Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

ohnonotgmail

Jequ0n wrote: »

There is no debate that Chauvin caused the death of the man, but you seem to be very sure that murder is the right term and not manslaughter.

Anyway, we weren’t on the jury, but I don’t envy the jurors given the pressure on them

I am very sure, yes.

Green Peter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

chauvin was convicted for what he did after floyd became unconscious. if he stopped at that point he would still be a police officer. what happened prior to that is irrelevant.

Absolutely not! Why didn't they start the trial at that point so?

briany

Jequ0n wrote: »

There is no debate that Chauvin caused the death of the man, but you seem to be very sure that murder is the right term and not manslaughter.

Anyway, we weren’t on the jury, but I don’t envy the jurors given the pressure on them

What pressure would this be? If the case is open and shut, I wouldn't be feeling much pressure as a juror. My job would be pretty easy. Feeling pressure generally relates to being made to do something you're not sure about.

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so a president can never comment on a specific crime?

Of course he/she can...

Not sure what it has to do with my specific point..

Simple: trial is on.

Verdict yet to be announced.....

It is not appropriate for a U.S president to state what verdict he wants.

Example: reporters asks president what verdict he wants from a trial

He has two choice there in my view. 1: He can answer guilty or not guilty.

Or two, be impartial, presidential and proper: and answer that it would not be appropriate for the president to give his personal opinion on the verdict he wants. That justice needs to be allowed give its verdict.

And in this instance, with a case of such magnitude, emotions, division, hostility etc; he absolutely needs to shut up and show restraint!

Billy Mays

Carlson :pac: :pac:

https://twitter.com/GOP_Ethics/status/1384687608693985284?s=20

Jequ0n

briany wrote: »

What pressure would this be? If the case is open and shut, I wouldn't be feeling much pressure as a juror. My job would be pretty easy. Feeling pressure generally relates to being made to do something you're not sure about.

Walshb explained that quite clearly

Boggles

Billy Mays wrote: »

Carlson :pac: :pac:

https://twitter.com/GOP_Ethics/status/1384687608693985284?s=20

He must be taking weapons grade cocaine.

Mind gone.

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

If you saw any of the extended bodycam footage..the dude was having a heart attack from too many drugs while being arrested..he couldn't breathe before Chauvin ever went near him..He wanted to be put on the ground..he was lashing out.. yeah, it was unfortunate they didn't realize earlier.. but to call it murder is ridiculous..

The only outcome of this is the next generation of police won't join.. with all the knock on consequences of that..

I agree with you. I also believe the prosecution team (Mr.Blackwell) was guilty of prosecutional misconduct....btw I don't need anyone to explain what it
means they/he was clearly guilty of it..

Yellow_Fern

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Well yes theres nothing wrong with a policeman strangling a grown man to death whatever colour his skin is, sheesh did you not get the memo?

Now go be outraged about Biden commenting on the trial AFTER the verdict was reached

Biden commented before it too.

I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict, which I think is overwhelming in my view."

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1384541422968246279

I dont blame Biden though. He just reads what is put in front of him.

Sonics2k

walshb wrote: »

This is absurd..

And you have nothing to back it up.

I absolutely would have objected. I clearly said that his commenting here is wrong, period.

A U.S. President should not be giving his opinion on what verdict he wants from any trial..

This point is completely lost in you. Maybe because you are too involved on what you wanted to happen..

US Presidents, and many other world leaders, give their opinions on trials and cases all the damn time.

You're only annoyed because Biden went on the side you don't like, just be honest.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Love the smell of coffee and circuit boards frying on a Wednesday morning of certain folk spewing inanities for why chauvin has no responsibility for the criminal murderous actions on the day..

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

Of course he/she can...

Not sure what it has to do with my specific point..

Simple: trial is on.

Verdict yet to be announced.....

It is not appropriate for a U.S president to state what verdict he wants.

Example: reporters asks president what verdict he wants from a trial

He has two choice there in my view. 1: He can answer guilty or not guilty.

