George Floyd murderer's trial

[Gospel]

Ok.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Zoid, you should really stop digging. Your ignorance of American culture and American law make your "argument" nothing more than an embarrassment.
Mistrials don't get appealed, for one thing. They get a new trial or the case is dropped.
Threats exist, but nobody is currently threatening the jury. They are sequestered. You know what that means, right?

The jury members don't know any "will of the public". I'm sure they know that anger will follow whatever verdict they come to. If they were going to respond to direct threats, they would have to acquit, since white supremacists are well known to be more murderous and violent than BLM protesters on average. In fact, white supremacists are largely responsible for the violence attributed (by them) to "BLM activists".

You complain about racist politics being involved. Racist politics SHOULD be involved - this was a violent racist cop (proven by 19 prior infractions) murdering a civilian in broad daylight in front of multiple witnesses because he thought he would never face any consequences - like in the past.

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

I assume, then that you don't like the racist mob that killed cops and trashed the Nation's Capitol trying to overturn the results of an election that wasn't even close?
You should realize that those are the same people who will take their hatred out on the judge, they jury, the prosecutors and even the victim's family if the murderer is convicted.
They are are at least as dangerous, and if history is any indicator, far more dangerous, than any BLM protesters. So I guess the jury has to acquit?
No, Zoid - they will render the verdict that is most in line with what the law prescribes, given the evidence - unless one of them is a closet white supremacist who hangs the jury.

 

[Gospel]

DrZoidberg is a riot (pun intended). He claims BLM riots have the jury under threat. I ask for historical evidence where the Jury having been under the threat of violence from black people ruled in black people's favor. He has 2 centuries of injustice against black people available to choose from. Instead, he says the current BLM riots are his proof. Guess we'd have to wait until after the verdict is in for his proof. Until then, I still think he should STFU about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

DrZoidberg is a riot (pun intended). He claims BLM riots have the jury under threat. I ask for historical evidence where the Jury having been under the threat of violence from black people ruled in black people's favor. He has 2 centuries of injustice against black people available to choose from. Instead, he says the current BLM riots are his proof. Guess we'd have to wait until after the verdict is in for his proof. Until then, I still think he should STFU about it.

Not to mention that until the public outcry over this murder on camera, there was no plan for any kind of consequences at all. There were no arrests, there was no administrative leave... If the crowd had not been there filming, if there had been no audience, a black man would have been murdered and everyone involved would be free, probably murdering more black people.

The threat of continued violence was the only thing that got Chauvin into a courtroom in the first place.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg is a riot (pun intended). He claims BLM riots have the jury under threat. I ask for historical evidence where the Jury having been under the threat of violence from black people ruled in black people's favor. He has 2 centuries of injustice against black people available to choose from. Instead, he says the current BLM riots are his proof. Guess we'd have to wait until after the verdict is in for his proof. Until then, I still think he should STFU about it.

I have never said the BLM riots threaten the jury. The fact that they took place and the magnitude of them will of course influence the jury. That's what I've said. They haven't been sequestered for a year. The members of the jury must be aware of the forces at play. It will of course influence the jury.

Are people here claiming this is a fair trial willfully ignorant of the situation, or what?

And I'd appreciate it if I'm criticised for what I am saying, to read what I'm actually saying.

 

[Gospel]

DrZoidberg is a riot (pun intended). He claims BLM riots have the jury under threat. I ask for historical evidence where the Jury having been under the threat of violence from black people ruled in black people's favor. He has 2 centuries of injustice against black people available to choose from. Instead, he says the current BLM riots are his proof. Guess we'd have to wait until after the verdict is in for his proof. Until then, I still think he should STFU about it.

I have never said the BLM riots threaten the jury. The fact that they took place and the magnitude of them will of course influence the jury. That's what I've said. They haven't been sequestered for a year. The members of the jury must be aware of the forces at play. It will of course influence the jury.

Are people here claiming this is a fair trial willfully ignorant of the situation, or what?

And I'd appreciate it if I'm criticised for what I am saying, to read what I'm actually saying.

Ok, I misspoke I'll give you that. But can you at least explain how my request for you to provide proof supporting your claim that the possibility of mass riots are influencing the Jury, is an invalid request? I'm genuinely curious & won't laugh (at least not post it) this time. I'm saying that Riots are not new and there have been plenty of cases where riots occurred as a result and those Juries clearly did not rule to avoid the riots based on the previous ones.

