George Floyd murderer's trial

[Gospel]

But why does it matter? How would such evidence be collected? What would count as evidence? You're making absurd demands. You've created a test that cannot be disproven and use it to prove that the test is successful.



Yes, exactly!!! These rulings trigger riots. And everybody knows it.

My position is not the one that is nuts here.

First you argue my case for me, and then you say this. I'd say that's pretty crazy

You made so much of a mess of this post I won't be arsed to fix it to reply entirely. I already said (in your defense I said it to Loren) how the evidence can be collected. It can be collected from any single Jury member from cases going back as far as 2 centuries. All you have to do is find just one Jury member who made the statement that they ruled in favor of a black victim out of fear of Riots (doesn't need to be verbatim). That's a lot of people to choose from. To think that you can't find a single person who was a member of a Jury in a window of 2 centuries making said statement as evidence for your claim should be a clue for you, bruh.

You seem to not even realize that you're the one that made a claim here and I asked for proof. I'm even offering you an idea of where to find your proof and you're calling my offer (which is generous as fuck btw) absurd demands. lol

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Day 11 Live Updates

Here are two interesting things from today so far...

The judge in Derek Chauvin’s murder trial decided Monday not to sequester the jury in the case following protests in Minnesota over the fatal police shooting of a Black man.

During his testimony, cardiologist Dr. Jonathan Rich affirmed much of what other medical experts called by the prosecution have said about the cause of George Floyd’s death.

Day 11

Here is additional information about the trial from today.

George Floyd's brother gave testimony:

Philonise Floyd, 39, testified how he and his older brother and three other siblings grew up in a housing project for poor families in Houston, playing Nintendo video games and dreaming of one day being as skilled as their basketball heroes.

The testimony was allowed under a Minnesota doctrine that lets loved ones reminisce to the jury about a crime victim in what is called “spark of life” testimony.

The siblings were raised by a mother everyone in the community called Miss Cissy, whom George Floyd doted on.

“He was a big momma’s boy,” Philonise Floyd told jurors.

...

Chauvin’s lead lawyer, Eric Nelson, has argued that when Floyd is heard in body-worn camera footage telling police he “was just hooping earlier,” he was referring to taking drugs rectally.

After showing photographs of a young George Floyd dressed in a basketball uniform, prosecutor Steve Schleicher made no reference to the defense theory, but asked the brother: “When he would talk about playing basketball, would he use any particular term or phrase?”

“He said: ‘Let’s go hooping,’” Philonise Floyd replied. “You have to hoop every day. If you don’t go and shoot a whole bunch of shots, like 50 to 100 shots a day, my brother would say he would never be able to compete.”

More info on the cardiologist's testimony:

“I can state with a high degree of medical certainty that George Floyd did not die from a primary cardiac event, and he did not die from a drug overdose,” Rich told the jury.

There were several moments when Chauvin could have saved Floyd’s life, Rich said: by not pinning him into the ground with his knee in the first place; by moving Floyd out of the prone position; or by beginning to give Floyd chest compressions once another officer noted Floyd’s heart had stopped beating.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it's highly unlikely they manage to assemble a group of 12 random people who all haven't read any news the last year. I think that chance is absurdly small. I admire your positive attitude.

I don't think it's all that important that jurors know nothing of the case.

What we see in the press is obviously the cliff notes version--when you see the whole picture you can arrive at a different conclusion. Especially when each side gets to point out the flaws in the arguments of the other side.

 

[Rhea]

I find it bizarre that so few in this thread is willing to accept the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this court case.

hang on. You think this is extraordinary?

Have you MET America?

Do you know how many trials we’ve had about police misconduct? (Not enough, admittedly)
Do you know how many protests, marches and even riots we’ve had?

This whole post is kind of weird and mind-bending.
You seem to think this is the first time this has happened (it isn’t, but far). You seem to think that the Supreme Court hears criminal trials. (They don’t). You seem to think that a jury trial should be replaced by a multi-judge trial (? Is that right?) and that the judges are not, somehow, influenced by the riots that you say will sway a non-judge jury, who may, indeed, live many neighborhoods away from any riots and not actually be affected at all.


It’s a crazy insistance that Chauvin can’t possibly get a fair trial - but it just has no support to justify the slavish loyalty to the ause.

