George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder

LGWIO said:
Hmmm, maybe my simplistic approach on most things...I mean I must be simple for being a Liverpool supporter!!!!
Click to expand...
Lol. Fortunately for you, I don't discriminate :)

LGWIO said:
Victim she may be but she is also a killer and therefore must be investigated. In my view she doesnt go home with parents but first to a hospital for her to examined and checked for any injuries and depending on what Docs say she is then invited to attend for further I/V
Self defence it may be but there must still be a trial or at least referred to the DPP
Click to expand...
Note, it was investigated. As the cops checked the parking lot Cameras that kinda corroborated her story.
They have her statement of what happened, and the have the video from the parking lot.

Seeing a Doc isn't relevant to the case as she wasn't raped. Thankfully. Whatever bruises she has to her hand and feet will simply mimic that of someone who fell. Wouldn't tell you one way or the other as it regards assault.

Furthermore, you can assume the DPP was who closed the case and chose not to pursue trial.
LGWIO said:
Questions to be asked as to why she would be carrying an offensive weapon in her bag on an "innocent" night out. Whats wrong with pepper spray, a good kick in the balls or a sharp talon into his eyeball...but then Im not on the receiving end.
The girl may have gone to the bar, but it is an environment that is "meant to be" safe, there is not an expectation that at that bar or on the way home she would be assaulted.
Click to expand...
This is nice, but if you noticed you haven't answered the question. Or perhaps you have: at least it seems you've answered the First...

I.e. that It still feels wrong that someone has lost their life and yet no one is held accountable?

But who should be held accountable? The assaulted girl? Your line if questions ( i.e why did she have a knife, and not a pepper spray or kick in the balls) implies you think the girl should be accountable. Fair enough... Let's tweak the fact pattern just a tad more..

Suppose the man was the one who had the knife and it fell out of his hand when he pushed her to the ground and jumped on her... But she recovered the knife and stabbed him before he could restrain her... What then? Is she less guilty now?
 
Dax777 said:
Ofcourse. He is clearly guilty of that violation.

But he won using the very same self defense claim against the murder and attempted murder charges someone here claimed would never happen for a black man.

It's pathetic the continuous recitation of claims that a simple Google search can debunk a hundred times over.
Click to expand...

Again, your framing is terrible.
 
LGWIO said:
I guess so much of this comes from what side of "the pond" you live.
To many on this side, the whole of 2A and all that goes along with it is just an alien and outdated concept. yet it is something that as part of the whole Constitution, Americans hold sacred.
I was trying to think of any situation over here that was even reasonably close and the only thing I could think of was the "self defence" shooting by Tony Martin of the burglar. Tony was defending bis property in that instance whereas rittenhouse was defending his colleagues property.
It is just so alien to our minds over here and white or black it still feels "wrong2 that someone has lost their life and nobody appears to have been held accountable.
Click to expand...
Tony Martin was convicted because he not only drove the burglars from his house (self defense up to that point as he was outnumbered by them and in fear of his life,they were 2 much younger guys and he was an old man),but he then proceeded to chase them across his farm and shoot them when they were fleeing.
This action of going from victim to aggressor is why he was convicted in court.
 
Dax777 said:
Lol. Fortunately for you, I don't discriminate :)


Note, it was investigated. As the cops checked the parking lot Cameras that kinda corroborated her story.
They have her statement of what happened, and the have the video from the parking lot.

Seeing a Doc isn't relevant to the case as she wasn't raped. Thankfully. Whatever bruises she has to her hand and feet will simply mimic that of someone who fell. Wouldn't tell you one way or the other as it regards assault.

Furthermore, you can assume the DPP was who closed the case and chose not to pursue trial.

This is nice, but if you noticed you haven't answered the question. Or perhaps you have: at least it seems you've answered the First...

I.e. that It still feels wrong that someone has lost their life and yet no one is held accountable?

But who should be held accountable? The assaulted girl? Your line if questions ( i.e why did she have a knife, and not a pepper spray or kick in the balls) implies you think the girl should be accountable. Fair enough... Let's tweak the fact pattern just a tad more..

Suppose the man was the one who had the knife and it fell out of his hand when he pushed her to the ground and jumped on her... But she recovered the knife and stabbed him before he could restrain her... What then? Is she less guilty now?
Click to expand...
Whilst I understood what you are getting at, you are somewhat confirming my point about things being different this side of the pond.
The way you suggest events did go and could have gone in no way reflect how they would actually go.
Collection of the CCTV evidence would take time, the fact that the "victim/witness/offender" has been assaulted would require some sort of medical assessment and as there would no doubt be blood everywhere, so she would be required to give her clothes up for forensic examination. So there would be no going home with parents immediately.
The joy of red tape/protocol and ass covering that needs and has to go on.
Someone has lost their lives, they have a family/friends/loved ones etc and the process works for them as much as the victim (whoever that may be in your examples)
Either way she has taken a life and it is for the DPP/courts and her peers to determine based on the evidence (if it is considered strong enough by the CPS to put before the court) and the liklihood of conviction....in which case they may well consider a lesser charge in order to satisfy the Daily Mail readers
 
LGWIO said:
Whilst I understood what you are getting at, you are somewhat confirming my point about things being different this side of the pond.
The way you suggest events did go and could have gone in no way reflect how they would actually go.
Collection of the CCTV evidence would take time, the fact that the "victim/witness/offender" has been assaulted would require some sort of medical assessment and as there would no doubt be blood everywhere, so she would be required to give her clothes up for forensic examination. So there would be no going home with parents immediately.
The joy of red tape/protocol and ass covering that needs and has to go on.
Someone has lost their lives, they have a family/friends/loved ones etc and the process works for them as much as the victim (whoever that may be in your examples)
Either way she has taken a life and it is for the DPP/courts and her peers to determine based on the evidence (if it is considered strong enough by the CPS to put before the court) and the liklihood of conviction....in which case they may well consider a lesser charge in order to satisfy the Daily Mail readers
Click to expand...
I suppose you are missing my point. I don't know the particulars of how things would go exactly over the pond. But neither am I particularly interested or concerned about the specifics.

What I am getting at is the principle. And I was trying to tease out your view specifically.

I'm saying on those fact pattern, a guy pulls a knife on a girl and drags her to the ground but loses his knife in the process, she gets the knife and stabs him.

In your opinion what should her punishment be?

A life has been lost, like you said and someone should be accountable. and yet I don't think someone ought to be punished. You seem to think someone should.

My question is if you think someone should be accountable ( and I'm presuming that means someone should be punished) who should be punished in that scenario described above and why?

C
 
Last edited:
Dax777 said:
I suppose you are missing my point. I don't know the particulars of how things would go exactly over the pond. But neither am I particularly interested or concerned about the specifics.

What I am getting at is the principle. And I was trying to tease out your view specifically.

I'm saying on those fact pattern, a guy pulls a knife in a girl and drags her to the ground but loses his knife in the process, she gets the knife and stabs him.

In your opinion what should her punishment be?

A life has been lost, and yet I don't think someone ought to be punished. You seem to think someone should.

My question is this is you think seone should be accountable ( and I'm presuming that means someone should be punished) who should be punished in that scenario described above and why?

C
Click to expand...
None. In my mind it is self defence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.