Or two, be impartial, presidential and proper: and answer that it would not be appropriate for the president to give his personal opinion on the verdict he wants. That justice needs to be allowed give its verdict.

And in this instance, with a case of such magnitude, emotions, division, hostility etc; he absolutely needs to shut up and show restraint!

but he isn't impartial. he is the president. he wants what is right. the verdict was right.

walshb

Sonics2k wrote: »

US Presidents, and many other world leaders, give their opinions on trials and cases all the damn time.

You're only annoyed because Biden went on the side you don't like, just be honest.

That is nonsense..

I believe Chauvin deserved to be found guilty here.

With such a high profile trial and all that has happened before it and the rioting and damage done after George’s death...

You have tens of millions of Americans waiting anxiously on a verdict announcement, with many polarised and highly strung and ready to possibly react very strongly..

And you have the leader of these people announcing what is the right verdict..

It’s obscene that people can’t see the potential damage these things can cause..

I said it clearly, no matter what side you’re on, knowing how emotive this case is, and knowing that the verdict will cause so much division and debate, to publicly declare what is the “right” verdict is, is wrong for someone like the U.S President.

briany

Jequ0n wrote: »

Walshb explained that quite clearly

Are you referring to Walshb's posts about what Biden had to say on the whole situation? If so, that's a presidential conduct issue unless you can prove that A) the jurors heard the comment, and it influenced their thinking.

Green Peter

Could leaders in the Black community and president Biden take this opportunity to tell the community that violence , guns and drugs are dangerous and the use of them is in breach of laws that have to be enforced by police. To all the billions of people worldwide who go about your business today without breaching these laws including people from the black community I salute you. I just hope you aren't a victim of these people whatever community they come from. Let's not make gods of criminals and call them what they are even if they come from within our communities.

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

That is nonsense..

I believe Chauvin deserved to be found guilty here.

With such a high profile trial and all that has happened before it and the rioting and damage done after George’s death...

You have tens of millions of Americans waiting anxiously on a verdict announcement, with many polarised and highly strung and ready to possibly react very strongly..

And you have the leader of these people announcing what is the right verdict..

It’s obscene that people can’t see the potential damage these things can cause..

I said it clearly, no matter what side you’re on, knowing how emotive this case is, and knowing that the verdict will cause so much division and debate, to publicly declare what is the “right” verdict is, is wrong for someone like the U.S President.

the only division is between those who think it is unacceptable for a police officer to kneel on the neck of a restrained man for nine minutes causing their death and those who have no problem with a police officer doing that.

seamus

I gotta tell you lads, "A cop being held accountable for murder while on the job will cause people to not join the cops" is not the deep-thinking insight that you think it is.

If accountability in a job discourages someone from joining it, that's a good thing. A very, very good thing. If only if was also possible to drive people away from becoming bankers and politicians for fear of having to behave themselves.

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only division is between those who think it is unacceptable for a police officer to kneel on the neck of a restrained man for nine minutes causing their death and those who have no problem with a police officer doing that.

It’s still very highly strung division...that is the more important thing..

Whether one agrees with the verdict or not, there is a lot of division and polarisation around this case..

And knowing this, people in very influential positions need to thread very carefully..

Smee_Again

walshb wrote: »

It’s still very highly strung division...that is the more important thing..

Whether one agrees with the verdict or not, there is a lot of division and polarisation around this case..

And knowing this, people in very influential positions need to thread very carefully..

Seems like you're calling for Biden to pander to racists.

walshb

Smee_Again wrote: »

Seems like you're calling for Biden to pander to racists.

No idea where you pulled this from..

SnuggyBear

osarusan wrote: »

It seems to me to be a real stretch to think that this will make police want to quit and so on.

If we were looking at a case in which it was a split-second decision to shoot, and it turned out that the person was not actually armed, I can understand the argument. I can see how police would think 'That could happen to anybody, it could easily be me in that situation making that decision, and it puts me in prison? f**k that.'

