Derek Chauvin 'defense'

Tchitcherine

Private
Supporter
PX Member
Minuteman
Sep 26, 2014
586
626
CA
Thing is, legally Prosecution needs to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And it's looking like they are not winning at this, since Defense has elicited -- from Prosecution's witnesses -- statements that do raise doubt, both in the cause of death (OD, obstructed arteries, hypertension, adrenaline effects from fighting) as well as negligence (situation factors that can cause delay in treatment to include behavior of the crowd, traffic, etc; and load-and-go decision by EMTs). These admissions will be pounded home during presentation of Chauvin's Defense, which should kick off soon (edit - I thought it already had).
 
Last edited:

archangel485

Sergeant of the Hide
PX Member
Minuteman
Oct 11, 2018
343
170
WY
I'm not a lawyer, but I thought when you call up or interrogate the other side's witnesses or experts it can be "cross-examination" and its usually a sign of being more thorough? In the case of using the other side's experts it can also save some cash as the other side is paying for the expert. Shouldn't count on a jury just yet, the defense should try to provide as many reasons as possible not to convict. Putting all the egg in one basket can be dicey.
First, I'm no lawyer either, haha. But yes I agree, cross examination is what happens when the defense asks questions of the prosecution's witnesses (and vice versa). First half of the trial the prosecution brings witnesses that they have coached and prepared for testimony, the whole point is to bring witnesses that make the defendant look bad and make your case against the defendant look good. The defense gets their chance to do the same later on. After the prosecution questions the witness they brought to the trial, the defense can then cross examine the witness, and obviously their objective is to try to add clarity to whatever they just said, or to take credibility away from it, basically the prosecution should be piling on damage against the defendant and cross examination should be to control the damage, or try to minimize it a little. Second half of the trial roles are reversed for the two sides.

My point of that part of my post, was that interestingly last week, a witness called by the prosecution, Dr. MacKenzie, in response to the prosecution's questions, testified that trained officers must provide medical attention and that simply calling an ambulance is not enough. Under cross examination the defense got her to qualify that statement and clarify that if the situation wasn't safe you couldn't do CPR, if there were a threatening crowd for example. But then, the defense wanted to go further with their questioning of Dr. MacKenzie and ask about fentanyl mortality. Because it wasn't part of the prosecution's original line of questioning they objected to the question (because they know it will hurt their case), so the defense lawyer said, okay, I want to call Dr. MacKenzie next week when it's my turn to call witnesses. In other words, I'm going to ask her these questions anyways because she's going to help our case.

Edit: In other words, if a witness the prosecution has selected to make the defendant look bad turns out to be so good under cross examination for the defense's case that they want to call them as their own witness later in the trial, then that doesn't bode well for how this is going for the prosecution.
 
Last edited:

supercorndogs

Ham Fisted Gorilla
PX Member
Minuteman
Feb 17, 2014
7,403
6,896
Colorado
Apparently we do pay ransoms. In this case 27million. Tax payer dollars.

The dog idea sounds really efficient. Doubles the amounts of knees available in one fail swoop.

In regards to the fentanyl. I am of the opinion if he had more fentanyl he’d still be alive.
That is what is known as a "rhetorical question." Not that I am surprised a genius like you would miss that.
 

supercorndogs

Ham Fisted Gorilla
PX Member
Minuteman
Feb 17, 2014
7,403
6,896
Colorado
First, I'm no lawyer either, haha. But yes I agree, cross examination is what happens when the defense asks questions of the prosecution's witnesses (and vice versa). First half of the trial the prosecution brings witnesses that they have coached and prepared for testimony, the whole point is to bring witnesses that make the defendant look bad and make your case against the defendant look good. The defense gets their chance to do the same later on. After the prosecution questions the witness they brought to the trial, the defense can then cross examine the witness, and obviously their objective is to try to add clarity to whatever they just said, or to take credibility away from it, basically the prosecution should be piling on damage against the defendant and cross examination should be to control the damage, or try to minimize it a little. Second half of the trial roles are reversed for the two sides.