Very weird.

...

I wonder what Zoidberg thinks SHOULD be the response from the public when the government abdicates the provision of justice?

Our western legal systems aren't perfect. What they should be doing is stick to due process. Which is what they are doing. It's the best they can do. It's what they should do. The legal system should stick to their guns no matter what. That's what we want.

But he's still not going to get a fair trial. I'd say that's impossible in the given environment.

They are giving him due process, but that’s not fair. ? ? ???
So not giving him due process and denying his right to a jury would be fair?

That is weird.

He is getting a fair trial.Alll of the evience is being shown.

 

[Patooka]

You seem to think this is the first time this has happened (it isn’t, but far). You seem to think that the Supreme Court hears criminal trials. (They don’t). You seem to think that a jury trial should be replaced by a multi-judge trial (? Is that right?) and that the judges are not, somehow, influenced by the riots that you say will sway a non-judge jury, who may, indeed, live many neighborhoods away from any riots and not actually be affected at all.

I would also point out, as I am certain DrZoidberg is completely unaware of this, is that Judges are not appointed but elected in the US. So arguably, they are even more swayed by public opinion than the average citizen. You know, the whole crux of DrZoidberg's "argument".

 

[Rhea]

I would also point out, as I am certain DrZoidberg is completely unaware of this, is that Judges are not appointed but elected in the US. So arguably, they are even more swayed by public opinion than the average citizen. You know, the whole crux of DrZoidberg's "argument".

Oh good point, I didn’t think about how he wouldn’t know that.

 

[Gospel]

I would also point out, as I am certain DrZoidberg is completely unaware of this, is that Judges are not appointed but elected in the US. So arguably, they are even more swayed by public opinion than the average citizen. You know, the whole crux of DrZoidberg's "argument".

Oh good point, I didn’t think about how he wouldn’t know that.

The goods news here is I'm now aware that I'm a specialist in Australian politics and law thanks to DrZoidberg.

 

[Toni]

You seem to think this is the first time this has happened (it isn’t, but far). You seem to think that the Supreme Court hears criminal trials. (They don’t). You seem to think that a jury trial should be replaced by a multi-judge trial (? Is that right?) and that the judges are not, somehow, influenced by the riots that you say will sway a non-judge jury, who may, indeed, live many neighborhoods away from any riots and not actually be affected at all.

I would also point out, as I am certain DrZoidberg is completely unaware of this, is that Judges are not appointed but elected in the US. So arguably, they are even more swayed by public opinion than the average citizen. You know, the whole crux of DrZoidberg's "argument".

Depends on what type of court/judge but yes, the judges at criminal trials are usually elected.

 

[Patooka]

I would also point out, as I am certain DrZoidberg is completely unaware of this, is that Judges are not appointed but elected in the US. So arguably, they are even more swayed by public opinion than the average citizen. You know, the whole crux of DrZoidberg's "argument".

Oh good point, I didn’t think about how he wouldn’t know that.

The goods news here is I'm now aware that I'm a specialist in Australian politics and law thanks to DrZoidberg.

It's not hard; to be an expert in Australian politics one only has to have the attitude of, "they are all lying fuckwits".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But he's still not going to get a fair trial.

No, a fair trial would be one where Chauvin cannot use his money to hire corrupt experts to agree with the defense merely because they are getting money. That's what is going to happen here. Money decides defense. It's unfair to George Floyd.

BUT even though this is going to be biased in favor of Chauvin, there's still a few issues that are going to be hard for the defense to answer. For example, from today (quoted above):

There were several moments when Chauvin could have saved Floyd’s life, Rich said: by not pinning him into the ground with his knee in the first place; by moving Floyd out of the prone position; or by beginning to give Floyd chest compressions once another officer noted Floyd’s heart had stopped beating.

Chauvin's corrupt experts are not going to be able to provide a good excuse for Chauvin's willful indifference to his own murdering of Floyd. This is ultimately because what Chauvin did was an unfair trial of Floyd with deliberations made about his character and behaviors that were unfair and told to be unfair over and over and over by experts on the ground.

Why do you not care about this unfair trial committed by Chauvin against Floyd and Chauvin's unfair advantages in court?

 

[Elixir]

Chauvin's corrupt experts are not going to be able to provide a good excuse for Chauvin's willful indifference to his own murdering of Floyd.

