(April 23, 2021 at 6:57 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 23, 2021 at 6:49 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: You know exactly what I meant. Stop pretending. If someone in the mob threatens a witness, would you be saying that that is irrelevant since the person says they would have voted the way the mob wanted them to anyways? You like the BLM mob so you're giving them a pass. You don't like the Italian mob so you would not give them a pass.

I’m saying that her voting her conscience is a sign of fairness. If she voted ‘guilty’ only out of fear, that would be unfair.

You can’t accept what she said about her concerns regarding civil unrest and at the same time reject what she said about how she decided her vote. She’s either credible or she isn’t. 

And I don’t give organised criminals a pass regardless their national origin or ethnicity, I just don’t view BLM as a criminal organisation.

Boru

We don't know how the fear of people showing up at their houses could have subconsciously had an impact on any jurors thinking. Just because this alternate juror says it wouldn't have had anything to do with her decision, that doesn't make it so. It could have had a subconscious impact on her thinking that she is not consciously aware of.

Either way, there should be no reason for us to not agree that jurors fearing for their safety is a worthy issue to bring up. No juror should fear for their safety.

Quote:We don't know how the fear of people showing up at their houses could have subconsciously had an impact on any jurors thinking. 

There is no evidence of this.

Quote:Just because this alternate juror says it wouldn't have had anything to do with her decision, that doesn't make it so.

Ahh, so she's only credible when she affirms your narrative.

Quote: It could have had a subconscious impact on her thinking that she is not consciously aware of.

Again there is no evidence of this.

Quote:Either way, there should be no reason for us to not agree that jurors fearing for their safety is not a worthy issue to bring up. No juror should fear for their safety

It isn't because there is no evidence it impacted her decision. You're just grasping at straws.

Frankly, given how much the prosecution destroyed the defense’s case, that neither the fentanyl nor any sort of carbon monoxide poisoning were responsible enough for his death to keep Chauvin from being liable for Floyd’s death, and that what Chauvin did was disproportionate to any sort of threat Floyd was posing, I doubt there was enough room for doubt for the threat of rioting to play a role in a guilty verdict.

It's three days after the verdict, and the light rail stations are still broadcasting warnings about possible service disruptions due to demonstrations, and most of the businesses that boarded up in anticipation of trouble are still boarded up. No idea when the third precinct is going to be rebuilt, and we still don't have a post office to replace the one that burned down. This town has been through the shit this year. Covid and a year of unending civil unrest. What a year.

---

After Chauvin's conviction for Floyd murder, DOJ weighs charging him for 2017 incident involving Black teen

Quote:Late last year, as a team of Minnesota state prosecutors was preparing for the trial that would ultimately convict former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin of murdering George Floyd, they received a series of videos depicting Chauvin's handling of another case three years earlier that by their own description shocked them.

According to ABC News, the videos, from Sept. 4, 2017, allegedly showed Chauvin striking a Black teenager in the head so hard that the boy needed stitches, then allegedly holding the boy down with his knee for nearly 17 minutes, and allegedly ignoring complaints from the boy that he couldn't breathe.

"Those videos show a far more violent and forceful treatment of this child than Chauvin describes in his report" of the incident, one of the state prosecutors, Matthew Frank, wrote in a court filing at the time.

Now, the U.S. Justice Department may do something that state prosecutors never did: charge Chauvin for the 2017 incident.

---

Judge orders Chauvin juror names sealed, citing risk of harassment

Quote:The judge who presided over Derek Chauvin’s murder trial ordered that the names of the jurors who handed down guilty verdicts against the former Minneapolis police officer remain secret until further notice.

In court documents made public on Friday, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill ordered that the jurors' identities be sealed for at least six months, citing concerns over possible unwanted publicity or harassment if their identities were made public.

The order will keep under wraps a list of the jury members who found Chauvin guilty of all three counts he faced, as well as their profiles and questionnaires, and the identities of alternate jurors.

(April 23, 2021 at 9:17 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It's three days after the verdict, and the light rail stations are still broadcasting warnings about possible service disruptions due to demonstrations, and most of the businesses that boarded up in anticipation of trouble are still boarded up.  No idea when the third precinct is going to be rebuilt, and we still don't have a post office to replace the one that burned down.  This town has been through the shit this year.  Covid and a year of unending civil unrest.  What a year.

---

After Chauvin's conviction for Floyd murder, DOJ weighs charging him for 2017 incident involving Black teen

Quote:Late last year, as a team of Minnesota state prosecutors was preparing for the trial that would ultimately convict former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin of murdering George Floyd, they received a series of videos depicting Chauvin's handling of another case three years earlier that by their own description shocked them.