But in this case, what is it exactly that police officers (or potential police officers) would look at and see as a deterrent in terms of doing their job properly?

As other 'not guilty' verdicts or decisions not to even bring charges show, the police already have a great deal of leeway given to them. The verdict in this trial shows only that the leeway doesn't extend as far as kneeling on somebody's neck even after they stop resisting, even after they lose consciousness, even after there's no pulse, even after they're dead...not while on camera at least.

If there's an actual or potential police officer out there who sees this as something that limits their ability to do their job properly, then they shouldn't be in the job anyway.

I suppose it's the general attitude against the police now and then you see this guy convicted of murder not manslaughter. I wonder why anyone would sign up to the police in America. Looks like an awful job with very little benefit.

sydthebeat

Why is "agree or disagree" with the verdict a valid argument??

Its a criminal trial. The jury viewed all the evidence and came to an unequivocal decision.

There simply should be no "disagree with the verdict"

Smee_Again

walshb wrote: »

No idea where you pulled this from..

Your posts obviously.

Melanchthon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why does the appearance of a juror matter? Seems pretty silly to attack a person based on their appearance, the defense are perfectly free to object to jurors. Although doing so based on their appearance would be a tad stupid...

Isn't the real issue that jurors are willing to publicly identifying themselves after the trial? It's not a stretch that if they are willing to do that they might also be willing to identify other jurors who would suffer consequences depending on the verdict.

This isn't a crazy idea or defending the cop but we do have the special criminal court here because we recognise these issues

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

It’s still very highly strung division...that is the more important thing..

Whether one agrees with the verdict or not, there is a lot of division and polarisation around this case..

And knowing this, people in very influential positions need to thread very carefully..

presidents need to stand up for what is right. there is only one right side of that division.

ohnonotgmail

Melanchthon wrote: »

Isn't the real issue that jurors are willing to publicly identifying themselves after the trial? It's not a stretch that if they are willing to do that they might also be willing to identify other jurors who would suffer consequences depending on the verdict.

This isn't a crazy idea or defending the cop but we do have the special criminal court here because we recognise these issues

if a juror wishes to make herself publicly known that is a decision she has the right to make.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Love the smell of coffee and circuit boards frying on a Wednesday morning of certain folk spewing inanities for why chauvin has no responsibility for the criminal murderous actions on the day..

Makes a change from you "spewing inanities" name and shame the "certain folk"?

Yellow_Fern

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the only division is between those who think it is unacceptable for a police officer to kneel on the neck of a restrained man for nine minutes causing their death and those who have no problem with a police officer doing that.

That just isnt accurate. Some thing it is unacceptable but he should be just fired or charged with a minor crime or manslaughter or many other options. Some think his knee wasn't on his neck at all. Just like you claim people who disagree with you are racist, you are trying to force a binary on people, with us or against us nonsense. Life isnt so black and white.

ohnonotgmail

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

That just isnt accurate. Some thing it is unacceptable but he should be just fired or charged with a minor crime or manslaughter or many other options. Some think his knee wasn't on his neck at all. Just like you claim people who disagree with you are racist, you are trying to force a binary on people, with us or against us nonsense. Life isnt so black and white.

If you think he should be charged with a minor crime for causing the death of somebody in custody then you are part of the problem.

TomSweeney

seamus wrote: »

I gotta tell you lads, "A cop being held accountable for murder while on the job will cause people to not join the cops" is not the deep-thinking insight that you think it is.

If accountability in a job discourages someone from joining it, that's a good thing. A very, very good thing. If only if was also possible to drive people away from becoming bankers and politicians for fear of having to behave themselves.

Stop being dishonest, you know thats not the reason, the reason is they pretty much aren't allowed to do anything now, that includes reasonable means to protect themselves.


Sure look at them standing by and do nothing while BLM thugs burnt neighbourhoods ...



Instructed by mayors and governors of course to do nothing, to stand down.