Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (743573)	4/1/2021 10:11:56 AM
From: Sdgla	Respond to of 793964

Just the continuation of the “look over here” pogrom imo. The timing of the trial & subsequent verdict will fit in nicely with the bai dunn roll outs of hr1 & tax rape/infrastructure bills.

To: skinowski who wrote (743573)	4/1/2021 11:55:08 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

>> There seems to be plenty of all kinds of doubts. Given he had 4x a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl in his blood, it seems like it would not be possible to avoid a reasonable doubt situation. Plus meth and other drugs. Added with the heart disease. I understand there are all kinds of arguments about what is truly a lethal dose and his tolerance and all that, I would have reasonable doubt. I get that it is still possible to choke someone to death but to my untrained eye that document seemed like enough to raise reasonable doubt. Apparently, the family believes that since they commissioned their own autopsy or review, whatever. I had long ago jumped to the conclusion the officer killed him, and after reading that autopsy report backed off what I thought must have been a premature conclusion.