My point of that part of my post, was that interestingly last week, a witness called by the prosecution, Dr. MacKenzie, in response to the prosecution's questions, testified that trained officers must provide medical attention and that simply calling an ambulance is not enough. Under cross examination the defense got her to qualify that statement and clarify that if the situation wasn't safe you couldn't do CPR, if there were a threatening crowd for example. But then, the defense wanted to go further with their questioning of Dr. MacKenzie and ask about fentanyl mortality. Because it wasn't part of the prosecution's original line of questioning they objected to the question (because they know it will hurt their case), so the defense lawyer said, okay, I want to call Dr. MacKenzie next week when it's my turn to call witnesses. In other words, I'm going to ask her these questions anyways because she's going to help our case.

Edit: In other words, if a witness the prosecution has selected to make the defendant look bad turns out to be so good under cross examination for the defense's case that they want to call them as their own witness later in the trial, then that's doesn't bode well for how this is going for the prosecution.
I am not a lawyer either, but I have watched Perry Mason, and I think you pretty much nailed it. I have not watched the trail as there is no need. Filing charges in the first place was capitulating to mob rule. Dude died from an O.D on one of the most dangerous street drugs we know of. Its open and shut.
 

1J04

Lost Squirrel
PX Member
Minuteman
  • Aug 7, 2011
    14,950
    31,680
    PNW WA
    First, I'm no lawyer either, haha. But yes I agree, cross examination is what happens when the defense asks questions of the prosecution's witnesses (and vice versa). First half of the trial the prosecution brings witnesses that they have coached and prepared for testimony, the whole point is to bring witnesses that make the defendant look bad and make your case against the defendant look good. The defense gets their chance to do the same later on. After the prosecution questions the witness they brought to the trial, the defense can then cross examine the witness, and obviously their objective is to try to add clarity to whatever they just said, or to take credibility away from it, basically the prosecution should be piling on damage against the defendant and cross examination should be to control the damage, or try to minimize it a little. Second half of the trial roles are reversed for the two sides.

    My point of that part of my post, was that interestingly last week, a witness called by the prosecution, Dr. MacKenzie, in response to the prosecution's questions, testified that trained officers must provide medical attention and that simply calling an ambulance is not enough. Under cross examination the defense got her to qualify that statement and clarify that if the situation wasn't safe you couldn't do CPR, if there were a threatening crowd for example. But then, the defense wanted to go further with their questioning of Dr. MacKenzie and ask about fentanyl mortality. Because it wasn't part of the prosecution's original line of questioning they objected to the question (because they know it will hurt their case), so the defense lawyer said, okay, I want to call Dr. MacKenzie next week when it's my turn to call witnesses. In other words, I'm going to ask her these questions anyways because she's going to help our case.

    Edit: In other words, if a witness the prosecution has selected to make the defendant look bad turns out to be so good under cross examination for the defense's case that they want to call them as their own witness later in the trial, then that doesn't bode well for how this is going for the prosecution.


    You may wanna look up "Rebuttal's" and "3.5 and 3.6" Hearings. But you're getting close........


    Note: Not a Lawyer either. But I have more Court/Trial time than most. ;)

    edit: lol I'm in Court right meow with a new "alleged" Child Molester. Wut? Only $100,000 COS? WTF? 😆
     
    Last edited:

    navynambu

    Jesus Don't Want Me For A Sunbeam
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 5, 2017
    453
    609
    53
    Anasazi Land
    so the defense lawyer said, okay, I want to call Dr. MacKenzie next week when it's my turn to call witnesses

    Generally, you never bring back the prosecution's retained trial expert, and put the State's whore back on the stand as they are professional witnesses who should be trained to be unshakable on cross and all you will them to do is just repeat the same story/opinions they already told in the prosecution's case, which is just exactly what you don't want to do.

    Instead, you get them off the stand ASAP and never mention them again to the jury.

    If you put them back up on the stand, all they will do is repeat repeat repeat what they already testified to (and what they were paid by the prosecution to say), and now they get a chance to say it again in the defendant's case-in-chief.

    Generally, a defense lawyer is an idiot if he/she thinks he's/she's going to talk an experienced retained trial expert out of their own opinion, and would be even a bigger an idiot to even think he/she is so brilliant that h/she could do such a thing. To do this correctly, you bring in your own expert, which they do have, and fix it that way.

    Or maybe he correctly sees this case is a complete looser for his client, maybe figuring now, "wow we are so screwed we might as well try some crazy shit," because if he looks incompetent enough the defendant will have an issue on appeal for incompetent counsel and he's doing the client a big favor on appeal by looking incompetent.

