How can Derek Chauvin expect a fair trial in Minneapolis?

[laughing dog]

I am not projecting.

Of course you are.

And you do know that all of these are reasonable assumptions. For example, everybody knows that the violence is extremely likely should Chauvin walk. You are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

No, I do not know they are reasonable assumptions. Unlike you, I do not assume these jurors are self-unaware. Unlike you, I do not assume they share your imagined probabilities of violence. Unlike you, I do not assume that there will not be precautions against expected violence, should it occur.

Cause of death is very much relevant. If the cause of death is irrelevant, why not prosecute you for the murder of Prince. I mean, I understand you had nothing to do with his actual cause of death, but apparently the cause of death is irrelevant in Minnesota...

No one said the cause of death is irrelevant. You wrote "Floyd was a dead man walking anyway due to his dicky ticker and severe drug abuse." The fact he was a dead man walking (which means he was alive) is irrelevant under MN law. What matters is what contributed to his death.

Where is the lie though?

Thank you for confirming my observation.

I would say they are accurate statements, designed to counter media hagiographies about "gentle giants" and the like.

Again, thank you confirming my observation.

When I called him a robber, I was referring to the case where he and his buddies burst into an apartment and Floyd pressed a gun to a woman's abdomen. So yes, accurate.

That happened and he had served his time. After he got out, no criminal charges. Yet here you are, dredging it up and calling him names.

You are not fooling anyone.

Unlike you, I am not throwing out propaganda and engaging in fear-mongering because I disagree with an expected verdict.

We both know that this is the almost certain outcome of a "not guilty" verdict.

Given the presented evidence to date, it would seem the likely outcome from 12 reasonable unbiased jurors. It is just possible (maybe even probable) that Mr. Chauvin is actually guilty of at least one of the charges.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No criminal case that has received this much attention can be a fair trial. The jury knows that, in effect, they're on trial. They will face the wrath of the people if they don't bend to the will of the public. Their lives will be ruined.

Their motivations will of course primarily be about their own personal safety as well as cashing in on whatever fame it may bring. All the witnesses have social pressure on them to say whatever their social group is ok with. Isn't this the most politically sensitive court case since the Scopes Trial?

Thinking that this can ever be a fair trial is ridiculous. This would be true regardless of the outcome.

I do wonder how come there's so many people on this forum who do think that it's a fair trial. It clearly isn't, and couldn't be. Why is it so important that this show trial is coached in terms of being a fair trial? What's riding on it for you? I'm curious. I don't get it? Why would it be sensitive for anyone to admit that social pressure from the public is likely to influence the outcome of the trial? There's no shortage of American examples of black people being wrongfully convicted by an all white jury. So I think we can agree on that in some cases social pressure do in fact influence court cases. The more attention and political sensitivity the more influence.

 

[Jarhyn]

No criminal case that has received this much attention can be a fair trial. The jury knows that, in effect, they're on trial. They will face the wrath of the people if they don't bend to the will of the public. Their lives will be ruined.

Their motivations will of course primarily be about their own personal safety as well as cashing in on whatever fame it may bring. All the witnesses have social pressure on them to say whatever their social group is ok with. Isn't this the most politically sensitive court case since the Scopes Trial?

Thinking that this can ever be a fair trial is ridiculous. This would be true regardless of the outcome.

I do wonder how come there's so many people on this forum who do think that it's a fair trial. It clearly isn't, and couldn't be. Why is it so important that this show trial is coached in terms of being a fair trial? What's riding on it for you? I'm curious. I don't get it? Why would it be sensitive for anyone to admit that social pressure from the public is likely to influence the outcome of the trial? There's no shortage of American examples of black people being wrongfully convicted by an all white jury. So I think we can agree on that in some cases social pressure do in fact influence court cases. The more attention and political sensitivity the more influence.

It's good, then, that theevidence and events are so straightforward: a cop did something for 9 minutes that kills someone when you do it to them for 9 minutes, and he did it on camera, while people told him the results of what he was doing.

