14
   

The Derek Chauvin Trial

 
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2021 09:12 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:

However it turns out, the facts are the facts, Chauvin is guilty and will be found guilty even if he gets another trial.

at least that it is how it should go.


How it “should go”?
C’mon, Rev.
If they get another trial, they could get a change of venue. They could get the trial moved to someplace extremely white and police-friendly. The jury would be different.
If they get another trial, Chauvin’s chances to get off scot free increase dramatically.
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2021 12:43 pm
@snood,
Hence, my sentence "how it should go." I agree with you.

Newsweek has a piece out which gives a little hope. And it is put out today.

Has Brandon Mitchell Thrown Derek Chauvin a Lifeline? Why a New Trial Is Unlikely

Quote:
Rachel Moran, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, told Newsweek that Mitchell's presence at the march alone does not qualify as juror misconduct.

"The real question is whether Mr. Mitchell lied in his written questionnaire or during his oral testimony," she said. "Jurors don't have an obligation to volunteer information about themselves, but they do have an obligation to answer questions truthfully."

According to the Tribune, Mitchell said he answered "no" to two questions in the juror questionnaire, which was sent out before jury selection, that asked about participation in demonstrations.

Jack Rice, a criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor, said the revelations are "disturbing" and raise questions about Mitchell's impartiality.

Mitchell "did attend and in fact, wore a shirt that said 'get your knee off of our necks' or something like that," Rice told Newsweek.

"In order to convict, you need a unanimous jury. He contributed to that. I would argue it makes the conviction less definitive, less credible and less certain."

But Moran described the issue as more of "a close call."

"I don't think that's a clear lie, so it probably doesn't qualify as misconduct," she said.

She noted that while the anniversary march was organized in part to mark Floyd's death, it was "intended to commemorate Dr. King's legacy and the Civil Rights movement more broadly."

Moran said: "It definitely involved condemnations of police brutality, so some people would say he should have answered that question yes (particularly given the shirt he was wearing in the photo, which suggests he was concerned at least in part about police brutality).

"But I don't think he was necessarily lying by answering no, since some people would conceive of the march as much broader than a protest about police brutality."

Moran also noted that Judge Cahill is unlikely to consider it evidence of juror misconduct because Mitchell was "extremely candid" while being questioned during the jury selection process.

"He said he had an extremely favorable opinion of Black Lives Matter as a statement; he expressed concern for how Black people are treated unequally; and he said he would be excited to serve on the jury because this was such an important and historic trial," she said. "He was very clear about his opinions and the lawyers picked him."

And despite his misgivings about Mitchell, Rice also thinks it is unlikely Chauvin's conviction will be overturned.

"The judge and likely Court of Appeals will confirm and call it harmless error," he said. "They want this trial over."

0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2021 04:57 am
Your article says at the end that the Minneapolis officials connected to the Chauvin case all want the case over. I hope that’s true - good thing if it is.

Here’s what I know about the upcoming (August 23) trial of Thao, Kueng and Lane:

They will all be tried together, charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder and manslaughter. The Minnesota Attorney General’s office wants to have aiding and abetting third degree murder added to their charges. The Court of Appeals will hear arguments on that issue May 20. All three ex-officers have been out on $750,000 bail. The trial will be live-streamed all over the world by several media outlets.

https://www.startribune.com/ex-minneapolis-police-officers-august-trial-in-george-floyd-killing-will-be-livestreamed/600051293/
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 01:37 am
@snood,
I don't understand how they can all be tried together, as each will have different defenses...so how do you decide a verdict if they have different defenses? If one should be not guilty, do you then have to find them all not guilty? That would be an untenable situation, and I can't see why anyone would want that. Same with the argument for the reverse situation (finding all guilty because of one being guilty).


Quote:
Your article says at the end that the Minneapolis officials connected to the Chauvin case all want the case over. I hope that’s true - good thing if it is.
While I think Chauvin is guilty - what you suggest is never a good thing - to put emotional tiredness in front of justice. It is not a good reason. There are of course, many much better reasons.

engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 06:53 am
@vikorr,
I don't know that their defenses are going to be different. Each of them is going to say Chauvin was an official trainer for the department and considered an expert in the application of force. They questioned his use of force and he assured them he was following procedure. I think that is going to be a tough defense and honestly, I think they will walk. There is a principle in the military that you must refuse to follow an illegal order. In reality whether an order is legal or not is often vague and the penalty for not following a legal order is high. I think the these police are going to say they were in a similar position - they were following orders, they questioned the orders and Chauvin reassured them and they had every reason to believe Chauvin was following policy i.e. the knee to the neck thing was legal and safe.
snood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 07:11 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

I don't know that their defenses are going to be different. Each of them is going to say Chauvin was an official trainer for the department and considered an expert in the application of force. They questioned his use of force and he assured them he was following procedure. I think that is going to be a tough defense and honestly, I think they will walk. There is a principle in the military that you must refuse to follow an illegal order. In reality whether an order is legal or not is often vague and the penalty for not following a legal order is high. I think the these police are going to say they were in a similar position - they were following orders, they
questioned the orders and Chauvin reassured them and they had every reason to believe Chauvin was following policy i.e. the knee to the neck thing was legal and safe.


The aspect of this coming trial that you point out ( a tough
‘following orders’ defense might free them) is central to my thinking about why this may be an even more significant, consequential case than Chauvin’s.
One of the main problems with trying to hold bad acting police accountable is the internal protection that they enjoy. A conviction of the accomplices here could set a sort of precedent that could damage that blue force field, and make cops who witness other cops doing wrong take action.

