The Derek Chauvin Trial

[digifoss]

That's got to be the silliest "defense" of a clearly guilty person that I have ever heard. Who threatened any kind of violence in the street? Was it the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol and killed 5 people? No? Wrong mob? Who, then?

If jurors really reached their verdict based on fear of some hypothetical "violence," that would be the end of our legal system. The threat of mob rule would make our laws for us, and determine who gets sent to prison and who doesn't. That would mean the end of freedom and democracy in this country, and would usher in a period of fascism ruling over a terrified citizenry.

If a verdict results in violence, that violence has to be dealt with, when it happens. Shaking in our shoes because of the "possibility of violence" resulting from the forgiveness of a murder of an unarmed black man, is cowardice. Thank God the jury had enough guts to stand up for what was right. And the suggestion that they were influenced by the threat of violence is absolutely ridiculous.

Slow down Sunny, you are reading way to much into what I posted. I offered no defense of Chauvin. I never said the jury bought into the influence-peddling and pressuring of the msm and certain elected officials, what I called coercion, to reach their verdict, and I never said the jury reached the wrong verdict.

 

[Butterfly]

What really bugs me is to hear (and not just on this forum) that so many folks think it is somehow more OK to take the life of a person with a checkered past than it would be to take the life of a saint. It isn't.

Who or what Mr. Floyd was or is is totally irrelevant to the question of whether Chauvin unlawfully took the life of Mr. Floyd. Whether the dead person was Charles Manson or Mother Theresa, the question is exactly the same.

 

[Shalimar]

What really bugs me is to hear (and not just on this forum) that so many folks think it is somehow more OK to take the life of a person with a checkered past than it would be to take the life of a saint. It isn't.

Who or what Mr. Floyd was or is is totally irrelevant to the question of whether Chauvin unlawfully took the life of Mr. Floyd. Whether the dead person was Charles Manson or Mother Theresa, the question is exactly the same.

QFT.

 

[Buckeye]

What really bugs me is to hear (and not just on this forum) that so many folks think it is somehow more OK to take the life of a person with a checkered past than it would be to take the life of a saint. It isn't.

Who or what Mr. Floyd was or is is totally irrelevant to the question of whether Chauvin unlawfully took the life of Mr. Floyd. Whether the dead person was Charles Manson or Mother Theresa, the question is exactly the same.

And what really bugs me is to hear that so many folks don't believe Chauvin deserved a fair trial, with a jury that is shielded from exhortation from public officials to find a guilty verdict regardless of the facts presented in the court room.

What Chauvin did or didn't do is irrelevant to the question of whether he had a fair trial or not. Charles Manson or Mother Theresa each deserve the same fair trial, and so did Chauvin.

 

[Sunny]

And what really bugs me is to hear that so many folks don't believe Chauvin deserved a fair trial, with a jury that is shielded from exhortation from public officials to find a guilty verdict regardless of the facts presented in the court room.

Can you show me where anyone on this forum has suggested any of those things?

Who said Chauvin didn't deserve a fair trial?

Who said the jury should be shielded from pressure by "public officials" to find a guilty verdict?

For that matter, what public officials (I presume you mean the prosecution) suggested that they have to find a guilty verdict regardless of the facts presented in the courtroom? As far as I understand it, the main "fact" was that 9-minute video. Wasn't that enough?

 

[Buckeye]

Can you show me where anyone on this forum has suggested any of those things?

Who said Chauvin didn't deserve a fair trial?

Who said the jury should be shielded from pressure by "public officials" to find a guilty verdict?

For that matter, what public officials (I presume you mean the prosecution) suggested that they have to find a guilty verdict regardless of the facts presented in the courtroom? As far as I understand it, the main "fact" was that 9-minute video. Wasn't that enough?

No, the 9 minute video was not enough, and if you think it is, then you are okay with him not getting a fair trial, or any trial at all. And, yes, the jury should be shielded from pressure by elected officials outside the courtroom (Mad Max, etc) to find a guilty verdict. That was not done, and will most likely provide a valid basis for Chauvin's lawyers to appeal the verdict. Had he been given a fair trial and found guilty, it would be mostly over now, but instead will drag out for a couple more years. At any rate, at this point the verdict is tainted.