There is no actual reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin did what people are saying he did.

There is no grounds anywhere to say he didn't kill George Floyd. There is no grounds to say he didn't know he was killing the man. There is no grounds to say he had that right: he did not.

It is turning the idea of fairness into a horrible mockery of justice more warped than Lindsey Graham's distended, ruined anus to claim that a trial with this much clear documentation is unfair against Chauvin.

The city should fear the results of a kangaroo court that lets someone with clear evidence of having murdered someone on camera walk free. It will mean the rule of law is dead.

 

[ZiprHead]

Legal Definition of fair trial

: a trial that is conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge and in which the defendant is afforded his or her rights under the U.S. Constitution or the appropriate state constitution or other law

NOTE: Among the factors used to determine whether a defendant received a fair trial are these: the effectiveness of the assistance of counsel, the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, the opportunity to rebut the opposition's evidence and cross-examine the opposition's witnesses, the presence of an impartial jury, and the judge's freedom from bias.

 

[Gospel]

Rodney King's trial was straightforward, we all remember what happened there. The officers in that case even got off easy in federal court where they had a uniform prison term which was waived. lol

I'm afraid this will be business as usual. I've lost all confidence in the justice system for black people a long long long looooong time ago.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No criminal case that has received this much attention can be a fair trial. The jury knows that, in effect, they're on trial. They will face the wrath of the people if they don't bend to the will of the public. Their lives will be ruined.

Their motivations will of course primarily be about their own personal safety as well as cashing in on whatever fame it may bring. All the witnesses have social pressure on them to say whatever their social group is ok with. Isn't this the most politically sensitive court case since the Scopes Trial?

Thinking that this can ever be a fair trial is ridiculous. This would be true regardless of the outcome.

I do wonder how come there's so many people on this forum who do think that it's a fair trial. It clearly isn't, and couldn't be. Why is it so important that this show trial is coached in terms of being a fair trial? What's riding on it for you? I'm curious. I don't get it? Why would it be sensitive for anyone to admit that social pressure from the public is likely to influence the outcome of the trial? There's no shortage of American examples of black people being wrongfully convicted by an all white jury. So I think we can agree on that in some cases social pressure do in fact influence court cases. The more attention and political sensitivity the more influence.

It's good, then, that theevidence and events are so straightforward: a cop did something for 9 minutes that kills someone when you do it to them for 9 minutes, and he did it on camera, while people told him the results of what he was doing.

There is no actual reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin did what people are saying he did.

There is no grounds anywhere to say he didn't kill George Floyd. There is no grounds to say he didn't know he was killing the man. There is no grounds to say he had that right: he did not.

It is turning the idea of fairness into a horrible mockery of justice more warped than Lindsey Graham's distended, ruined anus to claim that a trial with this much clear documentation is unfair against Chauvin.

The city should fear the results of a kangaroo court that lets someone with clear evidence of having murdered someone on camera walk free. It will mean the rule of law is dead.

This is what I'm talking about. You're so sure about yourself.

I worked in night clubs for ten years. I've done a lot of wrestling on pavements with muscular huge men, high on drugs. George Floyd. Look at the size differential. Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

I don't think it's obvious that Chauvin knew he was killing him. Who would do that? To me it looks like he only did what he thought he needed to do to passivise a man. There was also security cameras, body cams, mobile phones. If he thought he risked killing him he knew he'd get into trouble. Why would any police office risk that, even if he was card carrying member of KKK. To me it looked like a police officer having a bad day and making a bad judgement call and he accidentally killed a man. I'd say it'd be crazy to think anything else. I also don't think that I'm defending Derek Chauvin. I'm on the other side. I'm for Floyd and against Chauvin. But I can't bend obvious truth and reality because it would suit my political opinions. That would be disingenuous.

