Scouse_Mouse Posted March 29, 2021 Posted March 29, 2021 7 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: Proof beyond reasonable doubt and a unanimous decision to convict. Basically, he’s walking. Hopefully there are no dead linesmen on the jury. The man was unarmed, he was cuffed, the cunt had his knee on the mans neck for 7minutes and 46seconds, he cried for his mother and uttered 28 times that he couldn't breath. Not sure what kind of reasonable doubt you think this man deserves ya melt?
Administrator Stan Posted March 29, 2021 Administrator Posted March 29, 2021 3 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said: Hopefully there are no dead linesmen on the jury. The man was unarmed, he was cuffed, the cunt had his knee on the mans neck for 7minutes and 46seconds, he cried for his mother and uttered 28 times that he couldn't breath. Not sure what kind of reasonable doubt you think this man deserves ya melt? He didn't say he 'deserves' reasonable doubt, did he? It's literally what a court of law has to follow to ensure a fair trial is determined more for the victim and his family than anyone else...
Scouse_Mouse Posted March 29, 2021 Posted March 29, 2021 16 minutes ago, Stan said: He didn't say he 'deserves' reasonable doubt, did he? It's literally what a court of law has to follow to ensure a fair trial is determined more for the victim and his family than anyone else... The dolt insinuated that there was enough "reasonable doubt" to not convict. There is no doubt and no excuses to be made here Stan.
Administrator Stan Posted March 29, 2021 Administrator Posted March 29, 2021 2 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said: The dolt insinuated that there wasn't enough "reasonable doubt" to convict. There is no doubt and no excuses to be made here Stan. I'm not sure where that insinuation is. I think he's saying there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not that they need to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt'.
Scouse_Mouse Posted March 29, 2021 Posted March 29, 2021 Just now, Stan said: I'm not sure where that insinuation is. I think he's saying there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not that they need to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt'. but he didn't say that at all Stan, no matter what you "think" he said, what he actually said was that if it came down to "reasonable doubt" they wouldn't convict. who know what the loon is thinking (or if he actually thinks) but anyone with half a braincell can clearly see that there is no doubt and so much evidence to convict.
Cicero Posted March 29, 2021 Posted March 29, 2021 1 hour ago, DeadLinesman said: Proof beyond reasonable doubt and a unanimous decision to convict. Basically, he’s walking. He won’t. At the very least, he’ll get the man slaughter charge. 10 year sentence. Defense are pushing for 2nd degree unintentional murder.
DeadLinesman Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 Fuck me, I literally reposted a section I’d read off bbc news and that Scouse fuckwit thinks I think Chauvin should get off . What a prize sausage. This is coming from a bloke that think adding is subtracting though, so I’m not really that surprised.
DeadLinesman Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 11 hours ago, Stan said: I'm not sure where that insinuation is. I think he's saying there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not that they need to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt'. 12 hours ago, Stan said: He didn't say he 'deserves' reasonable doubt, did he? It's literally what a court of law has to follow to ensure a fair trial is determined more for the victim and his family than anyone else... What I was saying is what I read. Almost word for word. That for conviction, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous decision. The defence just need to turn one head. This is a statement of fact, not a viewpoint or my belief. My belief is that the racist motherfucker should go down for life. Just to be clear. And for those that have difficulty reading sentences and start making accusations and insinuations. Dangerous fucking road.
Administrator Stan Posted March 30, 2021 Administrator Posted March 30, 2021 3 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: What I was saying is what I read. Almost word for word. That for conviction, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt and that it’s unanimous decision. The defence just need to turn one head. This is a statement of fact, not a viewpoint or my belief. My belief is that the racist motherfucker should go down for life. Just to be clear. And for those that have difficulty reading sentences. Precisely. And now we wait for us to both be banned . It's been fun knowing you all.
DeadLinesman Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 Just now, Stan said: Precisely. And now we wait for us to both be banned . It's been fun knowing you all. It’s just annoying that this bell wipe is able to basically accuse me of something entirely made up in his own dipshit brain and unless someone else actually defends me, I have no right of reply.
Scouse_Mouse Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 1 hour ago, DeadLinesman said: Fuck me, I literally reposted a section I’d read off bbc news and that Scouse fuckwit thinks I think Chauvin should get off . What a prize sausage. This is coming from a bloke that think adding is subtracting though, so I’m not really that surprised. What A gobshite. First he posts that he doesn't think there was enough reasonable doubt to convict. Then he says he didn't really think that at all, he was just parroting some bollocks he claims he read on the BBC. Why the fuck do you make excuses for this tool Stan?
