Derek Chauvin Trial
Discussion
Superleg48 said:
Defence Lawyer Nelson was left picking up the ball from the back of the net for most of the time.
I bet they were not impressed when their plea bargain was rejected by the AG. Even more so when disclosure came though and they saw Dr Tobin's evidence
Although if you want to see it as a 'political' conviction you can do the mental gymnastics required. Same with trying to pretend it was some hostile environment for the police to operate in.
It's strange how different people see the same events and come to different conclusions. I wonder how many of the privileged on here reach their conclusion at the end of the trial and after the verdict. I also wonder if any commentators have any actual experience of ordinary members of the public in that particular post code, or in that particular civic atmosphere. Seems there are so many opinions based entirely on third hand, heavily edited film and subjective beliefs - let alone manufactured bandwagon rage as to make a mockery of everything that happened on that day. .Also, I would have thought that a trained legal mind would have carried more weight than has the one on here.
Thorodin said:
It's strange how different people see the same events and come to different conclusions. I wonder how many of the privileged on here reach their conclusion at the end of the trial and after the verdict. I also wonder if any commentators have any actual experience of ordinary members of the public in that particular post code, or in that particular civic atmosphere. Seems there are so many opinions based entirely on third hand, heavily edited film and subjective beliefs - let alone manufactured bandwagon rage as to make a mockery of everything that happened on that day. .Also, I would have thought that a trained legal mind would have carried more weight than has the one on here.
I think the opinions are based on the evidence during the near-fully public trial. It doesn’t need to be anywhere near as in-depth or complex as your considerations.
It was an appalling bit of policing and perfectly reasonable to expect a different restraint to be undertaken in the circumstances.
As is evident from the guilty verdicts.
La Liga said:
think the opinions are based on the evidence during the near-fully public trial.
It doesn’t need to be anywhere near as in-depth or complex as your considerations.
It was an appalling bit of policing and perfectly reasonable to expect a different restraint to be undertaken in the circumstances.
As is evident from the guilty verdicts.
Sentence 1: Yes, obviously and with the jury very local as you might expect. It doesn’t need to be anywhere near as in-depth or complex as your considerations.
It was an appalling bit of policing and perfectly reasonable to expect a different restraint to be undertaken in the circumstances.
As is evident from the guilty verdicts.
Sent. 3 Yes it was exactly that. However, the charge of murder would not, I suspect,
have been used if in UK, or anywhere else come to that.
Last sentence: In your experience have you never seen a questionable verdict given the
localised paranoia and frantic public mood?
Thorodin said:
Sentence 1: Yes, obviously and with the jury very local as you might expect.
Sent. 3 Yes it was exactly that. However, the charge of murder would not, I suspect,
have been used if in UK, or anywhere else come to that.
Last sentence: In your experience have you never seen a questionable verdict given the
localised paranoia and frantic public mood?
Depends on the definition of murder. Remember how wide the degrees of murder are in the US. For example, our offence of manslaughter overlaps with two of the three murder charges Chauvin was charged with. Sent. 3 Yes it was exactly that. However, the charge of murder would not, I suspect,
have been used if in UK, or anywhere else come to that.
Last sentence: In your experience have you never seen a questionable verdict given the
localised paranoia and frantic public mood?
The most serious one, IIRC, required an intent to assault to prove the 'state of mind'. So when you look at the underlying law it's hardly outrageous.
As I wrote earlier, he was willing to plea to one of the murder charges as part of plea bargaining which indicates the defence weren't too confident.
He can appeal if he so wishes and his team assess the verdicts are unsafe. As far as I am aware, he hasn't so far and his 60 day window is closing fast.
It gets to a point when really people have to accept he committed a crime and stop looking for excuses
There's no doubt in my very ordinary mind that he was brutal and maintained the 'hold' for too long. In my non-US mind, that would not constitute a charge of murderous intent.
So, if I had been selected as a juror I would have voted not guilty of the charge, but guilty of a lesser one. When you separate the deeds from the hype and clamour a different light emerges. From this distance and civil/legal climate it looks like mob justice. But then, of course, I'm uneducated.
Earlier somebody asked the question who were the 'privileged' on here. My apology for a belated reply, I was meaning all of us. Given the social violence together with so much apparent hatred in US cities I am privileged to live in relative, only slightly relative, surroundings.
