George Floyd murderer's trial

[Wiploc]

The only reason I can see that anybody would see this as anything but a show trial is political motivation.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate.

I think of show trials as performance art, not interested in finding truth.

Do you have another definition of "show trial," or do you have reason to believe that this trial isn't about finding truth?

The major disconnect I see happening in a lot of minds around Floyd's Murder's trial is that they keep thinking that the fact that the truth is so easy to find makes it a "show trial". It does not. It just makes it a clear case.

Yes. If justice is the concern, then a fair trial is one where the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The major disconnect I see happening in a lot of minds around Floyd's Murder's trial is that they keep thinking that the fact that the truth is so easy to find makes it a "show trial". It does not. It just makes it a clear case.

Yes. If justice is the concern, then a fair trial is one where the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted.

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

 

[TomC]

The major disconnect I see happening in a lot of minds around Floyd's Murder's trial is that they keep thinking that the fact that the truth is so easy to find makes it a "show trial". It does not. It just makes it a clear case.

Yes. If justice is the concern, then a fair trial is one where the guilty are convicted and the innocent are acquitted.

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

It's difficult to converse with people who have already decided that Chauvin is guilty of First Degree Murder. People who think that Floyd was executed for passing a forged $20 aren't easy to reason with.
Tom

 

[J842P]

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

It's difficult to converse with people who have already decided that Chauvin is guilty of First Degree Murder. People who think that Floyd was executed for passing a forged $20 aren't easy to reason with.
Tom

Who here thinks Chauvin is guilty of murder 1?

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

It's difficult to converse with people who have already decided that Chauvin is guilty of First Degree Murder. People who think that Floyd was executed for passing a forged $20 aren't easy to reason with.
Tom

Neither are people who come up with such straw men as yours.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

It's difficult to converse with people who have already decided that Chauvin is guilty of First Degree Murder. People who think that Floyd was executed for passing a forged $20 aren't easy to reason with.
Tom

Who here thinks Chauvin is guilty of murder 1?

This is a good nuanced observation you've made in order to ask this question. Speaking of which, yesterday Tom created that strawman in the other thread to argue against and I responded, ok, but what about murder 2. I included a link to Minnesota statutes on murder 2. Instead of ever answering, he's already running around all over the place continuing the farce that everyone is sure it's murder 1. Here's a link:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...in-Minneapolis&p=891323&viewfull=1#post891323

I will add that it is my understanding that current charges against Chauvin include manslaughter, murder 2 and murder 3. I am unaware of a murder 1 charge. So it appears to be Tom accusing his opposition of things he ought to know are untrue and really refusing to engage in a rational discussion about actual claims and charges.

 

[zorq]

It's difficult to converse with people who have already decided that Chauvin is guilty of First Degree Murder. People who think that Floyd was executed for passing a forged $20 aren't easy to reason with.
Tom

What a strawman. In addition to the murder 1 BS, you also misrepresent Chauvin's likely motives.
1. Police react badly, take it personally, and sometimes overreact physically when they think a suspect is resisting arrest. This is a much more likely motive.
2. It is known that Floyd and Chauvin had encounters in the past. Is there a personal grudge remaining from a previous encounter ?
3. How can we be sure good old fashioned racism isn't a factor?

Can you point out one sungle Chauvin detractor on the internet who thinks Chauvin's beef with Floyd was the funny 20? How can anyone take your post seriously?

 

[ZiprHead]

The doctor that testified today destroyed the drugs killed Floyd argument.

 

[Patooka]

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

Considering how strongly you feel about the merits of a fair trial, it's a tad ironic that your sole argument against this one is, "I have a bad feeling about this". You have yet to critique a single aspect of the proceedings except to say this particular trial should get preferential treatment over all other criminal trials. Hate to break it to you, that's the very antithesis of "fair".

Incidentally, I think it's very possible a juror will become fixated on the "reasonable doubt" aspect of law and cause a mistrial. So no, not everyone is convinced Derek Chauvin will be convicted no matter what. Thank you for assuming on my behalf, though. Very thoughtful of you.

 

[repoman]

not sure if this is true, but it might be

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This thread is covering factual stuff about the actual trial in what we call Reality using documented evidence.

 

[OLDMAN]

not sure if this is true, but it might be

View attachment 32766

We've all watched the tapes...unless there is something we are not aware of, then this is a foregone conclusion. But that's why we have trials, to see what we are not aware of...

 

[Wiploc]

Every member of the jury knows they are the ones on trial unless they give the public what they want.