Scouse_Mouse Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 2 hours ago, DeadLinesman said: It’s just annoying that this bell wipe is able to basically accuse me of something entirely made up in his own dipshit brain and unless someone else actually defends me, I have no right of reply. Hilarious, now this is what a "meltdown" looks like.
Administrator Stan Posted March 30, 2021 Administrator Posted March 30, 2021 24 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said: What A gobshite. First he posts that he doesn't think there was enough reasonable doubt to convict. Then he says he didn't really think that at all, he was just parroting some bollocks he claims he read on the BBC. Why the fuck do you make excuses for this tool Stan? There are no excuses. I think it's quite clear what was meant and what was said and what is required to get Chauvin behind bars for a long time .
Whiskey Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 33 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said: Hilarious, now this is what a "meltdown" looks like. @DeadLinesman was and still is one of the best members that we've had on TFF and continue to have on TF365. It'd be wise to politely shut your trap before making yourself more of a fool by continuing this embarrassing and tedious rhetoric.
Scouse_Mouse Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Stan said: There are no excuses. I think it's quite clear what was meant and what was said and what is required to get Chauvin behind bars for a long time . Quite clear? Well what the fool posted was certainly quite clear. Just as transparent as his claims now that he was only posting something he'd read on the BBC, he didn't quote the BBC, he made no mention of him not agreeing with it, hmmm yes, quite clear, right?
Administrator Stan Posted March 30, 2021 Administrator Posted March 30, 2021 Just now, Scouse_Mouse said: Quite clear? Well what the fool posted was certainly quite clear. Just as transparent as his claims now that he was only posting something he'd read on the BBC, he didn't quote the BBC, he made no mention of him not agreeing with it, hmmm yes, quite clear, right? well if you only select certain posts of his to respond to, then it may look like that. 2 hours ago, DeadLinesman said: What I was saying is what I read. Almost word for word. That for conviction, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt and it has to be unanimous decision. The defence just need to turn one head. This is a statement of fact, not a viewpoint or my belief. My belief is that the racist motherfucker should go down for life. Just to be clear. And for those that have difficulty reading sentences and start making accusations and insinuations. Dangerous fucking road.
Danny Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 Can we just not delete the dipshit posts (from one person) in here? Considering how monumental this case is it’d be nice to have one area of the forum that stays on topic and is simply relaying what’s happening in court and letting a group of novices work out what it’s gonna mean come sentencing. No one reading what deadlinesman said could come to the conclusion that he wants the policeman to walk free
Cicero Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 Here's the thing, he was charged on three accounts. By all means either one of those accounts could stick, the prosecution are just trying to see what they can get. The manslaughter charge is arguably the easiest to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The 2nd degree unintentional murder more difficult to prove, however there is enough evidence to suggest it. As mentioned previously, I think at the very least Chauvin will get the Manslaughter charge. Since he pleaded not guilty, he'd get 10-15 years I'd imagine.
Scouse_Mouse Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 17 minutes ago, Stan said: well if you only select certain posts of his to respond to, then it may look like that. Whatever Stan, his post on the subject was quite clear, why repost something you didn't agree with ffs? Here's a novel idea, if you don't think there isn't enough evidence to convict they don't post that.
Administrator Stan Posted March 30, 2021 Administrator Posted March 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Scouse_Mouse said: Whatever Stan, his post on the subject was quite clear, why repost something you didn't agree with ffs? Here's a novel idea, if you don't think there isn't enough evidence to convict they don't post that. I think you're reaching now and you should stop.
Scouse_Mouse Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 19 minutes ago, Stan said: I think you're reaching now and you should stop. I wasn't going to post anymore on this particular topic Stan. I'll let it drop. It will be interesting to see what happens on here in the future when someone (maybe not a mod) posts something stupid and then when challenged tries to pass them off as someone else's dumb opinion.
Dave Posted March 30, 2021 Posted March 30, 2021 16 hours ago, DeadLinesman said: Proof beyond reasonable doubt and a unanimous decision to convict. Basically, he’s walking. I understand in states that carry the death penalty the need for a unanimous verdict but the concept of it in cases like this are concerning. Especially given a jury in the UK usually deliberate on average for more than six hours before making a decision.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.