Americans. Have you lost your minds?

[goaded]

Police tear gassed a protest about the police killing a 1 year old child when responding to a shoplifting call.

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/mississippi-police-officer-shoots-and-kills-1-year-old-child-in-response-to-senatobia-shoplifting-call/

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Have you followed American politics lately? The people in the country can't even agree on the basics

[Shiprex]

The love of guns and right to end the lives of others tells me yes.

[msc545]

In the U. S., the only people that count now are white people, and that includes white babies. Any other color doesn't count.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Maybe Americans can learn to protest without breaking ish or starting fires then there won't be any tear gas.

[goaded]

You have zero reason to believe there was stuff being broken or set on fire.

[CaptainSmartass]

I think they reached that point a while ago, now...

Simples...

[Just_Ken]

Some people dont deserve to be parents.

[LazerBean]

True, those parents need to be sterilized so that they don't put any more of their children at risk

[goaded]

WTF? Some people don't deserve to be police. Killing people is a big deal to sane people, not a reasonable reaction to stealing goods.

But you think violent riots and arson against people who have done nothing illegal is a reasonable reaction to one person's crime.

[Just_Ken]

Amazing how you think riots about a criminal murdering someone is wrong and riots about a criminal is right.

[goaded]

Liar. Riots about a man being murdered BY THE POLICE.

“Aussie boys are on a bender, Donald Trump is a sex offender.”

[Just_Ken]

Why do these so called murders by police always involve a crime being committed?

[goaded]

Because they're murders.

[Just_Ken]

No they are innocent

[goaded]

Not according to courts, the justice system, and juries of their peers. Why do you hate the rule of law?

[Just_Ken]

Where in the rule of law does it say you can resist arrest? Assault police? Rob? Endanger a child? Flee the scene of a crime etc?

[goaded]

It doesn't. It doesn't say you can kill suspects for not cooperating, either. But you know that, just like you know Chavez was found guilty of murder in a trial the like of which he personally denied Floyd.

[Just_Ken]

George floyd fied because he resisted arrest, was living an unhealthy life and was on drugs. Its no different than when a fat guy trys to beat you up and dies of a heart attack.
That child died because his criminal parents put him in danger, be no different than if they ran into a pole while evading police cars

[Just_Ken]

https://youtu.be/zk__EJoInGA?is=lYj3OlNdAs5sVm58

[goaded]

Not according to courts, the justice system, and juries of their peers. Why do you hate the rule of law?

[Just_Ken]

Yes its called a political witch hunt. Justice needs to be seen to be done.

[goaded]

No, it's called full due process of law. Investigation, indictment (by grand jury), trial, conviction (by a jury), every possible appeal. Chauvin was guilty of murder.

[Just_Ken]

No he wasn't. Floyd was guilty of robbery, resisting arrest, ilegal narcotic use and being overweight. All personal choices which led to his death.

[goaded]

Did I claim Floyd was totally innocent? Chauvin was found guilty of murder by full due process of law. Investigation, indictment (by grand jury), trial, conviction (by a jury), every possible appeal.

[Just_Ken]

A miscarriage of justice occurs when a judicial system delivers an unfair or erroneous outcome, most commonly resulting in the wrongful conviction and punishment of an innocent person. It can also refer to wrongful acquittals, maliciously excessive sentencing, or systemic failures that deny justice in civil and criminal proceedings.

Wrongful Conviction: An innocent person is tried, found guilty, and punished for a crime they did not commit.

Excessive or Undue Sentencing: A defendant receives a penalty that is severely disproportionate to their offense due to procedural bias or errors.

[goaded]

Yes, but in this case it didn't. We watched Chauvin, who was found guilty of murder by full due process of law. Investigation, indictment (by grand jury), trial, conviction (by a jury), and lost every possible appeal, not give a shit as the victim died over a period of many minutes. On video.

[Just_Ken]

Yes if health problems self inflicted

[goaded]

If he'd sat the man up, he might still have died, but it wouldn't have been murder. But it was murder, as determined by an investigation, indictment (by grand jury), trial, conviction (by a jury), and every possible appeal against the verdict. Not to mention we saw it happen.

[Just_Ken]

Have you ever tried to set a 30 stone junky up?

[goaded]

No, but I'm sure the two or three cops there could have managed it between them, or at least stopped kneeling on his back, which is what caused an investigation, a grand jury, and a jury of his peers at trial to find that Chauvin murdered him. A finding that was upheld through every available appeal.

Why do you hate the rule of law? Why do you think people should be killed for non-capital crimes?

[Just_Ken]

No they couldn't. They had to put him flat to stop him resisting and lashing out.

[goaded]

Why do you hate the rule of law and claim an investigation, a grand jury, and a jury of his peers at trial were all wrong and you're right? Why do you think people should be killed for non-capital crimes?

They had minutes to sit him up after he was cuffed. Instead Chauvin murdered him.