According to ABC News, the videos, from Sept. 4, 2017, allegedly showed Chauvin striking a Black teenager in the head so hard that the boy needed stitches, then allegedly holding the boy down with his knee for nearly 17 minutes, and allegedly ignoring complaints from the boy that he couldn't breathe.

"Those videos show a far more violent and forceful treatment of this child than Chauvin describes in his report" of the incident, one of the state prosecutors, Matthew Frank, wrote in a court filing at the time.

Now, the U.S. Justice Department may do something that state prosecutors never did: charge Chauvin for the 2017 incident.

My rather elderly aunt and uncle are in the area...one of the 'burbs.  I've been a bit concerned for their safety though I would be more so if COVID weren't keeping them close to home.

And for those of us in the cheap seats, among others, the prosecution cited EIGHT current and former police officers (Ret. Sgt. David Pleoger, Lt. Richard Zimmerman, Chief Medaria Arradondo, Inspector Katie Blackwell, Sgt. Ker Yang, Lt. Johnny Mercil, Sergeant Jody Stiger LAPD, Seth Stoughto) who all testified that the sort of restraint exhibited at the scene was well beyond any reasonable standard (Blackwell is the commander of the Training Division of the Minneapolis PD, by the by), and SIX medical and chemical professionals who testified that what they found with Floyd was a death consistent with, well, what the Mainstream Media is saying (Susan Neith, Michael J. Tobin, Daniel Isenschmid, Bill Smock, Lindsey Thomas, Andrew Baker, and Jonathan Rich), and the ones I put in bold were there to specifically testify that the facts of Floyd's death are not consistent with a fentanyl overdose. And when people started floating the idea that it was car exhaust that killed him (even though the car in question, a Ford Explorer, is a hybrid whose gas engine wouldn't even turn on when it's idling), Tobin was there to explain that the Carbon Monoxide levels in his blood were at normal levels. Also, Baker was the author of the notoriously obtuse official Hennepin County coroner's report that Chauvin's defenders claim exonerates him, even though it really doesn't, and he outright stated it. So, we have 8 officers who testified that Chauvin's use of force was too extreme, and 6 medical/chemical professionals who pointed out that he was asphyxiated and his death wasn't due to fentanyl. And that's less than half of the witnesses for the prosecution.

Meanwhile, here's the total list of the defense's witnesses:

• Scott Creighton and Michelle Mosang, an officer and paramedic involved in Floyd's 2019 traffic stop, something that could not have been known by Chauvin at the time, and, if you're claiming the fact that he claimed claustrophobia in both cases demonstrates a pattern, need I remind you that one of those times, Floyd fucking DIED.
  
• Shawanda Hill, A woman who was in Floyd's SUV and woke him up to inform him of the cops.
  
• Peter Chang, A Minneapolis Park police officer who thought the bystanders were too aggressive towards Chauvin.
  
• Nicole Mackenzie, A police officer who explained what excited delirium was and had previously been called by the prosecution.
  
• Barry Brodd, A former police officer who claimed that Chauvin was acting with a reasonable standard of self-defense and in accordance with Minneapolis PD policy and current standards of law enforcement, in apparent defiance of the aforementioned 8 cops, including several current MPD officers whose area of expertise is use of force, a number that is, coincidentally, more than the total number of witnesses called for the defense.
  
• David Fowler, a former who appears to be one of those "experts for hire" who'll tell the jury what they think whoever's paying them wants them to hear, in this case, that it was Floyd's bad heart that killed him and not Chauvin, and gave the same testimony for a very similar case in 2018.
  

And, bear in mind, that's literally everyone the defense called to the stand. And I'm not even getting into the videos of the event entered into evidence.

So, yeah, just keep telling yourself the jury made their decision because they feared for their lives. And not because the evidence pointed strongly towards a guilty verdict.

This was posted by Min over at AD. It's what the police dept. release initially said.

(April 24, 2021 at 12:33 pm)Angrboda Wrote: This was posted by Min over at AD.  It's what the police dept. release initially said.

Sounds fine. Covers all the salient points of the incident and appears to be as true and accurate as the initial report of the Breonna Taylor incident.

Nothing to see here.

Boru

To be fair, I don't think any of the details are technically wrong, per se. Sure seems to be leaving a Hell of a lot out, though...

Quote:So, yeah, just keep telling yourself the jury made their decision because they feared for their lives. And not because the evidence pointed strongly towards a guilty verdict.

Who told themselves that? Could have and might have are quite different from did.

I never thought it would be controversial to state that jurors shouldn't fear for their safety.