George Floyd murderer's trial

[Jarhyn]

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



... 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.

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

Personally I'm more than a little pissed off there aren't such threats of riots in more situations, like when that pedophile who raped his own daughter got no punishment because he wouldn't do well in prison.

 

[Gun Nut]

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?

What part of the Pulmonology expert's testimony on day 9 that what Geaorge Floyed was subjected to by the police officers would certainly have killed ANY HEALTHY PERSON implies to you that drugs contributed to his death in any legally material way?

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

I think they should stick with what they've got, which is an unfair trial, because it's the best of possible worlds. Given this situation.

Personally I'm more than a little pissed off there aren't such threats of riots in more situations, like when that pedophile who raped his own daughter got no punishment because he wouldn't do well in prison.

Then you're advocating mob justice. Which I'm sure you'd be less happy about if the people who were rioting were members of the KKK. Am I right?

Usually when there's outrageous court rulings it's a media product. Journalists having misrepresented the case. I don't know about the particular case you mention. But under closer scrutiny courts tend to do a good job. At least much better than what they are portrayed as doing.

 

[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.

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.

Really?

You really need to learn how juries are selected and what their instructions from the court are. Watching Law and Order and projecting your own reservations on 12 people have never met and most likely will never meet doesn't count.

 

[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.

Really?

You really need to learn how juries are selected and what their instructions from the court are. Watching Law and Order and projecting your own reservations on 12 people have never met and most likely will never meet doesn't count.

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.

 

[Patooka]

Really?

You really need to learn how juries are selected and what their instructions from the court are. Watching Law and Order and projecting your own reservations on 12 people have never met and most likely will never meet doesn't count.

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.

Not what I said. It is entirely possible to see something in the news and then view said incident with fresh eyes as the evidence is being presented in front of you. Happens all the time.

I've got to ask, how do you think juries are selected in the states? Do you think it is just a letter in the mail saying what trial you'll be part of with a simple, "turn up at 8am on Monday"? Is that how you think the process works?

I'm quite serious, how do you think this particular jury was selected, and then what instructions do you think they were given?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Really?

You really need to learn how juries are selected and what their instructions from the court are. Watching Law and Order and projecting your own reservations on 12 people have never met and most likely will never meet doesn't count.

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.

Not what I said. It is entirely possible to see something in the news and then view said incident with fresh eyes as the evidence is being presented in front of you. Happens all the time.

I've got to ask, how do you think juries are selected in the states? Do you think it is just a letter in the mail saying what trial you'll be part of with a simple, "turn up at 8am on Monday"? Is that how you think the process works?

I'm quite serious, how do you think this particular jury was selected, and then what instructions do you think they were given?

Why is it relevant? These won't be professional jurors these are laypeople. That's the basis of the American system. Which is great in some regards. Less good in others. Like this

 

[Elixir]

Not what I said. It is entirely possible to see something in the news and then view said incident with fresh eyes as the evidence is being presented in front of you. Happens all the time.

I've got to ask, how do you think juries are selected in the states? Do you think it is just a letter in the mail saying what trial you'll be part of with a simple, "turn up at 8am on Monday"? Is that how you think the process works?

I'm quite serious, how do you think this particular jury was selected, and then what instructions do you think they were given?

Why is it relevant?

The relevance would be obvious if you were to ever address the question.
Kinda like your insistence that the SCOTUS should mete out justice in this case, it would show your ignorance about how things actually work.

 

[southernhybrid]

Right now, there is a highly educated and experienced cardiologist explaining in great detail how what happened to Floyd was the result of how he was restrained by Chauvin. He just stated that Floyd's death was not from a drug overdosage or a primary cardiac event. He studied all of Floyd's medical records as well as the autopsy report. This is just more evidence that Chauvin killed Floyd, whether that was his intention or not.

This witness is excellent in that he has explained in great detail how and why he has come to the conclusion that Floyd's death was unrelated to his prior medical condition or to drugs.

 

[Elixir]

Right now, there is a highly educated and experienced cardiologist explaining in great detail how what happened to Floyd was the result of how he was restrained by Chauvin. He just stated that Floyd's death was not from a drug overdosage or a primary cardiac event. He studied all of Floyd's medical records as well as the autopsy report. This is just more evidence that Chauvin killed Floyd, whether that was his intention or not.

This witness is excellent in that he has explained in great detail how and why he has come to the conclusion that Floyd's death was unrelated to his prior medical condition or to drugs.

I've been wondering if the defense will be able to conjure up some "equal and opposite" experts to testify that George wold have died later that day even if he had not been murdered.

 

[Gun Nut]

Right now, there is a highly educated and experienced cardiologist explaining in great detail how what happened to Floyd was the result of how he was restrained by Chauvin. He just stated that Floyd's death was not from a drug overdosage or a primary cardiac event. He studied all of Floyd's medical records as well as the autopsy report. This is just more evidence that Chauvin killed Floyd, whether that was his intention or not.

This witness is excellent in that he has explained in great detail how and why he has come to the conclusion that Floyd's death was unrelated to his prior medical condition or to drugs.