 

[StarSong]

No, the 9 minute video was not enough, and if you think it is, then you are okay with him not getting a fair trial, or any trial at all. And, yes, the jury should be shielded from pressure by elected officials outside the courtroom (Mad Max, etc) to find a guilty verdict. That was not done, and will most likely provide a valid basis for Chauvin's lawyers to appeal the verdict. Had he been given a fair trial and found guilty, it would be mostly over now, but instead will drag out for a couple more years. At any rate, at this point the verdict is tainted.

I must have missed all that expert testimony from the defense and Chauvin's witness stand explanations to dispute the video evidence from the police body cams and witnesses.

 

[Buckeye]

I must have missed all that expert testimony from the defense and Chauvin's witness stand explanations to dispute the video evidence from the police body cams and witnesses.

{sigh} Again, that is not the point. The video is not the point. George Floyd's criminal history is not the point. Do you think Chauvin received a fair trial? I'm not asking if you think he is guilty or not, but simply do you think he received a fair trial.

 

[StarSong]

{sigh} Again, that is not the point. The video is not the point. George Floyd's criminal history is not the point. Do you think Chauvin received a fair trial? I'm not asking if you think he is guilty or not, but simply do you think he received a fair trial.

I do. Simply because his defense mostly had nothing to say doesn't mean it wasn't a fair trial. It meant the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming.

 

[RadishRose]

(Mad Max, etc)

 

[Buckeye]

I do. Simply because his defense mostly had nothing to say doesn't mean it wasn't a fair trial. It meant the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming.

Then we will just have to disagree - I contend that the jury was tainted by not being sequestered, and therefore the trial and the verdict are tainted.

 

[Sunny]

No, the 9 minute video was not enough, and if you think it is, then you are okay with him not getting a fair trial, or any trial at all.

Whoa, let's hold it for a moment! You are saying that 9 minutes of watching a defendant indisputably choking an unarmed, helpless man to death, in spite of his pleading for his life, is "not enough" evidence to convict him?! I'd like to know what would be!

Usually, this type of trial relies heavily on verbal descriptions of what happened, given by witnesses. This trial had those also. But the visual evidence that was presented showed the guilt of this sadistic murderer more clearly than any other evidence I have ever heard of. It was demonstrated loud and clear, right in front of that jury.

His defense had the opportunity to present their case. The fact that they chose not to leaves the ball clearly in the court of the prosecution. He did not get a "fair trial?" Throwing in that "sequestered" red herring is just an attempt to deflect attention. His trial was a model of fairness.

I have to wonder: With such overwhelming evidence that he was guilty as charged, why on earth would you be defending him by introducing irrelevancies like this, and suggesting (without any evidence, as far as I can see) that the jury was somehow threatened?

Do you believe that Chauvin killed Floyd? If so, do you believe that killing him was justified and necessary? Is this the way you would like the police to behave toward you or your family the next time you are pulled over for a broken taillight, or just because the cop doesn't like your looks? Above all, do you believe the police are supposed to be executioners?

Maybe it's time to stop the Talmudic dithering about jury management, step back, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture. Thank God the jury had enough sense to see what happened, and probably why.

 

[Della]

What really bugs me is to hear (and not just on this forum) that so many folks think it is somehow more OK to take the life of a person with a checkered past than it would be to take the life of a saint. It isn't.

I haven't seen anyone say that. I think his life is just as valuable as Mother Theresa's, and as a Christian, I might even think it's more important that he live longer than Saint Theresa before entering the afterlife.

What you might have misunderstood from me and others is the belief that his past, while having no bearing on the value of his life, was relevant to this trial.

That's because, if the police knew his background, it would influence how they approached him. Put simply, they would have been more afraid of him than they would have been of me (when they pulled me over for tags last year) because I have no priors and would not be as likely to shoot them. That's a fear police have to face several times a day. Floyd's history of violent crime and his non-compliance on the May 25th, do speak to how much use of force was reasonable and lawful with that particular person.

 

[Pepper]

If his priors were immediately known he would have been beaten with a stick before having his neck stepped on. Naw, Della, doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[911]

Whoa, let's hold it for a moment! You are saying that 9 minutes of watching a defendant indisputably choking an unarmed, helpless man to death, in spite of his pleading for his life, is "not enough" evidence to convict him?! I'd like to know what would be!