    Then the defendant has a constitutional argument of being deprived of his right to competent counsel at the trial level. I have seen criminal defense lawyers actually do that accidentally or on purpose...
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Blutroop

    tadawson

    Sergeant of the Hide
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 29, 2018
    252
    182
    Lewisville, Texas
    I actually think this is pretty good reasoning. Of course, "police dogs are racist" as everybody knows, and if you got a video of it, people would be annoyed, but the country sure as hell wouldn't have burned.
    So bring a black dog . . . . :) :)
    I hear you, but it happens all the time. There is a chance that what you predicted would happen but its almost a guarantee it would happen without the presence of a dog. seriously. We would get emails from officers/departments that purchased dogs from us telling us about call outs that were pretty similar situations to Floyds. Dude was kirk'n out on the officers then K9 comes in and his demeanor completely changes when there is a snarling drooling 85lb pointy eared monster standing in front of him about to fuck his shit up. It taps into something primal. And there are the times where some dumbass thinks he can take it or doesn't care, then the dog shows them otherwise. Either way, Floyd gets bit, fuckered up, and cuffed, and the K9 stands by wanting more and Floyd thinks twice about calling his bluff for round 2. Im under no delusion that there can be a K9 on every call out but it wouldve helped the situation had there been one present.

    Monday morning quarterbacking and shit..
    I agree - a lot of the response is def. a primal fear. We have a 90 lb brown/black GSD that at least *looks* like a police dog, and it's amazing how it seems the scummier the persons I pass when out walking seem to set land speed records to get to the other side of the street. The legit neighbors often let thier kids pet him . . .

    Something about a 90lb fur missile that makes the sphincter clench up uncontrollably. . . . (and *DAMN* glad to have him on "team me"!)
     

    Blutroop

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Oct 25, 2018
    2,228
    3,088
    Alaska
    "So there is potential"? I think you already know the answer to this if you're honestly looking for a reply, and not being rhetorical. Am I right?

    Just for fun, lemme toss this out there. If you asked "me" would I allow my Union or the FOP to provide legal services in this case were it me? Hell no. Trust NOBODY. And hire, by any means possible, a Head Hunter Honey Badger Badass who specializes in volatile high profile cases, such as this.


    https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/9831...law-enforcement-legal-defense-funds-for-court

    https://leorf.org/

    https://www.foplegal.com/
    I was honestly asking as I find the justice System so broken that I feel bad for the guy. I don’t agree with his actions but fear he will not get a fair trial. I don’t expect either outcome to change the easily steered mob mentality though.
     

    archangel485

    Sergeant of the Hide
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 11, 2018
    343
    170
    WY
    Generally, you never bring back the prosecution's retained trial expert, and put the State's whore back on the stand as they are professional witnesses who should be trained to be unshakable on cross and all you will them to do is just repeat the same story/opinions they already told in the prosecution's case, which is just exactly what you don't want to do.

    Instead, you get them off the stand ASAP and never mention them again to the jury.

    If you put them back up on the stand, all they will do is repeat repeat repeat what they already testified to (and what they were paid by the prosecution to say), and now they get a chance to say it again in the defendant's case-in-chief.

    Generally, a defense lawyer is an idiot if he/she thinks he's/she's going to talk an experienced retained trial expert out of their own opinion, and would be even a bigger an idiot to even think he/she is so brilliant that h/she could do such a thing. To do this correctly, you bring in your own expert, which they do have, and fix it that way.

    Or maybe he correctly sees this case is a complete looser for his client, maybe figuring now, "wow we are so screwed we might as well try some crazy shit," because if he looks incompetent enough the defendant will have an issue on appeal for incompetent counsel and he's doing the client a big favor on appeal by looking incompetent.

    Then the defendant has a constitutional argument of being deprived of his right to competent counsel at the trial level. I have seen criminal defense lawyers actually do that accidentally or on purpose...
    I agree, but in this particular case her cross examination was quite good for the defense. Maybe he'll end up not calling her, who knows, my point was she helped the defense quite a bit with her statements while on cross, far more than the prosecution would have liked.
     

    1J04

    Lost Squirrel
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Aug 7, 2011
    14,950
    31,680
    PNW WA
    Generally, you never bring back the prosecution's retained trial expert, and put the State's whore back on the stand as they are professional witnesses who should be trained to be unshakable on cross and all you will them to do is just repeat the same story/opinions they already told in the prosecution's case, which is just exactly what you don't want to do.

    Instead, you get them off the stand ASAP and never mention them again to the jury.

