< 1 2 3
 
   
 

Chauvin guilty on all murder/manslaughter charges for Floyd killing

 
acvm
 
Avatar
 
 
acvm
Total Posts:  90
Joined  05-02-2021
 
 
 
28 April 2021 18:55
 
MrRon - 28 April 2021 06:32 PM

Is there any scenario in which you would accept a guilty verdict out of Minnesota?

I would if:
- It would be obvious that there wouldn’t be any consequences if the verdict went any way - no riots
- The evidence would be such that a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ verdict for 2nd and 3rd would not be so ridiculous

I will admit however that he might have gotten convicted even if there was no media on this trial just because of the tape looks so terrible and most jurors don’t understand what they are there for.
So if the jurors would think that they are there to say if this is “a bad man that deserves to go to jail” rather than “do you think that the facts of the case match the legal definition of the charges to a standard of <beyond a reasonable doubt>” - then yes they would have probably convicted him even if there was no pressure.

MrRon - 28 April 2021 06:32 PM

My question wasn’t if the knee were on the head. My question was… Do you think Floyd would have lived at least to the next day if he hadn’t encountered Chauvin

But you’re sidetracking the thread - this thread is about the decision to convict according to the legal definition of murder, not what we think murder should mean. I didn’t answer because this is a rhetorical question as the answer is obviously ‘yes’.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1438
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
28 April 2021 21:41
 
acvm - 28 April 2021 06:55 PM
MrRon - 28 April 2021 06:32 PM

Is there any scenario in which you would accept a guilty verdict out of Minnesota?

I would if:
- It would be obvious that there wouldn’t be any consequences if the verdict went any way - no riots
- The evidence would be such that a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ verdict for 2nd and 3rd would not be so ridiculous

I will admit however that he might have gotten convicted even if there was no media on this trial just because of the tape looks so terrible and most jurors don’t understand what they are there for.
So if the jurors would think that they are there to say if this is “a bad man that deserves to go to jail” rather than “do you think that the facts of the case match the legal definition of the charges to a standard of <beyond a reasonable doubt>” - then yes they would have probably convicted him even if there was no pressure.

MrRon - 28 April 2021 06:32 PM

My question wasn’t if the knee were on the head. My question was… Do you think Floyd would have lived at least to the next day if he hadn’t encountered Chauvin

But you’re sidetracking the thread - this thread is about the decision to convict according to the legal definition of murder, not what we think murder should mean. I didn’t answer because this is a rhetorical question as the answer is obviously ‘yes’.

If the jurors don’t know what they’re there for, then you are saying that the judge and defense attorney failed to explain to them their role.  Do you have evidence to support this claim?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2378
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
29 April 2021 06:07
 
acvm - 28 April 2021 06:55 PM

I will admit however that he might have gotten convicted even if there was no media on this trial just because of the tape looks so terrible and most jurors don’t understand what they are there for.

The tape “looks” terrible because it IS terrible!!! People instinctively know how dangerous it is for a prone and handcuffed person to have a knee on his/her neck for over 9 minutes!

By all accounts, the jurors were fit to serve, paid lots of attention to all the witnesses, and took copious notes throughout the trial. And by the way, let’s not forget that even Chauvin’s own fellow officers testified against him!

MrRon - 28 April 2021 06:32 PM

My question wasn’t if the knee were on the head. My question was… Do you think Floyd would have lived at least to the next day if he hadn’t encountered Chauvin

But you’re sidetracking the thread - this thread is about the decision to convict according to the legal definition of murder, not what we think murder should mean. I didn’t answer because this is a rhetorical question as the answer is obviously ‘yes’.

And a reasonable jury (by virtue of Eric Nelson’s estimation at the outset of the trial) rendered their decision. End of story.

Ron

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22372
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
29 April 2021 09:19
 

As a former trial attorney, I did not see any problem with the verdict. By staying on his neck two minutes after he was dead, and by refusing to get off when it was clear that he was having problems breathing and even after he was handcuffed, it seemed pretty apparent to me that he was trying to kill the guy. Maybe it didn’t start out that way, but after Floyd was subdued there was no justification for Chauvin’s actions. Furthermore, it was stupid - which isn’t a crime but should be. I guess it’s a crime against the laws of nature, because when we do stupid things we always face the consequences.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1438
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
29 April 2021 10:22
 

I’d argue it was at least maliciously stupid.  It wasn’t like his knee on the neck was an accident.  He action was a display of power.  How he stared at the woman filming him with zero concern was a display of power.  His actions demonstrate that he felt justified in his abuse of power.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  16310
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
29 April 2021 10:28
 
EN - 29 April 2021 09:19 AM

As a former trial attorney, I did not see any problem with the verdict. By staying on his neck two minutes after he was dead, and by refusing to get off when it was clear that he was having problems breathing and even after he was handcuffed, it seemed pretty apparent to me that he was trying to kill the guy. Maybe it didn’t start out that way, but after Floyd was subdued there was no justification for Chauvin’s actions. Furthermore, it was stupid - which isn’t a crime but should be. I guess it’s a crime against the laws of nature, because when we do stupid things we always face the consequences.

“Stupidity is the only universal capital crime.” Lazarus Long

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  22372
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
29 April 2021 20:19
 
burt - 29 April 2021 10:28 AM
EN - 29 April 2021 09:19 AM

As a former trial attorney, I did not see any problem with the verdict. By staying on his neck two minutes after he was dead, and by refusing to get off when it was clear that he was having problems breathing and even after he was handcuffed, it seemed pretty apparent to me that he was trying to kill the guy. Maybe it didn’t start out that way, but after Floyd was subdued there was no justification for Chauvin’s actions. Furthermore, it was stupid - which isn’t a crime but should be. I guess it’s a crime against the laws of nature, because when we do stupid things we always face the consequences.

“Stupidity is the only universal capital crime.” Lazarus Long

Clearly Mr. Long new what he was talking about.

 
 < 1 2 3