Derek Chauvin found guilty on all counts in the murder of George Floyd

[Crazy Cat 42,561]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Could any of the esteemed potential armchair jurors in this thread tell us if they watched the actual trial?

I watched Maxine Waters tamper with the jury.......

Edited April 21, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[Dashinka 24,888]

25 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Could any of the esteemed potential armchair jurors in this thread tell us if they watched the actual trial?

Are you suggesting we cannot post our opinion?  I don't think Old Joe watched the actual trial yet he felt the need to comment.  The jury made their decision, it is what it is, but that does not mean there won't be questions.  Heck, even the judge thought it was important enough to call out Maxine the Mouth.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dashinka

[Boiler 46,270]

What I would like to see is some consequences for the Politicians in charge.

[yuna628 9,744]

14 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Are you suggesting we cannot post our opinion?  I don't think Old Joe watched the actual trial yet he felt the need to comment.  The jury made their decision, it is what it is, but that does not mean there won't be questions.  Heck, even the judge thought it was important enough to call out Maxine the Mouth.

Certainly not. Just asking a simple question.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

I have not meet one person who thought what Chauvin did was ok or that he should not be convicted 

 

The only sad part is that, now a drug addicted sexual predator is now a hero to so many

[Boiler 46,270]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I have not meet one person who thought what Chauvin did was ok or that he should not be convicted 

 

The only sad part is that, now a drug addicted sexual predator is now a hero to so many

Hunter?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,386]

Just now, Boiler said:

Hunter?

well he was not who I had in mind but he does fit the bill. cept I doubt he is a hero to any

[Boiler 46,270]

Just now, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

well he was not who I had in mind but he does fit the bill. cept I doubt he is a hero to any

You may be disappointed.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

14 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Would like to hear Maven's thoughts about this analysis, from an attorney:

https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2021/04/20/after-the-derek-chauvin-verdict-initial-thoughts-and-what-comes-next-n365446

Surprisingly evenhanded for Redstate! I don't disagree with it, in the sense that it's a primer on the procedural aspects of what juries do. I have nothing to say about whether cops will retire as a result of the conviction. If anything, I have been reading about how very many police officers, sheriffs and deputies have come forward to say that was not good policing under any stretch of the imagination. There is still honor in the job, and if this conviction is a reminder that officers who do not adhere to policing standards can be culpable for crimes they commit under color of law, so be it. 

 

7 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

I think he will get a re-trial.......thanks to Maxine Waters.  

Quite unlikely. I encourage you to read the piece in Slate I link to above. I do not condone her comments, which I think were highly unhelpful. But she does have the right to make such comments, and their import is unlikely to be such that they could have influenced any of the jurors' decisions in the circumstances they were made. It is one thing for a judge to say Chauvin has grounds for an appeal on the basis of her comments, and another to assume that they will be sufficient for a new trial to be ordered. The judge is, of course, just giving his own opinion here. It is not up to him whether an appeal is granted or not, but rather it's the role of the Court of Appeals in Minnesota.

 

2 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

I watched Maxine Waters tamper with the jury.......

Very likely incorrect. I refer you to the relevant Minnesota statute on what constitutes jury tampering in that state: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.498 It is a far, far reach to get to even third degree jury tampering. Where was the intimidation of the jurors themselves inside of her comments? Don't stretch to get there -- use a common sense, plain reading of the statute. 

 

More generally, I would remind everyone that it is very, very difficult to disturb a verdict, either through a motion for a new trial, or on appeal. On appeal, the court will likely not be looking to the facts of the case (the facts is the facts, and unless there was something glaringly wrong going on, that's not a road to go down), but to the law. Where new trials frequently happen is when the jury instructions are faulty in some way -- the law was misstated, an element of a crime or cause of action is omitted, etc. These look like technicalities but the jury instructions must be legally correct or the defendant is not afforded his or her due process. Maxine Waters' statements, while unhelpful, don't mean squat, to use a very learned legal term.

[sl1pstream 551]

5 hours ago, OriTbd said:

it's definitely a bs, politically motivated, based on public perception and pressure and detached from actual facts verdict.

The facts show, on actual video everyone watched with their own eyes, that he murdered someone. If by public perception you mean that the public actually saw him murder someone on video and that it's impossible to think that he didn't even before hearing the testimonies in this trial, then yes, you're right.

If you, after all this you still think he's innocent, then I'm not sure you get to call anything or anyone else politically motivated.

Edited April 21, 2021 by sl1pstream

[OriZ 3,157]

6 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I have not meet one person who thought what Chauvin did was ok or that he should not be convicted 

 

The only sad part is that, now a drug addicted sexual predator is now a hero to so many

Convicted of what? That's the question. Was it murder? I don't think it was 

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

The facts show, on actual video everyone watched with their own eyes, that he murdered someone. If by public perception you mean that the public actually saw him murder someone on video and that it's impossible to think that he didn't even before hearing the testimonies in this trial, then yes, you're right.

If you, after all this you still think he's innocent, then I'm not sure you get to call anything or anyone else politically motivated.

Nope, wrong. Reread my comment. Being innocent vs committing murder vs manslaughter 3 totally different things. 

[OriZ 3,157]

8 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Could any of the esteemed potential armchair jurors in this thread tell us if they watched the actual trial?

Yup, what did I miss? How in your opinion did they prove it was murder? Serious question 

[arken 4,197]

8 minutes ago, OriTbd said:

Yup, what did I miss? How in your opinion did they prove it was murder? Serious question 

I believe if the officer had stopped kneeling on Flyod right after he passed out and tried to help him, the juror would not have convicted on 2nd degree murder charge, may be just the lower two convictions. The fact that he stayed the same way for 4 more minutes even after he passed out, even after other officer said "no pulse" could be the major factor in 2nd degree murder conviction in jurys' eyes.

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, arken said:

I believe if the officer had stopped kneeling on Flyod right after he passed out and tried to help him, the juror would not have convicted on 2nd degree murder charge, may be just the lower two convictions. The fact that he stayed the same way for 4 more minutes even after he passed out, even after other officer said "no pulse" could be the major factor in 2nd degree murder conviction in jurys' eyes.

This is why I think manslaughter. How does it prove murder though?