They're only allowed a limited number of vetos without having to cough up proof to get a juror rejected. Given he was juror #52 I think they ran out of free vetos long before they ran into him.
A representative sample would would have white males at 35% of the potential jury pool. That's a lot of veto power, to end up with 5 white women and 6 Pee Oh Sees.
He's not at all. He managed to undermine the prosecution's case using the prosecution's own witnesses. If he'd been able to find witnesses that would testify for the defense, and if the trial hadn't been decided before any of the jurors had been seated, I think that attorney might have been able to get him off. Probably not, but maybe.
If this isn't ruled a mistrial over this obviously crooked jury, justice is dead, BLM have won, and it will soon be almost impossible for a cop to kill black criminal without forfeiting his career and freedom.
Pissed on breadcrumbs in adherence to talmudic reasoning aka deliberately suggested contradictions to both sides of the conflict of reason (truth versus false); just to keep the belief based conflict going.
You reasoning about if it's truth or false is what represents the division tool of control for the few; who offered you the belief you're reasoning about.
If you're not mentally strong enough to question every last one of your consented to beliefs (all fiction in ignorance of reality); then at least utilize implication (if/then) over reason (truth versus false). This is also taught through the so called talmud; which represents a tool to maintain human reasoning through suggested contradictions.
Yes; the status quo of our existence represents the disorder of momentum within the order of motion aka that which is struggling to sustain itself (us); within that which is constantly moving on (reality).
You are not speaking in such a way that you can be understood.
a) how can one comprehend (understand) reality by believing another ones assumptions about it?
b) the Chauvin trial represents a pissed on breadcrumb for all those already consenting to the Floyd story. If you believe in the Floyd story then the most precious black man was murdered by a white racist cop; and if you don't believe it then a cop put down a criminal nigger. No matter which side you choose; you'll find yourself in a conflict of reason against the other side.
This conflict of reason represents a division created by a suggested belief (Floyd) which allows those who offered it to control both sides of the conflict; so no matter which side you bite in; you're gonna taste piss.
Meanwhile those with eyes to see, who don't fall as easily for the same control by suggestion scheme over and over again; they were shown a sleight of hand..."I can't breathe" leads to death; which was followed by a coincidentally totally unrelated "health" order stating to "put a mask over your nose and mouth".
Now if you reread point a) you could understand that believing either side offered does not lead to the understanding of the sleight of hand; because that would require self discernment and the use of implication (if/then) over reason (truth versus false).
In short...they offered the warning that restricting ones breathing will lead to death; then they suggested everyone to ignore that warning; which makes the whole masking consent a compliance ritual towards death over life; while ignoring the needed adherence to life over death.
tldr...if you choose to believe anything offered; then you'll find yourself in a conflict with all those who choose to not believe it. Theses conflicts (of reason) are fiction in ignorance of reality; and those who offered the beliefs you're reasoning about; control mankind through that trick.
No, because GAY, adjective - "merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful"; was corrupted slowly by suggestion; which contradicts the mechanics of a sudden trap, which represents another term that was slowly being corrupted through suggestion, and that you consented to by free will of choice; which is why you believe the suggested definitions.
Look at this...FORGET', verb transitive preterit tense forgot. [forgat, obsolete ]. What if forgetting represents cleaning out the ram of memory from all obsolete information?
What if the consciousness operates at peek capacity when not being restricted by a filled memory within the working data of motion (reality)?
Who suggested to you that the solution to a perceived problem represents medicine/pharmaceuticals? Especially in the light of recent unfavorable behavior of those in adherence to the pharmaceutical cartel towards humanity as a whole...
Of course nothing will happen. The judicial branch is just as responsive to social pressure as any other branch of our nation. And, as long as they control the media they'll continue running rampant and doing whatever they wish. With no consequences.
Youtube podcasts can only get us so far.
But it's a start I guess.
Meanwhile, they're pumping out books, magazines, blockbuster movies, songs, paintings, VR games, websites, social forums, multi-million dollar "news" channels, whole departments of the highest ranked universities on Earth, churning out professional "actors" to spread their message, etc.
They're only allowed a limited number of vetos without having to cough up proof to get a juror rejected. Given he was juror #52 I think they ran out of free vetos long before they ran into him.
It still boggles my mind that not a single white man was allowed on the jury. Only an alternate.
That's where all the prosecution's vetoes went.
A representative sample would would have white males at 35% of the potential jury pool. That's a lot of veto power, to end up with 5 white women and 6 Pee Oh Sees.
all women and minorities. the prosecution knew how to play the game.
