Did you see, say, Eric Holder or someone equivalent stepping forward to be the defense attorney for Chauvin? Because that type of thing would have been needed to be the equivalent of Adams - who was already strongly pro-American and anti-British at the time - stepping forward to defend the British soldiers. Adams says he did it specifically to ensure that they did receive a fair trial, rather than mob violence, and said that if they essentially got lynched it would have been the equivalent of the Salem Witch Hunts.
The trial transcripts were explicitly made public to ensure everyone got the full story. What we can see here is media organizations intentionally trying to make sure people don't get the full story.
And, even though you disagree with the trial results, 6 acquittals and 2 manslaughter charges is a lot less than plenty of anti-British people wanted. And yet, no riots or anything afterwards. Regardless of the outcome of Chauvin's trial, I'd put down money that there's going to be riots afterwards.
Here’s the truth in each testimony- Floyd had no signs of bruising or damage to his body that would indicate forced suffocation, multiple examiners that testified contradicted their own statements making them look at best biased, according to his trainer Chauvin could have used more force and tazed Floyd immediately upon arrival at the scene. Examiners of the drugs in Floyd’s car said they were all low quality meth, but don’t acknowledge that he has massive amounts of not meth and fentanyl digested in his system as there was none in his stomach.
They are trying to downplay the fentanyl but it's (probably) not going well. They established fairly well that 1) the dosage found in his system would 100% kill a naive fentanyl user 2) the dosage found in his system would barely affect a hardcore fentanyl abuser. Whether true or not it's been established that he had been clean for quite some time and had just recently relapsed which makes point 1 most relevant because you do not maintain tolerance to fentanyl when not using it.
Of course they are.
The media want the population to believe that judge and jury are racists. They want another year of rioting blacks burning, looting and murdering.
If he gets a light sentence their will be massive "anti-racist" programs from the government. Not that they are not doing that already but the anti-white propaganda will be in full over-drive.
Hopefully it will stick to more discrimination and more youth brain-washing classes rather then full on "mandatory white reeducation camps".
Maybe stop calling them Media and calling them what they are, Propaganda Outlets. Or something shorter. But yeah, it's just propaganda similar to Soviet State-Run "Media". Just as trustworthy and serving the same purpose.
They want to ensure that there are massive riots when he is acquitted, so that no future jury will dare to acquit even when there is no evidence.
America went from the Boston Massacre trial to this in 250 years, sufficient to disprove Darwin in the words of Henry James.
Eh, maybe things don't really change. A well placed rock can kill. No British soldier should have been convicted of manslaughter. Change my mind.
No, things have changed.
Did you see, say, Eric Holder or someone equivalent stepping forward to be the defense attorney for Chauvin? Because that type of thing would have been needed to be the equivalent of Adams - who was already strongly pro-American and anti-British at the time - stepping forward to defend the British soldiers. Adams says he did it specifically to ensure that they did receive a fair trial, rather than mob violence, and said that if they essentially got lynched it would have been the equivalent of the Salem Witch Hunts.
The trial transcripts were explicitly made public to ensure everyone got the full story. What we can see here is media organizations intentionally trying to make sure people don't get the full story.
And, even though you disagree with the trial results, 6 acquittals and 2 manslaughter charges is a lot less than plenty of anti-British people wanted. And yet, no riots or anything afterwards. Regardless of the outcome of Chauvin's trial, I'd put down money that there's going to be riots afterwards.
Here’s the truth in each testimony- Floyd had no signs of bruising or damage to his body that would indicate forced suffocation, multiple examiners that testified contradicted their own statements making them look at best biased, according to his trainer Chauvin could have used more force and tazed Floyd immediately upon arrival at the scene. Examiners of the drugs in Floyd’s car said they were all low quality meth, but don’t acknowledge that he has massive amounts of not meth and fentanyl digested in his system as there was none in his stomach.
They are trying to downplay the fentanyl but it's (probably) not going well. They established fairly well that 1) the dosage found in his system would 100% kill a naive fentanyl user 2) the dosage found in his system would barely affect a hardcore fentanyl abuser. Whether true or not it's been established that he had been clean for quite some time and had just recently relapsed which makes point 1 most relevant because you do not maintain tolerance to fentanyl when not using it.
Of course they are. The media want the population to believe that judge and jury are racists. They want another year of rioting blacks burning, looting and murdering.
They are fake news.
Talking heads need to see murders and riots
What else is new?
If he gets a light sentence their will be massive "anti-racist" programs from the government. Not that they are not doing that already but the anti-white propaganda will be in full over-drive.
Hopefully it will stick to more discrimination and more youth brain-washing classes rather then full on "mandatory white reeducation camps".
Maybe stop calling them Media and calling them what they are, Propaganda Outlets. Or something shorter. But yeah, it's just propaganda similar to Soviet State-Run "Media". Just as trustworthy and serving the same purpose.