Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
You have got to be kidding me. The prosecution's medical examiner themselves admitted that if they hadn't seen the video, they would have concluded he died from overdosing. If a medical examiner can't do their job using the evidence they are supposed to be given and need to watch a media clip to come to an alternate conclusion, then they are lying for political purposes.
SH, if you can say that where have you been this last year? I don't know the background of the defense's pathologist, but if I might ask did you look into the background of those who supported the prosecutor's case?
Yeah, I know, and that's why as I have already stated, I have contributed to the Innocent Project for years. You too? I am very well aware of how poorly our judicial system functions and that many innocents are serving long term sentences for crimes they did not commit. 96% of those accused of a felony never see a court room, since they plea bargain their case and are encouraged to do so with promises of a lighter sentence. Yeah, and that's what I've been saying, our judicial system sucks!
On this we are in 100% agreement. Its a sad state.
I do agree he didn't get a fair trial but who the hell does. The entire system is created and maintained to protect those in power and fuck those without.
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
ThatтАЩs irrelevant. Point it there was no fair trial and the jury clearly was politicized and emotionally manipulated.
If I were on the jury, I would say guilty of manslaughter but definitely not all 3. Jury giving him guilty on all 3 is another reason this was a bullshit trial. Other charges donтАЩt even make any sense in this case. And if I gave Chauvin guilty, I would give more guilty to his drug dealer in the car who asked him to swallow drugs and pass the fake bill, the crowd which was being hostile enough for EMS to not feel safe on operating on Floyd.
Huh lol it unambiguously does. You're grasping at straws. The number of exclamation marks in your comment and your many posts on this indicate that you actually do care very much, for whatever reason.
It is indeed, and this truth is that a jury of 12 who have had first hand access to the evidence and legal arguments have decided to convict this man of murder. Therefore referring to this man's actions as murder is appropriate. If we can't refer to one's crimes as crimes even after they've been convicted of that crime at the end of a trial as long as there are some skeptics out there, then we can never do it at all.
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter: the fact you don't think he's guilty or that the trial was fair does not make it inappropriate for others to speak of the case in terms that reflect its current state, which is that the man was found guilty in a court of law.
There was no fairness in the trail of Chauvin. The mob pushed the Guilty verdict disregarding the process. I can agree that he was not innocent but as long as there is pressure in convicting someone the system is flawed and, you must have a mistrial.
Did the mob render the verdict or did a jury of 12?
How do you determine that "there was no fairness in the trial"? If that were the case, it could be grounds for appeal or even for rejecting the whole verdict for mistrial. I'm pretty sure they did as much as they could to make sure the trial followed the law to the letter because the last thing they'd want is the guy walking free because of a technicality.
What makes no difference to me? Makes no difference Floyd died? His death was very disturbing to me, as were others who indeed suffered at the hands of the police. However it is important to me that those convicted of a crime receive a fair trial. It's important to me that so many, some 96 percent of those accused of a felony conviction plea bargain their case, and there is no trial, and many innocents sit behind bars for years. It matters enough to me that I have contributed to the Innocent Project for many, many years. How about you?
I'm not going to veer very far from my original response that Chauvin clearly had his knee in Floyd's neck, not his back, as you claim and that you couldn't possibly view the video and not see the knee on Floyd's back unless you were willfully blind. I think that point carries a lot of weight considering your mind was made up long before the trial ended that a guilty verdict was assured because the judge, jury and media had already decided it. In other words, it was a conspiracy to convict, based not on the video evidence and testimony but on cancel culture, wokeness and prejudice against cops. One of your erronous assumptions is that the juror who admitted to concern about public backlash in the event of aquittal couldn't possibly have those concerns and still have reached a genuine belief in Chauvin's guilt and voted accordingly, that she acted the way she did out of fear of a violent reaction or that she was itimidated. That simply isn't true and you have no special knowlege proving it so. You're reading into it what your pre-conceived opinion tells you to read into it. Your responses all along the various threads here show a bias against the system. That's fine, but don't charge that others are the only ones with their minds already made up and hatching a conspiracy to deny justice to the accused when you clearly - as clearly as the knee on Floyd's neck - harbor biases in advance yourself.