I think you sound crazy. I think you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I think there is a huge conspiracy right now, against Chauvin, and you're a part of it. And I don't think it's cool. That's what I think.

I strongly dislike that it's so politicised. It's like the left is supposed to think Chauvin murdered Floyd on purpose and the conservatives are supposed to think it was a pure accident and Chauvin shouldn't be punished. I think both positions are crazy. And I hate that this is what it's become. This is not a good vs evil scenario. There's a lot of nuance and shades of guilt here. It'd be dishonest not to admit to that. That's what I think.

 

[Jarhyn]

No criminal case that has received this much attention can be a fair trial. The jury knows that, in effect, they're on trial. They will face the wrath of the people if they don't bend to the will of the public. Their lives will be ruined.

Their motivations will of course primarily be about their own personal safety as well as cashing in on whatever fame it may bring. All the witnesses have social pressure on them to say whatever their social group is ok with. Isn't this the most politically sensitive court case since the Scopes Trial?

Thinking that this can ever be a fair trial is ridiculous. This would be true regardless of the outcome.

I do wonder how come there's so many people on this forum who do think that it's a fair trial. It clearly isn't, and couldn't be. Why is it so important that this show trial is coached in terms of being a fair trial? What's riding on it for you? I'm curious. I don't get it? Why would it be sensitive for anyone to admit that social pressure from the public is likely to influence the outcome of the trial? There's no shortage of American examples of black people being wrongfully convicted by an all white jury. So I think we can agree on that in some cases social pressure do in fact influence court cases. The more attention and political sensitivity the more influence.

It's good, then, that theevidence and events are so straightforward: a cop did something for 9 minutes that kills someone when you do it to them for 9 minutes, and he did it on camera, while people told him the results of what he was doing.

There is no actual reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin did what people are saying he did.

There is no grounds anywhere to say he didn't kill George Floyd. There is no grounds to say he didn't know he was killing the man. There is no grounds to say he had that right: he did not.

It is turning the idea of fairness into a horrible mockery of justice more warped than Lindsey Graham's distended, ruined anus to claim that a trial with this much clear documentation is unfair against Chauvin.

The city should fear the results of a kangaroo court that lets someone with clear evidence of having murdered someone on camera walk free. It will mean the rule of law is dead.

This is what I'm talking about. You're so sure about yourself.

I worked in night clubs for ten years. I've done a lot of wrestling on pavements with muscular huge men, high on drugs. George Floyd. Look at the size differential. Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

I don't think it's obvious that Chauvin knew he was killing him. Who would do that? To me it looks like he only did what he thought he needed to do to passivise a man. There was also security cameras, body cams, mobile phones. If he thought he risked killing him he knew he'd get into trouble. Why would any police office risk that, even if he was card carrying member of KKK. To me it looked like a police officer having a bad day and making a bad judgement call and he accidentally killed a man. I'd say it'd be crazy to think anything else. I also don't think that I'm defending Derek Chauvin. I'm on the other side. I'm for Floyd and against Chauvin. But I can't bend obvious truth and reality because it would suit my political opinions. That would be disingenuous.

I think you sound crazy. I think you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I think there is a huge conspiracy right now, against Chauvin, and you're a part of it. And I don't think it's cool. That's what I think.

I strongly dislike that it's so politicised. It's like the left is supposed to think Chauvin murdered Floyd on purpose and the conservatives are supposed to think it was a pure accident and Chauvin shouldn't be punished. I think both positions are crazy. And I hate that this is what it's become. This is not a good vs evil scenario. There's a lot of nuance and shades of guilt here. It'd be dishonest not to admit to that. That's what I think.

I'm so sure of what I saw on indelible video record. There's a difference.

 

[Gospel]

All these officers will be acquitted, then go to federal court where someone might get a year. Meanwhile a black guy who drove across state borders with weed gets 90 years in prison.

