Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

MeMen2_MoRi_

"he may have hurt himself"

cheezums

i watched some body cam footage again there and noted he was saying "i can't breathe" before he was placed on the ground, when he was initially put in the cop car back seat in a very distressed state. that seems like a pretty major thing, surprised the defense hasn't used that fact yet.

penny piper

Shouldn't the judge declare a mis trial in this case due to the extraordinary circumstances that are happening in minneapolis at this moment in time ...?

Royal Irish

penny piper wrote: »

Shouldn't the judge declare a mis trial in this case due to the extraordinary circumstances that are happening in minneapolis at this moment in time ...?

Why?

bazermc

Royal Irish wrote: »

Why?

due to the extraordinary circumstances that are happening in minneapolis at this moment in time!!!

Overheal

penny piper wrote: »

Shouldn't the judge declare a mis trial in this case due to the extraordinary circumstances that are happening in minneapolis at this moment in time ...?

....why would it?

due to the extraordinary circumstances that are happening in minneapolis at this moment in time!!!

Which does zilch to illustrate a clear reason why the jury would need to be sequestered?

The judge also denied a motion by the prosecution to sequester the jury for this exact reason. These breaking incidents are completely separate cases from the trial on hand, which is about events which transpired last year, not this week.

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/12/986444151/chauvin-trial-judge-denies-request-for-jury-sequestration-after-police-shooting

"your honor there was a car crash outside the court house today, I move for a mistrial in the case of my client rear-ending the plaintiff." Like, seriously, that's not how this works.

Royal Irish

bazermc wrote: »

due to the extraordinary circumstances that are happening in minneapolis at this moment in time!!!

Whats extraordinary about a black man getting killed due to bad policing in the US?

Just looks like normal service to me and raises no valid reason why a completely separate murder trial should be ruled a mistrial.

I'm open to hear any valid reasons why it should be though.

Overheal

Royal Irish wrote: »

Whats extraordinary about a black man getting killed due to bad policing in the US?

Sad but accurate.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

....why would it?



Which does zilch to illustrate a clear reason why the jury would need to be sequestered?

The judge also denied a motion by the prosecution to sequester the jury for this exact reason. These breaking incidents are completely separate cases from the trial on hand, which is about events which transpired last year, not this week.

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/12/986444151/chauvin-trial-judge-denies-request-for-jury-sequestration-after-police-shooting

"your honor there was a car crash outside the court house today, I move for a mistrial in the case of my client rear-ending the plaintiff." Like, seriously, that's not how this works.

Piper seems to be using every excuse to call into question the very credibility of the trial. Everything from claiming the prosecution is doing something unfair to media preventing a fair trial. This is simply the latest effort to cast the trial in some disreputable light...

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Piper seems to be using every excuse to call into question the very credibility of the trial. Everything from claiming the prosecution is doing something unfair to media preventing a fair trial. This is simply the latest effort to cast the trial in some disreputable light...

His defense wouldn't be doing it's job ethically if it didn't fight for every inch of ground for their client (within, you know, the law and stuff). Every defendant is owed a zealous advocate, it's a bedrock of the legal system.

Billy Mays

Is Piper related to Derek Chauvin or something?

So desperate to see him get off

Overheal

Billy Mays wrote: »

Is Piper related to Derek Chauvin or something?

So desperate to see him get off

I'm not not interpreting that immaturely.

Overheal

Clearly the definition of "superhuman" strength should be re-examined if it is readily accessible by black men in a state of "delerium" - I smoked a lot of the devils lettuce in college, became quite delirious at times and did never once develop super powers. This is why the plant must be regulated, so I have someone to demand a refund from.

https://twitter.com/gartmartin9/status/1382045946473816069?s=20

BattleCorp

Billy Mays wrote: »

Is Piper related to Derek Chauvin or something?

So desperate to see him get off

I'd say Piper is more on the side of Chauvin getting a fair trial more than trying to defend Chauvin.

If most of the jury was made up of people from this thread, he'd be hanged, drawn and quartered by now as most people are convinced of his guilt without seeing all the evidence.

There's a few of us in this thread asking for a fair trial (no more, no less) whereas the vast majority won't even entertain the thought that Chauvin might be 'not guilty'.

Speaking for myself, that doesn't mean that I am trying to defend Chauvin, I'm just saying that people need to look at a lot more evidence than just 'the knee'.

If he's guilty, he's guilty and I've no problem with that. I've a problem with people saying he's guilty before all of the evidence is heard.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd say Piper is more on the side of Chauvin getting a fair trial more than trying to defend Chauvin.