Usually, this type of trial relies heavily on verbal descriptions of what happened, given by witnesses. This trial had those also. But the visual evidence that was presented showed the guilt of this sadistic murderer more clearly than any other evidence I have ever heard of. It was demonstrated loud and clear, right in front of that jury.

His defense had the opportunity to present their case. The fact that they chose not to leaves the ball clearly in the court of the prosecution. He did not get a "fair trial?" Throwing in that "sequestered" red herring is just an attempt to deflect attention. His trial was a model of fairness.

I have to wonder: With such overwhelming evidence that he was guilty as charged, why on earth would you be defending him by introducing irrelevancies like this, and suggesting (without any evidence, as far as I can see) that the jury was somehow threatened?

Do you believe that Chauvin killed Floyd? If so, do you believe that killing him was justified and necessary? Is this the way you would like the police to behave toward you or your family the next time you are pulled over for a broken taillight, or just because the cop doesn't like your looks? Above all, do you believe the police are supposed to be executioners?

Maybe it's time to stop the Talmudic dithering about jury management, step back, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture. Thank God the jury had enough sense to see what happened, and probably why.

Some of y’all have to use smaller words. I had to look up the meaning of “Talmudic.”

 

[Don M.]

All the publicity this arrest/death, and other recent police involved shootings, in recent months, have received, is going to have future "side effects" that may affect many of our cities in coming years. Already, there are a number of reports of police resigning, and many cities are having trouble finding new recruits. As more and more honest police leave the force, and many more are reluctant to get involved, I can see the crime rates climbing, and the general safety of our people and cities declining.

The Only "winners" in this mess will be the criminals.

 

[Della]

I couldn't agree more with Don M. A friend of mine is the mother of the local police chief. She, her son and their whole family are wonderful examples of service to the community. Her sister and her grown son just moved here (Ohio) all the way from California because her son is also a police officer and was frankly afraid to work in that state anymore.

Columbus has a case right now of a police officer shooting a 16 year-old girl -- the videos make it pretty clear that if he hadn't shot her she would have stabbed another young girl, possibly killing her. Most of the major news outlets first reported this case without mentioning the fact that he probably saved an innocent girl's life.

NPR reported it yesterday, (just the first part) as another example of police brutality with follow-up "man on the street" remarks about how awful the police are.

NPR used to be my happy place. Intelligent, civilized people discussing things politely without political bias. That all ended last May 25th when it chose it's narrative and hasn't veered from it.

 

[StarSong]

If certain police officers are resigning because they fear cracks in the blue wall of silence, and less public appetite/acceptance for bullying tactics, then the public will be well rid of them.

After the Rodney King beating and the consent decree between the police department and the federal government, LAPD has become a far better police force. Not perfect, but far better.

One can only hope that troubled PDs - including Minneapolis - will move into the 21st century, with or without being forced by the courts and federal gov't.

 

[Della]

Some of y’all have to use smaller words. I had to look up the meaning of “Talmudic.”

LOL I learned about Talmudic dithering way back when I read, "The Chosen." I knew instantly I would have loved that. My Methodist church once had a "read the Bible in a year" class that I joined hoping for something like Talmudic dithering for Christians, but it just resulted in my pastor calling me the most argumentative person ever (can you believe it?)

 

[ohioboy]

{sigh} Again, that is not the point. The video is not the point. George Floyd's criminal history is not the point. Do you think Chauvin received a fair trial? I'm not asking if you think he is guilty or not, but simply do you think he received a fair trial.

I think he received a fair trial, yes. Criminal trials are not toned to legal perfection.

Even if the Jury were caged, the Congresswoman's comments, even if picked up somehow, were clearly not sufficient enough to declare a mistrial. Every Murder conviction is appealed. If the trial was unfair it is up to the Appellate Attorney (s) to convince the Court of Appeals. Of course you never know how a COA will rule, but the weight of the evidence here is an eyewitness type, the Jury itself saw it. Now, public hostility toward a defendant that intimidates a jury is, or course, a classic due process violation. If that is your argument, then the COA will determine that by existing case law and if it was a factor for reversal, but intimidation is more than just anger.

 

[Sunny]

OK, this is off the subject, but for those who didn't understand what I meant by Talmudic dithering, here's a short explanation:

The Talmud is a body of Jewish philosophical writings interpreting the Torah (the Old Testament of the Bible), mainly to codify the laws that Jews are supposed to live by. (Those Jews who are "observant," of course.) For many centuries, rabbis have argued and studied these laws, often contradicting each other, and sometimes engaging in very spirited arguments about very tiny diffeences of opinion. Della, I can just imagine the reaction of the Methodist church to any of this stuff!

