UNDlaw80
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Everything posted by UNDlaw80
-
Ok Chief. Like I said, Chauvin's position was static. No blunt force or significant movement of Chauvin's knee was applied - he applied even force and pressure. Not uncommon for non-bruising to occur. This is basic medical stuff. “This myth that you have to have bruises to prove strangulation, no you don’t. You can be strangled to death and have no bruises,” Dr Smock said, using his hands to demonstrate how someone chocked in a headlock might not get bruises because limbs are broad surfaces, while someone strangled with a thin cord might have acute marks to show for it. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/george-floyd-died-because-had-222628629.html
-
I already detailed why no bruising existed.......as detailed by medical experts during the trial, with really no counterpoints from the defense.
-
His knee was on both. That’s painfully obvious. No sane person continues to kneel on somebody’s neck/shoulders (for 4-5 minutes) well after the person has lost consciousness, stopped breathing and has no pulse. Said action can only lead to 1 outcome – death. Holy hell, he didn't even get off when paramedics arrived. That doesn’t even happen in bar fights. It shows blatant intent to kill. That's why he was convicted of murder, not manslaughter.
-
This isn’t difficult. Floyd wasn’t "strangled" per se, but (in layman's terms) died of positional asphyxiation. This is what the vast majority of medical experts concluded, and why the 9 minutes of Chauvin on top of him played a huge part. Basically, for 9 minutes Floyd was put in a prone position that made it difficult to expand the chest cavity to obtain air. And, in addition, had the full weight of a grown man pressing down on his neck/shoulder for said time frame further exacerbating his inability to obtain oxygen. His positioning and Chauvin’s weight and unwillingness to get off of him is what killed him. It explains the lack of bruising considering Chauvin’s force was static.
-
Every competent lawyer considers as such. So it’s actually telling that the defense decided not to allow Chauvin to testify considering their chances for acquittal already looked exceedingly slim. What’s there to lose? That tells me Chauvin had no answer for his actions, and/or was unapologetic (difficult to humanize him to the jury). His lawyers weren't stupid .
-
Chauvin’s defense team was actually quite good. They managed to muddy the waters somewhat, but, ultimately, had very little to work with. The few experts they brought in to testify completely folded under cross examination.
-
There were 2 independent autopsies performed; both agreed the manner of death was homicide. Both examiners testified during the trial. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7317557002
-
Jared Moe goes to Wisconsin.
-
2021-22 University of North Dakota Hockey Season
UNDlaw80 replied to Frozen4sioux's topic in Men's Hockey
If Scheel goes, Berry and co will be scouring the transfer portal. I’d think Galajda would be their #1 target. -
I'm not even all that upset. The boys left it all on the ice. Can't ask for anything more. We're better than Duluth but sometimes **** happens in single elimination. It is what it is.
-
My goodness, Weatherby and B-D sure did trigger an avalanche of snowflakes.
-
Generally speaking this is true in hockey. But for football and basketball? No way. Tons of those kids come from environments well below "average joe" standards.
-
Complain all you want. But it seems like most people are inquiring into why this is such a big deal. I mean our fanbase been disrespecting the anthem for 40 years now. Btw, the PC and cancel culture is in regards to those posts advocating to limit what these players do, or (like a previous post) advocating violence.
-
No need to get personal, this isn't the dumsterfire. Leave that there. Either way, you have me mixed up with someone else. I'm not a fan of PC culture at all. There still exists people who think for themselves nowadays and aren't part of a 'political team'.
-
It's called political correctness, cancel culture, etc.
-
They're the same thing. They're symbols. And no, you didn't innately pledge allegiance to a piece of dye colored cloth. Your life will continue unabated if that cloth goes up in flames. You pledged allegiance to what it stands for. What the flag represents is what's precious, not the flag itself.
-
Sounds as if people's disapproval is misplaced. If innately disrespecting the anthem was so offensive, why has our fanbase continually yelled “Sioux” at the end it with absolutely no repercussions? It’s the same thing. People are making a statement at the expense of the anthem. If it's an issue of politics, just say so. Don't butter it up with the anthem disrespect stuff that our fanbase has been engaged in for 40+ years now. Then again, if you don't want politics in sport, perhaps we shouldn't play the anthem at all.