[Just_Ken]

The rule of law says dont rob, assault, resistance arrest etc. Why do you hate personal accountability for criminals?

[goaded]

Why do you think that it's OK to kill anyone who committed any crime?

The rule of law says if you "rob, assault, resistance arrest etc." [sic] you get arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. It doesn't say you get murdered. That's illegal.

You know, like when Chauvin murdered Floyd, he was investigated, indicted by a grand jury, tried and found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and exhausted all his appeals. His victim didn't have that process. Because he'd been murdered. By Chauvin. Who you support.

[Just_Ken]

I think if you made bad choices regarding your health such as obesity, heavy drug use etc and you commit crimes and start resisting arrest and you then die because of it then its on you not the cops.

[Just_Ken]

The rule of law also says dont resist arrest

[goaded]

If Floyd had died when he hit the ground, you might have a point, but there were 9 minutes of him slowly dying literally under the knee of an agent of the state.

Why do you think that it's OK to kill anyone who committed any crime?

The rule of law says if you "rob, assault, resistance arrest etc." [sic] you get arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. It doesn't say you get murdered. That's illegal.

You know, like when Chauvin murdered Floyd, he was investigated, indicted by a grand jury, tried and found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and exhausted all his appeals. His victim didn't have that process. Because he'd been murdered. By Chauvin. Who you support.

[Just_Ken]

Floyd died because he was on drugs and had health problems brought on by fleeing the scene of a crime and resisting arrest. He was given the option to sit in the police car but refused to comply and police were forced to restrain him for their own safety.

[goaded]

Not according to courts, the justice system, and juries of their peers. Why do you hate the rule of law?

Why do you think that it's OK to kill anyone who committed any crime?

The rule of law says if you "rob, assault, resistance arrest etc." [sic] you get arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. It doesn't say you get murdered. That's illegal.

You know, like when Chauvin murdered Floyd, he was investigated, indicted by a grand jury, tried and found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and exhausted all his appeals. His victim didn't have that process. Because he'd been murdered. By Chauvin. Who you support.

[Just_Ken]

The rule of law says you can't rob, assault people, flee the scene of a crime, resist arrest or assault police officers.

The trial was a miscarriage of justice.

[goaded]

Does the rule of law say you can be killed for any of those things unless you're an imminent danger to life? Or does it say you get indicted, tried and possibly convicted, with appeals options afterwards?

When Chauvin murdered Floyd, he was investigated, indicted by a grand jury, tried and found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and exhausted all his appeals. His victim didn't have that process. Because he'd been murdered. By Chauvin. Who you support.

[Just_Ken]

George floyd wasn't killed. He died of bad choices.

[goaded]

Let's see. Some twat on the internet vs. police, district attorneys, citizens of a grand jury, a judge, citizens of a trial jury, and multiple judges on appeals courts. No, he was murdered. You support a murderer.

[Just_Ken]

So if the decision was over turned you would completely agree based on police, district attorneys, citizens of a grand jury, a judge, citizens of a trial jury, and multiple judges on appeals courts?

[goaded]

How would that work, exactly? The conviction can't be overturned any more, Chauvin is a convicted murderer who has exhausted his appeals, so it's a typically stupid question you're asking.

The only possibility for him is to accept a pardon, which is an admission of guilt in itself.

Only nutcases like you pretend to believe he was innocent.

[Just_Ken]

So by your logic you sgree with the verdict on Rittenhouse being not guilty.

[goaded]

I'll admit Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in a court of law. You won't admit that your murdering hero was. There's a difference. The law is stacked towards finding people innocent. Guilty people go free all the time, innocent people rarely get convicted, and if they are, there are appeals.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted his appeals?

[Just_Ken]

But you said Rittenhouse was innocent.

[goaded]

Liar.

I said Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in a court of law. But also that the law is stacked towards finding people innocent. Guilty people go free all the time, innocent people rarely get convicted, and if they are, there are appeals. There are no appeals of acquittals.

You won't admit that your murdering hero was found guilty in a court of law.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

[Just_Ken]

You argument now falls apart.

[goaded]

Ah, the "I'Ve OnE The ArGUmeNT" ploy comes out. Because you're a...

Liar.

I said Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in a court of law. But also that the law is stacked towards finding people innocent. Guilty people go free all the time, innocent people rarely get convicted, and if they are, there are appeals. There are no appeals of acquittals.

You won't admit that your murdering hero was found guilty in a court of law.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

[Just_Ken]

Uh huh. You argue Chauvin is guilty because the law found him so and its the rule of law lol but deny the same argument about rittenhouse. So much flip flopping, you coupd wear it to the beach.

[goaded]

Liar. I don't have to argue that Chauvin is guilty because he was found guilty in a trial by jury and exhausted all his appeals. I said Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in a court of law. But also that the law is stacked towards finding people innocent. Guilty people go free all the time, innocent people rarely get convicted, and if they are, there are appeals. There are no appeals of acquittals.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

You're not going to answer that question, because the answer is obvious: you're a racist, fascist asshole.