 

[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

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.

Your argument boils down to the cynical assumption that 12 jurors will all based their decision on self-preservation. Which really says much more about your worldview than the actual situation.

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.

Mistrials do not get appealed in the USA. They are either retried or the process stops.

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?

That is an interesting but totally ignorant take on the situation. What makes this different is that there is video of a police officer kneeling on the neck of a supine suspect for almost 9 minutes who is saying he cannot breathe. Regardless of the race of the suspect and police officer, that should inflame any decent person. If it takes the races of the officer and suspect to make this as big of deal as it is, then good but shame on the world.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

All..

As a personal favor to me...

Please keep the discussion about actual evidence, not fantasies.

There's another thread devoted to this narrow fantasy topic where the well is poisoned.

 

[LoAmmo]

I have never said the BLM riots threaten the jury. The fact that they took place and the magnitude of them will of course influence the jury. That's what I've said. They haven't been sequestered for a year. The members of the jury must be aware of the forces at play. It will of course influence the jury.

Are people here claiming this is a fair trial willfully ignorant of the situation, or what?

And I'd appreciate it if I'm criticised for what I am saying, to read what I'm actually saying.

I'll take a shot at this. Reading what you're actually saying, the actual words and not my twist on them, you sound hopelessly ignorant.

Of fucking COURSE the jurors know about "forces at play." Just like, guess what, every jury that's ever been empaneled. Our legal system depends on juries being able to rise above such motivations--one way or the other--and reach evidence-based verdicts. Do individual jurists sometimes bring personal or "outside" interests/fears/rationales/biases into the deliberation room? Yes. Unfortunately, human nature cannot be completely eliminated as a variable in a system dependent on humans.

But it sounds, forgive me, downright stupid to say "it isn't a fair trial" or label it a "show trial" simply because these jurists have the potential to be influenced by the society they know still exists outside the walls of the courtroom. Tell you what--name a single jury anywhere, anytime, who was so far removed from their surrounding society that they were unassailably neutral and beyond any possibility of "influence."

Those who are, in your actual words, "claiming this is a fair trial," do so not out of being, your words again, "willfully ignorant," but simply, they know what the phrase "fair trial" means, and what it doesn't. Try to get it in your head that in our system, "fair trial" means basics like, you were afforded legal representation, that such representation is competent, that you yourself are fit and competent to stand trial, that your trial is held in a timely manner (i.e., you aren't left to rot in jail for years waiting on one), ability to avoid self-incriminating testimony, stuff like that.

It doesn't mean anything anywhere close to "having a jury who's totally oblivious to the outside world and completely impervious to the influence of it." You don't act as if you know that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There is a live feed here for Day 10.

 

[atrib]

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.

You have been making no sense in this thread. None at all.
How the fuck would you know what the jurors are thinking and what motivates them? Human beings are all different.
Who are you accusing of trying to ignore due process? Is this is a conspiracy of the jurors or are there other people involved as well?
A jury trial is the opposite of mob justice. It is an exercise of the rule of law.
If you "don't like it" the way things are being done, what remedy would you suggest that might provide a more fair outcome? How would you guarantee that your preferred remedy rectifies the alleged shortcomings of the jury trial process?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is another live feed...this one on youtube which may be easier to access.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/2AYpkWJ2JJE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Day 10

NBC News was blogging all day and can be read at the link above. Here are two snippets.

Dr. Lindsey Thomas, a forensic pathologist, testified Friday that she ruled out a drug overdose as George Floyd’s cause of death.

Thomas said based on the extensive videos she had seen in the death of Floyd and what she knew about fentanyl deaths, this was “totally different than what is seen in Mr. Floyd.”

She added in regards to the level of methamphetamine found in his system, which she described as a low level, “looking from what I know about Mr. Floyd’s death, because it’s so well documented, that does not fit with a methamphetamine death.”

Thomas agreed with prosecutors that she ruled out drug overdose as the cause of Floyd’s death. The defense has argued Floyd’s death was caused by a drug overdose and health complications rather than Chauvin’s actions.

