The biggest event from the Chauvin trial from yesterday was the bombshell report that the City of Minneapolis had settled with the family of George Floyd for 27 million dollars. The timing of the story and the manner in which the entire circus has been handled by the Governor, Mayor, and City Counsel are both abhorrent. Regardless of the political nature of the event and the concept that these elected officials stand to gain from a conviction and stand to lose from an acquittal, the constitutional and legal reality is that Officer Chauvin is still entitled to a fair trial with an impartial jury. The city of Minneapolis seems bound and determined to not allow a trial to be fair or a jury to be impartial.
The defense has made a myriad of legal motions in the wake of this bombshell, including another request for a change of venue, the ability to again question the jurors who have already been seated to see how this news affected them, more strikes, and a delay in the trial itself. The judge granted the defense the ability to question the seven original Jurists, denied the request for additional strikes, and decided to wait and rule on the other motions. But it seems clear that Chauvin getting the trial he is constitutionally entitled to has two chances, slim and none... and slim might have left the building with the news of the settlement.
Meanwhile a few more potential jurists were dismissed for cause, all of them sort of admitting that they either were predisposed to a guilty vote or were worried about what an acquittal would mean for them personally if people found out they were on the jury. The defense used one additional strike yesterday on a college student who also seemed concerned with how an acquittal would be taken at his school. Two more were seated, taking us to nine, five short of the fourteen needed (twelve and two alternates).
50 comments:
You want to acquit because George Floyd was not white person.
You and Senator Johnson are prime examples of the structural racism in our society.
When are the riots scheduled?
Biden is helping hundreds of thousands of black farmers " Idiot Alky
45,000 black farmers in the USA, cite USDA
Roger, you said Slow Joe will create 155,000 newly minted BLACK FARMERS.
How?
When are the riots scheduled?
They might as well start them today. Regardless of the outcome you just know that the animals are going to go full-on apeshit.
let's get it over with.
Roger...
Just to clarify for legal defamation purposes.
Are you calling me (a private citizen) a white supremacist and/or a racist?
Roger, you said Slow Joe will create 155,000 newly minted BLACK FARMERS.
How?
the alky doesn't care about black farmers. he's rather just see them get reparations. that way they can get paid without putting in any actual WORK like the rest of us have to do to earn a living.
the truly stupid among us think that forcing those of us who have never enslaved anyone to pay those of us who have never been enslaved is the right thing to do.
Junkie Floyd's family is picking up a cool $27 MILL because a worthless fucking felon overdosed at the right place and the right time.
the message: go ahead and submit your reparations shakedown claim. you mileage may vary.
Are you calling me (a private citizen) a white supremacist and/or a racist?
you ARE ray-ciss.
how do we know this?
well, you're WHITE, dummy.
ALL white people (except for liberals) are inherently ray-ciss from birth because ray-cissmm is 'structural', 'systemic', 'existential', and a whole bunch of other fancy, spooky, important-sounding adjectives that have not been applied yet.
please try to keep up.
Yes
I'm entitled to say this because of the first amendment rights.
The evidence has been evident since day one of the Insurrection on January 6th.
And even before, when you declared George Floyd died of the drug dealers, despite the state government autopsy report that the chokehold caused his death.
The white people are innocent, but a dead African American citizen dies, it's just shit happens
Drug overdose correction
I know a lot of white people who are not racist, but this blog is a prime example of systematic racism.
The former declared that President Obama was born in Kenya was example one because Scott never betrayed the former. Even Before he was elected by a minority popular vote .
3 A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false.
4. The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit.
5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.
Public Officials and Figures Have More to Prove
The public has a right to criticize the people who govern them, so the least protection from defamation is given to public officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." (For a definition of actual malice, see the "History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.")
People who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous -- like movie stars -- also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases.
Don't waist your money for a lawyer Scott.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html#:~:text=%22Defamation%20of%20character%22%20is%20a,rather%20than%20a%20criminal%20wrong).
You are a public figure, who has been blogging for decades now, since soars..
Because I am a private person, I can sue for defamation of character by posting false legal issues, like being legally charged for spousal abuse.
It never happened.
I'm entitled to say this because of the first amendment rights.
sounds good to me WIFE BEATER.
Instead of personal bias, like alky go back to normality like on soars and again before the former went birther.
Hillary Clinton did not initiate birtherism.
I was never charged for a crime in my 69 years. Cease and desist, or
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html#:~:text=%22Defamation%20of%20character%22%20is%20a,rather%20than%20a%20criminal%20wrong).
go fuck yourself, alky.
What Does the Victim Need to Prove to Establish Defamation?