[Just_Ken]

Uh huh. You can't keep your story straight.

[goaded]

Liar. I don't have to argue that Chauvin is guilty because he was found guilty in a trial by jury and exhausted all his appeals. I said Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in a court of law. But also that the law is stacked towards finding people innocent. Guilty people go free all the time, innocent people rarely get convicted, and if they are, there are appeals. There are no appeals of acquittals.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

You're not going to answer that question, because the answer is obvious: you're a racist, fascist asshole. Proven by your last "I'Ve OnE The ArGUmeNT" post.

[Just_Ken]

Tripping over your own slabbering tongue.

[goaded]

Gaslighting liar. I don't have to argue that Chauvin is guilty because he was found guilty in a trial by jury and exhausted all his appeals. I said Rittenhouse wasn't found guilty in a court of law. But also that the law is stacked towards finding people innocent. Guilty people go free all the time, innocent people rarely get convicted, and if they are, there are appeals. There are no appeals of acquittals.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

You're not going to answer that question, because the answer is obvious: you're a racist, fascist asshole. Proven by your last "I'Ve OnE The ArGUmeNT" post.

[Just_Ken]

Yes when you feel the neec to make personnel attacks it shows you are upset at how weak your argument is.

[goaded]

Just a reasonable observation of your behaviour. You're not arguing, you're just pretending to.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

Why don't you answer the question if you're not a racist, fascist asshole?

[Just_Ken]

Why don't you accept that Rittenhouse is a innocent and why dont you support him, despite him not being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

[goaded]

Still pretending to "argue", despite never answering a simple question? What a surprise. The questions:

1. Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

2. Why don't you answer the question if you're not a racist, fascist asshole?

I'll answer your question, because that's what normal people do: it's because Rittenhouse took a gun somewhere he didn't need to be and shot three people. Apparently, for some strange reason, it wasn't illegal beyond a reasonable doubt. He's still a killer.

[Just_Ken]

Hey rule of law as you degined ot prevailed for rittenhouse

[goaded]

Still pretending to "argue", despite never answering a simple question? Coward.

1. Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

2. Why don't you answer the question if you're not a racist, fascist asshole?

[Just_Ken]

Why don't you accept that Rittemhouse is a innocent and why dont you support him, despite him not being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

[goaded]

Answer the question, coward.

Why don't you accept that Chauvin is a murderer and why do you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

Every time you refuse to answer, the answer to the second question becomes more obvious:

Why don't you answer the question if you're not a racist, fascist asshole?

[Just_Ken]

I already answered, you just can't read. Does saying that a criminal died in police custody because of preexisting health problems, drug use and resisting arrest mald me cowardly, racist, fascist or an asshole?

[goaded]

Really? When did you accept that Chauvin is a murderer? When did you explain why you support him, despite him being a convicted murderer who has exhausted every appeal?

Yes, denying that it was murder does make you "cowardly, racist, fascist" and "an asshole".

[Just_Ken]

I stated multiple times my view on the matter. Can you not read?
Insults show how weak you argument is

[goaded]

Yes, your view is that Chauvin is not a murderer, so your answer is "never" to "When did you accept that Chauvin is a murderer?". My question is why do you have such contempt for the law, given that he was investigated, indicted, tried, convicted, and exhausted all his appeals?

[Just_Ken]

See you vant keep your story straight

[goaded]

You're really desparate not to answer the question, aren't you? Why do you have such contempt for the law, given that Chauvin, who you claim isn't a murderer was investigated, indicted, tried, convicted, and exhausted all his appeals?

[Just_Ken]

I've already answered ot multiple times. But its ok because according to your reasoning Kyle rittenhouse is innocent

[goaded]

You've lied multiple times, ever since you moved on to claiming "I'Ve OnE The ArGUmeNT". You've never said why you don't accept the rule of law.

Guilty people are found innocent all the time, innocent people are rarely found guilty. It's how the system works.

[Just_Ken]

Lied about what? I just repeated your words and gave them back to you

[Agape93]

A dead kid is what made you realize this?

[goaded]

Not at all, it's just the latest example. How can anyone not show remorse and face the consequences? Sure, protect the killer from harm until his trial, but make it very clear it will never happen again.

[Agape93]

Of course it'll happen again. The world and mankind are rotten. Nothing will change this. Nothing. Don't be so idealistic to the point of expecting a different reality, you'll just piss yourself off.

[goaded]

Yes, but not there. They royally f*cked up, and should be ashamed, not fighting the people demanding justice.

[Agape93]

They rarely ever do. They're not on our side. They never will be

[goaded]

Aren't they elected in the US?

[Agape93]

Cops? No. They are just hired and go through basic training fornthe job