So, if I had been selected as a juror I would have voted not guilty of the charge, but guilty of a lesser one. When you separate the deeds from the hype and clamour a different light emerges. From this distance and civil/legal climate it looks like mob justice. But then, of course, I'm uneducated.
Earlier somebody asked the question who were the 'privileged' on here. My apology for a belated reply, I was meaning all of us. Given the social violence together with so much apparent hatred in US cities I am privileged to live in relative, only slightly relative, surroundings.
Thorodin said:
There's no doubt in my very ordinary mind that he was brutal and maintained the 'hold' for too long. In my non-US mind, that would not constitute a charge of murderous intent.
So, if I had been selected as a juror I would have voted not guilty of the charge, but guilty of a lesser one. When you separate the deeds from the hype and clamour a different light emerges. From this distance and civil/legal climate it looks like mob justice. But then, of course, I'm uneducated.
There wasn't a charge of 'murderous intent' i.e. an intent to kill. So, if I had been selected as a juror I would have voted not guilty of the charge, but guilty of a lesser one. When you separate the deeds from the hype and clamour a different light emerges. From this distance and civil/legal climate it looks like mob justice. But then, of course, I'm uneducated.
The most serious charge was second-degree unintentional murder.
Explanation said:
The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death "without intent" while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.
Thorodin said:
There's no doubt in my very ordinary mind that he was brutal and maintained the 'hold' for too long. In my non-US mind, that would not constitute a charge of murderous intent.
So, if I had been selected as a juror I would have voted not guilty of the charge, but guilty of a lesser one. When you separate the deeds from the hype and clamour a different light emerges. From this distance and civil/legal climate it looks like mob justice. But then, of course, I'm uneducated.
Earlier somebody asked the question who were the 'privileged' on here. My apology for a belated reply, I was meaning all of us. Given the social violence together with so much apparent hatred in US cities I am privileged to live in relative, only slightly relative, surroundings.
Then you would be failing as a juror because you didn't understand the charges laid against Chauvin.So, if I had been selected as a juror I would have voted not guilty of the charge, but guilty of a lesser one. When you separate the deeds from the hype and clamour a different light emerges. From this distance and civil/legal climate it looks like mob justice. But then, of course, I'm uneducated.
Earlier somebody asked the question who were the 'privileged' on here. My apology for a belated reply, I was meaning all of us. Given the social violence together with so much apparent hatred in US cities I am privileged to live in relative, only slightly relative, surroundings.
Thorodin said:
Would that be my fault/jury selection fault/ judiciary?
Given that the details of the charge were explained to the jury, along with the burden of proof, etc, if you decided to find him not guilty for the reason you gave, then I'd say the failing was yours.The murder charge he was convicted of did not require the jury to determine that he had intended to end Chauvin's life.
Thorodin said:
It's strange how different people see the same events and come to different conclusions. I wonder how many of the privileged on here reach their conclusion at the end of the trial and after the verdict.
I’m intrigued.Please, elaborate on all of this privilege that I have personally enjoyed throughout my life. I’d absolutely love to hear all about it.
105.4 said:
Thorodin said:
It's strange how different people see the same events and come to different conclusions. I wonder how many of the privileged on here reach their conclusion at the end of the trial and after the verdict.
I’m intrigued.Please, elaborate on all of this privilege that I have personally enjoyed throughout my life. I’d absolutely love to hear all about it.
I think he's already explained it. Maybe not.
vdn said:
105.4 said:
Thorodin said:
It's strange how different people see the same events and come to different conclusions. I wonder how many of the privileged on here reach their conclusion at the end of the trial and after the verdict.
I’m intrigued.Please, elaborate on all of this privilege that I have personally enjoyed throughout my life. I’d absolutely love to hear all about it.
I think he's already explained it. Maybe not.
If ‘he’, whomever ‘he’ is, has already explained it, then you’ll have to forgive me for missing it. Due to all of my “privilege”, I’m what many would consider slow or retarded. I was always that kid at school who had special classes, 1-to-1 teaching and still only attained ‘U’s in my GCSE’s.
So yeah, please, tell me about this privilege. And because I’m a bit slow, feel free to draw a diagram if you think it would help?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff