Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

redmgar

Obviously a guilty verdict on three counts. Only took 10 hours.

Thrashssacre

redmgar wrote: »

Obviously a guilty verdict on three counts. Only took 10 hours.

I don't think on three counts tbh but a guilty verdict certainly.

BanditLuke

Dempo1 wrote: »

Probably a Guilty verdict, Definitely appealed given the stupid comments from a democratic Congress women yesterday, Judge practically confirmed this on summing up Monday.

And the comments of the sitting US president

redmgar

Thrashssacre wrote: »

I don't think on three counts tbh but a guilty verdict certainly.

I deffo think all 3

BanditLuke

BanditLuke wrote: »

And the comments of the sitting US president

What part of 'sequestered' do you not understand?

Dempo1

BanditLuke wrote: »

And the comments of the sitting US president

His comments actual came after Jury Retired to consider verdict and Trial completed, the Congress women shouted all sorts of nonsense, including incitement to riot, essentially while the trial was still going on, just extraordinarily silly and may have serious consequences including a retrial.

Thrashssacre

redmgar wrote: »

I deffo think all 3

We shall see.

ohnonotgmail

BanditLuke wrote: »

And the comments of the sitting US president

Those comments came after the jury was sequestered so had no bearing on the verdict.

I could see either verdict and not have a problem with it

I think a guy kneeling on anothers guys neck for any length of time should be liable for the consequences of that

I think floyds state of intoxication has to be an allowable factor

LessOutragePlz

I'd love to know the statistics on jury verdicts, that have been arrived at in less than a day or 2. I'm assuming that the majority of the time they find the defendant guilty.

I'd say 2/3 guilty verdicts here but I may be wrong.

Banana Republic 1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I could see either verdict and not have a problem with it

I think a guy kneeling on anothers guys neck for any length of time should be liable for the consequences of that

I think floyds state of intoxication has to be an allowable factor

What do you mean by allowable.

Quantum Erasure

Deleted User wrote: »

What part of 'sequestered' do you not understand?

What does 'if' mean?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually didn't mean to be sarcastic I was just trying to clarify as I'd never heard the term rabbiting before.

I’ll choose my animals more carefully next time so.

Yes parroting is the correct term- “rabbiting on” is a common expression meaning talking an awful lot but saying very little of substance

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

I can't stop talking about Trump, says the guy with Trump's name in his username lol

Best put down I've seen in many a year on this website.

Beffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I could see either verdict and not have a problem with it

I think a guy kneeling on anothers guys neck for any length of time should be liable for the consequences of that

I think floyds state of intoxication has to be an allowable factor

Jesus, if state of intoxication is an allowable factor, there'd be dead bodies all over (pre Covid) Temple Bar by 10pm every night. Would you not have a problem with that too?

Shoelaces

I'd imagine if convicted he will probably get out on appeal

CNN

Jury will be asked
Count 1- guilty or not guilty
Repeat X 3

If guilty, presumption of no more freedom but doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be placed in custody straight away- sentencing doesn’t necessarily follow straight away.

Dempo1

Shoelaces wrote: »

I'd imagine if convicted he will probably get out on appeal

I have to agree, the defence was just appalling but political interference has pretty much gaurenteed a retrial, the irony being its a black Congress women who's facilitated a retrial, mind boggling stupidity

happyoutscan

Dempo1 wrote: »

I have to agree, the defence was just appalling but political interference has pretty much gaurenteed a retrial, the irony being its a black Congress women who's facilitated a retrial, mind boggling stupidity

Haven't been following, what did she say/do?

Curse These Metal Hands

Jury allowed their phones during deliberation. What's the thinking behind that?

Shoelaces

Shoelaces wrote: »

I'd imagine if convicted he will probably get out on appeal

I expect he will have an appeal and then get convicted again. His own department testified against him. All autopsies say he was the cause of death. And rumour has it there is actual footage out there somewhere of the crime in process.

Curse These Metal Hands

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Jury allowed their phones during deliberation. What's the thinking behind that?

Talk to Joe?:pac:

gmisk

happyoutscan wrote: »

Haven't been following, what did she say/do?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/04/19/chauvin-trial-judge-rep-maxine-waters-comments-could-lead-appeal/7290710002/

Important bit

Waters, D-Calif., joined protests in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota on April 17, where she told the press "we are looking for a guilty verdict" in Chauvin's trial.

"If nothing (happens), then we know ... we've got to not only stay in the streets, that we've got to fight for justice. That I am very hopeful, and I hope that we're going to get a verdict that is a guilty, guilty, guilty. And if we don't, we cannot go away," Waters said, according to video by WCCO-TV.

MFPM

Dempo1 wrote: »

I have to agree, the defence was just appalling but political interference has pretty much gaurenteed a retrial, the irony being its a black Congress women who's facilitated a retrial, mind boggling stupidity

The judge specifically said the comments didn't warrant a retrial.

LessOutragePlz

MFPM wrote: »

The judge specifically said the comments didn't warrant a retrial.

They wouldn't be the same judge that would decide if the appeal is to be heard or not.

Dempo1

happyoutscan wrote: »

Haven't been following, what did she say/do?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/judge-derek-chauvin-maxine-waters-mistrial-appeal/index.html

Dempo1

MFPM wrote: »

The judge specifically said the comments didn't warrant a retrial.

Correct but he admitted they may assist grounds for an appeal

MFPM

MFPM wrote: »

The judge specifically said the comments didn't warrant a retrial.

Judge said the comments didn't warrant a mistrial, not a retrial, two completely different things.

She has basically given the defence solid grounds for an appeal, the argument will be political interference meant Chauvin could not possible get a fair trial.

Dempo1

Here we go!!!!!

BanditLuke

Shoelaces wrote: »

I'd imagine if convicted he will probably get out on appeal

He will after Biden's comments.