Chauvin Murder Trial

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty sure being handcuffed prone and unconscious with a man on your neck is enough to render anyone a non threat. I've been there.

Chauvin was tried for and convicted of the crimes he committed -after- that moment. Had he climbed off the man at any point prior to his death, or in fact delivered(or dispatched) timely medical aid, it's unlikely that charges even could have been filed, and a jury would almost certainly have acquitted him if they were - that's routine.

You don't have to be a physiologist, and you don't have to have been there, though, to know that a man in restraints laying unconscious on his face under another man has ceased to be whatever threat he may have once been. Floyd will, in fact, never be a threat to anyone again, on account of how he is dead. Chauvin...well, juries out on that one, and he's not going to serve life. I'm guessing that it won't surprise you to hear that cops who go out like this have a tendency to meet up with the boys in blue again in future, on the other side of the thin blue line. Mostly for assault, domestic battery, dui's, drugs, that sort of shit. Haven't checked to see whether or not they try to pass a fake 20 at more or less the rate of the gp.

Point being, there was only one dangerous savage that needed to be put down in this altercation, and it wasn't the man who died. Where's a cop when you need one, right? Rhetorical, we already know - he's on the other guys neck, and forming a perimeter for the kneck kneeler to kneel on knecks. He's telling emts to fuck off and mind their own business. He's blatantly lying in a press release about the incident. That sort of shit, important police work.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. Well, the defense lawyer but thats his job. I meant in this conversation.

I said nothing about his defense lawyer. I said the cop couldn't use his violent history as a justification "overreact " thus I wasn't talking about this conversation.

2. That is a *very* specific claim. Are you qualified enough on this persons physiology to discern at what dosage that delicate balance could be achieved? Because I sure as hell wouldn't hazard a guess.

Consider that's where the evidence points yes. 

3. Right but when are you going to make good ones?

Nah they all been good. The same cannot be said for your objections so far.

4. As in the cam footage doesn't give you a great view of the scene alot of the time. Why would my point be that you are Mr. Magoo? Come on, dude.

What the hell are you on about. You asked if I watched the video and I said I did and that it doesn't counter my points. So your just uttering nonsense here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Really, the objection boils down to the same sort of misapprehension before with regards to intent. Not only does second degree murder not require intent, it does not require that the person be a specimen of health. It doesn't even require that the actions caused the death, only that they contributed to it.

A man with a bad heart might not survive an assault that a healthier man would. OFC, the defense also tried the super negro theory - I think they should pick a lane. Either he was an unstoppable gorilla, or he was about to drop dead that very moment.

[Mister Agenda]

I've got a bad ticker, I would be surprised if I didn't die if I were restrained that way for so long. I don't see that as making it okay for someone to kill me that way.

[The Grand Nudger]

No human being can take that- and I've gotta say, he put more effort into it than he needed to. The man was prone and cuffed - it's not like he could have dodged a bullet or two in the back at that point - and it would have been a more merciful end.

We obviously can't expect justice from a rival gang in blue - but it's depressing that we can't even hope for the cold and calculating mercy of a committed killer. Floyd was tortured to death.

[Pat Mustard]

You can consider me anything you like, but I'm wondering whether you did or did not suggest those things.  

Apparently, I didn't misunderstand you.  You did suggest the jury was tainted.  Now you suggest conspiracy.  Stuff that noise.  I think that the jury convicted him because they watched him commit the crimes which he was charged with on tape.  You're suggesting that they convicted him because they feared the mob might do something to them otherwise.

So that's one down.  Next?

Rhetorical question: Why would the violent mob want to hurt the jury if they falsely stated Chauvin was guilty? We saw in January that he's the kind of criminal they look up to.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd be more afraid of a maggat offing me for a guilty verdict than a protestor beaning me with a rock for an innocent one, personally. If fear of the one is compelling what does that say about fear of the other? Still, as I said, I think the jury convicted based on the prosecutions case and the evidence before them regardless of whether they feared this or that loon from one camp or another was going to kill them no matter what they said.

That would be a very fair trial by a competent jury of ones peers. So, good luck getting a retrial on the negro threat theory. I mean that, I really do. I think they should bury him under a prison but I'm still rooting for him as a ward of the state.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Correcting myself:

I stated earlier in this thread that Chauvin could serve a maximum of 75 years in prison if the sentences for his convictions are served consecutively. That was wrong. He will only be sentenced for the most serious of the convictions (second degree murder) and sentences for the other two will be subsumed into it. Thus, the MOST he could potentially serve would be 40 years.

Mea maxima culpa.

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

You can consider me anything you like, but I'm wondering whether you did or did not suggest those things.  

Apparently, I didn't misunderstand you.  You did suggest the jury was tainted.  Now you suggest conspiracy.  Stuff that noise.  I think that the jury convicted him because they watched him commit the crimes which he was charged with on tape.  You're suggesting that they convicted him because they feared the mob might do something to them otherwise.

So that's one down.  Next?

Rhetorical question:  Why would the violent mob want to hurt the jury if they falsely stated Chauvin was guilty?  We saw in January that he's the kind of criminal they look up to.

I meant to say "not guilty" there. Whoops.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Alternate juror who did not know they were an alternate

Raguse: Did you want to be a juror?

Christensen: I had mixed feelings. There was a question on the questionnaire about it and I put I did not know. The reason, at that time, was I did not know what the outcome was going to be, so I felt like either way you are going to disappoint one group or the other. I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/loca...72620b9f18