    If you put them back up on the stand, all they will do is repeat repeat repeat what they already testified to (and what they were paid by the prosecution to say), and now they get a chance to say it again in the defendant's case-in-chief.

    Generally, a defense lawyer is an idiot if he/she thinks he's/she's going to talk an experienced retained trial expert out of their own opinion, and would be even a bigger an idiot to even think he/she is so brilliant that h/she could do such a thing. To do this correctly, you bring in your own expert, which they do have, and fix it that way.

    Or maybe he correctly sees this case is a complete looser for his client, maybe figuring now, "wow we are so screwed we might as well try some crazy shit," because if he looks incompetent enough the defendant will have an issue on appeal for incompetent counsel and he's doing the client a big favor on appeal by looking incompetent.

    Then the defendant has a constitutional argument of being deprived of his right to competent counsel at the trial level. I have seen criminal defense lawyers actually do that accidentally or on purpose...

    This is so subjective and literally Case by Case, there is NO way you, or anyone else can say you're right or wrong. How many THOUSANDS of Jury and Bench Trials have you been in on from everything from 1st appearances, evidentiary hearings, all the House Cleaning Hearings, up to and including the actual Trial and Verdict?

    I'm telling you you're partially correct on some of this, but there is a ton of shit you're not covering. And probably for good reason. WE'RE NOT TRIAL LAWYER'S. 😁

    Consider this. Defense Counsel has their shit together. Who better to tear apart than paid Professional Defense Shills? Most Lawyers have dealt with the Judges they will be before and know where "their" lines are. If you can push your "YES" or "NO" plan of attack in regards to "Simple" answers, you can destroy them without giving them the opportunity to read from their prepared script. And yes, the Prosecution DOES get another lick at their own witness, but you're not asking questions you don't already know the answer's to, done right.

    You cannot un-ring the Bell. Just say'n.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: barneybdb

    1J04

    Lost Squirrel
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Aug 7, 2011
    14,950
    31,680
    PNW WA
    I was honestly asking as I find the justice System so broken that I feel bad for the guy. I don’t agree with his actions but fear he will not get a fair trial. I don’t expect either outcome to change the easily steered mob mentality though.

    You and Me? Brother, we're 100% eye to eye on this. Good question, but I had to be cautious. :ROFLMAO:

    edit: I think we both know it's so FUBAR at this point it's literally nothing more than a crap shoot if you get caught up in it.
     

    tadawson

    Sergeant of the Hide
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jan 29, 2018
    252
    182
    Lewisville, Texas
    You can't just put him in a seated position. What ends up happening in a situation with respiratory issues, such as that that would be caused by fentanyl overdose, is that the diaphragm gets compressed causing further difficulty breathing. This could lead to higher heart rate and high blood pressure... laying down is the best option
    Makes sense to me, and on side or face down so if he vomits, he is less likely to aspirate.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: barneybdb and 1J04

    Franko

    Sergeant of the Hide
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    May 19, 2018
    352
    245
    Southern California
    The only reason you cross examine the other side's witnesses is to damage their credibility, because asking a hostile witness to answer a question without knowing what they are going to say is a really bad idea...
     

    TurboTrout

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    1,073
    846
    East Coast
    Police dogs...

    yeah, if I was a mayor/governor/etc I’d ban them, between the poorly trained handlers, bite lawsuits, some from people that had nothing to do with the call, to the insane inaccuracy of drug sniffing dogs and using them as a end run around the 4th amendment, whole ton of nooope
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: ken226

    DarnYankeeUSMC

    McCarthy Was Right
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Mar 18, 2012
    4,541
    9,812
    In your head
    So, when does Paul Harvey get to tell the rest of the story?


    And, what happens when you run up on a guy that has no fear of the dog?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1J04

    Blutroop

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Oct 25, 2018
    2,228
    3,088
    Alaska
    You and Me? Brother, we're 100% eye to eye on this. Good question, but I had to be cautious. :ROFLMAO:

    edit: I think we both know it's so FUBAR at this point it's literally nothing more than a crap shoot if you get caught up in it.
    I think we could be eye to eye on a lot of things but society keeps our shaded lenses on different spectrums.

    Stay safe.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: barneybdb and 1J04

    1J04

    Lost Squirrel
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Aug 7, 2011
    14,950
    31,680
    PNW WA
    I think we could be eye to eye on a lot of things but society keeps our shaded lenses on different spectrums.

