Chauvin: GUILTY on all 3 counts
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
- Status
eider
Well-known member
Well don't go on about it then.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
In what way was I "going on about it"?
Lon
Well-known member
Motive for doing so is difficult. If he could demonstrate that he and Floyd had had an encounter where he was afraid if George ever got up, it'd not be manslaughter. I'm sad that the courtroom was so publicized. Politics always (without fail, I believe) interfere with justice. This thread, for instance, is it about politics or about justice for Floyd and/or Chauvin? The goal is something overt, no? It really is why I seldom do Politics. They are almost always 'taking sides'/ posturing.
There is going to have to be a retrial now. There is no question politics have interfered in justice. I think what HAD to be demonstrated was 'intent.' It 'seemed' rather, what was demonstrated was 'neglect' and that isn't enough for a manslaughter charge. We never did hear why Chauvin stayed on the neck 9 minutes. Such revelation could lower his charge to manslaughter even down to acquittal. I think a retrial without all the press and politician involvement will better serve justice. We simply have to see that Chauvin was a figurehead, and tried that way, for all AfroAmerican injustice. He cannot be the posterboy for 'how to treat black criminals from now on' and have justice at the same time. Chauvin cannot be that figurehead without usurping his need for actual justice for himself. Public outcry cannot influence a jury. It is going to necessarily have to go to retrial as far as I understand the law.
It used to be 'Protect and Serve' were on police vehicles. The 'war' on drugs has definitely restructured and realigned policemen duty, imho, in the wrong direction. Even a simple speeding stop is treated poorly because of a militaristic mindset. Presidents set agenda and 'war' on drugs set the national police force et al, more akin to National Guard and military maneuvers. It will take a presidential call to 'stand down' to protect and serve, I think. I don't think using Chauvin, for what is actually a National caused problem, is the right solution. It is attacking a symptom rather than the cause. Chauvin is a 'product' of a problematic, not the cause of it. It may be, yet, that he is guilty, but we never heard that (which is also the part of media driven politics instead of actual 'justice' reporting.
Last edited:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
The courtroom wasn't publicized. The prosecution made their case, and did it well. Don't take it from me, take it from one of the alternate jurors:
Lisa Christensen sat through every minute of the trial of Derek Chauvin as prosecutors and the defense each made their case in the killing of George Floyd.
She was an alternate juror, so she did not have a role in the verdict, but in an exclusive interview for "CBS This Morning," she said she was happy with the jury's decision to convict Chauvin after weeks of hard testimony...
"Why did you think he was guilty? What led you to that belief?" Yuccas asked.
"I just felt like the prosecution made a really good, strong argument. Dr. Tobin was the one that really did it for me. He explained everything. I understood it down to where he said this is the moment that he lost his life, really got to me," she replied.
During the 13 days of sometimes tense and emotional testimony and cross-examination, both the prosecution and defense promised the jury that they were going to prove their case, but Christensen said only one side did.
"So who made an impact with the defense? Good or bad?" Yuccas asked.
"I don't think they had a good impact," Christensen said in reference to Chauvin's defense team.
It's about justice Lon. Justice served.
Yes, we did hear that. The jury decided unanimously that he was guilty. The "actual justice reporting' was the televised trial. You could watch for yourself, or read transcribed accounts. Did you listen to or read any of the testimony from the trial?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It's very difficult to defend Chauvin's decision to continue the restraint after the point at which a pulse could no longer be found.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
I agree, but there has to be a proof of intent and it is always hard to do so with policemen who are authorized. What 'can' we prove? 1) that he went outside of police policy. Certainly he was negligent if not worse, but I don't remember that being proved. The jury may have had that information, the news just isn't very good at actually reporting justice.
Both when the reason and bent is focused on political interest instead of justice for both men. The politics 'assumed' guilt and brutality, but a court MUST delve into the mind of Chauvin for reason and motive. Until it does, this trial, at least as reported, was 'guilty until proven innocent.' For sure Politics and media pushed that 'guilty' agenda and it is against the judicial directive.
Which doesn't mean anything. Literally. It has no content for innocence or guilt. Do you not see that?
"Think" and "feel" are not objective nor indicators of justice.
Was it? Or just what you 'think and feel' is just? Can we think or feel Chauvin's guilt???
Partly because of body cam footage, but if the court proceeded with 'innocent until proven guilty' it might have meant something different. For Minnesota, the 2nd degree murder is basically manslaughter and more about negligence and naivety.