When a state allocates $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit from George FloydтАЩs family over his death as jury selection is in progress, yes the jury wasn't even chosen, what does that say to those who were to determine his guilt or innocence? When his death provoked riots and encounters with police in many cities across this nation and caused multiple deaths and destruction what message do you think that sent to a jury who would find him guilty? Stores boarded up their windows for fear that if the right verdict, a guilty verdict, did not materialize their stores would be looted and perhaps destroyed. You are avoiding the obvious. If you are familiar with the anatomical structure of the neck you would be aware that the carotid arteries and veins are located on the side of the neck, not the back, and from those pictures you cannot determine the degree of pressure imposed on that area, or do you get a clear perspective on the degree of pressure applied. You make a lot of assumptions which are totally baseless. The article posted today referenced the ACLU who were committed to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and political equality. Here's a quote from Dershowitz, "...one time the ACLU was an equal opportunity employer for Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers, all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call "the shoe on the other foot" test: Would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if the party labels were switched? Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot." In other words the ACLU has become highly biased, and in today's article Greenwald makes the same assertions. In my opinion you are equally biased in your position that he is guilty, and I'm not the one asserting his guilt or innocence, only the realization that he did not receive a fair trial. In other words you are the one who has a highly biased perspective on Chauvin. I don't want to discuss this any further with you.
It seems like a lot of people are not realizing that a person whom we may or may not like (Chauvin) still deserves a fair trial away from a lynching mob justice and without that, the whole "justice" is a joke.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
I was one of those who thought his hand was in his pocket. That it wasn't doesn't change the scenario for me much. He had Floyd under control to the point that he could still use a single hand. It could be argued that he was applying downward pressure with that hand, placed as it was on his leg.
Although what I posted substantiates what Glenn Greenwald said in this article about the ACLU you don't make the connection, but denounce by credibility. Okay, but just some advice, it's not healthy to see the world in such black and white terms.
I will copy paste one of the best comments from a Locals board about one of the jurors being easily manipulated and not being fair:
In the KARE11 interview, juror Christensen states that one of the things that stuck in her head was State's Exhibit 17, an image she described as this:
"The still picture from the video, where his (Chauvin's) hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, 'This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do,' and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This is something that bothered Juror 97 enough that it was her response to a question about what she thought of Chauvin. The interviewer described the image as "the picture that resonated with Lisa Christensen." For Christensen, seeing Chauvin with his hand in his pocket so casually was something that she apparently couldn't shake, and one of the reasons she felt so "weird" when Chauvin would look at her and the Jury.
This was convincing enough "evidence" to Christensen that she mentioned it in an interview. The problem is, this literally never happened. Chauvin never had his hand is in pocket, and there is no image which shows what Christensen is claiming she sees.
Christensen's "Memento" -- which so strongly affected her and her perception of Chauvin -- is something that never even happened.
What actually happened is this: at the time of the arrest, Chauvin is wearing black gloves and black police uniform pants. His gloved hands are clearly seen in his own body cam before his body cam falls to the pavement during the struggle when Floyd manages to get out of Squad 320 through the rear passenger door.
Once Chauvin restrains Floyd on the pavement in the prone position, Chauvin's right hand holds Floyd's wrists at the handcuffs, which is clearly seen on the other body cams. Chauvin's left hand is free, but moves to different parts of his left upper leg (thigh) or to his belt (ie, he grabs his OC spray with his left hand).
The black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened.
But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
No it does not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Believe what ever you want, makes no difference to me.
Well apparently 12 folks on a jury, B&W, believed it and it was rather clear to me as well ...
Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Not to mention that he had COVID and we all know how deadly that is. (sarcasm)
I May have heard that and forgotten, thanks for reminding me. Don't really get your response. Sorry.
My sense of humor is a bit warped.
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
You have got to be kidding me. The prosecution's medical examiner themselves admitted that if they hadn't seen the video, they would have concluded he died from overdosing. If a medical examiner can't do their job using the evidence they are supposed to be given and need to watch a media clip to come to an alternate conclusion, then they are lying for political purposes.