They won't be required to. They'll simply argue that Floyd was on the brink of death, and would have died anyhow, so...
They only need one idiot. ONE. And there are so many.

 

[Rhea]

Why do you not care about this unfair trial committed by Chauvin against Floyd and Chauvin's unfair advantages in court?

This is an interesting question because many of the respondents say nothing about that. And several even judge Floyd “guilty” of crimes that justify his death. It’s sad to watch what they will argue for - and what they won’t.

 

[Gospel]

This comment is solely for DrZoidberg. Worry not brother, the Jury selection process aims to find people that have been spending the last 2 decades of their lives with either their heads in the sand or up their asses. The interviews are structured in a way that filters out anyone who may already have their minds made up about the case (in any way; even if it has nothing to do with the case itself) but also has some experience in relevant fields related to the case (as best can be done). Every US citizen has to sign up for Jury duty and (to my knowledge) a profile like the one you created on this forum is available for the Courts to select from.

Don't take my word for It, I'm just a legal Immigrant (Jamaican) who hasn't a faint idea of how the Jury system works here. I'm talking out of my ass

 

[Coleman Smith]

If you want a trial you can win, don't murder someone on camera.

Or have your cell phone on you and turned on at the scene.

Watch the murder channel and you will see all kinds of stupid things that criminals do.

In my own case a criminal stole my CC at the gym while wearing an ankle bracelet.
He was also wearing the ankle bracelet when he used it.

He was a desperate drug addict.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why do you not care about this unfair trial committed by Chauvin against Floyd and Chauvin's unfair advantages in court?

This is an interesting question because many of the respondents say nothing about that. And several even judge Floyd “guilty” of crimes that justify his death. It’s sad to watch what they will argue for - and what they won’t.

Conservative fears are based on paranoia about changing status quo power structure. If you think about it, they complain, "Democrats won. They are going to take our speech away!" What is more than taking speech away than death. The fears are liberals will be the judges and politicians and BLM a mob police force doling out violence. That's the fear of the riots. But what actually happened here and for centuries? White people and wealthy have been in charge, even if there's a minority cop here and there. Chauvin and the right-wing mob decided Floyd was a bad guy, a very bad guy. No due process. Certainty that he committed crimes and was on drugs. He was physically dangerous the paramilitary gang decided, regardless of written laws and policies and rights. The police were the violent mob. The rational observers were the people, the democracy, the expert witnesses. The jury. They declared a man has a right to life and to save Floyd. But the kangaroo court overturned the jury of peers' rational conclusion. The kangaroo court deliberated and life-risking violence was the over-ruling over the intelligent, observant people. This is exactly the kind of thing conservatives fear, but assuming it comes from Antifa and BLM but the Right wing is doing it. They always have. And now they are having their day in court with ALL the advantages they have always had. The implicit bias against a black male victim. The wealth from Chauvin corrupting expert witnesses that we will observe in just a few days. There is hardly a structural change that has led us to this point. We only got here because of a cell phone recording. Otherwise, there'd be worse stories about Floyd. Like that he was reaching for Chauvin's gun. So now that a white person is on trial, we see screaming that it isn't fair because of this intense fear, but it's a vast mental projection of their own unfairness because the traditional advantages are still in place.

 

[Swammerdami]

IANAL and wasn't sure if Chauvin is guilty of murder or just manslaughter. But when I saw the photo of him smirking hands-in-pockets while killing Floyd, I decided that, albeit "unintentional," this was  Depraved-heart murder (which I first heard of in connection with the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin).

But he's still not going to get a fair trial.

No, a fair trial would be one where Chauvin cannot use his money to hire corrupt experts to agree with the defense merely because they are getting money. That's what is going to happen here. Money decides defense. It's unfair to George Floyd.

I suppose the prosecution is going all-out, spending money to win a conviction. But Chauvin? I don't think he's wealthy: Are his lawyers being paid by the Proud Boys, or some such? Do police unions pay for such defense? (Should it even be legal for such a union to pay?)

I've clicked on a trial YouTube just once; I saw the world's top expert on human lungs. He seemed pretty certain that Floyd died from lack of oxygen, the lack resulting from three (3) specific faults in Chauvin's treatment of the suspect.

