• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Police Brutality Thread

alasdairm said:
bullshit.

georgefloyd01.jpg


alasdair
Click to expand...
Trying desperately to stick to the facts on this thread by the way.

Agreed.

But I have a question (this for the sake of my interest i.e. not trying to be controversial here):

For reasons I'll not go into I did research, a long while back, on this issue of putting pressure on the neck. Turns out: in order to stop blood flow and cause a blackout (or death) pressure needs to be applied on both sides of the windpipe and to arteries that are not that easily accessible as they're buried pretty deep on either side of the windpipe. I agree with what you're pointing out. But Officer Chauvin's knee is on the back of the neck. And even although his head is on the ground: there's no way that said arteries could be in contact with anything on either side.

A good explanation of what I'm getting at is to look into that dumb fuck teenage game called the "choking game".

Are we talking about two different things here i.e. blood flow vs. airflow?
 
I don't know why people are so extreme with their opinions these days.

Most people in this thread either think Chauvin is a murdering piece of shit and doesn't deserve empathy... or they think Floyd is inhuman and unworthy of empathy.

dalpat077 said:
Spare me!
Click to expand...

Spare me your boot-licking racist ramblings?
 
Bella Figura said:
Have you ever been on a jury? Someone always talks..
Click to expand...
No I haven't. We don't have the jury system here. And even if we did: you'd never find a defense attorney or prosecutor that'd agree on me being a juror let's face it. My face got Detective Vic Mackey (The Shield) written all over it! :ROFLMAO:

But that's why I'm asking. That's how I thought it worked.

I can understand jurors discussing it among themselves (probably out of sheer fucking boredom and in spite of their being instructed to not do so). But to think that jurors could go home to their families and not discuss the trial and be influenced? Isn't that reason enough to declare a mistrial or something?

And if this is indeed what's happening: each juror on this trial would have patrol cars circling their places of residence 24/7. You know. Making a subtle point and all that!
 
I was a juror on a murder case in the UK, me and fellow jurors would bring up the case occasionally at lunch and I'm sure I spoke to family members about it.

But unless someone blabs, the court doesnt know...
 
Bella Figura said:
I was a juror on a murder case in the UK, me and fellow jurors would bring up the case occasionally at lunch and I'm sure I spoke to family members about it.

But unless someone blabs, the court doesnt know...
Click to expand...
Well that's interesting.

Let me ask you this:

Having had the experience do you think it's possible for a juror to NOT be swayed as a result of any personal discussions? I'm trying to put myself into that position and I come up with a the negative.

And in a high profile case like this: how do you even find jurors who have not already been influenced from many angles prior to the trial? Or that are acutely aware of the possible ramifications?
 
Not directed at anyone in particular, just a note. Please do not resort to name calling, personal insults, snide remarks, etc. We need to keep everything above board and idea based. Even if someone makes detestable racist comments, just let the mods take care of it.

Please consider this a warning.
 
dalpat077 said:
Well that's interesting.

Let me ask you this:

Having had the experience do you think it's possible for a juror to NOT be swayed as a result of any personal discussions? I'm trying to put myself into that position and I come up with a the negative.

And in a high profile case like this: how do you even find jurors who have not already been influenced from many angles prior to the trial? Or that are acutely aware of the possible ramifications?
Click to expand...
Of course it's possible, I had my views about the case which were based on the evidence presented to me. Whatever shitty jokes or character assassination we made about the guy outside the courtroom was mostly a coping mechanism to deal with the drudgery and misery that is a murder trial.

We weren't deliberately trying to influence each other or anything, you just can't help but talk about things.

And when it came to deliberations, we were all mostly on the same page bar one or two people who struggled with the idea of sending someone to prison, even if he did shove a rag down a 95 year old woman's throat till she choked and had a heart attack over £5 she owed him.

I get your point, obviously some people can be easily influenced, hence the rule of keep your mouth shut about the case.
 
Bella Figura said:
And when it came to deliberations, we were all mostly on the same page bar one or two people who struggled with the idea of sending someone to prison, even if he did shove a rag down a 95 year old woman's throat till she choked and had a heart attack over £5 she owed him.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Never ever met anybody who has served on a jury so I hope you don't mind my asking but always wondered about this.

Using your example: does the rest of the jury then spend time trying to convince the one or two that are not on the same page UNTIL they're on the same page or what happens?

I've only read about, maybe seen mentioned in a documentary, jurors that cave, even if it means going against their own feelings, simply in order to get it over with i.e. being pressured to go with the flow so that all and sundry can just get home and call it a day. A travesty obviously.
 
dalpat077 said:
Thanks. Never ever met anybody who has served on a jury so I hope you don't mind my asking but always wondered about this.

Using your example: does the rest of the jury then spend time trying to convince the one or two that are not on the same page UNTIL they're on the same page or what happens?