The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you usually have to show there's been a statement that is all of the
1. First, the "statement" can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.
Who is going to take a case for broken down alcoholic, residing in a Medicaid assisted living facility. You can’t scratch two nickels together for the retainer fee
And here is why the lawsuit fails
Defamation Must Cause Financial Injury
In order to determine the damages from a slander or libel suit, there must be quantifiable damages. Defamation of character damages a person’s or company’s reputation, and it must be proven that the damage to reputation correlated with a loss of money, property, relationship, or was subject to harassment that led to any of the above losses
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/when-to-sue-for-defamation-slander-and-libel/
THWAP!!!
My point was that if I eventually decided to sue, I would have a pretty good chance of winning significant financial gains.
I want to return to normality and discuss ideas instead of personal bullying
Medicaid doesn't pay one penny of my rent.
All I covers is my Medicaid advantage program that covers millions of Americans.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
My point was that if I eventually decided to sue, I would have a pretty good chance of winning significant financial gains.
yeah, right.
In order to determine the damages from a slander or libel suit, there must be quantifiable damages. Defamation of character damages a person’s or company’s reputation, and it must be proven that the damage to reputation correlated with a loss of money, property, relationship, or was subject to harassment that led to any of the above losses
good luck illustrating quantifiable damages. The only place where your character and reputation is at all visible is on this blog, which IS your fucking life.
And as far as we're concerned, your reputation is already shot, and your character is that of a broken down drunk who conned his way to a liver transplant, and no lives in the lap of Medicaid luxury, in a room you're not allowed to leave because if you were, you wouldn't be here all day every day.
So go ahead and file suit. Take your best shot. If you were to win, I think I can cover the damages owed with what i have in my wallet right now, which amounts to...
...all of $40.00.
Medicaid doesn't pay one penny of my rent.
I'm entitled to say this because of the first amendment rights.
So you can call someone a "racist" because it's your opinion and protected speech under the first amendment to the constitution?
But someone else cannot suggest that you are a wife beater because...
Um why?
Medicaid doesn't pay one penny of my rent.
I'm not locked down.
"All it covers is my Medicaid advantage"
Roger.
That can't be right.
I was never legally charged with abuse.
Defenition of character is very difficult.
Stop acting irrationally and cultist Scott.
Jack Posobiec
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1371495351690072066
Chauvin's lawyer pointed out the son of Keith Ellison is on the City Council that announced the Floyd settlement on Friday
Keith Ellison is the AG and personally leading the prosecution of Chauvin
and both are supporters of antifa
Now there are two people who actually should be held liable for a ton of damages.
ROFLMFAO at alky and his "damages". Did racist roger hurt his first when striking a minority woman ?
* fist
Roger confirmed he is on public assistance , thru Medicaid (which I said he was 2 years ago, and he denied).
But.
The Medicaid income cap is as follows.
"asingle adult is eligible for Medicaid in 2021 with an annual income of $17,774. Medicaid eligibility is determined based on current monthly income, so that amounts to a limit of $1,481 per month."
$17,774. vs "6 figure income guarantee for life", something doesnt work.
"I was never legally charged with abuse."
Just because you were not criminally charged , is meaningless.
You admit here you abused her, physically intimidated her, verbally abused her.
Medicaid advantage provides zero copays for appointments,low cost medications, zero cost immunizations, laboratory tests etc. And a maximum copays, like the liver transplant.
It doesn't pay rent,meals and drinks.
Because I have defined benefit pensions for my life I make more than the average income for my life.
I was never legally charged with abuse.
Well I have never legally been found to be a racist either?
It is 2021 and the liberals out there believe that speech is violence and that aggressive speech is akin to assault. While we can all agree or disagree with these concepts, they are (after all) a matter of opinion.
So according to your own confessions, you had verbally assaulted your wife with bad language which was accentuated by your self-proclaimed deep booming voice and that the police were actually got involved at one point. Does this behavior not fall under the category of "opinion" as to whether there was "violence" or whether a type of "assault" occurred?
Certainly not every act of verbal violence or assault ends with charges. Does that make them any less troublesome?
Or Roger...
Are you suggesting as a general rule that every 2021 sensitive liberal out there who suggests that speech is violence or even assault is committing actionable behavior against those they accuse of violent speech (unless those they accuse have been charged with a crime)?
Alky it’s medicare advantage
THWAP!!!
so to recap.
Rogers yearly income is less then 18,000.
How much you want to bet the alky did a Medicaid asset transfer to the Pomeranian, and then he blew his nest egg and HERS in some stupid fucking get rich quick scheme akin to a Nigerian prince email scam?