 

[Toni]

No criminal case that has received this much attention can be a fair trial. The jury knows that, in effect, they're on trial. They will face the wrath of the people if they don't bend to the will of the public. Their lives will be ruined.

Their motivations will of course primarily be about their own personal safety as well as cashing in on whatever fame it may bring. All the witnesses have social pressure on them to say whatever their social group is ok with. Isn't this the most politically sensitive court case since the Scopes Trial?

Thinking that this can ever be a fair trial is ridiculous. This would be true regardless of the outcome.

I do wonder how come there's so many people on this forum who do think that it's a fair trial. It clearly isn't, and couldn't be. Why is it so important that this show trial is coached in terms of being a fair trial? What's riding on it for you? I'm curious. I don't get it? Why would it be sensitive for anyone to admit that social pressure from the public is likely to influence the outcome of the trial? There's no shortage of American examples of black people being wrongfully convicted by an all white jury. So I think we can agree on that in some cases social pressure do in fact influence court cases. The more attention and political sensitivity the more influence.

It's good, then, that theevidence and events are so straightforward: a cop did something for 9 minutes that kills someone when you do it to them for 9 minutes, and he did it on camera, while people told him the results of what he was doing.

There is no actual reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin did what people are saying he did.

There is no grounds anywhere to say he didn't kill George Floyd. There is no grounds to say he didn't know he was killing the man. There is no grounds to say he had that right: he did not.

It is turning the idea of fairness into a horrible mockery of justice more warped than Lindsey Graham's distended, ruined anus to claim that a trial with this much clear documentation is unfair against Chauvin.

The city should fear the results of a kangaroo court that lets someone with clear evidence of having murdered someone on camera walk free. It will mean the rule of law is dead.

This is what I'm talking about. You're so sure about yourself.

I worked in night clubs for ten years. I've done a lot of wrestling on pavements with muscular huge men, high on drugs. George Floyd. Look at the size differential. Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

I don't think it's obvious that Chauvin knew he was killing him. Who would do that? To me it looks like he only did what he thought he needed to do to passivise a man. There was also security cameras, body cams, mobile phones. If he thought he risked killing him he knew he'd get into trouble. Why would any police office risk that, even if he was card carrying member of KKK. To me it looked like a police officer having a bad day and making a bad judgement call and he accidentally killed a man. I'd say it'd be crazy to think anything else. I also don't think that I'm defending Derek Chauvin. I'm on the other side. I'm for Floyd and against Chauvin. But I can't bend obvious truth and reality because it would suit my political opinions. That would be disingenuous.

I think you sound crazy. I think you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I think there is a huge conspiracy right now, against Chauvin, and you're a part of it. And I don't think it's cool. That's what I think.

I strongly dislike that it's so politicised. It's like the left is supposed to think Chauvin murdered Floyd on purpose and the conservatives are supposed to think it was a pure accident and Chauvin shouldn't be punished. I think both positions are crazy. And I hate that this is what it's become. This is not a good vs evil scenario. There's a lot of nuance and shades of guilt here. It'd be dishonest not to admit to that. That's what I think.

I think you are the one who sounds crazy and also a bit ignorant.

The charges Chauvin is facing are described here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935897-Derek-Chauvin-Second-degree-murder-charge

2nd degree unintentional murder and 3rd degree murder do not require that the intention was to murder anyone. Second degree manslaughter requires culpable negligence resulting in unreasonable risk.

I don't know if you are watching any of the trial but:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/us/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-day-3/index.html

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is what I'm talking about. You're so sure about yourself.

I worked in night clubs for ten years. I've done a lot of wrestling on pavements with muscular huge men, high on drugs. George Floyd. Look at the size differential. Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

I don't think it's obvious that Chauvin knew he was killing him. Who would do that? To me it looks like he only did what he thought he needed to do to passivise a man. There was also security cameras, body cams, mobile phones. If he thought he risked killing him he knew he'd get into trouble. Why would any police office risk that, even if he was card carrying member of KKK. To me it looked like a police officer having a bad day and making a bad judgement call and he accidentally killed a man. I'd say it'd be crazy to think anything else. I also don't think that I'm defending Derek Chauvin. I'm on the other side. I'm for Floyd and against Chauvin. But I can't bend obvious truth and reality because it would suit my political opinions. That would be disingenuous.