They take an oath before God to uphold the law. That should apply equally to cops who break the law.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 08:06 am
A Federal Grand Jury has just indicted Chauvin and his three accomplices.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 08:15 am
@snood,

Very good.
Region Philbis
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 09:32 am
@edgarblythe,

so even if Chauvin's attorney manages to weasel out of state charges, his client is staring at a life sentence from the feds...
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 10:22 am
@Region Philbis,
Smile Very Happy Wink Smile Laughing
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 10:44 am
This might yield more success than my "Disarm the Police" campaign:

‘We have to do something’: Friends hope new app will empower Philadelphians to help prevent gun violence
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 11:29 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:


That is hilarious!

Who is going use this app; the woman getting the **** beaten out of her... or her abusive boyfriend?

I can see it now... customer "what you sold me was crushed aspirin, now give me back my money. " Drug dealer "just a second, I just pushed the mediator app button".

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 11:42 am
The far left is rejecting a basic fact of reality...

Any civilized society has a strong police force. And more police activity is the surest way to decrease the amount of crime and violence.

There is a lot of room for discussion on other topics. Programs to strengthen communities and decrease poverty also lower crime. I would say we should be investing more in these programs in addition to a strong police force.

I also think that holding police accountable, training police, and expecting police to de-escalate are all perfectly reasonable.

But the idea that police aren't a necesary part of society is ridiculous and dangerous.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 12:06 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

If they get enough cooperation it could help out.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 02:14 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
And more police activity is the surest way to decrease the amount of crime and violence.

More police activity could easily end up as more police violence. One of the lessons of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is that simply arresting more people and incarcerating them for a longer time cause more problems than it solves.

maxdancona wrote:
I would say we should be investing more in these programs in addition to a strong police force.

Well, that's the point of the app described above. Plus, it's community-funded. Look, it's nice of you to support the status quo, but a significant proportion of non-white communities don't think their relationship with the police is working out that well. Ridiculing the serious attempts of citizens to develop alternative ways to lessen the potential for violence is really non-constructive. No, it doesn't address the sort of assault you sarcastically mentioned. I take it you didn't bother to read the article very carefully:

Quote:
They’re billing it as a new way for residents to anonymously share information about brewing neighborhood beefs they think could boil over into gun violence, which often start on social media, and to connect with trained mediators charged with resolving conflicts before they turn deadly — without involving the police.


maxdancona wrote:
But the idea that police aren't a necesary part of society is ridiculous and dangerous.

And just who the hell is saying this?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 02:27 pm
@hightor,
1. There is clear research that more police activity reduces crime. There is no reason to speculate, we actually know this.

2. I am ridiculing this political idea that is (in my opinion) ridiculous. In violent situations, replacing armed police with "mediators" is comical.

Let's take a typical situation, a man who has a gun is kicking around his ex-girlfriend.

What exactly would you want the unarmed mediator to do? Would you want this woman who is being victimized to sit down and talk it through with her attacker so that he will peacefully put down his gun?


hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 02:48 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
There is clear research that more police activity reduces crime.
It's also clear that, unless reforms are made to policing practices, more police activity will result in more instances of police brutality.
Quote:
I am ridiculing this political idea that is (in my opinion) ridiculous.
It's not a "political idea", it's an attempt to do something about violence on a practical level.
Quote:

Let's take a typical situation, a man who has a gun is kicking around his ex-girlfriend.

That's not what the app is for.
Quote:
In violent situations, replacing armed police with "mediators" is comical.

The idea is to defuse the situation before violence occurs.
Quote:
Would you want this woman who is being victimized to sit down and talk it through with her attacker so that he will peacefully put down his gun?

That's not what the app is for.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 02:57 pm
@hightor,
- There are 14,000 homicides in the US. The majority of these have African-American victims.

- There are 450 police killings each year. The majority of these have African-American victims.

People are killed because of crime. People are killed over selling drugs and rival territory. People are killed for prostitution. People are killed because of theft. People are killed because of domestic violence.

Just how many of these deaths do you think will be prevented by this silly app? (If you say "every one counts" I am going to start singing Disney toons...)

I don't mind people making silly apps. What I am opposed to is the idea that we can get rid of armed police.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 03:11 pm
I can’t figure out if these stupid arguments are just strawmen that are intentionally erected or if they are just sloppy arguments that are the result of lazy thinking.

No one is saying get rid of armed police. In any serious proposals for police reform that I’ve seen, they just want to not use armed police in situations where they are not needed.

Status quo is we send men armed with sticks, tasers and guns and basically trained only to STOP activities with force.

People are just suggesting a new paradigm that has differently trained and equipped personnel for situations that don’t need to be extinguished with force.



vikorr
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2021 03:14 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
And more police activity is the surest way to decrease the amount of crime and violence.
Societal crime comes down to:
- the attitudes of the majority (ie. the lower the % with a poor attitude, the lower the number of people who commit crime, the lower the overall crime)
- the attitudes of the criminal element (ie. how severely disenfranchised/damaged/problematic they are)
- fear of getting caught (for both the otherwise good citizens who may commit petty crimes, and the criminal element)
- the reward for committing the crime (white collar crime, drug effects that then fuel related crime to get said drug effects, etc)

The attitudes of the many are influenced by the level of social equality, the level of self-esteem/knowledge, education levels, etc.

That is - police forces are just one way to drive down the crime rate in a civilisation, and arguably not the most effective...but the other areas are more difficult to address.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 03:38:11