How do you know?It absolutely would not.
Double clown world.
Should be the new national anthem at this point.
Doing nothing but cashing checks and writing tickets. Sounds like a good gig.I posted an article it the CPD thread.
Looks like all you have to have to get away with crime is a nice pair of running shoes...
Good news is I hear they give those away for free nightly!
I agree with you but that was all history by the time he was detained.It is neither murder nor manslaughter when you merely fail to save someone else from killing themselves. If the guy next to me on the sidewalk steps out in front of a truck, I'm not guilty of manslaughter for failing to grab him and pull him back.
Don't blast yourself to the gills with fentanyl and coke and then fight police for ten minutes. You're responsible for your own health, and if you overdose yourself right after creating a huge scene that keeps EMS away, I'm sorry but that's tough luck for you.
Pretty sick and tired after an entire year of hearing people blame everything and everyone under the sun except the actions of the drug-using criminal. Wanna talk about one tiny change that would avoided this? Let's start with the very long list of idiotic stuff Floyd did. He was not a helpless child hunted down and cruelly executed by the police.
Yes. But it's more fun to insult Ingo members.Wasn't the entire trial televised, on video? Wouldn't that mean any armchair QB could see the same thing the jury saw?
Double clown world.
Should be the new national anthem at this point.
Oh, really? Then why don't they just corral a few random yahoos off reddit to do PEER review? Peer means of a similar level of intelligence, education and expertise“Peers,” means fellow citizens. Full stop. If one want to open that Pandora’s box and allow further identifiers, then you have started down the path of whole other level of problems.
A simple look at history proves it wouldnt work. If ones peers were reliable to always do the right thing there would be no need for crime stoppers. There would be zero need for rewards.How do you know?
History proves it does work. It worked for around 600 years before our country adopted it. Why would our founders adopted it if it didn't work?A simple look at history proves it wouldnt work. If ones peers were reliable to always do the right thing there would be no need for crime stoppers. There would be zero need for rewards.
If what you're trying to advocate for were reality the mafia would still be thriving.
I wouldn't even bother to write tickets.Doing nothing but cashing checks and writing tickets. Sounds like a good gig.
It is the will of LandruI really try to stay out of these "discussions" because they don't lead to anything. The jury has spoken can't we just leave it alone? And yes it's probably true that there will be an appeal and probably a retrial. But why is it necessary to go over coulda, shoulda, woulda a thousand times? I mean. . .C'mon, this is INGO. . . . don't we have a noob or someone to burn down!?
PEER, noun [Latin par.]Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Peer
Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Peerwebstersdictionary1828.com
The real Webster dictionary
For one no, history does not prove that. You claim that peers should mean similar people, such as a police officers being tried infront of a jury of police officers (thats what this debate is about). Women werent even allowed to be on a jury until 1920 in Indiana. It took until 1968 for women to be able to in Mississippi. So no history does not prove that peers means people similar to you. For most of history it was just white land owners serving on jurys, not people with similar backgrounds.History proves it does work. It worked for around 600 years before our country adopted it. Why would our founders adopted it if it didn't work?
Again you are using modern-day so called Justice system. We are talking 1700's early 1800's just because a bunch of leftist change the system doesn't mean it didn't work.For one no, history does not prove that. You claim that peers should mean similar people, such as a police officers being tried infront of a jury of police officers (thats what this debate is about). Women werent even allowed to be on a jury until 1920 in Indiana. It took until 1968 for women to be able to in Mississippi. So no history does not prove that peers means people similar to you. For most of history it was just white land owners serving on jurys, not people with similar backgrounds.
Why do you have to assume things? I didn't say that. You misunderstood why. It would have been helpful to have a couple of cops on the jury because the accused crimes happened on the job. Having the perspective of someone who does the job could be very informative to the other members of the jury.So courts should actively seek people in the same line of employment when determining culpability for a crime? And just out of curiosity, which Dept should those officers be from? FYI
Juror Qualifications, Exemptions and Excuses
Individuals must meet certain criteria to be legally qualified for jury service.www.uscourts.gov
Not necessarily to support him. To give the jury a perspective that they wouldn't have otherwise. The witnesses for the prosecution were there because they wanted to be on that side. They were not Chauvin's comrades. A juror, ideally, would be neither a friend or foe. Hopefully someone who can look at the facts and render a verdict, and during deliberations can contribute to a more informed jury.Well Chauvin had more than a couple of his peers take the stand for the prosecution. How many more of his peers would he need supporting him?