I've been wondering if the defense will be able to conjure up some "equal and opposite" experts to testify that George wold have died later that day even if he had not been murdered.

Of course they will. It's all they got. The defense is building their case to minimize the impact of the cops actions by creating the possibility that drugs contributed to his death... its the difference between some years in jail and a lot of years in jail. They know they can't win on the idea that the cop did everything correctly.... they have to go with a "only partly responsible" position.

 

[Gun Nut]

Right now, there is a highly educated and experienced cardiologist explaining in great detail how what happened to Floyd was the result of how he was restrained by Chauvin. He just stated that Floyd's death was not from a drug overdosage or a primary cardiac event. He studied all of Floyd's medical records as well as the autopsy report. This is just more evidence that Chauvin killed Floyd, whether that was his intention or not.

This witness is excellent in that he has explained in great detail how and why he has come to the conclusion that Floyd's death was unrelated to his prior medical condition or to drugs.

So that is three of the top doctors in the world.. a cardiologist, a pulmonologist, and a toxicologist.... they ALL say that drugs were not a factor in his death in any way whatsoever. Two were quite clear that ANY HEALTHY PERSON would have died from his treatment by the cops.

I imagine the defense will find a Fox News contributor that once wrote an opinion piece on drug use that will testify that Floyd was already dead before the cops arrived, based on a viewing of 1 frame from from the millions of frames of video evidence.
They (the defense) already tried that with the Pulmonologist.. They showed a frame where the cop's knee wasn;t on his neck.. to which the Pulminologist clearly pointed out the number of frames with the knee on, and those without... and the timing.. Basically, they were wanting the jury to dwell on a fraction of second within the 9 minute murder. The doctor destroyed them on that one with total duration of time spent compressing the neck (it was 7 out of 9 minutes... but he was dead in less than 9).

 

[Elixir]

Right now, there is a highly educated and experienced cardiologist explaining in great detail how what happened to Floyd was the result of how he was restrained by Chauvin. He just stated that Floyd's death was not from a drug overdosage or a primary cardiac event. He studied all of Floyd's medical records as well as the autopsy report. This is just more evidence that Chauvin killed Floyd, whether that was his intention or not.

This witness is excellent in that he has explained in great detail how and why he has come to the conclusion that Floyd's death was unrelated to his prior medical condition or to drugs.

I've been wondering if the defense will be able to conjure up some "equal and opposite" experts to testify that George wold have died later that day even if he had not been murdered.

Of course they will. It's all they got. The defense is building their case to minimize the impact of the cops actions by creating the possibility that drugs contributed to his death... its the difference between some years in jail and a lot of years in jail. They know they can't win on the idea that the cop did everything correctly.... they have to go with a "only partly responsible" position.

I'm sure you're right. Or at least "partly right".
What remains to be seen is just how extreme their experts' testimony will be. Will the defense be content to construe the police action as a minor contributor to Floyd's demise, or will their claims go as far as to say or imply that what the police did actually extended Floyd's life? That will depend on their assessment of the intelligence of the least intelligent of the jurors. They only need one...

 

[southernhybrid]

I watched a few minutes of the defense cross examining the cardiologist. He kept asking him hypotheticals, like, "isn't it possible that someone could die from heart attack if they had a partial arterial blockage..." The doctor responded with something like, "everybody is going to die, so yes hypothetically speaking that is possible, but it's not what happened in this case". Not his exact words but similar. I had to call a friend so I never finished watching the rest of the defenses attempt to turn things around.

 

[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.

 

[Treedbear]

Not what I said. It is entirely possible to see something in the news and then view said incident with fresh eyes as the evidence is being presented in front of you. Happens all the time.

I've got to ask, how do you think juries are selected in the states? Do you think it is just a letter in the mail saying what trial you'll be part of with a simple, "turn up at 8am on Monday"? Is that how you think the process works?

I'm quite serious, how do you think this particular jury was selected, and then what instructions do you think they were given?

Why is it relevant? These won't be professional jurors these are laypeople. That's the basis of the American system. Which is great in some regards. Less good in others. Like this

For what it's worth there was some discussion on quora.com: What is the possibility that Derek Chauvin, the now former MPD police officer, will avoid a jury trial and instead face a trial by judge? Does he have that option? Here's a snippet (my bolding).

The right to waive a jury trial is not absolute.

” In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial.

Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant have a waiver of jury trial.

However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial. “ Wikipedia.

Assuming that the case will be held under Minnesota law in a Minnesota Court, it is harder to refuse a court trial.

”(2) Waiver of Trial by Jury.

(a) Waiver on the Issue of Guilt. The defendant, with the approval of the court, may waive a jury trial on the issue of guilt provided the defendant does so personally, in writing or on the record in open court, after being advised by the court of the right to trial by jury, and after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

(b) Waiver on the Issue of an Aggravated Sentence. Where the prosecutor seeks an aggravated sentence, the defendant, with the approval of the court, may waive a jury trial on the facts in support of an aggravated sentence provided the defendant does so personally, in writing or on the record in open court, after being advised by the court of the right to a trial by jury, and after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

(c) Waiver Necessitated by Prejudicial Publicity. The defendant must be permitted to waive a jury trial whenever the court determines:

(i) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived that right; and

(ii) reason exists to believe that, because of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, the waiver must be granted to assure a fair trial.

