George Floyd murderer's trial

[laughing dog]

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?

I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP. That's the first instance the trial will be truly interesting.

I think very few people in this thread have actually bothered with reading what I have written. All manner of nonsense and positions have been projected onto me. I'm sorry if I can't be bothered in defending positions I have never held.

I don't want anything different to happen. I just don't find it particularly interesting what expert witnesses are saying or to speculate on how Chauvin should have acted or his motivations.

Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

But what I reacted to above all is how this forum seems to be a part of the mob. Too many for comfort on this forum just want to see Chauvin suffer and are willing to accept the dumbest accusations and flimiest speculations on his character.

Its been said many times that of late the liberals have become the intolerant and the conservatives have become the defenders of liberal values. Which is so backward. This trial demonstrates it so well.

We live in a time when liberals are the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is way beyond party politics. It's not confined to any single nation. Its a global poison

The problem is that people have read what you wrote. And you are writing nonsense.

From the above response

Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

Disregarding your "anything resembling a fair trial" dumbness, the SCOTUS has no jurors.

Its been said many times that of late the liberals have become the intolerant and the conservatives have become the defenders of liberal values. Which is so backward. This trial demonstrates it so well.

It is true that false claim has been said many times. Yes, there are progressive who are intolerant. The rise of Trump and his followers is a clear example of conservative intolerance.

We live in a time when liberals are the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"Liberals are in power" is just silly, even if you are just talking about the USA. It is delusional if you are referring to the world.

Your comments in this thread really indicate a deep lack of understanding of the USA.

 

[blastula]

I don't see why scotus justices would be immune to the same alleged pressures as this jury. And "supreme court" doesn't mean "fairest court."

 

[Rhea]

I don't see why scotus justices would be immune to the same alleged pressures as this jury. And "supreme court" doesn't mean "fairest court."

Notwithstanding that the Supreme court does not hear murder cases. It's not what they do.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party".[2] The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.[3] However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction.

It does not judge whether someone is guilty, but rather whether the case was constitutional.

 

[Treedbear]

The defense tries to make a Big Meaningful Point about handcuffed perps still being a threat -- but Chauvin is anything but threatened in the video. He is calm, assured, and firmly in control. He's like one of our local golden-tailed hawks when it's perched firmly on a squirrel, with its talons dug deep, and the squirrel has stopped twitching.

That's exactly the look on his face. It's not a smirk at all. It's calm and satisfied dominance.

 

[Treedbear]

...
It seems that the only argument against it is that a Jury Trial can never be fair. Which means they argue that the entire basis of the USA system of justice, the elevation of the trial by jury as the best possible way of being fair, is what's actually being argued against.


Zoidberg, you appear to be arguing that trial by jury should be abolished in teh US.

I'm convinced that I was once eliminated from a jury pool because when I was being questioned by the two lawyers during the jury selection process the judge asked me about what I do in my spare time and I said I frequently visit an online forum where we discuss philosophy and moral issue as well as science, etc. Somehow the concept of the jury system was raised and I told him I would never choose to have a jury of my peers if I was being tried because it's been demonstrated how erratic their decisions can be. He asked me, and I told him that, yes, juries are a necessary option (in case the judge was corrupt, but I didn't say that ). But what it boils down to is why would a defendant choose to be tried in front of a jury rather than an impartial judge unless their best chance of acquittal was a coin flip?

 

[atrib]

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?

I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP. That's the first instance the trial will be truly interesting.

That is not how the process works. There is a clear hierarchy where lawsuits wind their way through the lower courts, court of appeals, state supreme courts, federal district courts, and finally to SCOTUS. And that is assuming that the suit is not rejected at any of the appellate levels.

So what procedural objections do you have to the trial that is currently underway, that may potentially be grounds for appeal?

I don't want anything different to happen. I just don't find it particularly interesting what expert witnesses are saying or to speculate on how Chauvin should have acted or his motivations.

Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

The Supreme Court doesn't conduct murder trials. The Supreme Court decides whether the decisions made by lower courts were based on the law.

 

[atrib]

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.

So you think the French revolution was a bad outcome?

You think the US revolution was unnecessary?

Hell, almost every revolution ever was 'mob justice'.

Sometimes, the mob is the only real justice available.

That's a disturbing post.

A police officer killing a man on the street in cold blood in front of witnesses is a disturbing event. The whole world got to see it happen and was disturbed. Said police officer is getting his day in court and full due process, which cannot be said of the victim. But you keep alleging that the accused cannot get a fair trial, without bothering to explain why this assertion is true.