I imagine the public to be split like the users of this discussion board.

They have reasons to fear for their lives, or at least their future.

Unfortunate.

The BLM riots was not a small thing.

I'll have to take your word for it.

Expecting a fair trial in the given circumstance is as absurd as it is idiotic.

I'm still not with you. Is it your position that any famous or controversial
trial must be a show trial?

Yes, it is performance art. We're not going to learn anything of any relevance that's not on that video. It's just a circus. A spectacle. A show trial.

Haven't seen the video. Are you saying that the video establishes the cop's guilt?

-

DrZoidberg, what would you have us do in the case of famous or controversial crimes
(or famous or controversial alleged crimes)? Should we just release the
defendants without trial in all such cases? What would satisfy you?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Day 9

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/us/derek-chauvin-trial-takeaways.html

A veteran lung doctor testified on Thursday that George Floyd’s death was caused in part by Derek Chauvin’s knees pressing against his neck and back, making it impossible for him to breathe, and that Mr. Floyd showed signs of a brain injury about four minutes before Mr. Chauvin lifted his knee from his neck.

Dr. Martin J. Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care doctor in Chicago, said in court that the combination of Mr. Chauvin’s pressure, the handcuffs pulling Mr. Floyd’s hands behind his back and Mr. Floyd’s body being pressed against the street had caused him to die “from a low level of oxygen.”

...

Dr. Tobin was adamant that Mr. Chauvin had caused Mr. Floyd’s death on May 25. He said that based on Mr. Floyd’s visible respiratory rate before he went unconscious, any fentanyl in his system was “not having an effect” on his breathing.

“A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died,” Dr. Tobin said.

...

Mr. Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric J. Nelson suggested on Thursday that Mr. Floyd could have died of a fentanyl overdose if he had taken the drug in the moments before police officers pushed him to the ground. Dr. Tobin said that, unlike someone who died of a fentanyl overdose, Mr. Floyd had never gone into a coma.

There is also a snippet from yesterday's part of the trial that I had not heard 'til I read the article.
Day 8 update:

McKenzie Anderson, a forensic scientist with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, processed the squad car that Mr. Floyd was briefly placed in on the night he died. An initial processing found no drugs in the vehicle, she said, but during a second search requested by Mr. Chauvin’s defense team in January, the team discovered fragments of pills with DNA matching Mr. Floyd’s.

As you can see the defense keeps mentioning drugs and trying to make everything about drugs. The article also says the defense attorney will present his own medical experts at a later date.

 

[Jarhyn]

not sure if this is true, but it might be

View attachment 32766

Of course there is the threat of Bad Things™ happening if Chauvin is acquitted. There is no reasonable question whether he is guilty and to declare him innocent would be a clear insult to reason. The question is what, precisely, he is actually guilty of. I've already laid out my argument for Murder 2. There are arguments for Murder 1. There are arguments for Murder 3. There are no arguments for "not murder".

So, if the legal system fails to bring consequences for this murder, the rule of law and the contracts of society are broken and dead. There is no reason to obey or respect a system or structure that does not respect nor heed you in any way.

This IS and in fact SHOULD BE the shape of our world: that when you are not treated in good faith, that your response is not more good faith after thr bad, but violence. There ought be no peace in bad faith.

 

[untermensche]

There were riots when the cops that beat Rodney King were acquitted.

There were riots when MLK was assassinated.

BLM will have little to do with riots that take place if a cop that knelt on a man's neck for 3 minutes after he stopped breathing is acquitted.

 

[Elixir]

not sure if this is true, but it might be

View attachment 32766

The jury is sequestered. It's a mystery who can threaten them "explicitly", unless the judge undertakes to do so.
Of course BLM and many others will demonstrate if the murdering cop is acquitted, and of course Proud Boy types will inflame those demonstrations, incite and if necessary commit violence to discredit them.
DUH.
Also, the jury, the judge and the prosecutors will be under explicit, credible threats of bodily harm from right wing extremists if they convict the murderer of anything more than third degree murder. Maybe even anything more than manslaughter. The jury probably knew all this going in, and will try to do their best to mete out whatever justice they feel the law provides given the evidence presented without regard to who might threaten whom.

Matt should show up at the trial and offer his evidence that Chauvin should be acquitted, or STFU about a killer cop being found guilty,.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

Considering how strongly you feel about the merits of a fair trial, it's a tad ironic that your sole argument against this one is, "I have a bad feeling about this". You have yet to critique a single aspect of the proceedings except to say this particular trial should get preferential treatment over all other criminal trials. Hate to break it to you, that's the very antithesis of "fair".