LOL.
THWAP!!!
If Sleepy Joe lost the election and incited Black lives matter and Antifa etc to invade the Capitol building, you would have called it Insurrection.
It's speculation, not defamation of character, but my opinion is underlying racism that you might not understand.
We are apes, driven by emotions quite often .
So Roger...
Back to the story at hand.
You are now part of the shrinking minority who still believe that George Floyd was murdered. For every one of you who believes it was murder there are two who are not convinced as such. You are outnumbered by double.
Yet when Floyd first died in Minneapolis and the tapes surfaces a significant majority believed he was murdered?
Have you stopped for even a second to make ask why so many people have changed their minds as more facts have come out? Have you wondered why none of these new facts have not changed "your" view?
There have been more than one autopsy done and hundreds if not thousands of medical experts have weighed in on the facts presented in the autopsies available. The facts pretty much say the same thing. They are the only thing that is not in doubt.
- Three times the lethal amount of Fentanyl in his system
- Lungs full of liquid, consistent with an opioid overdose
- No physical evidence of a heart attack or stroke
- No physical evidence of strangulation or issues with the esophagus
There have also been multiple martial arts experts with an serious knowledge of choke and sleeper type holds who will testify with 100% confidence that a knee to the side of neck will neither strangle or block both carotid arteries in a manner to make someone pass out.
The summary of autopsy is simply one person's opinion.
That is all it is Roger. A single opinion that is disputed by a large amount of other medical experts who believe he overdosed.
Are there other medical experts who believe he was choked or otherwise died of a heart attack? Sure. There is quite literally going to be many different opinions.
But they are all opinions, including the person who put his signature on the autopsy. Just an opinion, Roger. Only an opinion. It might be the opinion you choose to believe. But it's not the opinion I choose to believe.
I have yet to run across anyone who has an opinion that he was strangled or otherwise choked out who can explain why there are no physical signs of it. Or anyone who suggests that he had a heart attack when there are literally no physical signs of a heart attack. Not to mention we can watch the tape straight through and see first hand that he did not suffer a heart attack (which is extremely painful and hard to hide).
Everything about the encounter, especially the manner in which he didn't suddenly die as you might suspect during a heart attack, but rather died slowly and quietly as you might suspect during a drug overdose - suggests that he was not "murdered".
That is my opinion based on science and facts.
It's over $65,000 for life
It's over $65,000 for life
Someone making $65,000/year would not be begging for money on Facebook, living in dive hotels, or relying on daughters to help them financially.
My opinion is based upon the autopsy by the counties doctors investigation.
The jurors will be sequestered during the trial.
Your suggestion that he was not "murdered", imo is based upon race, not the evidence.
Why are
Republicans [Trying to] Take Credit for Relief They Opposed[?] [brackets added]
March 16, 2021
Taegan Goddard quoting VOX:
“The popularity of the legislation puts Republican members of Congress in a bind:
How does one message against a bill that most Americans like, and that will cut child poverty in half, while also juicing an economy that’s been ravaged by the year-long pandemic?”
“Some Republicans, perhaps understandably, are instead opting to instead focus on culture war distractions like whether Dr. Seuss is being ‘canceled.’ But others are shamelessly trying to TAKE CREDIT for Democratic policy RIGHT AFTER they voted against it.”
_____
HYPOCRISY, thy name is WHAT?
Because I didn't have access to my social security benefits and pensions for a couple months
Blogger Roger Amick said...
I was never legally charged with abuse.
The restraining order is all that’s needed
The FBI is Being Asked to Revisit the Brett Kavanaugh Vetting
THE GUARDIAN REPORTS THAT:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R-RI) is calling on the newly-confirmed attorney general, Merrick Garland, to help facilitate “proper oversight” by the Senate into questions about how thoroughly the FBI investigated Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.
“Among the concerns listed in Whitehouse’s letter to Garland are allegations that some witnesses who wanted to share their accounts with the FBI could not find anyone at the bureau who would accept their testimony and that it had not assigned any individual to accept or gather evidence.”
________
Now that does sound just a bit shady, doesn't it? I mean, a truly independent agency is supposed to consider all testimony, isn't it?
My opinion is based upon the autopsy by the counties doctors investigation.
No it's not Roger...
and you have admitted it time after time after time.
You have stated that your belief comes from the "summary finding" of the medical examiner who has since even contradicted his original findings to a vast degree.
The summary finding is simply an opinion.
The autopsy is the facts of the death.
You choose to believe Floyd was murdered because you hate cops with the white hot passion of a thousand burning suns because you have had your legal run ins with them.
Post a Comment