I didn’t insinuate anything, just repeated back your words that you thought the cop won’t be found guilty of most of the charges, even though both coroners found that pressure to the neck was the cause of death. It’s not insinuation that you hope that happens, just a logical conclusion from every single thing you’ve said on this thread. No one reading this thread can be in any doubt what you hope the verdict will be. Only you know why you think this way.

As for me apologising for you calling me a prat I think it works the other way round potty

Even to the untrained eye it isn't difficult to see that you have serious issues with understanding what people write and more importantly interpreting it. You also seem to be unable to follow the path of a discussion and by stating, 'I didn't insinuate anything', demonstrates that you do not have the ability to understand what you actually write yourself. The more you 'talk' the more I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. I think you should seek professional help. I also think that I exasperate your condition so I'll no longer engage with you as I don't want to cause you anymore angst.

No angst from me Potty, I can take you calling me "a prat", "not a pleasant person" and requiring "professional help" without resorting to abuse, I'm chilled. Although it seems to me that the only thing you are furious about, is me holding up a mirror for you to look into.

Don't you just love Pasoti

:funny: Don't you just love Pasoti

Dear old Pasoti
I fear it's quite potty!

I am aware, that we have only heard the prosecution, side of events.

But so far the evidence is absolutely damning, and compelling

But he is entitled to a fair trial, and he will get one.

I am aware, that we have only heard the prosecution, side of events.

But so far the evidence is absolutely damning, and compelling

But he is entitled to a fair trial, and he will get one.

Not on here, he won't

I am aware, that we have only heard the prosecution, side of events.

But so far the evidence is absolutely damning, and compelling

But he is entitled to a fair trial, and he will get one.

Not on here, he won't

A fair trial where facts are considered and where there's a concept of 'reasonable doubt'? No chance.

Whatever, at least it gives BLM another reason to burn the USA to the ground. It'll be interesting to see how Biden reacts to it all.

Ninja, having seen the prosecution evidence what do you think is the main area of reasonable doubt the Defense will concentrate on? As far as I'm aware their only argument to date is that Floyd may have died from underlying health conditions, although both coroners found he died from choking due to pressure on the neck.

You also think he has no chance of a fair trial and therefore BLM will burn the USA to the ground. So do you think the fact that he will have no fair trial means he is more likely to be found guilty or innocent? I'm confused. There is undoubtedly massive exterior pressure from both sides but I hope and think the jury will base their verdict on the evidence. No?

Whatever, at least it gives BLM another reason to burn the USA to the ground.

Or storm the Capitol again. Oh, wait...

You've been conned Quinny, those white Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters that stormed the capitol and killed 5 people were clearly BLM in disguise.

You got to remember ninjamissile, is a ardent Trump supporter, who is leaning to the right wing side of American policies, therefore, he probably thinks it was OK for that ex policeman to do what he did.

You got to remember ninjamissile, is a ardent Trump supporter, who is leaning to the right wing side of American policies, therefore, he probably thinks it was OK for that ex policeman to do what he did.

I've been insulted a few times in my life but never so badly as being called an 'ardent Trump supporter'. I don't support Trump at all, far from it, it's just that I support Biden even less!

Anyway, is there any such thing as a fair trial in Leftie La la Land or does mob rule count for everything? Is someone innocent until proven guilty or is the onus on the charged to prove their innocence? Do we need to hear the case for the defence or is the prosecution case enough to prove he's guilty? Does the fact that Floyd had a massive quantity of drugs in his body, in excess of a lethal quantity, have anything to do with it? Etc....

Much as I'd love you engage with you all in hours of pointless debate I have a life away from this place, though it's nice to try to poke your consciences now and again. Pointless really.

So Ninja reckons a massive amount of drugs in Floyd's body caused his death. This is what the Chief Medical Examiner concluded :

"Methamphetamine, a stimulant often called “speed,” was found at a low level, Goldberger said. “I believe that the presence of these substances is not relevant,” Goldberger said. “We know his death is not due to toxicological means”

So do we think the Chief Medical Examiner or Dr Ninja's views should be respected? What contortions does Ninja have to go through to excuse the cop's actions and why?

As for Ninja preferring Trump to Biden because of "mob rule" in "lefty la la land", so far this year we have had white supremacists encouraged by Trump (he said these "good people" should "stand by and stand ready") storm the Capitol and kill 5 people, while Biden who has always unequivocally condemned all violence has a high approval rating even among Republicans for rolling out the vaccine programme and economic stimulus measures. And not spending the whole day spewing out hatred on Twitter. But he's not as good as Donny.