The "actual justice reporting' was the televised trial. You could watch for yourself, or read transcribed accounts. Did you listen to or read any of the testimony from the trial?
Yes, but again, a bit of proof would still have to be about 'intent' and I never did hear that from Chauvin. While Minnesota does seem to skate around the need for proof, it likely tramples his federal rights. I'm not sure what they are going to do with it in retrial, but they may try to get it done out of state in appeal.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yes they are, when the jury uses their mental faculties to come to a decision based on testimony and evidence. That's how a trial by jury works.
That doesn't make any sense. The jury makes a decision on his guilt, based on testimony and evidence and the instructions of the judge.
He chose not to testify in his own defense.
What an odd thing to say. How did MN skate around the need for proof, and how did it trample Chauvin's federal rights?
BTW, are you at all concerned about Chauvin literally trampling on George Floyd's rights?
Lon
Well-known member
No. Whenever it isn't about intent, it is about retribution on a federal, national scale and 'racial' justice. Town doesn't frequent here much anymore, but It'd be good to hear him explain the law a bit, especially between Minnesota and Federal laws. This was 'justice for Floyd and black everywhere.' Such is politics with Chauvin as the figurehead.
Which may lead to the manslaughter charge. As I said above, it seems Minnesota doesn't have to prove intent, just that the actions led to it, but showing 'indifference' is somewhat subjective. There really has to be a proof and I think intent has to be shown. As I said also, his body cam may have shown that atf, but I think it has to show it during (not sure).
Its a mess, no question, but I do think there has to be a show of proof of guilt. He is certainly guilty of Floyd's death, but it seems Minnesota law has to prove intent. I suppose negligence carries its own consequences, like a kid exploding a bomb 'for fun.' Yeah, it still is a crime, just a lesser one when death isn't/ wasn't the intent. There is no question his actions caused death. There still needs to be an established 'criminal' reason for having done so. You and I? We'd be guilty, we aren't cops. The retrial has to happen now. This is just the first round. We'll see how it pans out.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I would say that Chauvin's actions contributed to Floyd's death, that Floyd's death was caused by a combination of circumstances and actions taken by Floyd himself and Chauvin and others.
Parsing out degrees of responsibility, I would assign the greater portion to Floyd and the choices he made.
Lon
Well-known member
You don't get to 'feel' I'm guilty. I'd call mistrial.
Of course not. She said 'think' and 'feel.' You and I agree, it might be why she was an alternate. I want someone with a bit of intelligence and a clear head deciding my case.
Agree. He may take the stand in round two. :idunno:
They don't have to show he 'intended' to kill for a 2nd degree murder charge but the definition of murder is 'premeditated.' It is odd, I agree, that 2nd degree is called 'murder.' There could be no show of premeditated intent nor that Chauvin was aware he was killing Floyd. I think there has to be something like "you are killing him" then "I don't care" to show that.
Sure. I just don't take sides. I'm FOR both of their rights, not just one over the other, nor balancing racial scales at either's expense. I'm certainly not interested in republican or democratic bias in the discussion.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You don't want your jurors to think? However would they come to a verdict if they didn't think?
And they're allowed to feel, Lon. Or are you not able to experience horror at the 9 min. video? Jurors cry at testimony, you know. It doesn't invalidate their verdict.
We don't agree on what's odd, that's for sure.
Then you definitely should avoid bringing republican or democratic into the discussion.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Lon, he's been unanimously convicted on three counts. If you admit that he's guilty of Floyd's death then why the need for a retrial? He sat on the guys neck for nine minutes, there is simply no excuse for his actions. He may not have intended to kill Floyd which is why he hasn't been charged with actual murder but his actions had the potential to cause grievous harm - and they did.
Not a lie but since the story has been scrubbed from the net I cannot produce the account of Floyd rapping a woman and the charges being dropped because he was already convicted of armed robbery and heading to jail.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So no actual evidence then, what a surprise.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yes a lie. Rather than a lame attempt at blaming your lack of proof on a nonexistent scrubbing, you could acknowledge you passed on fake news, but I don't expect that will happen.
Thank the corrupt politicians , the communist MSM, and MOB influence.
Lol, this isn’t the first time a news story has been scrubbed or altered by the communist MSM. I guess you missed the MSM not showing the black kid holding the gun before he was shot ?
- Status