 

[Patooka]

A police officer killing a man on the street in cold blood in front of witnesses is a disturbing event. The whole world got to see it happen and was disturbed. Said police officer is getting his day in court and full due process, which cannot be said of the victim. But you keep alleging that the accused cannot get a fair trial, without bothering to explain why this assertion is true.

The best I could ascertain is DrZoidberg believes that juries are wrong, despite them being given very clear instructions as to what their role is before the trial starts and both prosecution and defence can dismiss a juror for any reason. I'm not saying that they are perfect, but they are infinitely better than any other alternative.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not saying that they are perfect, but they are infinitely better than any other alternative.

Yeah, especially if you're guilty as hell and everybody knows it.
If you BS a judge you'll just make him mad.
If you BS 12 random people, it's a near certainty that at least one of them will be of below average intelligence and possibly susceptible to being BSed.

 

[Patooka]

I'm not saying that they are perfect, but they are infinitely better than any other alternative.

Yeah, especially if you're guilty as hell and everybody knows it.
If you BS a judge you'll just make him mad.
If you BS 12 random people, it's a near certainty that at least one of them will be of below average intelligence and possibly susceptible to being BSed.

I'll also point out the one time I was slated for jury duty, one of the other jurors was going through a messy divorce and pretty much dismissed any testimony a woman had to say. Eventually, the remaining 11 of us called him out on his bullshit. If he was the sole arbiter of the trial, it would have ended very differently. The greatest strength a jury trial has is that it irons out and minimizes the imperfections DrZoidberg has trepidations over. I seriously doubt the US legal system is so esoteric in comparison.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP. That's the first instance the trial will be truly interesting.

I think very few people in this thread have actually bothered with reading what I have written. All manner of nonsense and positions have been projected onto me. I'm sorry if I can't be bothered in defending positions I have never held.

I don't want anything different to happen. I just don't find it particularly interesting what expert witnesses are saying or to speculate on how Chauvin should have acted or his motivations.

Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

But what I reacted to above all is how this forum seems to be a part of the mob. Too many for comfort on this forum just want to see Chauvin suffer and are willing to accept the dumbest accusations and flimiest speculations on his character.

Its been said many times that of late the liberals have become the intolerant and the conservatives have become the defenders of liberal values. Which is so backward. This trial demonstrates it so well.

We live in a time when liberals are the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is way beyond party politics. It's not confined to any single nation. Its a global poison

You obviously don't even understand how SCOTUS operates. This case isn't going to SCOTUS. At best, if Chauvin is found guilty, his attorneys can appeal and ask for a retrial, but they would have to provide very good evidence that there were things in the current trial that weren't fair.

Then he's fucked. It'll be mob justice.

I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair.

I just find this position absurd. It's magical thinking at it's finest. If you're fine with that, cool. But it's nothing that should be accepted by a modern democracy.

The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

Isn't that all the evidence you need? If this is rare for cops to do then you know they're bending to the will of the mob. It's the same in Sweden. They defend each other all the time, even when it makes no sense. Because they feel loyalty to other cops. It'll take something extreme for them to throw a colleague under the bus.

Chauvin may or may not be actually guilty of what he's accused of. But he's not going to get any justice. He's clearly a scapegoat. He's being sacrificed for political reasons.

There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial.

So what? The drugs makes people do dangerous things and when their lives are endangered their bodies and behavior don't respond to match. Even though he died from asphyxiation, it can still be the drugs that caused him to die, because it could have hid the fact that he was choking.

It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

I'm not on Chauvin's side. I'm not trying to defend him. All I'm doing is shooting down accusations that are obviously ridiculous and which wouldn't pass muster if he was getting a fair trial. I doubt Chauvin would have killed Floyd if he was white.

So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.

It's clearly mob justice. I don't understand why you are denying the obvious? I don't understand if you believe this for real or if it's an act because you're afraid of what the others will think of you?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

Disregarding your "anything resembling a fair trial" dumbness, the SCOTUS has no jurors.

Exactly. It needs to go to a place without jurors. Where the judges are protected by whatever ramifications may happen afterwards.

Jurors are NOT the guarantee of a fair trial. At this point they're the guarantees of the opposite.

 

[Gospel]

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.

Back in the day American jurys would often make racist judgements. Some argue this is still a problem. The context the trial finds itself in matters.

