The Derek Chauvin Trial

@izzythepush,

I didn’t know the Krays were real.

Thought it was just a good gangster movie.

@snood,

There was no imminent threat which would necessitate the use of deadly force. Chauvin knew, or ought to have known (should even the most dim among us be inclined to give the benefit of doubt). I can't fathom a jury that would fail to see that.

2 Replies

@snood,

Real and a mainstay of the tabloid press right up until their deaths.

Stories about their prison exploits were a regular feature.

0 Replies

@Joeblow,

Joeblow wrote:

There was no imminent threat which would necessitate the use of deadly force. Chauvin knew, or ought to have known (should even the most dim among us be inclined to give the benefit of doubt). I can't fathom a jury that would fail to see that.

I know what you mean. But,
A lot of us couldn’t fathom a country that wouldn’t see Donald Trump for the racist huckster he is.
A lot of us couldn’t fathom our Congress being overrun by people carrying confederate flags.
Or lawmakers in 2021 trying to keep people of color from voting.
Or dozens of police getting away with murdering defenseless black people.

If we were in a world where up was definitely up and truth was guaranteed true, then trusting that the jury on the Chauvin trial will believe their eyes and ears wouldn’t require any huge leaps of faith.

But we don’t live in that world now. I’ve come to think we never did.

2 Replies

@snood,

one thing you must remember. Most of those above events were allowing the participants to be anonymous. The jury hs known members.

1 Reply

@snood,

And sadly, I know what you mean, but in this instance, at this time, I think it all boils down to the the use of force argument. In my opinion, everything else in the case is just a smoke screen and I can't see how the defence can get around it.

1 Reply

@Joeblow,

Joeblow wrote:

There was no imminent threat which would necessitate the use of deadly force.

Except they didn't think that they were using deadly force.

And who knows. It's possible that they weren't. Maybe the guy died of a drug overdose.

Joeblow wrote:

Chauvin knew, or ought to have known (should even the most dim among us be inclined to give the benefit of doubt). I can't fathom a jury that would fail to see that.

What would you have done to keep that guy under control?

1 Reply

@Joeblow,

Joeblow wrote:

And sadly, I know what you mean, but in this instance, at this time, I think it all boils down to the the use of force argument. In my opinion, everything else in the case is just a smoke screen and I can't see how the defence can get around it.

I sincerely hope you’re right.

But we have to remember - a juror doesn’t have to provide a logical argument to support their vote of guilty or not guilty. It’s well within the realm of possibility that one or more jurors will listen to the airtight evidence of guilt for a month and still vote not guilty - damning evidence notwithstanding.

You do see that, don’t you?

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

one thing you must remember. Most of those above events were allowing the participants to be anonymous. The jury hs known members.

All due respect, but the examples I provided in no way required the anonymity of the participants. The Capitol Hill rioters were proud and maskless. Hell, some of them didn’t even bother to remove their work badges and other easily identifiable garb.
People who voted for Trump are not anonymous - we know who they are. The names of cops who murdered blacks and got away with it are well known.

I’m quite sure if there is a juror that is determined to give a cop a break, he or she won’t let the fact that we will know their name stop them.

I’m just saying - I really hope you guys are correct when expressing such confidence in this jury’s ability to judge this “irrefutable “ evidence correctly.

But I’m saying it ain’t necessarily so.

0 Replies

@snood,

That is a possibility, juries can act completely independently even when they’re directed otherwise.

Unlike America over here judges are allowed to lead a jury, say what verdicts should be considered and which ones disregarded.

I’m sorry I can’t find this on line but I heard it on the radio quite a few years ago.

There was a case where a drunk driver killed a young man and only served a couple of years and on release was arrested again for drunk driving.

The father of the man who was killed went round to his house and shot him with shotgun. He put him in a wheelchair and was charged with attempted murder. After a lot of emotional testimony the jury found him not guilty despite being directed otherwise by the judge.