Incidentally, I think it's very possible a juror will become fixated on the "reasonable doubt" aspect of law and cause a mistrial. So no, not everyone is convinced Derek Chauvin will be convicted no matter what. Thank you for assuming on my behalf, though. Very thoughtful of you.

I've critiqued it over and over. And my arguments are the same. The magnitude of the BLM riots means that the jury members know that if they don't bend to the will of the public, they are on trial. That's not having a bad feeling about it. That is reality. Expecting anything different is expecting that the members of the jury all are autists and/or incapable of acting for self preservation. There's nothing to be done other than bump this up to the supreme court ASAP. Until that point this trial will stay a farce. I find it amusing that you think there's any part of the legal procedure that can compensate for the surrounding hubub.

A mistrial doesn't mean he's not guilty. That's him getting off on a technicality. But even if it is, so what? It'll just get appealed. I somehow doubt the American society (as a whole) can afford to just let this one slide.

BTW, if this was just about a cop killing a junkie on the job, nobody would care. What makes this into something different is the context. Which is why nobody is really talking about Derek Chauvin when they're talking about Derek Chauvin. It's all loaded with politics. Race politics. That's what it really is about. This thread wouldn't have survived to page 2 without that context and the inflamed political situation of USA. Chauvin is a pawn in one of the largest political battles of American recent history. I find it a bit bizarre you can't see that?

 

[Gospel]

Nobody thinks Chauvin will be acquitted. He will get convicted of something. The question is what and how severe will the punishment will be. That's far from clear. He could spend years or decades in jail depending on that. That's what the trial is about. And that's much harder to be cocksure about

Considering how strongly you feel about the merits of a fair trial, it's a tad ironic that your sole argument against this one is, "I have a bad feeling about this". You have yet to critique a single aspect of the proceedings except to say this particular trial should get preferential treatment over all other criminal trials. Hate to break it to you, that's the very antithesis of "fair".

Incidentally, I think it's very possible a juror will become fixated on the "reasonable doubt" aspect of law and cause a mistrial. So no, not everyone is convinced Derek Chauvin will be convicted no matter what. Thank you for assuming on my behalf, though. Very thoughtful of you.

I've critiqued it over and over. And my arguments are the same. The magnitude of the BLM riots means that the jury members know that if they don't bend to the will of the public, they are on trial. That's not having a bad feeling about it. That is reality. Expecting anything different is expecting that the members of the jury all are autists and/or incapable of acting for self preservation. There's nothing to be done other than bump this up to the supreme court ASAP. Until that point this trial will stay a farce. I find it amusing that you think there's any part of the legal procedure that can compensate for the surrounding hubub.

A mistrial doesn't mean he's not guilty. That's him getting off on a technicality. But even if it is, so what? It'll just get appealed. I somehow doubt the American society (as a whole) can afford to just let this one slide.

BTW, if this was just about a cop killing a junkie on the job, nobody would care. What makes this into something different is the context. Which is why nobody is really talking about Derek Chauvin when they're talking about Derek Chauvin. It's all loaded with politics. Race politics. That's what it really is about. This thread wouldn't have survived to page 2 without that context and the inflamed political situation of USA. Chauvin is a pawn in one of the largest political battles of American recent history. I find it a bit bizarre you can't see that?

You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've critiqued it over and over. And my arguments are the same. The magnitude of the BLM riots means that the jury members know that if they don't bend to the will of the public, they are on trial. That's not having a bad feeling about it. That is reality. Expecting anything different is expecting that the members of the jury all are autists and/or incapable of acting for self preservation. There's nothing to be done other than bump this up to the supreme court ASAP. Until that point this trial will stay a farce. I find it amusing that you think there's any part of the legal procedure that can compensate for the surrounding hubub.

A mistrial doesn't mean he's not guilty. That's him getting off on a technicality. But even if it is, so what? It'll just get appealed. I somehow doubt the American society (as a whole) can afford to just let this one slide.

BTW, if this was just about a cop killing a junkie on the job, nobody would care. What makes this into something different is the context. Which is why nobody is really talking about Derek Chauvin when they're talking about Derek Chauvin. It's all loaded with politics. Race politics. That's what it really is about. This thread wouldn't have survived to page 2 without that context and the inflamed political situation of USA. Chauvin is a pawn in one of the largest political battles of American recent history. I find it a bit bizarre you can't see that?

You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.

Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.