Dr. Andrew Baker, the medical examiner for Minnesota’s Hennepin County, said Friday that fentanyl and heart disease did not directly cause Floyd's death.

...

"Mr. Floyd’s use of fentanyl did not cause the subdual or neck restraint, his heart disease did not cause the subdual or the neck restraint," Dr. Andrew Baker, the medical examiner for Minnesota’s Hennepin County, said Friday afternoon.

Baker ruled George Floyd’s cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." The manner of death was ruled a homicide.

Baker broke down his ruling of the cause of death Friday, saying "cardiopulmonary arrest” referred to the heart and lungs stopping and clarifying the term “complicating” meant “in the setting of.”

Baker listed under "other significant conditions" that Floyd suffered from hypertensive heart disease, and listed fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use.

But he said Friday that other factors that are believed to have played a role in the death but “didn’t directly cause the death,” get relegated to the “other significant conditions” section of a death certificate.

Baker said given the conditions of Floyd's heart disease and condition on the day of his encounter with police: “In my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions.”

Unlike previous medical professionals who have testified, Baker did not directly attribute Floyd's cause of death to lack of oxygen or asphyxia.

 

[blastula]

Sure, but don't make up your mind yet on the cause of death, the court has yet to hear from forensic pathologist extraordinaire, and notary public, Derec. He'll set everyone straight.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

You have been making no sense in this thread. None at all.
How the fuck would you know what the jurors are thinking and what motivates them? Human beings are all different.
Who are you accusing of trying to ignore due process? Is this is a conspiracy of the jurors or are there other people involved as well?
A jury trial is the opposite of mob justice. It is an exercise of the rule of law.
If you "don't like it" the way things are being done, what remedy would you suggest that might provide a more fair outcome? How would you guarantee that your preferred remedy rectifies the alleged shortcomings of the jury trial process?

A jury trial is still expected to deliver justice. You and everyone here know how I go on ad nauseum of the unacceptability of retributive justice: that hurting someone is never the right way to make them be less shitty. In fact it teaches them that hurting people gets people what they want.

Rather, I think that some violent asshole like Chauvin, someone who could casually kill someone like he did while onlookers explained what he was doing and eventually what he had done and then go on home as if nothing had happened, needs to be put in a jail and held there because all indication is that they lack the functional machinery that stops decent people from hurting each other.

The promise of the mob is if there is no justice, though, because no justice here indicates a kangaroo court. If the system fails to deliver a clear verdict in a clear case, the system gets put on trial. And the trial of the system can only be by the mob.

 

[untermensche]

The problem does not lie with just Chauvin. His adrenaline was up and he was going to establish domination. He clearly is missing an ability to understand what he is doing to people. He should not have been a police officer.

The other cops should have intervened as a group. There should have been no hesitation on their part. You don't kneel on somebodies neck. You allow people to expand their chests. They would have saved Chauvin from this trial, and a man who committed a small time non-violent crime from dying.

Is that a lesson the police will take from this?

 

[Jarhyn]

The problem does not lie with just Chauvin. His adrenaline was up and he was going to establish domination. He clearly is missing an ability to understand what he is doing to people. He should not have been a police officer.

The other cops should have intervened as a group. There should have been no hesitation on their part. You don't kneel on somebodies neck. You allow people to expand their chests. They would have saved Chauvin from this trial, and a man who committed a small time non-violent crime from dying.

Is that a lesson the police will take from this?

Narrator: No. In fact, they learned nothing. *Cut away to the next filmed police murder*

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

How would we know?

 

[Rhea]

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.

How would we know?

Ask Zoidberg. He seems to have the straight dope.

But you can start with naming a case where the jury ruled in favor of the black victim and against the cop. Then we can see if these is even a shred of indication that they did so out of fear of mobs.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The problem does not lie with just Chauvin. His adrenaline was up and he was going to establish domination. He clearly is missing an ability to understand what he is doing to people. He should not have been a police officer.

The other cops should have intervened as a group. There should have been no hesitation on their part. You don't kneel on somebodies neck. You allow people to expand their chests. They would have saved Chauvin from this trial, and a man who committed a small time non-violent crime from dying.

Is that a lesson the police will take from this?

Policeman after policeman has testified against Chauvin.