SH, if you can say that where have you been this last year? I don't know the background of the defense's pathologist, but if I might ask did you look into the background of those who supported the prosecutor's case?
Where have i been - paying attention, not just this past year ...
Well, lets just say you fooled me, and leave it be.
What makes you think anyone gets fair trials? Ask Harry Aleman.
Yucky whataboutism
You are arguing the trial wasn't fair I'm pointing out it never has been.
Therefore the assumption that someone would get a fair trial is predicated on the same bullshit reason we are all here on this forum.
The media is full of shit.
Hyperbole is so easy. it makes EVERYTHING black and white.
Yeah, I know, and that's why as I have already stated, I have contributed to the Innocent Project for years. You too? I am very well aware of how poorly our judicial system functions and that many innocents are serving long term sentences for crimes they did not commit. 96% of those accused of a felony never see a court room, since they plea bargain their case and are encouraged to do so with promises of a lighter sentence. Yeah, and that's what I've been saying, our judicial system sucks!
On this we are in 100% agreement. Its a sad state.
I do agree he didn't get a fair trial but who the hell does. The entire system is created and maintained to protect those in power and fuck those without.
We have finally reached a point of agreement.
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
So you think the guy was innocent?
ThatтАЩs irrelevant. Point it there was no fair trial and the jury clearly was politicized and emotionally manipulated.
If I were on the jury, I would say guilty of manslaughter but definitely not all 3. Jury giving him guilty on all 3 is another reason this was a bullshit trial. Other charges donтАЩt even make any sense in this case. And if I gave Chauvin guilty, I would give more guilty to his drug dealer in the car who asked him to swallow drugs and pass the fake bill, the crowd which was being hostile enough for EMS to not feel safe on operating on Floyd.
Well why don't you contribute to his appeal ...
Looks like you are here to make snarky remarks instead of have a productive discussion. Remember- one day the pendulum will swing.
Huh lol it unambiguously does. You're grasping at straws. The number of exclamation marks in your comment and your many posts on this indicate that you actually do care very much, for whatever reason.
I care because the truth is important to me, and a free society cannot function without it, and it is independent of what you want it to be.
It is indeed, and this truth is that a jury of 12 who have had first hand access to the evidence and legal arguments have decided to convict this man of murder. Therefore referring to this man's actions as murder is appropriate. If we can't refer to one's crimes as crimes even after they've been convicted of that crime at the end of a trial as long as there are some skeptics out there, then we can never do it at all.
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter: the fact you don't think he's guilty or that the trial was fair does not make it inappropriate for others to speak of the case in terms that reflect its current state, which is that the man was found guilty in a court of law.
There was no fairness in the trail of Chauvin. The mob pushed the Guilty verdict disregarding the process. I can agree that he was not innocent but as long as there is pressure in convicting someone the system is flawed and, you must have a mistrial.
Did the mob render the verdict or did a jury of 12?
How do you determine that "there was no fairness in the trial"? If that were the case, it could be grounds for appeal or even for rejecting the whole verdict for mistrial. I'm pretty sure they did as much as they could to make sure the trial followed the law to the letter because the last thing they'd want is the guy walking free because of a technicality.
What about the biased juror?
We'll just have to agree to agree that it makes no difference to you.
What makes no difference to me? Makes no difference Floyd died? His death was very disturbing to me, as were others who indeed suffered at the hands of the police. However it is important to me that those convicted of a crime receive a fair trial. It's important to me that so many, some 96 percent of those accused of a felony conviction plea bargain their case, and there is no trial, and many innocents sit behind bars for years. It matters enough to me that I have contributed to the Innocent Project for many, many years. How about you?