    Stay safe.

    Can't agree more. Some of that we certainly have control over, some not so much. But! I'm pretty certain we've been fairly respectful of each others views.

    Appreciate the "Stay Safe"! ;) You do as well! (y)
     

    Tchitcherine

    Private
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Sep 26, 2014
    586
    626
    CA
    Well...that's how it's SUPPOSED to work. I'm bettin' the DA had six votes in the bag before the actual trial started. Jury trails are popularity contests...kinda like elections.
    Understood. Rules aren't what they used to be, if even they ever were.
     

    Foul Mike

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Apr 18, 2001
    2,906
    4,356
    Eastern Colorado
    Just to get everyones ass and panties in a wad I will state this,

    I have long been a proponent of LEO Policing their own ranks from within, and have posted that here for many years. It worked for many years but is not done as well these years as it was in the past. , and I have been around long enough and worked directly with them that I can say BTDT.

    Every once in a while there is a person, with a Badge and gun, that just does not belong there. They just don't have what it takes to do the job. They become Badge Heavy. Diversity, EEO, not enough asses to fill every seat at the Academy,so lower the standards, and many other things get in there, but it is extremely hard to weed out the bad ones, so now,"How is that working out for Everyone?

    You reap what you sow. Sometimes the Harvest is not as good as you wished it could be, so what do you do about it?
     
    Last edited:

    Bullfrog08

    Sergeant of the Hide
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Dec 6, 2018
    419
    615
    Hey you SJWs in here. There is a fresh police shooting going down in a suburb of Mpls right now. Riot going down right fucking now, all you super cringy DBs should book your plane tickets and get in here and fight the popo! C'mon dudes, fight the power y'all! You'll be so sad to see it on the news and know you weren't here burning it all down with your BLM BFFs.
    Actually, standing up for the 8th amendment is a constitutional cause, not a social/feel good cause as youre implying.
     

    thejeep

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Aug 30, 2008
    1,695
    1,166
    New York City
    Actually, standing up for the 8th amendment is a constitutional cause, not a social/feel good cause as youre implying.
    Is he talking about the new riot where the officer meant to get the taser but grabbed her pistol instead and killed the guy? The memes are going to be priceless.
     

    quietmike

    Private
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 17, 2009
    1,086
    2,517
    Shelbyville, TN
    This is discussing a clinical setting and appears to be addressing a Pt who’s on a vent. I also missed the part about having the nurse kneel on their back ;)

    But in the street, in that setting, cuffed sitting on the curb, cop calmly and professionally saying EMS is coming just relax, no screaming or beating on him, I think that would have been best, I’d wager he would have made it, no one would have ever heard of his name.

    Ether way, spilled milk now, be interesting to see how this case ends, though I don’t think it will matter much

    You keep ignoring the fact that Floyd asked to be laid down.
    You ever tried to lay on you back while your hands are cuffed behind you?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 1J04

    TurboTrout

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    1,073
    846
    East Coast
    You keep ignoring the fact that Floyd asked to be laid down.
    You ever tried to lay on you back while your hands are cuffed behind you?

    I missed where he asked that, fair enough, though I’d wager he didn’t ask for the guy to sit/knee on him.

    Ether way, I’d don’t think it’s going to be a guilty, not for murder
     
    • Like
    Reactions: quietmike

    redneckbmxer24

    Merica!
    Banned !
    Minuteman
  • Jan 15, 2005
    7,742
    3,534
    Gulf Coast, FL
    The Pit is a place for morons who self identify as free thinkers to run around like children making sure to stomp out any wrongthink out of line with received wisdom. Quite a place indeed.

    Did you post this before or after you two explored the depths of one another’s buttholes?
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: 1J04

    TurboTrout

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    1,073
    846
    East Coast
    He has a functioning brain which is more than you can say for yourself.

    Yes.. only managing to hurl poorly articulated insults, while not making a single logical argument, that is often found in the higher functioning minds of our time.

    I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” -Margaret Thatcher
     

    thestoicmarcusaurelius

    The Real Tiger King
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jun 15, 2020
    831
    1,121
    Alabama Slammer
    Generally, a defense lawyer is an idiot if he/she thinks he's/she's going to talk an experienced retained trial expert out of their own opinion, and would be even a bigger an idiot to even think he/she is so brilliant that h/she could do such a thing. To do this correctly, you bring in your own expert, which they do have, and fix it that way.
    ..