(3) Withdrawal of Jury-Trial Waiver. The defendant may withdraw the waiver of a jury trial any time before trial begins.” Minnesota Court Rules from Rule 26.01.

The cost of a jury trial is substantially greater than that of a court or judge trial, so the prosecution generally favors court trials, also the judge is, perhaps, less likely to be swayed by emotional arguments.
Despite the assertion that Mr. Chauvin would be unable to get a fair trial due to publicity, many well known trial lawyers would always seek a jury, believing that their skills have a greater chance of persuading a jury.

So it might well be that despite all the potential for built in bias the lawyers still think they can manipulate the circumstances to their advantage. With the jury selection process for instance.

 

[Trausti]

For what it's worth there was some discussion on quora.com: What is the possibility that Derek Chauvin, the now former MPD police officer, will avoid a jury trial and instead face a trial by judge? Does he have that option? Here's a snippet (my bolding).

The right to waive a jury trial is not absolute.

” In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial.

Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant have a waiver of jury trial.

However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial. “ Wikipedia.

Assuming that the case will be held under Minnesota law in a Minnesota Court, it is harder to refuse a court trial.

”(2) Waiver of Trial by Jury.

(a) Waiver on the Issue of Guilt. The defendant, with the approval of the court, may waive a jury trial on the issue of guilt provided the defendant does so personally, in writing or on the record in open court, after being advised by the court of the right to trial by jury, and after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

(b) Waiver on the Issue of an Aggravated Sentence. Where the prosecutor seeks an aggravated sentence, the defendant, with the approval of the court, may waive a jury trial on the facts in support of an aggravated sentence provided the defendant does so personally, in writing or on the record in open court, after being advised by the court of the right to a trial by jury, and after having had an opportunity to consult with counsel.

(c) Waiver Necessitated by Prejudicial Publicity. The defendant must be permitted to waive a jury trial whenever the court determines:

(i) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived that right; and

(ii) reason exists to believe that, because of the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material, the waiver must be granted to assure a fair trial.

(3) Withdrawal of Jury-Trial Waiver. The defendant may withdraw the waiver of a jury trial any time before trial begins.” Minnesota Court Rules from Rule 26.01.

The cost of a jury trial is substantially greater than that of a court or judge trial, so the prosecution generally favors court trials, also the judge is, perhaps, less likely to be swayed by emotional arguments.
Despite the assertion that Mr. Chauvin would be unable to get a fair trial due to publicity, many well known trial lawyers would always seek a jury, believing that their skills have a greater chance of persuading a jury.

So it might well be that despite all the potential for built in bias the lawyers still think they can manipulate the circumstances to their advantage. With the jury selection process for instance.

You'd want a jury trial because in Minnesota, at least, the jury must be unanimous. Get one juror on your side, and it's a hung jury. (What, all men?)

 

[blastula]

Really?

You really need to learn how juries are selected and what their instructions from the court are. Watching Law and Order and projecting your own reservations on 12 people have never met and most likely will never meet doesn't count.

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.

Same goes for Supreme Court justices. You've given no reason to think a trial before the Supreme Court (which they never do anyway) would lack any of the pressures you are so fearful of in this case.

 

[Elixir]

Really?

You really need to learn how juries are selected and what their instructions from the court are. Watching Law and Order and projecting your own reservations on 12 people have never met and most likely will never meet doesn't count.

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.

Same goes for Supreme Court justices. You've given no reason to think a trial before the Supreme Court (which they never do anyway) would lack any of the pressures you are so fearful of in this case.

The elephant in Dr. Z's parlor is that when someone commits a cold-blooded murder with witnesses and evidence galore, justice consists of determining the appropriate punishment, not in creating a coin-flip situation regarding their guilt or innocence.

 

[J842P]

You can reasonably argue about the fairness inherent in a trial like this. But to call the Chauvin trial "mob justice" is profoundly ignorant. It is hyperbolic to the point where it becomes impossible to take your opinions seriously. Here is an example of mob justice:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jul/19/jotuckman

Eight people have been beaten, hacked and burned to death in a remote region of Guatemala in a renewed bout of the kind of mob rule that has become increasingly common since a peace pact ended the country's civil war in 1996.

The victims were thought to have belonged to a gang responsible for robberies along dirt roads linking small communities in a southern corner of the vast jungle-covered northern region of Peten.

Local people had captured a 17-year-old youth on Sunday during an assault on a grain truck and forced him to name his accomplices before handing him to the police. According to local press reports, the local people took those named by the youth from their homes to a deserted area near the village of Secoyab, where a crowd of about 2,000 set about them with clubs and machetes before dousing them in diesel and setting them alight.

It is your responsibility to choose your words carefully.