That expert testified for free. I wonder if defense will make something of that: "He must be a cop hater or he'd have asked for money to help convict."

 

[DrZoidberg]

But why does it matter? How would such evidence be collected? What would count as evidence? You're making absurd demands. You've created a test that cannot be disproven and use it to prove that the test is successful.



Yes, exactly!!! These rulings trigger riots. And everybody knows it.

My position is not the one that is nuts here.

First you argue my case for me, and then you say this. I'd say that's pretty crazy

You made so much of a mess of this post I won't be arsed to fix it to reply entirely. I already said (in your defense I said it to Loren) how the evidence can be collected. It can be collected from any single Jury member from cases going back as far as 2 centuries. All you have to do is find just one Jury member who made the statement that they ruled in favor of a black victim out of fear of Riots (doesn't need to be verbatim). That's a lot of people to choose from. To think that you can't find a single person who was a member of a Jury in a window of 2 centuries making said statement as evidence for your claim should be a clue for you, bruh.

You seem to not even realize that you're the one that made a claim here and I asked for proof. I'm even offering you an idea of where to find your proof and you're calling my offer (which is generous as fuck btw) absurd demands. lol

Sigh

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

IANAL and wasn't sure if Chauvin is guilty of murder or just manslaughter. But when I saw the photo of him smirking hands-in-pockets while killing Floyd, I decided that, albeit "unintentional," this was  Depraved-heart murder (which I first heard of in connection with the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin).

But he's still not going to get a fair trial.

No, a fair trial would be one where Chauvin cannot use his money to hire corrupt experts to agree with the defense merely because they are getting money. That's what is going to happen here. Money decides defense. It's unfair to George Floyd.

I suppose the prosecution is going all-out, spending money to win a conviction. But Chauvin? I don't think he's wealthy: Are his lawyers being paid by the Proud Boys, or some such? Do police unions pay for such defense? (Should it even be legal for such a union to pay?)

I've clicked on a trial YouTube just once; I saw the world's top expert on human lungs. He seemed pretty certain that Floyd died from lack of oxygen, the lack resulting from three (3) specific faults in Chauvin's treatment of the suspect.

That expert testified for free. I wonder if defense will make something of that: "He must be a cop hater or he'd have asked for money to help convict."

There are experts who pretty much have court expertise as a side hustle. You don't really need to be a billionaire to get them. I probably should have worded it differently but poor people tend to get pressured into plea bargains. My understanding is Chauvin's father had money, but Chauvin is covered by the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. The problem of experts for hire is a systemic issue imo.

 

[Gun Nut]

IANAL and wasn't sure if Chauvin is guilty of murder or just manslaughter. But when I saw the photo of him smirking hands-in-pockets while killing Floyd, I decided that, albeit "unintentional," this was  Depraved-heart murder (which I first heard of in connection with the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin).

But he's still not going to get a fair trial.

No, a fair trial would be one where Chauvin cannot use his money to hire corrupt experts to agree with the defense merely because they are getting money. That's what is going to happen here. Money decides defense. It's unfair to George Floyd.

I suppose the prosecution is going all-out, spending money to win a conviction. But Chauvin? I don't think he's wealthy: Are his lawyers being paid by the Proud Boys, or some such? Do police unions pay for such defense? (Should it even be legal for such a union to pay?)

I've clicked on a trial YouTube just once; I saw the world's top expert on human lungs. He seemed pretty certain that Floyd died from lack of oxygen, the lack resulting from three (3) specific faults in Chauvin's treatment of the suspect.

That expert testified for free. I wonder if defense will make something of that: "He must be a cop hater or he'd have asked for money to help convict."

That was Dr. Tuttle (SP), the world's leading Pulmonologist. He wrote what the industry calls "the bible of mechanical respiration"... a 1500 page textbook for clinical physicians.
What is the defense going to do, get a first year medical student to say its possible Floyd was a dead man walking in exchange for paying the rest of his tuition?
Think that'll fly with any of the jurors in light of the caliber of testimony on the plaintiff's side?

 

[Gospel]

With all the evidence and testimony from professionals being unfavorable to Chauvin, I still believe he will get acquitted, a City will burn, George Floyd will be referenced during future cases on social media/message boards & Chauvin will sue and be compensated. That's the bizarro America I'm used to.