[W: #64]Brett Favre says it’s ‘hard to believe’ Derek Chauvin meant to kill George Floyd

[Dayton3]

Favre is a has-been. Who cares what he thinks.

Better to be a has been than a never was.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So now you can read peoples minds now. That’s a pretty amazing talent.
Strange that even with that skill you are wrong so often.

No need, we saw him murder a man slowly on video with other cops looking directly at him.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Which has nothing to do with the comments made by farve which is the topic of this thread. Maybe you are just confused.

Im’ sorry some football loser you cheered for said some dumb shit. Never meet your idols, I guess.

 

[nota bene]

You folks agreeing with and/or defending Favres comments need to do just a bit of research.
Chauvin was convicted under Minnesota law. That law defines the varying degrees of a murder charge. What he was convicted of did not, read DID NOT require proof that Chauvin actually intended to kill Floyd. That is why Favres comments are so stupid.

Those not from Minnesota are probably not very familiar with this state's specific definitions of "murder" and are reasoning from what they know about their own states' laws. In my state intent is required for a charge of murder.

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cardinal]

I agree with you. I don't think Chauvin intended to murder Floyd; I think he wasn't thinking at all, that he was in the moment with adrenalin pumping.

Normally I'd agree that it would be okay to dismiss the article out of hand because, you know, New York Post. But I'm confused by the hostility to the article not because I think it has more or less merit, but because it's so utterly immaterial to Chauvin's conviction.

Intent was never a component of his trial, so why is anybody fighting over that now?

 

[CLAX1911]

You folks agreeing with and/or defending Favres comments need to do just a bit of research.

into what whether or not a person can voice their opinion? Okay let me go consult the First Amendment.

Nope and nothing in there about not being allowed to voice an opinion that for some reason pisses off leftists.

Chauvin was convicted under Minnesota law.

not all convictions are correct.

That law defines the varying degrees of a murder charge. What he was convicted of did not, read DID NOT require proof that Chauvin actually intended to kill Floyd. That is why Favres comments are so stupid.

you have just as much right to your opinion as favre does

 

[nota bene]

Normally I'd agree that it would be okay to dismiss the article out of hand because, you know, New York Post. But I'm confused by the hostility to the article not because I think it has more or less merit, but because it's so utterly immaterial to Chauvin's conviction.

Intent was never a component of his trial, so why is anybody fighting over that now?

Because it's Monday at DP?

 

[PoS]

Says poster who cites political complaints from a dead theoretical physicist who says he does not understand the technical details of AGW.....

....to prove that climate scientists have the technical details all wrong. Right.

Aww still stalking me I see, and going for a strawman fallacy too LOL

And you defend Favre, Im not surprised since you share the same racist views.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Did anyone read the entire quote before becoming triggered?

"I find it hard to believe, and I’m not defending Derek Chauvin in any way, I find it hard to believe, first of all, that he intentionally meant to kill George Floyd. That being said, his actions were uncalled for. I don’t care what color the person is on the street. I don’t know what led to that video that we saw where his knee is on his neck, but the man had thrown in the towel."

Even though I do not entirely agree with Brett Favre on this, I see no reason to get all upset about what he said either.

Chauvin was charged and convicted of 2nd Degree murder meaning intent without premeditation, perhaps Favre disagreed with that charge but agreed with the other lesser charges (which was my original prediction for the case.)

 

[calamity]

...not all convictions are correct.

you have just as much right to your opinion as favre does

Yeah, and all the racists really hate this one.

 

[RealityNow]

White people like Farve... seem to just fester no matter what, promoting infections like a deadly virus.

 

[nota bene]

Aww still stalking me I see, and going for a strawman fallacy too LOL

And you defend Favre, Im not surprised since you share the same racist views.

Aww still stalking me I see, and going for a strawman fallacy too LOL

And you defend Favre, Im not surprised since you share the same racist views.

Please stop.

 

[PoS]

Please stop.

You might want to address him, Nota, since he is the one who keeps obsessively following me around.

 

[nota bene]

Moderator's Warning:

Focus on the thread topic rather than on each other. Do not derail this thread with personal back-and-forths. If you do, expect to be thread-banned and to probably earn points.

 

[braindrain]

You folks agreeing with and/or defending Favres comments need to do just a bit of research.
Chauvin was convicted under Minnesota law. That law defines the varying degrees of a murder charge. What he was convicted of did not, read DID NOT require proof that Chauvin actually intended to kill Floyd. That is why Favres comments are so stupid.

Maybe this is to complicated concept for you but some people can understand how it is very possible that Chauvin is guilty of murdering Floyd but at the same time didn’t intend for him to die.
I know hard thing to grasp.

 

[Buckeyes85]

into what whether or not a person can voice their opinion? Okay let me go consult the First Amendment.

Nope and nothing in there about not being allowed to voice an opinion that for some reason pisses off leftists.
not all convictions are correct.

you have just as much right to your opinion as favre does

You follow up one confused understanding of the law with another given your first amendment comment. The amendment has no application to what one citizen thinks of the speech of another.