-
All this outrage over anthem kneeling is another example of political correctness running amok. As long as they’re not hurting anybody, or infringing on others’ rights, who cares if someone kneels during the anthem. It’s not like doing as such is giving you people cancer. Deal with it. Or learn something from it. Anyhow, according to the article, the rest of the team will be locking arms during the anthem in support of the kneeling players and racial justice. That’s great to hear. Great for team unity.
- 353 replies
-
- 17
-
-
-
-
I read Powell's complaint. Her case will fall apart under answer/cross, easily. Just like the rest the frivolous election litigation Notice how her ‘smoking gun’ is nowhere in her legal complaint. Surely you remember the servers seized from Germany, right? Powell was crowing about that for weeks and you people were frothing at the mouth. You're getting played, ace. As long as Trump/lawyers are able to line their pockets with donations, a new conspiracy will always be around the corner. Perhaps your time would be better spent figuring this one out.
-
If what you posted WAS legitimate, Republican judges would be jumping all over it; at every level. Yet here we sit with Trump at 1-39 in litigation. Think about that for a second. Right-leaning judges aren’t gonna rule for him in bad faith. If a concern exists, objectively investigate and analyze the data with reason and rationality. Then present a compelling case for it. Unfortunately Trump's ‘evidence’ (what you posted) isn’t evidence, it’s political skullduggery innuendo not rooted in realism. I mean it took me 3 seconds to find out #1 is false. And yes, some on this board are political weirdos. Reality didn’t turn out as they expected, so they’re rejecting reality. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/facebook-posts/battleground-states-did-not-stop-counting-votes-el/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/04/fact-check-no-vote-counting-democrat-led-states-hasnt-stopped/6163978002/
-
It’s not the same. Trump is undermining the integrity and public trust in our innate voting process for political gain. The Dems never went this far; at least not to Trump’s 24/7 level. The Dems asserted Russia interfered via hacking and social media to alter opinion. Big difference. Foreign influence can always be mitigated. The fact that Trump is throwing everything at the wall (no matter how absurd), everywhere, to undermine the sanctity of our innate voting mechanisms will likely have far reaching consequences when all this is finished.
-
First, accurate information is needed before any analysis can be done. It took a 5 second google search to find out that "Biden underperformed Clinton everywhere except Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philly" it patently false. The info stemmed from Townhall. Erika Haas, a spokesperson for Townhall Media, told USA TODAY its story “jumped the gun” and has since been corrected. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/20/fact-check-biden-outperformed-clinton-most-major-metro-areas/6349084002/ EDIT: Biden did better than Hillary in most major metro areas. This is easily verifiable with info obtained by state/county election websites, if you care to compare that to Hillary's results. Cmon people, let's not be sheep here.
-
It's certainly unique. But it fits in with this entire election cycle being nuts; in addition to Covid, race riots, economic hardship, an exceedingly divided citizenry, etc. I mean 4 years ago Trump shocked the world, unprecedently. But, in the following years, we made sense of why this occurred by actually embracing and studying anomalies. The same will occur with 2020's results. And we'll have a understanding of America because of it. If my opinion counts for anything, I think many of these anomalies stem from high turnout. Non-politically minded individuals, traditional non-voters and high minority turnout had a great affect on altering traditional voting demographics.
-
For sure, the Dems played ridiculous politics with Trump appointees. It was laughable. That said, every judge has a bias. But this bias reveals itself when actual evidence (or solid arguments) are presented. Few judges, no matter how biased, are gonna give Trump the time of day with the arguments he's presenting. It's why he's something like 1-40 in post election litigation. SCOTUS will act no differently. Just because it's Right-leaning does not mean they're so partial they'll overrule decisions based on such laughable arguments. I mean you actually need to make a case to SCOTUS.
-
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Bibas wrote. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” Today's ruling came from a Trump appointed judge. A Federalist Society member of all things. His quote illustrates Trumps legal challenges thus far to a T.