I think you sound crazy. I think you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I think there is a huge conspiracy right now, against Chauvin, and you're a part of it. And I don't think it's cool. That's what I think.

I strongly dislike that it's so politicised. It's like the left is supposed to think Chauvin murdered Floyd on purpose and the conservatives are supposed to think it was a pure accident and Chauvin shouldn't be punished. I think both positions are crazy. And I hate that this is what it's become. This is not a good vs evil scenario. There's a lot of nuance and shades of guilt here. It'd be dishonest not to admit to that. That's what I think.

I'm so sure of what I saw on indelible video record. There's a difference.

There's plenty of things you can't know from a video. You don't know how much Floyd was struggling and Chauvin was preventing. From the outside it looks the same. You also don't know about mental states. Chauvin could have been exhausted from previous struggles. With Floyd or with other criminals.

What you are is delusional. If you are so sure based on that video then you don't care about what is true. You just want to see a guy go down. No matter truth or reality. That's what I'm sure of.

 

[Elixir]

This is what I'm talking about. You're so sure about yourself.

I worked in night clubs for ten years. I've done a lot of wrestling on pavements with muscular huge men, high on drugs. George Floyd. Look at the size differential. Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

I don't think it's obvious that Chauvin knew he was killing him. Who would do that? To me it looks like he only did what he thought he needed to do to passivise a man. There was also security cameras, body cams, mobile phones. If he thought he risked killing him he knew he'd get into trouble. Why would any police office risk that, even if he was card carrying member of KKK. To me it looked like a police officer having a bad day and making a bad judgement call and he accidentally killed a man. I'd say it'd be crazy to think anything else. I also don't think that I'm defending Derek Chauvin. I'm on the other side. I'm for Floyd and against Chauvin. But I can't bend obvious truth and reality because it would suit my political opinions. That would be disingenuous.

I think you sound crazy. I think you sound like a conspiracy theorist. I think there is a huge conspiracy right now, against Chauvin, and you're a part of it. And I don't think it's cool. That's what I think.

I strongly dislike that it's so politicised. It's like the left is supposed to think Chauvin murdered Floyd on purpose and the conservatives are supposed to think it was a pure accident and Chauvin shouldn't be punished. I think both positions are crazy. And I hate that this is what it's become. This is not a good vs evil scenario. There's a lot of nuance and shades of guilt here. It'd be dishonest not to admit to that. That's what I think.

I think you are the one who sounds crazy and also a bit ignorant.

The charges Chauvin is facing are described here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935897-Derek-Chauvin-Second-degree-murder-charge

2nd degree unintentional murder and 3rd degree murder do not require that the intention was to murder anyone.

I don't know if you are watching any of the trial but:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/us/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-day-3/index.html

I agree. Dr. Z. sounds downright deranged about this.
He doesn't argue that there is some possibility that Chauvin didn't kill Floyd, or that he didn't know he was killing Floyd, or that it was okay for him to kill Floyd. He says he doesn't think it obvious that he knew he was killing Floyd, but we have video of numerous people informing him of that fact in real time, and Chauvin ignoring both them and the person he was killing - not bothering to even check to see if he was breathing at all or had a pulse (he didn't).
At the end of the day, Chauvin will be convicted of a crime - probably some equivalent of negligent homicide, because it is blatantly obvious that at minimum he is guilty of that.
The trial will be no less fair than most trials are. Thousands of times every year, people are convicted of crimes on evidence far more tenuous than what hundreds of millions of people have seen with their own eyes in this case. What is NOT "fair", but is unavoidable, is that there will be public outcry regardless of what verdict is rendered. The thousands of people who were convicted of crimes on far less evidence over the last year, will not have the dubious benefit of that public outcry. So, THAT isn't "fair".
But Chauvin is a murderer, as anyone can see with their own eyes.
Only through baseless surmise about the abysmal depths of Chauvin's ignorance of the results of his own actions, can anyone even reduce his guilt to negligent homicide.