    I would 100% agree in general and I have seen nothing to suggest the defense is capable of that. There are some, very few attorneys that can though. But, in general that's not a great way to question experts.

    What a lot of people do is try to pin the experts down on what information they used to form their opinions and then try to get the expert to answer if their opinion would change if they took a different factor into account that they didn't mention that they relied on forming their position but that there is evidentiary support to show that it could be a relevant factor.
     

    TurboTrout

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    1,073
    846
    East Coast
    If I was the swinging dick around here I’d ban you and every mouth breather like you, but sometimes we just don’t get our way.

    Im sure you would, just like antifa blocks speakers they can’t debate. Yours appears to just be a right leaning flavor of the same course.

    Have you always been for censorship and against a free and open dialog?

    Again tell me your point of contention and I’d be happy to expand on it for you.

    Or just keep up with the modest at best insults
     

    redneckbmxer24

    Merica!
    Banned !
    Minuteman
  • Jan 15, 2005
    7,742
    3,534
    Gulf Coast, FL
    Yes.. only managing to hurl poorly articulated insults, while not making a single logical argument, that is often found in the higher functioning minds of our time.

    I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” -Margaret Thatcher

    You’ve never made a logical arguement in your life, but if you want to talk about functioning minds you’re barking up the wrong tree dumb fuck.
     

    TurboTrout

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    1,073
    846
    East Coast
    You’ve never made a logical arguement in your life, but if you want to talk about functioning minds you’re barking up the wrong tree dumb fuck.

    Again with the insults.

    You only able to just keep insulting / reeee!, but can’t debate whatever points you disagree with, nope can’t have debate, but you will call out to have my opinion silenced.
     

    jbailey

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Jul 27, 2010
    2,092
    780
    47
    Arlington VA
    Guys,
    question for you all:

    So I watched a George Floyd video on Youtube, wanting to learn a little about what you guys are discussing. So Youtube now thinks I'm into watching videos of the ghettos. It is pushing these videos of walking/driving thru these terrible hoods in Philly, LA, etc. I'm seeing a lot of people hunched over, staggering around with their head down on the ground. It looks terrible and I'm seeing it in multiple spots, and frequently.

    Why are these people doing that? Is it the side effect of some drug?

    Thanks.

    These ghetto videos are really sad, depressing statements about lives wasted in modern America. To have access to all these freedoms, economic opportunities and amenities in this great country, its a disaster that so many people choose this wasted path. That is the real story that the public seems to miss in part because these one-off George Floyd events.
     

    mcameron

    Two Star General
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 17, 2011
    5,196
    11,959
    Guys,
    question for you all:

    So I watched a George Floyd video on Youtube, wanting to learn a little about what you guys are discussing. So Youtube now thinks I'm into watching videos of the ghettos. It is pushing these videos of walking/driving thru these terrible hoods in Philly, LA, etc. I'm seeing a lot of people hunched over, staggering around with their head down on the ground. It looks terrible and I'm seeing it in multiple spots, and frequently.

    Why are these people doing that? Is it the side effect of some drug?

    Thanks.
    its the heroine.....makes you into a fucking zombie




    hell, im sure @pmclaine has some stories about "methadone mile" to share.....fuck even just driving through that area you will see the addicts all in the streets bent over backwards like those bitches in the exorcism movies

    01082013Ashley-jpg_002301.jpg
     

    pmclaine

    Gunny Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 6, 2011
    23,584
    37,129
    53
    MA
    its the heroine.....makes you into a fucking zombie




    hell, im sure @pmclaine has some stories about "methadone mile" to share.....fuck even just driving through that area you will see the addicts all in the streets bent over backwards like those bitches in the exorcism movies

    01082013Ashley-jpg_002301.jpg

    Glad I am not near there just about ever.....

