Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Three guilty verdicts. Now what other than appeal?
What would have allowed the cop to get a new trial?
Hung jury?
Can he not be given a fair trial upon appeal?
Double jeopardy crap should not let murderers to go free.
That cop could go free and the other 3 cops could be found guilty. The three of them had the physical power to pull Chauvin off of Floyd but they stood there like statues.
What would have allowed the cop to get a new trial?
Hung jury?
Can he not be given a fair trial upon appeal?
Double jeopardy crap should not let murderers to go free.
That cop could go free and the other 3 cops could be found guilty. The three of them had the physical power to pull Chauvin off of Floyd but they stood there like statues.
Two of them were what, in their first week? They have little clue to what to do, and fear if they did do something could be fired, and probably would have, this would have never been in the news, and we have two people with terminations on their record that society does not give a hoot about.
Even worse, pull Chauvin off, Floyd gets Chauvin's gun, shoots him or others, now those two cops that pulled Chauvin off are fired at the minimum, or face criminal charges of their own.
Even worse, pull Chauvin off, Floyd gets Chauvin's gun, shoots him or others, now those two cops that pulled Chauvin off are fired at the minimum, or face criminal charges of their own.
Woah. We're not dealing with your fantasy scenarios.
Chauvin put his knee on his neck for almost 9 minutes and killed him.
End of story.
3. BLM said they were going to burn down the country
4. No juror in their right mind would put themselves and their community at risk and had no choice.
The cop is a trophy head on the wall of liberalism.
"A travesty of justice" is what you expected by your 'a priori' ruling. Why bother with a trial when you have ruled that George Floyd "died of an overdose"?
As opposed to the reality as demonstrated in the following posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Had there not been a video of the incident, Chauvin would not have been charged.
This was the initial police statement of the incident before knowledge of a video:
Two of them were what, in their first week? They have little clue to what to do, and fear if they did do something could be fired, and probably would have, this would have never been in the news, and we have two people with terminations on their record that society does not give a hoot about.
Even worse, pull Chauvin off, Floyd gets Chauvin's gun, shoots him or others, now those two cops that pulled Chauvin off are fired at the minimum, or face criminal charges of their own.
He was on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind him. How could he get up?
3. BLM said they were going to burn down the country
4. No juror in their right mind would put themselves and their community at risk and had no choice.
The cop is a trophy head on the wall of liberalism.
Mehhhhhhhhhh...
Floyd had a big dose of downers in his system. But asserting that he died of an overdose is a counterfactual. But for Chauvin’s actions, Floyd would not have died in that moment, on that spot.
Mad Max? Is that Maxine Waters? That wasn’t a direct threat to the jurors, and supposedly they were keeping a sequester. I kind of doubt that this would be a thing, but then I wasn’t on that jury. I don’t know why she would say what she said, that’s not a same thing to say, and I’m glad the judge admonished her and her kind.
BLM has been saying insane things for years. It’s a bit passé at this point, and I don’t think anybody thinks they will rescind the worst of their vile stuff just because hey get a favorable verdict.
Since neither of us are jurors there, neither of us can put themselves in their shoes.
As for travesty of justice, I think it’s pretty clear that Chauvin went far above and beyond what was necessary, and also failed to render aid. He betrayed his badge and made thousands and thousands of good cops look like thugs overnight.
Lastly, liberalism isn’t what you apparently think it is. Please consult a dictionary. Of your definition of liberalism is what talk radio says it is, then I would both agree in large part to what you oppose, and again that wherever you get your definition of liberalism isn’t using any kind of definition for liberalism which I understand. Leftism would be far more correct.
Two of them were what, in their first week? They have little clue to what to do, and fear if they did do something could be fired, and probably would have, this would have never been in the news, and we have two people with terminations on their record that society does not give a hoot about.
Even worse, pull Chauvin off, Floyd gets Chauvin's gun, shoots him or others, now those two cops that pulled Chauvin off are fired at the minimum, or face criminal charges of their own.
IS Floyd now Houdini? HE was face down and handcuffed behind his back. How do you suppose he would be able to get up and take Chauvins gun while handcuffed behind his back?
3. BLM said they were going to burn down the country
4. No juror in their right mind would put themselves and their community at risk and had no choice.
The cop is a trophy head on the wall of liberalism.
1. No evidence of that. As I noted in another thread, you have the 'but for' test. If Mr. Chauvin had not held his knee to Mr. Floyd's neck for 9 minutes, would Mr. Floyd have died of an overdose? In other words, 'but for' Mr. Chauvin's knee, would Mr. Floyd have died of an overdose during those nine minutes?
2. Mel Gibson has nothing to do with this.
3. No link, and it is a big country.
4. Those that serve on juries develop a rather astonishing sense of 'duty' and to 'see justice done'. They do not like, in my experience, to be 'told what to do'.
I know that some thought that a Trump supporter would be on the jury, and so create a 'hung jury'.
Yet, once a rational person takes the oath, and begins to listen to the arguments, such jury members begin to feel the importance of their role, an importance that literally began with the Magna Charta of 1215 under King John. To listen to both sides, and render judgement.
Some herein do not take 'oaths' seriously. Some herein have argued in the past that a jury must disregard all and simple 'cancel' the state's case. I forget the word, but it was very popular for a while on this forum.
Maxine Waters? I disagree with her statements about the trial. But, I bet that the jurors in this case, if they ignored the Judge's instructions and watched the news, ignored it. Jurors tend to resent any outside inference. THEY were the ones that gave up their life to listen to ALL the evidence. They will not be persuaded by outsiders giving their idiot opinions.
One thing I learned, as a young attorney back in the mid 80s, and doing 'pro bono' criminal cases: every damned criminal thought that ALL people were criminals. "I stole it before someone else did", one of my charges claimed, about stealing a room air-conditioner from a home.
Look at some of the responses herein, and keep that thought in mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