 

[ZiprHead]

Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

This guy?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's good, then, that theevidence and events are so straightforward: a cop did something for 9 minutes that kills someone when you do it to them for 9 minutes, and he did it on camera, while people told him the results of what he was doing.

Criminals, onlookers, and friends of criminals talk so much shit to police officers, all the time. Why would he think any of them were honest? Isn't it more likely that if people tell a cop he shouldn't be doing something he doubles down and does it twice as long? That's usually how every cop I've ever interacted me reacts when they are criticized. Why would this be the first cop in history to listen to random onlookers?

I don't think people are thinking clearly about this. People seem so caught up by the mob they're ignoring how these situations normally play out.

I also don't think I'm defending Chauvin. I want him to go down. What he did is indefensible. But that doesn't mean I'll just swallow clearly bullshit accusations against the man.

The way this forum is talking about the situations proves to me that this is just a witch hunt. Nobody seems to care about what is reasonable or what the video shows. Everybody just seems to want blood.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

This guy?

View attachment 32733

Look at his arms. Skinny with no tone. Puffy face. This guy used to be in shape but has let himself slide. That's what I see.

 

[Elixir]

It's good, then, that theevidence and events are so straightforward: a cop did something for 9 minutes that kills someone when you do it to them for 9 minutes, and he did it on camera, while people told him the results of what he was doing.

Criminals, onlookers, and friends of criminals talk so much shit to police officers, all the time. Why would he think any of them were honest? Isn't it more likely that if people tell a cop he shouldn't be doing something he doubles down and does it twice as long? That's usually how every cop I've ever interacted me reacts when they are criticized.

You're implying that if Chauvin had said "I can breathe just fine!" the officer would have stopped kneeling on his neck. Ridiculous.
That people were TELLING him he was killing the man doesn't excuse the murder. Once Chauvin had subdued the subject he was responsible for the subject's well being, which he utterly disregarded.

Look at his arms. Skinny with no tone. Puffy face. This guy used to be in shape but has let himself slide. That's what I see.

Yeah, and his badge is crooked too. I hope the jury takes that into consideration.
The fucker has a man handcuffed, on his face, prone on the asphalt, hands behind his back, and is kneeling on the man's neck (not on the shoulder per policy and instruction). Any 98 lb weakling could kill someone in that situation, but only a depraved one would actually do so.

 

[Patooka]

Look at his arms. Skinny with no tone. Puffy face. This guy used to be in shape but has let himself slide. That's what I see.

You know, you are aware that you have just disqualified 80-90% of LEOs in America, right?

You know that, right?

 

[ZiprHead]

Chauvin is clearly out of shape for a police officer.

This guy?

View attachment 32733

Look at his arms. Skinny with no tone. Puffy face. This guy used to be in shape but has let himself slide. That's what I see.

He's in a lot better shape than many US cops.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He looks like he could be a drug addict. Either way, I blame his parents and his culture.

Okay, seriously now, remember we heard that Chauvin and Floyd worked at the same place as bouncers? What's the follow-up to that in terms of understanding a possible motivation by Chauvin?

 

[ZiprHead]

He looks like he could be a drug addict. Either way, I blame his parents and his culture.

You know the old saying, cops have the best dope.

 

[TomC]

Okay, seriously now, remember we heard that Chauvin and Floyd worked at the same place as bouncers? What's the follow-up to that in terms of understanding a possible motivation by Chauvin?

My take away from that was that Chauvin knew Floyd as burly and tough. Not the delicate flower Floyd was described as by later commentary.
Tom