If most of the jury was made up of people from this thread, he'd be hanged, drawn and quartered by now as most people are convinced of his guilt without seeing all the evidence.

There's a few of us in this thread asking for a fair trial (no more, no less) whereas the vast majority won't even entertain the thought that Chauvin might be 'not guilty'.

Speaking for myself, that doesn't mean that I am trying to defend Chauvin, I'm just saying that people need to look at a lot more evidence than just 'the knee'.

If he's guilty, he's guilty and I've no problem with that. I've a problem with people saying he's guilty before all of the evidence is heard.

That's not saying much of anything. Another bedrock of criminal justice is that the jury is chosen from those unfamiliar with the case going into the trial. The truth is anyone on this thread, anyone who was familiar with the incident, is an unfit juror in this case, so I wouldn't go pinning it on people who err toward his guilt.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

That's not saying much of anything.

I'm saying plenty.

I'm saying that there's more evidence to be considered than just 'the knee'.

Another bedrock of criminal justice is that the jury is chosen from those unfamiliar with the case going into the trial.

This is one of the most publicised court cases in recent years. I would have thought that was an imposibility to be unfamiliar with the case given the publicity surrounding this case. Surely everyone on the jury was well aware of what happened to George Floyd long before they first sat in the courtroom.

The truth is anyone on this thread, anyone who was familiar with the incident, is an unfit juror in this case, so I wouldn't go pinning it on people who err toward his guilt.

I'd be inclined to agree with you there. I certainly wouldn't want to be on that jury. It's a pox of a job.

I'm not pinning anything on anyone. I'm still just about 50:50. There's times I think he's guilty (of something) and times I have doubts so if he was found 'not guilty' or 'guilty', I'd have no problem with either verdict.

Overheal

I would have thought that was an imposibility to be unfamiliar with the case given the publicity surrounding this case. Surely everyone on the jury was well aware of what happened to George Floyd long before they first sat in the courtroom.

Yet, they found them, to the satisfaction of both parties through voire dire. Extreme lengths are often gone to to find a qualifying jury, as in the case of Samsung v Apple (Apple v Samsung?) in which multiple pools of jurors had to be summoned to find enough people to fill a bench that were unfamiliar with either manufacturer's phone, or owned one - in Silicon Valley, CA. https://www.cnet.com/news/its-hard-to-find-jurors-apple-samsung-patent-trial-silicon-valley/

All_in_Flynn

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd say Piper is more on the side of Chauvin getting a fair trial more than trying to defend Chauvin.

If most of the jury was made up of people from this thread, he'd be hanged, drawn and quartered by now as most people are convinced of his guilt without seeing all the evidence.

There's a few of us in this thread asking for a fair trial (no more, no less) whereas the vast majority won't even entertain the thought that Chauvin might be 'not guilty'.

Speaking for myself, that doesn't mean that I am trying to defend Chauvin, I'm just saying that people need to look at a lot more evidence than just 'the knee'.

If he's guilty, he's guilty and I've no problem with that. I've a problem with people saying he's guilty before all of the evidence is heard.

Lol, get up the yard. Trying to take the moral high ground here is a bit rich when people are looking for any angle/excuse to try their level best to justify Chauvin's actions in the face of pretty damning expert testimony.

Every person is entitled to a fair trial which to my eye is exactly what Chauvin is receiving. Yet to see a single reasonable point to show that he is being denied a fair trial.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

Yet, they found them, to the satisfaction of both parties through voire dire. Extreme lengths are often gone to to find a qualifying jury, as in the case of Samsung v Apple (Apple v Samsung?) in which multiple pools of jurors had to be summoned to find enough people to fill a bench that were unfamiliar with either manufacturer's phone, or owned one - in Silicon Valley, CA. https://www.cnet.com/news/its-hard-to-find-jurors-apple-samsung-patent-trial-silicon-valley/

Where'd they find them, from a previously uncontacted tribe in the Amazon?

Seriously though, I've no problem with the jury selection.

BattleCorp

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Lol, get up the yard. Trying to take the moral high ground here is a bit rich when people are looking for any angle/excuse to try their level best to justify Chauvin's actions in the face of pretty damning expert testimony.

Every person is entitled to a fair trial which to my eye is exactly what Chauvin is receiving. Yet to see a single reasonable point to show that he is being denied a fair trial.

I never said he isn't receiving a fair trial.