So, where does that fit in? Well, in view of the enormity of the crime, the overwhelming evidence of Chauvin's guilt, the agreement by just about everyone that this was horrifying, the man is as guilty as sin, etc...... in view of all that, trying to make a case that this was not a fair trial because the jury was not sequestered, is nothing short of Talmudic. I can just see those old rabbis of past centuries, trying to make a case based on jury sequestration, arguing for weeks on end.

"Talmudic" is a perfect word for it.

 

[Buckeye]

Whoa, let's hold it for a moment! You are saying that 9 minutes of watching a defendant indisputably choking an unarmed, helpless man to death, in spite of his pleading for his life, is "not enough" evidence to convict him?! I'd like to know what would be!

Usually, this type of trial relies heavily on verbal descriptions of what happened, given by witnesses. This trial had those also. But the visual evidence that was presented showed the guilt of this sadistic murderer more clearly than any other evidence I have ever heard of. It was demonstrated loud and clear, right in front of that jury.

His defense had the opportunity to present their case. The fact that they chose not to leaves the ball clearly in the court of the prosecution. He did not get a "fair trial?" Throwing in that "sequestered" red herring is just an attempt to deflect attention. His trial was a model of fairness.

I have to wonder: With such overwhelming evidence that he was guilty as charged, why on earth would you be defending him by introducing irrelevancies like this, and suggesting (without any evidence, as far as I can see) that the jury was somehow threatened?

Do you believe that Chauvin killed Floyd? If so, do you believe that killing him was justified and necessary? Is this the way you would like the police to behave toward you or your family the next time you are pulled over for a broken taillight, or just because the cop doesn't like your looks? Above all, do you believe the police are supposed to be executioners?

Maybe it's time to stop the Talmudic dithering about jury management, step back, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture. Thank God the jury had enough sense to see what happened, and probably why.

Again, hopefully for the last time, it isn't about the evidence, or lack of evidence, or the 9 minute tape, or Floyd's criminal past, or what the verdict was, or what I believe about what Chauvin did. It is simply about everybody being entitled to a fair trial. I'm not defending Chauvin, and could care less if you hang him tomorrow or give him the Medal of Honor. The jury was not sequestered and certainly was exposed to the implicit and explicit threats of what would happen unless Chauvin was found guilty, which by itself taints the jury and therefore their verdict. That's not dithering, that's just expecting the courts to do their job.

 

[Buckeye]

I think he received a fair trial, yes. Criminal trials are not toned to legal perfection.

Even if the Jury were caged, the Congresswoman's comments, even if picked up somehow, were clearly not sufficient enough to declare a mistrial. Every Murder conviction is appealed. If the trial was unfair it is up to the Appellate Attorney (s) to convince the Court of Appeals. Of course you never know how a COA will rule, but the weight of the evidence here is an eyewitness type, the Jury itself saw it. Now, public hostility toward a defendant that intimidates a jury is, or course, a classic due process violation. If that is your argument, then the COA will determine that by existing case law and if it was a factor for reversal, but intimidation is more than just anger.

And it sure looks to me like this case fits that description of events, and most certainly is a due process violation. It really is just that simple.

 

[ohioboy]

And it sure looks to me like this case fits that description of events, and most certainly is a due process violation. It really is just that simple.

I did a little research on not sequestering the Jury and the issue of a fair trial. The facts seem to be it is not prejudicial to the defendant if the Jury is to be able to come and go, but one Law Professor said basically there is no universal litmus test. So, is it possible an appeals court will be swayed by it? Time holds the answer. You do not have an unvalid point, but my personal opinion is, it satisfied Due Process.

 

[Don M.]

And it sure looks to me like this case fits that description of events, and most certainly is a due process violation. It really is just that simple.

Anyone who has watched that 9 minute video would most likely agree that Chauvin acted irresponsibly, and his actions were the primary cause of Floyds death. However, IMO, the jury Had to be affected by all the riots that have taken place in recent months. Subconsciously, they Had to be thinking about what would happen to Minneapolis if they didn't convict this rouge cop. I'm sure there is/was an army of protesters just waiting to erupt if any leniency was shown in their verdict.