Sounds like the plot to that wacky 90s action comedy.

Stop or my Mom will Shoot

I shot on Wil's mum - Picard

Wtf, bad idea.
Also, diagnosing 4yo kids with shit like that is fucking retarded.

https://twitter.com/blackleftaf/status/1384633824328433664?s=19

Christ. The bad takes just keep flying.

What the rusty fuck was that supposed to be? Pelosi trying to gaslight the entirety of black America?

Race to get the article published and your push notification out to app users before your rivals.

I'm actually impressed that he got done on all counts. 

One lefty commentator said it well when he said that the "hope" everyone felt that a cop, who killed a suspect, filmed from multiple angles in front of a crowd of people, while the suspect complained they couldn't breathe, would be found guilty on all charges is indicative of the work that still needs to be done to prevent police from being to act like they do and get away with it. 

I have enjoyed typical responses from people like Shapiro, I'm sure Tim Pool and Crowder are going to be putting out some top quality bullshit over the next few days. 

Nancy Pelosi needs to stop taking whatever drug made her think she should thank a black man for dying so that they could end police brutality and racism, holy fuck. Michael Spicer will at least get a viral video out of it.

Oh I know my spelling appears terrible as I don't proofread anything, I should just turn autocomplete off really. I'm not a professional writer, I do however proofread my code

regmcfly wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

monkey wrote:

I think they need to consider them individually because of appeals and what not. If he appeals and wins against the worst murbut der offence he gets off scot free if they don’t have other guilty verdicts. But I don’t know what differences there are between the offences.

That does make a bit more sense alright. I'm sure he will appeal unfortunately.

The second degree one is about the fact he assaulted Floyd, the third is about endangering lives and the manslaughter one is about intent There's some differentials between them. The jury basically said he did all three.

From the US politics thread.

I'm not sure reg is right on that. Manslaughter implies no intent - either its accidentally or it is done in the heat of the moment but still accidental. So maybe you punch a guy to hurt him, but end up killing him. Second degree means intent but not necessarily planned - so you shot the guy in the head to kill him but you didn't plan to do it. 3rd degree seems to be a blurry mix of second degree and manslaughter from what I've been able to find. I could be wrong.

The idea that it's to prevent him getting off Scott free if he successful appeals the second degree charge makes more sense to me.

Facewon wrote:

Sam Harris. What a fucking douche.

https://twitter.com/NiceMangos/status/1384658813224161281?s=19

Yes, a douche. But I kinda agree with him. A trial is supposed to be starting from an impartial base but I don't think that's possible with a high profile case, especially when the video has been viewed so much. I think a big problem is how the story is reported and unfolded from the start. I hate the media sensationalapproach to this kind of reporting. I'm not sure if that's the point old Sam is trying to make but when media (social or mainstream) gets a hold of something like this I don't think a fair view of anything is possible. Media ramps up the emotion of the case to generate views and clicks, regardless of truth. Guesswork and rumour mix freely with actual facts. Videos get replayed and analysed from both sides so much but it's not done to get tobthe truth of the matter - its done to keep us watching.

After the verdict I did a bit of random searching and the amount of detail and guesswork being thrown out was unreal. There was detailed breakdown of the jury. And that's just the coverage during the trial. Leading up to the trial there has been rethoric from both sides which creates a huge range of narratives - some fair, some exaggerated and some widely swinging away from anything with truth (in this case mostly from the right wing side)

Sam's mistake is that at least in this case , justice looks to have been done. He might be better served finding a case where despite the actual evidence, that the circus around the case caused the wrong result.

The thing that doesn’t make sense is that I think it would be a fair assumption that most people thought he was going to get away with it.

So perhaps based on the evidence and cases presented the jury had no decision but to convict. You can’t look at the result and then retrospectively declare it was definitely going to happen that way.

RedDave2 wrote:

Facewon wrote:

Sam Harris. What a fucking douche. https://twitter.com/NiceMangos/status/1384658813224161281?s=19

Yes, a douche. But I kinda agree with him. A trial is supposed to be starting from an impartial base but I don't think that's possible with a high profile case, especially when the video has been viewed so much. I think a big problem is how the story is reported and unfolded from the start. I hate the media sensationalapproach to this kind of reporting. I'm not sure if that's the point old Sam is trying to make but when media (social or mainstream) gets a hold of something like this I don't think a fair view of anything is possible. Media ramps up the emotion of the case to generate views and clicks, regardless of truth. Guesswork and rumour mix freely with actual facts. Videos get replayed and analysed from both sides so much but it's not done to get tobthe truth of the matter - its done to keep us watching. After the verdict I did a bit of random searching and the amount of detail and guesswork being thrown out was unreal. There was detailed breakdown of the jury. And that's just the coverage during the trial. Leading up to the trial there has been rethoric from both sides which creates a huge range of narratives - some fair, some exaggerated and some widely swinging away from anything with truth (in this case mostly from the right wing side) Sam's mistake is that at least in this case , justice looks to have been done. He might be better served finding a case where despite the actual evidence, that the circus around the case caused the wrong result.

On the other hand, without the protests this sparked and the media attention on those, would this have reached a courtroom in the first place?

@yoss - yeah, thats a good point. Like I say, I think there is something to what Sam is saying (or that I think he is trying to say) but I think he has picked the wrong case.

But even with that said - we can have the video released, we can have the protests etc that leads to a courtroom case but I think there is no doubt that media is so prevalent and so focused on getting views that it is also about keeping the viewer engaged and creating a compulsive narrative.

Facewon wrote:

Play the ball, not the man Face. If I'm thinking the twitter post as I think its meant to be intended, then it doesnt matter if it came from Harris. 

If Trump started saying climate change is real and we need wholesale change, I wouldnt argue the comment just because it came from Trump.