Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by Goose, Mar 29, 2021.
What would a sentence likely look like if he is acquitted of murder but manslaughter sticks?
Up to 15 years and $30,000
Bold move for the defense close to keep showing the body cam of the final minutes of his life.
hey someone called an ambulance so not guilty
Seems a little hail mary-ish
of course you are you dumb, ugly, fat fuck.
So, you see, the pressure on the neck slowed the flow of drugz to his brain, giving him the best chance to live. Chauvin tried hard, but the drugz ate his brain anyway.
Just asking questions
Crazy that Prince has been gone 5 years already.
Not too concerned about an acquittal. IF it does happen, I will probably pack up the wife and kids and move. The city will never recover.
Case and point. Minneapolis. Black. Drugs. Next.
Thanks Open Carry
I feel much better about the probability of a guilty judgement
If that happens the city will be burnt to the ground.
I'm going to guess he's convicted of third degree murder.
Edit. Did not realize the wording for 3rd degree murder uses a plural and I assume they'll argue because he was not endangering another person it does not apply if the jury instructions will still have it read to them. If they convict on it there will be an appeal.
2nd = He intended to kill him
3rd = Didn’t mean to kill him but was so negligent it resulted in his death
Manslaughter = Didn’t do anything egregious and it was just an accident.
Is that the gist of it?
2nd does not have to be intentional but you're intending to inflict serious harm to a person that ends up resulting in death. 3rd is like an indifference to whether the person lives or dies. I'm not a criminal law attorney but that's how I think of it.
I’ve been resisting the temptation to follow this trial as if it were a referendum on policing in America.
But this closing argument by the defense of, in repetition, “A REASONABLE POLICE OFFICER WOULD...” is all the evidence anyone would need to indict police work in this country. No, we don’t expect reasonable police work to be done with the LEO’s knee on anyone’s fucking neck.
That is where juries get confused. I'm sure there is a protocol for restraining someone like that. It's probably someone that is being extraordinarily violent and it's the only means to get them down to cuff them. However, once cuffed the threat does not remain and you get off of him. Obviously did not happen here. It just takes a dummy or two on the jury to say well it was a protocol and while he shouldn't have done it he was trained to do it.
From dogs, clubs and water hoses in watts to Rodney King to now cops brutalizing POC on camera isn’t new. The more things change the more they stay the same.
I’ll hate myself for asking but how was “reasonable doubt demonstrated by the defense “? They didn’t do this. If you think they did you didn’t watch this trial.
the defense attempted to make the argument that if not for the knee to the neck for 9 minutes could the amount of drugs led to a death by overdose. The expert said “if I walked into an apartment and someone was dead with that amount of drugs it could be seen (not would be but could be) as an overdose death”. She also said that’s a crazy hypothetical because of the knee on the neck for more than 9 minutes.
Fortunately the police chief and two other trainers stated very clearly that he did not follow training nor protocol which is why he was fired. The defendants witness claimed that’s how they are trained to restrain, but the police chief stating otherwise would supersede such a claim in my opinion.
it’s Case In Point you uncultured rube.
It definitely should. However, juries are dumb. In my trial, one juror in the first round of voting voted not guilty because she felt bad about sending someone to jail for potentially the rest of his life. I pointed out I felt for the parents of the kid that the defendant clearly murdered. We eventually got to guilty but not everyone is the brightest on a jury.
Was there any discussion during the trial about duty to treat? Meaning that if someone appears to be unconscious do LEO have a policy that they should do CPR or administer Narcan? Or at a bare minimum roll them to a recovery position.
It seems so incredibly obvious that they should. The fact that they didn’t do that is evidence of negligence (and borderline intent) IMO
yes. They brought up that Floyd was unresponsive for about 5 minutes when Chauvin’s knee was his neck and that he refused to check or allow his (Floyd’s) pulse to be checked. A EMT testified she begged to be allowed to help and check his pulse.
That should negate any potential argument of drug overdose. We have incredibly effective treatments for opioid overdose, which would have saved Floyd’a life.
Either Floyd died from the knee to the neck -or- he died from refusing to treat overdose. Either way, Chauvin is responsible for Floyd’s death.
For all intensive purposes you new what he mint.
The defense argued there was a hostile crowd and police are taught to restrain a suspect while they feel they are in danger. Obviously this is bullshit but that was their argument.
Good point. Hopefully the jury is able to use the damn brains and understand that the only reason the crowd is ‘hostile’ was because the LEO weren’t doing just that.
The unfortunate thing is that if the bystanders had intervened they would’ve been charged for assaulting police (who were in the process of murdering someone, but at that point there’d be no way to prove it). The public really are helpless to stop police brutality without going to jail or being killed themselves.
Ladies and gentleman of the jury, Mr. Chauvin was in a hostile environment. Sure the hostility was caused by his own actions of murdering a man but it was still hostile.
calling Tao (spelling) a bum for not intervening obviously meant you had to kill the man.
Interrupting Eric Nelson’s filibuster is an assault to right wing CHRISTIAN PATRIOT values.
As a leyman, it seems like this judge is favoring the defense with how intent is judged
Those are pattern instructions. He's not just coming up with them off the cuff.
I understood that.
From what I saw the state said the defense framed intent as in Chauvin had to know it was illegal and intended to do it. State said it means he just had to intent to apply force.
Judge didn’t seem to agree or disagree. Just said - nah I’m not clarifying that.
Am i getting that wrong?
Right. He's not giving any instruction beyond the pattern instruction. If he did, it would be grounds for reversal.
Those instructions are approved. If the judge starts adding extra meaning then it will be reversed on appeal.
This is just an extra reason why it is so confusing for the jury. Jury instructions include a lot of legal words that a normal person may not truly understand and are tasked with interpreting the correct burden to be met by the prosecution.
I got it now.
Now you’re going to receive an invoice in the mail in a few days.
Dumb objection from the defense there. If he's going to say that you misrepresented the truth, the judge correcting his verbiage ain't helping.
I could careless what he meant.
Instructing someone to disregard their unconscious biases is a tough ask.
Are these objections grasping at straws?
Am I misinterpreting this to say it feels like the defense is laying groundwork to call a mistrial?
Edit: I'm half listening while I work so I missed that it was in fact a motion for mistrial.
probably preserving issues for appeal