I'm not going to veer very far from my original response that Chauvin clearly had his knee in Floyd's neck, not his back, as you claim and that you couldn't possibly view the video and not see the knee on Floyd's back unless you were willfully blind. I think that point carries a lot of weight considering your mind was made up long before the trial ended that a guilty verdict was assured because the judge, jury and media had already decided it. In other words, it was a conspiracy to convict, based not on the video evidence and testimony but on cancel culture, wokeness and prejudice against cops. One of your erronous assumptions is that the juror who admitted to concern about public backlash in the event of aquittal couldn't possibly have those concerns and still have reached a genuine belief in Chauvin's guilt and voted accordingly, that she acted the way she did out of fear of a violent reaction or that she was itimidated. That simply isn't true and you have no special knowlege proving it so. You're reading into it what your pre-conceived opinion tells you to read into it. Your responses all along the various threads here show a bias against the system. That's fine, but don't charge that others are the only ones with their minds already made up and hatching a conspiracy to deny justice to the accused when you clearly - as clearly as the knee on Floyd's neck - harbor biases in advance yourself.
When a state allocates $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit from George FloydтАЩs family over his death as jury selection is in progress, yes the jury wasn't even chosen, what does that say to those who were to determine his guilt or innocence? When his death provoked riots and encounters with police in many cities across this nation and caused multiple deaths and destruction what message do you think that sent to a jury who would find him guilty? Stores boarded up their windows for fear that if the right verdict, a guilty verdict, did not materialize their stores would be looted and perhaps destroyed. You are avoiding the obvious. If you are familiar with the anatomical structure of the neck you would be aware that the carotid arteries and veins are located on the side of the neck, not the back, and from those pictures you cannot determine the degree of pressure imposed on that area, or do you get a clear perspective on the degree of pressure applied. You make a lot of assumptions which are totally baseless. The article posted today referenced the ACLU who were committed to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and political equality. Here's a quote from Dershowitz, "...one time the ACLU was an equal opportunity employer for Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers, all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call "the shoe on the other foot" test: Would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if the party labels were switched? Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot." In other words the ACLU has become highly biased, and in today's article Greenwald makes the same assertions. In my opinion you are equally biased in your position that he is guilty, and I'm not the one asserting his guilt or innocence, only the realization that he did not receive a fair trial. In other words you are the one who has a highly biased perspective on Chauvin. I don't want to discuss this any further with you.
It seems like a lot of people are not realizing that a person whom we may or may not like (Chauvin) still deserves a fair trial away from a lynching mob justice and without that, the whole "justice" is a joke.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
I was one of those who thought his hand was in his pocket. That it wasn't doesn't change the scenario for me much. He had Floyd under control to the point that he could still use a single hand. It could be argued that he was applying downward pressure with that hand, placed as it was on his leg.
That you quote Alan Dershowitz says everything I need to know about your credibility.
Although what I posted substantiates what Glenn Greenwald said in this article about the ACLU you don't make the connection, but denounce by credibility. Okay, but just some advice, it's not healthy to see the world in such black and white terms.
I will copy paste one of the best comments from a Locals board about one of the jurors being easily manipulated and not being fair:
In the KARE11 interview, juror Christensen states that one of the things that stuck in her head was State's Exhibit 17, an image she described as this:
"The still picture from the video, where his (Chauvin's) hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, 'This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do,' and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This is something that bothered Juror 97 enough that it was her response to a question about what she thought of Chauvin. The interviewer described the image as "the picture that resonated with Lisa Christensen." For Christensen, seeing Chauvin with his hand in his pocket so casually was something that she apparently couldn't shake, and one of the reasons she felt so "weird" when Chauvin would look at her and the Jury.
This was convincing enough "evidence" to Christensen that she mentioned it in an interview. The problem is, this literally never happened. Chauvin never had his hand is in pocket, and there is no image which shows what Christensen is claiming she sees.
Christensen's "Memento" -- which so strongly affected her and her perception of Chauvin -- is something that never even happened.
What actually happened is this: at the time of the arrest, Chauvin is wearing black gloves and black police uniform pants. His gloved hands are clearly seen in his own body cam before his body cam falls to the pavement during the struggle when Floyd manages to get out of Squad 320 through the rear passenger door.
Once Chauvin restrains Floyd on the pavement in the prone position, Chauvin's right hand holds Floyd's wrists at the handcuffs, which is clearly seen on the other body cams. Chauvin's left hand is free, but moves to different parts of his left upper leg (thigh) or to his belt (ie, he grabs his OC spray with his left hand).
The black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened.
But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
Source of her interview:
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
To this date I still get sick remembering OJ Simpson and, his not guilty verdict.