And of course you completely miss the other point. Perhaps a more extreme analogy might help you. If Favre had said he didn't think Chauvin intended to rape Floyd, most people would agree that's a pretty stupid comment because Chauvin was not convicted of intentionally raping Floyd.
Nor was Chauvin convicted of intentionally murdering Floyd. That's the point you and Favre don't seem to grasp.

Go read the Minnesota law that Chauvin was convicted under then get back to us as to whether you think the conviction was warranted.

 

[braindrain]

No need, we saw him murder a man slowly on video with other cops looking directly at him.

What we saw and what was going through a persons mind are not the same thing. Not surprised this needs to be explained to you.

 

[braindrain]

Im’ sorry some football loser you cheered for said some dumb shit. Never meet your idols, I guess.

Your mind reading skills sure don’t seem to be that accurate. No wonder you are struggling so badly.
Never cheered for farve what he said is not near as dumb as most of the stuff that you post.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Maybe this is to complicated concept for you but some people can understand how it is very possible that Chauvin is guilty of murdering Floyd but at the same time didn’t intend for him to die.
I know hard thing to grasp.

Another person completely missing the point. I attempted to explain EXACTLY why Chauvin could be convicted of that particular charge (which included the term murder) without actually intending to kill Floyd. Read more carefully.

 

[Mr Person]

It's a shame that there even is a thread on Favre's opinion. The reason is not, as has been suggested, that Favre is a "has-been". His opinion would be no more relevant if he were a current star football player. It's a powerful indictment of modern society that celebrity status - the fact that people are paying attention to you for any reason at all - get conflated with expertise and wisdom. The reason not to pay attention to Favre has nothing to do with any of that.

The reason not to listen to Favre is that he is a football player. Nothing he has done gives him any special insight into this. You don't cite a football player on a point of criminan law any more than you cite a pastry chef on a problem in quantum loop gravity.





At any rate, I'm not sure how someone concludes that you can kneel on someone's neck for nearly three full minutes after learning their heart has stopped beating and not intend them to die. As has been noted, they didn't need to prove intent to kill given the charges they went with (charges they probably picked specifically because jurors might reflexively disbelieve the officer intended to kill).

But based on the video alone....how could he have not intended it? What exactly could have been in his mind such that he could hear that Floyd had no pulse and decide to stay on his neck for three more minutes without wanting Floyd to die?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

What we saw and what was going through a persons mind are not the same thing. Not surprised this needs to be explained to you.

You’re not really explaining anything, you’re insisting a violent cop with a history of protection can’t be figured out.

Your naïveté isn’t my problem.

 

[Phys251]

Brett Favre says it’s ‘hard to believe’ Derek Chauvin meant to kill George Floyd

After urging athletes to stay out of politics, NFL Hall of Famer Brett Favre weighed in on the guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial.

nypost.com

You have all these angry posts about the comments made by LeBron James a black athlete.

Where is the backlash against Brett Favre, for this braindead comment?

So the question is, how many people agree with this fool?

Since conservatives have a history of shitting on athletes who make a political comment, I am sure that they will line up to condemn Favre's inappropriate words. /s

 

[Phys251]

It's a shame that there even is a thread on Favre's opinion. The reason is not, as has been suggested, that Favre is a "has-been". His opinion would be no moral relevant if he were a current star football player. It's a powerful indictment of modern society that celebrity status - the fact that people are paying attention to you for any reason at all - get conflated with expertise and wisdom. The reason not to pay attention to Favre has nothing to do with any of that.

The reason not to listen to Favre is that he is a football player. Nothing he has done gives him any special insight into this. You don't cite a football player on a point of criminan law any more than you cite a pastry chef on a problem in quantum loop gravity.





At any rate, I'm not sure how someone concludes that you can kneel on someone's neck for nearly three full minutes after learning their heart has stopped beating and not intend them to die. As has been noted, they didn't need to prove intent to kill given the charges they went with (charges they probably picked specifically because jurors might reflexively disbelieve the officer intended to kill).

But based on the video alone....how could he have not intended it? What exactly could have been in his mind such that he could hear that Floyd had no pulse and decide to stay on his neck for three more minutes without wanting Floyd to die?

Because fascists do not believe that Black Lives Matter.

 

[braindrain]

Did anyone read the entire quote before becoming triggered?

"I find it hard to believe, and I’m not defending Derek Chauvin in any way, I find it hard to believe, first of all, that he intentionally meant to kill George Floyd. That being said, his actions were uncalled for. I don’t care what color the person is on the street. I don’t know what led to that video that we saw where his knee is on his neck, but the man had thrown in the towel."

Even though I do not entirely agree with Brett Favre on this, I see no reason to get all upset about what he said either.

Chauvin was charged and convicted of 2nd Degree murder meaning intent without premeditation, perhaps Favre disagreed with that charge but agreed with the other lesser charges (which was my original prediction for the case.)

Of course most didn’t bother to read it. All they saw was someone not fully going all in on the all police are racists who kill cops whenever possible narrative and went straight to attack mode.

It’s pretty much what partisan hacks do.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Your mind reading skills sure don’t seem to be that accurate. No wonder you are struggling so badly.
Never cheered for farve what he said is not near as dumb as most of the stuff that you post.

Then you wouldn’t come across as so angry about your football loser.