I’m sorry for doing something I accuse others of, being vague with no details and plenty of hearsay.

And I appreciate this is a case where the jury acted in the interests of natural justice, and the fear is that Chauvin’s jury could do the exact opposite.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

There is a provision in law that allows a judge to “set aside” a jury’s verdict, if that judge decides that they badly missed the mark. I don’t know if that would be possible in this case, but it’s something that has happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict

0 Replies

EXPLAINER: Legion of Chauvin prosecutors, each with own role

Quote:

Eldridge joined the Minnesota attorney general’s office in 2018. Before that, she served as a special assistant U.S. attorney in Nebraska and the Northern District of Iowa.

Jonathan Simon, a professor at University of California Berkeley School of Law, noted that our culture associates women with “being more caretaking toward children, toward juveniles.”

Using Eldridge as the questioner may help to "ease the witnesses' experience and get their testimony as effectively as possible, but also to help the jury see this in the most sympathetic light,” Simon said.

Daly said Eldridge "was particularly adept at showing empathy and kindness and a certain softness, which I think is really important when you’re questioning children.”

When an 18-year-old witness, Alyssa Funari, began to cry, Eldridge told her to take her time and offered a tissue.

“Is this difficult for you to talk about?” Eldridge asked. “Do you need a minute?”

I know snood made some observations about Eldridge and I wondered if others thought' she achieved at what their aim was in being empathic and soft or just came across as ill prepared? I kind of agree with snood, she is choppy sort of like and don't seem to me up to her important role.

0 Replies

@snood,

"But we have to remember - a juror doesn’t have to provide a logical argument to support their vote of guilty or not guilty. It’s well within the realm of possibility that one or more jurors will listen to the airtight evidence of guilt for a month and still vote not guilty - damning evidence notwithstanding.

You do see that, don’t you?"

I can; a jury trial is a dangerous place to be for both the accused and the victim. There is no guarantee that the system will produce justice; it a crapshoot. It is dependent on the honor and sense duty of the jury members, and there are too many people and lack either quality. But I have no alternative ideas; I sure don't want to give judges more power. All I can do if I am ever on a jury is make my decision based on the evidence; emotionalism has no place in a trial. I don't care if the defendant is a NAZI, a communist, or whatever. If the state doesn't prove guilt with solid evidence, I won't vote to convict.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

It's hard to know how any of us would have handled the situation isn't it. Neck compression might be the only option when someone is fighting for their life, I guess, but it's use wasn't warranted in this situation. Not even for a minute, in my opinion, never mind nine.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

I sincerely hope you’re right.

Yeah, me too.

0 Replies

I was watching a panel discussion on tv that dealt with the question of what the response would be, should Derek Chauvin be exonerated.

I think that the present level of pent-up anger and frustration (especially in the black community) about police and judicial injustice toward blacks would be easy to underestimate.

This is a scene from the movie The Great Debaters that addresses responses to injustice.

0 Replies

@Joeblow,

I have trouble condemning someone when no one can say what they should have done as an alternative course of action.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I have trouble condemning someone when no one can say what they should have done as an alternative course of action.

Are you aware of any police killing of a black man that you considered unjust?

1 Reply

@snood,

There was a cop in the south convicted of murder when he casually shot someone in the back. It was within the past ten years I think, but not too recent.

I've not examined the case in any detail, but I've always assumed that he was guilty of the murder charge that he was convicted of.

What do you mean by unjust? Does a case where an innocent person was killed by the police even though the police didn't do anything wrong count as unjust? Or does unjust only encompass criminal wrongdoing by the police?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Oralloy, no offence, but there's too many variables to provide a definitive answer, and I think you're being rather obtuse. God, offering the man a kleenex when he was crying might have saved the day. I **** you not though I can easily imagine the scorn I'll receive for daring to suggest it. Christ, it could become the next meme. Add to rule book: step 1: offer offender kleenex. Step 2: kick him in the nuts.

0 Replies

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know