I did mention earlier in the thread that it will be hard for a juror not to be influenced by activities outside of the courtroom but I hope that isn't happening.

My problem isn't with the jurors, it's with people like you who have him convicted without hearing all of the evidence. You aren't prepared to even entertain the idea that there may be other factors at play such as his health, drug use etc.

You may turn out to be right at the end of the day and the jury discounts these factors, but they can't be discounted for now.

All_in_Flynn

BattleCorp wrote: »

I never said he isn't receiving a fair trial.

I did mention earlier in the thread that it will be hard for a juror not to be influenced by activities outside of the courtroom but I hope that isn't happening.

My problem isn't with the jurors, it's with people like you who have him convicted without hearing all of the evidence. You aren't prepared to even entertain the idea that there may be other factors at play such as his health, drug use etc.

You may turn out to be right at the end of the day and the jury discounts these factors, but they can't be discounted for now.

How exactly have you come to the conclusion that I have him convicted already? I've already stated to you in a previous post that I would accept the verdict of the jury. However, that does not prohibit me from commenting on the trial and how I feel it's going. I'm open to any reasonable point someone might make in the defence of Chauvin.

The people you were defending in your initial post have tried their level best to ignore any testimony that hasn't suited their 'agenda'.

You're fooling nobody. You are actively rooting for Chauvin to be found not guilty.

Overheal

All I know is if he was really such a danger of resisting arrest, it is awfully queer of Chauvins hands to be in his pockets for 9 minutes.

It's not that I've convicted him of murder one, but he did kill that man, knowingly or unknowingly, through plain as day professional misconduct.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Overheal wrote: »

All I know is if he was really such a danger of resisting arrest, it is awfully queer of Chauvins hands to be in his pockets for 9 minutes.

It's not that I've convicted him of murder one, but he did kill that man, knowingly or unknowingly, through plain as day professional misconduct.

Hands aren't in his pocket, dark gloves on dark trousers all we see is his wrist

Prosecution just showed a clip were loses his balance and uses his had on the car to rebalance himself

bazermc

This defense use of force expert is like Father Stone

penny piper

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd say Piper is more on the side of Chauvin getting a fair trial more than trying to defend Chauvin.

If most of the jury was made up of people from this thread, he'd be hanged, drawn and quartered by now as most people are convinced of his guilt without seeing all the evidence.

There's a few of us in this thread asking for a fair trial (no more, no less) whereas the vast majority won't even entertain the thought that Chauvin might be 'not guilty'.

Speaking for myself, that doesn't mean that I am trying to defend Chauvin, I'm just saying that people need to look at a lot more evidence than just 'the knee'.

If he's guilty, he's guilty and I've no problem with that. I've a problem with people saying he's guilty before all of the evidence is heard.

I agree with you entirely....

Billy Mays

penny piper wrote: »

I agree with you entirely....

Go way out of that.

Anyone reading your posts in here can see you're desperate for him to get off.

Calling for a mistrial. Refering to medical experts as "experts":rolleyes: just because their testimony looked bad for the defence etc...

#TeamChauvin

penny piper

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Every person is entitled to a fair trial which to my eye is exactly what Chauvin is receiving. Yet to see a single reasonable point to show that he is being denied a fair trial.

You believe Chauvan is/will receive a fair trial... I don't ...that's my opinion to which I am entitled likewise you are entitled to yours.. btw I think alot of people on here can't see two sides to a story.. I do accept other people's opinions.... I'm only expressing my opinions.
As a black woman I feel should show some support for mr.chauvan....

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

Piper seems to be using every excuse to call into question the very credibility of the trial. Everything from claiming the prosecution is doing something unfair to media preventing a fair trial. This is simply the latest effort to cast the trial in some disreputable light...

What's your problem with that? it's presenting a case from a different angle

penny piper

Billy Mays wrote: »

Go way out of that.

Anyone reading your posts in here can see you're desperate for him to get off.

Calling for a mistrial. Refering to medical experts as "experts":rolleyes: just because their testimony looked bad for the defence etc...

#TeamChauvin

I actually removed those " " to suit a poster.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

You believe Chauvan is/will receive a fair trial... I don't ...that's my opinion to which I am entitled likewise you are entitled to yours.. btw I think alot of people on here can't see two sides to a story.. I do accept other people's opinions.... I'm only expressing my opinions.
As a black woman I feel should show some support for mr.chauvan....

Why would you feel you should show support?

I thought you were in favour of removing emotion from things and getting to the evidence in a cool calm way.