     

    TurboTrout

    Major Hide Member
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 30, 2020
    1,073
    846
    East Coast
    its the heroine.....makes you into a fucking zombie




    hell, im sure @pmclaine has some stories about "methadone mile" to share.....fuck even just driving through that area you will see the addicts all in the streets bent over backwards like those bitches in the exorcism movies

    01082013Ashley-jpg_002301.jpg

    Alway reminded me more of


    But unlike those poor people, the last thing the moose wanted was to get drugged. Life’s got to be pretty shitty to get into drugs like that, I feel bad for those people but as cities like San Fran and Seattle have shown, trying to “help” often only makes things worse

    Opium has been around for a looooong time in the US, wonder what the primary cause of more people getting into it has been. Overpopulation? Cities taking people too far from nature? Both sad and interesting.
     

    quietmike

    Private
    PX Member
    Minuteman
    Oct 17, 2009
    1,086
    2,517
    Shelbyville, TN
    Guys,
    question for you all:

    So I watched a George Floyd video on Youtube, wanting to learn a little about what you guys are discussing. So Youtube now thinks I'm into watching videos of the ghettos. It is pushing these videos of walking/driving thru these terrible hoods in Philly, LA, etc. I'm seeing a lot of people hunched over, staggering around with their head down on the ground. It looks terrible and I'm seeing it in multiple spots, and frequently.

    Why are these people doing that? Is it the side effect of some drug?

    Thanks.

    These ghetto videos are really sad, depressing statements about lives wasted in modern America. To have access to all these freedoms, economic opportunities and amenities in this great country, its a disaster that so many people choose this wasted path. That is the real story that the public seems to miss in part because these one-off George Floyd events.

    Side effect of long term democrat governance.
     

    BLKWLFK9

    Just F'n Send It..
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Feb 13, 2017
    2,714
    4,294
    Take a drive through Baltimore. Youtube "Bmore Lean"

    shit is real. craziest thing is, THEY NEVER FUCKIN FALL! Dudes will walk through these areas of the walking dead and start knocking these old heads out. The Knock Out Game, dipper head edition. (they smoke dippers aka cigarettes dipped in embalming fluid)
     

    Halfnutz

    Sergeant
    Supporter
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Jan 14, 2008
    1,155
    622
    Peoria County, Illinois
    Another who does not believe in the Constitution.
    The consequences are determined in a court of law, not by a few police officers on the street.
    As soon as you step out onto the slippery slope of marginalization of others you are march towards fascism.
    You can justify it any way you want it is a fact, you are on ice, slip sliding looking for a reason to justify your actions.
    Once you have established it is ok to kill those you feel are "deadbeats" you are faced with the fact that someone else may feel you are the deadbeat from there they can justify your demise. It will be alright because you have already set the precedent that deadbeats are of no use.
    Remember when you are pointing fingers there are several others pointing back at you.
    Totally agree except that sometimes Karma trumps a shitbags constitutional rights, but non the less someone (the defendant) may have to pay his debt too.
     

    Charger442

    Sergeant
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • Nov 2, 2010
    2,042
    1,894
    South Texas
    Guys,
    question for you all:

    So I watched a George Floyd video on Youtube, wanting to learn a little about what you guys are discussing. So Youtube now thinks I'm into watching videos of the ghettos. It is pushing these videos of walking/driving thru these terrible hoods in Philly, LA, etc. I'm seeing a lot of people hunched over, staggering around with their head down on the ground. It looks terrible and I'm seeing it in multiple spots, and frequently.

    Why are these people doing that? Is it the side effect of some drug?

    Thanks.

    These ghetto videos are really sad, depressing statements about lives wasted in modern America. To have access to all these freedoms, economic opportunities and amenities in this great country, its a disaster that so many people choose this wasted path. That is the real story that the public seems to miss in part because these one-off George Floyd events.

    Since the 1960s the US government has incentivized the destruction of the traditional family unit. Couple that with the war against religion that the Dems have been pushing and computer/internet/cell phone addiction and you have so many people living the most superficial lives they can. No substance, no depth, no passion.

    It's why many are so drawn to the fake causes and fake outrages so they feel like they can be part of something, something to struggle against. "Oppression" "racism" etc. They need it so badly they manufacturer it to give their lives purpose.

    So people see through this false outrage culture and were never introduced to religion or working for charitable causes so drugs are things they turn to in order to escape a shallow, superficial urban existence. Dems have destroyed the cities, churches, and charities so that government is now the caregiver and people feel they don't belong. The drug escape is their easiest vice to turn to. And the Dems who rule these cities don't care, as long as they have power. It's literally as plain as day
     

    Maser

    Friendliest Faggot
    PX Member
    Minuteman
  • May 17, 2006
    6,345
    5,177
    31
    /pol/
    www.youtube.com
    2nd day of the defense and holy shit it's bad! Might as well be the prosecutor because the defense team is sucking now!