The Zeitgeist influences jurys. Its unavoidable. This time around the riots triggered by this case was more extreme than ever before. So of course whatever judgement they make is highly questionable.

We can turn the question around. How do you propose we make sure the BLM riots doesn't influence the jury? What proof do you have of that?

A lot of irrelevancies have been projected onto me in this thread. I'd say that is strong evidence for my case.

All you had to say is you have no proof and move on. Why are you trying to defend an indefensible argument? And even have the audacity to convert your stupid argument into an even dumber question. I'll answer your idiotic question (even though you didn't answer mine).

How do you propose we make sure the BLM riots doesn't influence the jury?

I don't have to, because there is no evidence that riots have influenced the Jury. It's stupid to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All you had to say is you have no proof and move on. Why are you trying to defend an indefensible argument? And even have the audacity to convert your stupid argument into an even dumber question. I'll answer your idiotic question (even though you didn't answer mine).

What argument do you think I am making that you think is indefensible? Since what I'm claiming is pretty banal and what I think is obviously true

How do you propose we make sure the BLM riots doesn't influence the jury?

I don't have to, because there is no evidence that riots have influenced the Jury. It's stupid to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I think that's just insane. How could it not influence the jury? I don't understand your position or how you can defend it. It's so obviously nuts.

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

I wonder if we're talking past each other?

 

[Gospel]

What argument do you think I am making that you think is indefensible?

The one that you haven't offered any proof for; which is this Jury is being influenced by the possibility of riots. You can't even provide a case where any Jury ever ruled in a black person's favor in fear of ensuing riots.

I don't have to, because there is no evidence that riots have influenced the Jury. It's stupid to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I think that's just insane. How could it not influence the jury? I don't understand your position or how you can defend it. It's so obviously nuts.

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

I wonder if we're talking past each other?

My position is defended by every Jury that ruled unfavorably to a black victim of police brutality. It's as if you're not aware that riots have happened multiple times and you don't seem to realize that those riots occurred after back-to-back unfavorable rulings. My position is not the one that is nuts here.

 

[Patooka]

It's pretty naive to think neither the Judge or Court Sergeant (or whatever the US equivalent is) didn't instruct the jury very clearly on what their job is going to be before the trial even started. From some of the pearl clutching shown, you'd be forgiven if you thought this was the first publicised trial in the history of the United States.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's pretty naive to think neither the Judge or Court Sergeant (or whatever the US equivalent is) didn't instruct the jury very clearly on what their job is going to be before the trial even started. From some of the pearl clutching shown, you'd be forgiven if you thought this was the first publicised trial in the history of the United States.

I don't think there's any instructions in the world that can remove the obvious greater context. Then they'd have to be super human. Which they're clearly not.

I think it's an absurd thing to think IMHO.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The one that you haven't offered any proof for; which is this Jury is being influenced by the possibility of riots. You can't even provide a case where any Jury ever ruled in a black person's favor in fear of ensuing riots.

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.

My position is defended by every Jury that ruled unfavorably to a black victim of police brutality. It's as if you're not aware that riots have happened multiple times and you don't seem to realize that those riots occurred after back-to-back unfavorable rulings.

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

 

[Elixir]

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

So we shouldn't have rulings, according to you. Just let police murder people willy nilly. Wouldn't want riots!

My position is not the one that is nuts here.

... according to the one who is nuts enough to think this case could go to the Supreme Court for a verdict. Sheesh.

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

As a default I assume that the one who is quoting himself (3x in one post) and then arguing what he himself said, is the nuts one.
You never explained how anyone is explicitly threatening a sequestered jury.
You also never responded to the FACT that right wing extremists threaten and murder people who they see as opposing white supremacy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So we shouldn't have rulings, according to you. Just let police murder people willy nilly. Wouldn't want riots!

NOOOOO! That's not what I'm saying. For fucks sake, is anybody capable of reading on this forum?

... according to the one who is nuts enough to think this case could go to the Supreme Court for a verdict. Sheesh.

Again... never said that. What I said was that it would be the only place we could ever hope for the resemblance of a fair trial.

You never explained how anyone is explicitly threatening a sequestered jury.

Again.. never said they were. You just made that up.

You also never responded to the FACT that right wing extremists threaten and murder people who they see as opposing white supremacy.

Yes, I am aware of this. I'm not sure why you brought it up. But yes, that is also a fact, I agree.