the demand, so they just make more.
Tapate50
Well-known member
they knew they couldn't let him off regardless of evidence.
That 38 hemoglobin will kill you pretty easily in itself if I'm understanding that measure correctly.... And I absolutely could not be.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
He should not have been convicted. I think there was legitimate reason to charge him unlike the Rittenhouse case. If Perry was a police officer or a doctor I think a conviction might have been warranted. A police officer because they are trained on restraint holds and a doctor because of their medical knowledge. That said I have choked people out without killing them. Also I dont see any reason he couldnt have used a full nelson or atleast switched to a full nelson at some point. This does not rise to the level of beyond reasonable doubt and I think the odds are Perry would win any civil suit brought against him.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Neck compression isnt solely caused by the knee being on the neck. If Chauvin doesnt keep his knee on Floyd he probably lives. There was no reason to keep his knee on him other than wanting to inflict pain and suffering on Floyd. He had his hands handcuffed behind his back.
Yes because all a police officer needs to do is handcuff a drug riddled criminal freaking out.
You are amazing - never stop.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
We need to add a new option to verdicts. We have guilty and not guilty. There should also be "innocent" where the prosecuting entity is required to compensate the person they unjustly prosecuted. Hopefully more people you like get unjustly prosecuted so your side will actually support reforms instead of just crying about the rigged justice system that your own side fought so hard to keep rigged. Like who do you think doesnt want public defenders funded? Not the liberals. It was your side who said if poor people get adequate legal representation it would lead to criminals walking free.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
99.999999% of the threat of a person in custody is gone when they are handcuffed behind their back and searched. There was 5 cops there with 2 holding down his legs, what was Floyd going to do if Chauvin wasnt kneeling on him? Get up and sprint away? Dude couldnt run 5 feet.
You said the magic word "probably". Nothing is definite here.
The case has way too much reasonable doubt.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I know, how was Derek Chauvin even supposed to know Floyd was dying. He was clearly too distracted by the angry mob yelling at him that he was killing Floyd to know that he was killing Floyd.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...S&cvid=ec5a69f546494ecad9f77a99c9922334&ei=12
Trump lawyers with 10 new charges for defrauding the Republican electors into signing the documents by lying to them that they would only be used if Trump were to win the state. Before the tard patrol swings by there is nothing wrong with alternate electors so long as they stipulate they are only to be used if their candidate prevails. Simply stating they are the legally appointed electors without that stipulation is a crime if they were not the legally appointed electors. If they did all this but didnt submit the documents there is no crime. Once they submitted them to the National Archives it became a crime.
Trump lawyers with 10 new charges for defrauding the Republican electors into signing the documents by lying to them that they would only be used if Trump were to win the state. Before the tard patrol swings by there is nothing wrong with alternate electors so long as they stipulate they are only to be used if their candidate prevails. Simply stating they are the legally appointed electors without that stipulation is a crime if they were not the legally appointed electors. If they did all this but didnt submit the documents there is no crime. Once they submitted them to the National Archives it became a crime.