He's not at all. He managed to undermine the prosecution's case using the prosecution's own witnesses. If he'd been able to find witnesses that would testify for the defense, and if the trial hadn't been decided before any of the jurors had been seated, I think that attorney might have been able to get him off. Probably not, but maybe.
He did what he could, the cards were stacked heavily against them.
I'll answer it. No. Democrats can lie, cheat, murder, and rape, and they dindu nuffin.
Guy does his job while white? Guilty
Wouldn't be surprised if the piece of shit threatened to leak the names, faces, and addresses of any juror who dared go against the Faith.
If this isn't ruled a mistrial over this obviously crooked jury, justice is dead, BLM have won, and it will soon be almost impossible for a cop to kill black criminal without forfeiting his career and freedom.
Luckily self-segregation is still a thing.
They want to kill each other and everyone around them so badly, pick up your toys and go. Let them.
well, if there are proofs, Chauvin can win his appeal.
Pissed on breadcrumbs in adherence to talmudic reasoning aka deliberately suggested contradictions to both sides of the conflict of reason (truth versus false); just to keep the belief based conflict going.
You reasoning about if it's truth or false is what represents the division tool of control for the few; who offered you the belief you're reasoning about.
If you're not mentally strong enough to question every last one of your consented to beliefs (all fiction in ignorance of reality); then at least utilize implication (if/then) over reason (truth versus false). This is also taught through the so called talmud; which represents a tool to maintain human reasoning through suggested contradictions.
Script is broken.
This poster unironically responded to Timecube posting. I have to assume illness/"clarity" of a type akin to this.
Probably just living in a higher plane of existence.
I don't consent to offered -isms.
Yes; the status quo of our existence represents the disorder of momentum within the order of motion aka that which is struggling to sustain itself (us); within that which is constantly moving on (reality).
a) how can one comprehend (understand) reality by believing another ones assumptions about it?
b) the Chauvin trial represents a pissed on breadcrumb for all those already consenting to the Floyd story. If you believe in the Floyd story then the most precious black man was murdered by a white racist cop; and if you don't believe it then a cop put down a criminal nigger. No matter which side you choose; you'll find yourself in a conflict of reason against the other side.
This conflict of reason represents a division created by a suggested belief (Floyd) which allows those who offered it to control both sides of the conflict; so no matter which side you bite in; you're gonna taste piss.
Meanwhile those with eyes to see, who don't fall as easily for the same control by suggestion scheme over and over again; they were shown a sleight of hand..."I can't breathe" leads to death; which was followed by a coincidentally totally unrelated "health" order stating to "put a mask over your nose and mouth".
Now if you reread point a) you could understand that believing either side offered does not lead to the understanding of the sleight of hand; because that would require self discernment and the use of implication (if/then) over reason (truth versus false).
In short...they offered the warning that restricting ones breathing will lead to death; then they suggested everyone to ignore that warning; which makes the whole masking consent a compliance ritual towards death over life; while ignoring the needed adherence to life over death.
tldr...if you choose to believe anything offered; then you'll find yourself in a conflict with all those who choose to not believe it. Theses conflicts (of reason) are fiction in ignorance of reality; and those who offered the beliefs you're reasoning about; control mankind through that trick.
So are traps gay or not?
No, because GAY, adjective - "merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful"; was corrupted slowly by suggestion; which contradicts the mechanics of a sudden trap, which represents another term that was slowly being corrupted through suggestion, and that you consented to by free will of choice; which is why you believe the suggested definitions.
You forgot to take your meds, friend
Look at this...FORGET', verb transitive preterit tense forgot. [forgat, obsolete ]. What if forgetting represents cleaning out the ram of memory from all obsolete information?
What if the consciousness operates at peek capacity when not being restricted by a filled memory within the working data of motion (reality)?
I hope you one day remember to take your meds
Papa bless ?
You're like a GPT-3 of pseudo-profound bullshit
Someone forgot to take their meds today
Who suggested to you that the solution to a perceived problem represents medicine/pharmaceuticals? Especially in the light of recent unfavorable behavior of those in adherence to the pharmaceutical cartel towards humanity as a whole...
Of course nothing will happen. The judicial branch is just as responsive to social pressure as any other branch of our nation. And, as long as they control the media they'll continue running rampant and doing whatever they wish. With no consequences.
Youtube podcasts can only get us so far.
But it's a start I guess.
Meanwhile, they're pumping out books, magazines, blockbuster movies, songs, paintings, VR games, websites, social forums, multi-million dollar "news" channels, whole departments of the highest ranked universities on Earth, churning out professional "actors" to spread their message, etc.