I've only read about, maybe seen mentioned in a documentary, jurors that cave, even if it means going against their own feelings, simply in order to get it over with i.e. being pressured to go with the flow so that all and sundry can just get home and call it a day. A travesty obviously.
Click to expand...
Yep, we all have to be in agreement and however long it takes, is however long it takes.

Some people were crying, some were yelling. The decision was whether or not to charge him with manslaughter based on diminished responsibility (claiming schizoaffective disorder) or murder.

Eventually, everyone agreed on murder. It wasn't necessarily that the one or two didn't think it was a case of murder, they just couldn't handle the responsibility they had been given.

I also forgot to mention she was tied up and lying on the ground, sound familiar?
 
Bella Figura said:
Yep, we all have to be in agreement and however long it takes, is however long it takes.
Click to expand...
That's quite something.

Although surely there has to be some limit?

Suppose I could/should look it up (this as opposed to bugging the shit out of you) (but I appreciate your sharing).


Bella Figura said:
I also forgot to mention she was tied up and lying on the ground, sound familiar?
Click to expand...
Um. No? Doesn't sound familiar? Has this happened somewhere before? :unsure:

Oh shit. Now I remember. Nah. Not the same thing. In your case: she wasn't giving a law enforcement officer shit or resisting arrest. And based on the (your) evidence as presented to this court or juror: I'm pretty sure, beyond a reasonable doubt anyway, that she wasn't attempting to flee the scene of a crime either (see what I did there i.e. pretty good huh! :ROFLMAO: ). Yeah. I know. I'm full of it! Sorry.

Nice try! :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Who fucking cares. Fuck the cops, or don't. Just don't let them fuck you, when you don't want them to. In that case I guess you should kill them, but in case you didn't, maybe try not obsessing over it.
 
alasdairm said:
^ how would you characterize the events leading up to his death, in a sentence or two?

alasdair
Click to expand...
This is a best I can do at this time (link below).

I can see, based on the videos floating around, that the dude appears to have his hands up when shot. But we are talking split seconds before him tossing a weapon behind the fence and then putting his hands up (shown in other videos but also censored). For all I know: the officer already had pressure on the trigger. But then I would look for something like that. At least I'm honest if nothing else.

Difficult one for me. Technically he was unarmed at the instant of his being sent on his way. But there is no way somebody like me, in this case, can look past and simply ignore what him and his buddy were up to in the time leading up to the shooting. And at thirteen years old no less.

www.usatoday.com

Adam Toledo video: Footage of Chicago police shooting released

Chicago city leaders called for calm and released bodycam videos of last months fatal police shooting of 13-year-old Adam Toledo.
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com
 
Last edited:
birdup.snaildown said:
Chauvin won't get a fair trial. His life has been destroyed already.
Click to expand...
True I believe. On both counts. If for no other reason than the below. Rodney King. And which I'm surprised hasn't been brought up i.e. been on my mind for a few days now. Left it at that but then came across the below fodder so figured oh well.

And before anybody loses their shit: I'm not by any means saying that they're the same thing at all. And as a matter of fact: compare the actions of those officers thirty years ago to the actions of these four officers in Mr. Floyd's case. Two very different things. Put into perspective: I too would have issues had Officer Chauvin & Co. beat the living shit out of Mr. Floyd (beyond that which was necessary to subdue him had that been the case) (to be clear).

Gotta love the narrative in some of this shit though. Apparently Mr. Floyd was getting his life together? And that settlement: staggering! And that before the trial. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. And apparently it resulted in two jurors being released i.e. they could no longer be impartial after hearing about the settlement. So it's not just me.

www.usatoday.com

Derek Chauvin trial in George Floyd death compared to Rodney King case 30 years later

For those who lived through the Rodney King case 30 years ago, there is concern the Derek Chauvin trial could offer a painful repeat of the past.
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com


At least he's not paying legal fees though. Apparently: his wife divorced him just after he got laid off (something along those lines) and his portion of the settlement came to just over $400K. That's probably not even a week's worth of this shit.

www.usatoday.com

Eric Nelson isn't working alone to defend Derek Chauvin: A police legal fund is backing him up with a dozen lawyers and $1 million

Minnesota's largest federation of officers and unions supports Eric Nelson's defense of Derek Chauvin with a dozen lawyers and a million dollars.
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com
 
dalpat077 said:
I've only read about, maybe seen mentioned in a documentary, jurors that cave, even if it means going against their own feelings, simply in order to get it over with i.e. being pressured to go with the flow so that all and sundry can just get home and call it a day. A travesty obviously.
Click to expand...
There's a 1957 classic movie called "12 Angry Men" which is actually a remarkably true to life depiction of how a jury trial goes from the perspective of the jury, and particularly how they deliberate. I would certainly recommend checking it out, even just for entertainment value. It's one of those movies that doesn't get old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top