Chauvin Murder Trial

[Reforged]

Would you like to continue our discussion of those other things you suggested, which you claim not to have suggested, or?  

Look, I'm not trying to drag you over the coals here - I just get impatient when people bullshit me or, worse, themselves.  I'm sure that we, together, could resolve your misapprehensions of the chauvin trial and verdict.

Dude, theres an easy way to figure this out.
My point is the trial was exposed to enough outside influence that an appeal could succeed and get a retrial. Thats my only point.
If I'm right there will be a retrial and I can come back here and give you guys a big old hug.
You all really seem like you need one.

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree. I'm sure that the defense will claim as much (and it would be a travesty if he didn't), but politicians voicing an opinion and people having thoughts about a trial don't actually rise to the legal standard of a tainted jury.

I think that they convicted him for what they plainly saw him do, on tape. Even if people threatened a juror - so long as that juror maintains that they made their verdict on the basis of the prosecutions argument and the evidence at hand, it won't be grounds.

Otherwise, every crook and their brother would pay some rando to threaten a juror and our system couldn't touch them. Following?

[Reforged]

I disagree.  I'm sure that the defense will claim as much (and it would be a travesty if he didn't), but politicians voicing an opinion and people having thoughts about a trial don't actually rise to the legal standard of a tainted jury.

Alone? No. But then you have a plausible threat of riot in the hometown of *all* the jurors, the fact they would be aware of that plausible threat and them seeing the officials borderline egging it on?
Even if you don't think thats enough to influence them thats definitely grounds to say there definitely could have been. No judge in the land will deny that.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. Who trying to justify anything? A crime was committed, the question is what crime. 

I mean the cops justifying it.

2. Really? Not enough to put a little extra strain on him? Not enough to make him just vulnerable enough to die to a level of force he wouldn't usually? Are you sure? Because the toxicology seemed to indicate the drugs weren't enough to kill him by themselves.

I clearly said it was enough to render him a nonthreat. But nowhere near enough to have seriously contributed to his death.

3. Sure, that's why you're stuck making points to someone who doesn't care either way.

Me making points does not imply a debate. You can make points on things that are settled beyond doubt. As for your lack of interest that really doesn't change much.

4. Sort of my point, it doesn't change anything because you can barely see anything half the time.

You don't have a point so far. It doesn't change anything because it doesn't alter my points. And my sight is not at fault here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, I think that they convicted him based on the prosecutions argument and the evidence at hand.

They saw a man who assualted another man and by his extreme recklessness lead to that other mans death. This was the charge they considered, in plain english. What do you think?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Again, I think that they convicted him based on the prosecutions argument and the evidence at hand.  

They saw a man who assualted another man and by his extreme recklessness lead to that other mans death.  This was the charge they considered, in plain english.  What do you think?

No, no nefarious outside influences that are the cause 

[Angrboda]

So, were you not aware that he was initially resisting arrest? Because that’s been a matter of public record for months. How exactly did watching that part change your perspective on the case? I legit want to know, because, so far, Your explanation really hasn’t been much of an explanation.

I haven't given an explanation. I'll respond more in full later, but while I was aware that Floyd had resisted getting into the car, I wasn't aware of how agitated he became when put in the car, nor how he was dragged out the other side of the car. I had the impression that his resistance was much more mild, and given that many of those emphasizing his resistance were defending Chauvin had presumed them a bit exaggerated. The news here focused on the 9 minutes. I'd never seen the footage of Floyd resisting, as I initially noted.

[onlinebiker]

So, were you not aware that he was initially resisting arrest? Because that’s been a matter of public record for months. How exactly did watching that part change your perspective on the case? I legit want to know, because, so far, Your explanation really hasn’t been much of an explanation.

I haven't given an explanation.  I'll respond more in full later, but while I was aware that Floyd had resisted getting into the car, I wasn't aware of how agitated he became when put in the car, nor how he was dragged out the other side of the car.  I had the impression that his resistance was much more mild, and given that many of those emphasizing his resistance were defending Chauvin had presumed them a bit exaggerated.  The news here focused on the 9 minutes.  I'd never seen the footage of Floyd resisting, as I initially noted.

Editing changes context.

It's how they form public opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

How about being wrong on an issue of fact - has that changed your perception of chauvins guilt for the charges he's been convicted on?

[Reforged]

1. Who trying to justify anything? A crime was committed, the question is what crime. 

I mean the cops justifying it.

2. Really? Not enough to put a little extra strain on him? Not enough to make him just vulnerable enough to die to a level of force he wouldn't usually? Are you sure? Because the toxicology seemed to indicate the drugs weren't enough to kill him by themselves.

I clearly said it was enough to render him a nonthreat. But nowhere near enough to have seriously contributed to his death.

3. Sure, that's why you're stuck making points to someone who doesn't care either way.

Me making points does not imply a debate. You can make points on things that are settled beyond doubt. As for your lack of interest that really doesn't change much.

4. Sort of my point, it doesn't change anything because you can barely see anything half the time.

You don't have a point so far. It doesn't change anything because it doesn't alter my points. And my sight is not at fault here.

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

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

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.