You're The Jury
- Thread starter i'vegotwinners
- Start date
Didn’t watch the evidence
But once you cuff a guy, it’s hard to convince me you gotta keep a knee on his neck, so you are responsible for the result.
Negligent homicide minimum
Murder 1? Probably not.
The rest is just semantics.
He killed him, intent or no.
But once you cuff a guy, it’s hard to convince me you gotta keep a knee on his neck, so you are responsible for the result.
Negligent homicide minimum
Murder 1? Probably not.
The rest is just semantics.
He killed him, intent or no.
Since IANAL [ @Sope Creek ] I don't know what the exact charge might or should be; "malice aforethought" might not apply, but "reckless indifference" sure does.
While he appears guilty of being an ass--le, I have a hard time believing his knee placement is what killed GF... I know where both the Carotid Artery and the Trachea are located and his knee was Not in contact with either of them (from what I've seen).
The guy most likely to have contributed to GF's not being able to breathe was the rookie who was on his back... If you aren't able to expand your ribcage it's Really tough to get a breath...
In my opinion, the facts won't matter... Chauvin is going to hang because he's become the face of all that's hateful in regard to bad policing... His only hope is a mistrial on a technicality... He was Never going to get any semblance of a fair trail in the environs of Minneapolis and everyone knew it... He's screwed...
The guy most likely to have contributed to GF's not being able to breathe was the rookie who was on his back... If you aren't able to expand your ribcage it's Really tough to get a breath...
In my opinion, the facts won't matter... Chauvin is going to hang because he's become the face of all that's hateful in regard to bad policing... His only hope is a mistrial on a technicality... He was Never going to get any semblance of a fair trail in the environs of Minneapolis and everyone knew it... He's screwed...
Well, he did get a fairer trial than George Floyd.
The judge bent over backward to give Chauvin a fair trial. The worst thing that could happen is that he is convicted- and then the conviction is overturned on appeal. Based on something that was prejudicial against Chauvin in some way.
Chauvin got more benefit of the doubt/latitude than 99% of defendants out there. The high profile nature of the case and his profession ensured that would happen.
I’m not sure how you could say that Chauvin didn’t get a fair trial. It’s not reality.
Also, at least he had a trial. George Floyd wasn’t so fortunate. Nor were the bystanders who witnessed the killing. They are scarred for life because of Chauvin’s actions.
The evidence was very strong for a conviction of at least manslaughter, and likely more. The defense “experts” weren’t great, while the prosecution’s case was overwhelming. How many times have you seen other police officers in the same department testify strongly against one of their own
All that being said, all the defense has to do is convince ONE juror on ONE small fact/point that reasonable doubt exists. A much easier job than prosecuting Chauvin.
Serious question for you. Would you convict him of any of the 3 charges, and what would be the basis of your decision ?
In a county with a small black population the defense got a shitty draw on the jury.
Last edited:
Sometimes?
Appeals are usually about the law. Trials aren’t even about facts. Trials are about emotional reactions to facts.
No I wouldn't (convict on any of the three) because if I'm a juror I'd take the emotions off the table and Only consider the facts and the facts as I see them are that you can't kill a guy in under 10 minutes by just putting your knee on the back of his neck... Unless you're constricting his airway or one or both of his Carotid Arteries you not capable of killing him no matter how mean you may appear to be while you're kneeling on him...
Now if you're asking if he should have gotten him help and using Chauvins inaction while GF was in distress as the primary factor in his death then I'd have to consider GF's actions and verbalizations while he was resisting arrest (which is why he ended up on the ground and not in the back of the police car)... How was C supposed to know he wasn't just continuing to cry wolf...?
Chauvin will be convicted simply because he's an unsympathetic figure that has to be sacrificed..., not because of any facts presented...
Once again, there's no way he was ever going to get a fair trail in that venue... It's simply impossible to get an untainted jury in that locale...
No problems though until the tables are turned on you or yours someday...
About those turning tables...so, you would feel the same if we substituted one of "yours" for GF, everything else being equal? Son? Daughter? Brother? Wife?
Huh? Since when do we measure due process and justice by putting both in the hands of victims? Lady Justice wears a blindfold for pretty good reasons.
So, you must have erased the part of your post where you addressed 76-1 about the same thing.
Damn forum software.
how is a trail fair, to either the defendant or jury, in a city where no juror, or his family or home or job, is safe in the event of a not guilty verdict.
can't believe they didn't move the trial out of metro twin cities.
Somebody killed him. Did Chauvin's lawyer make your argument it was another cop on Floyd's back?
In this case, if you're the juror, you're substituting your own non-expert opinion for the expert testimony given at trial. Not what jurors are supposed to do.
Could you imagine being on a jury, you think you’re where you need to be, exhausted, ready to go home, but unbeknownst to you juror number 7 is ivegotwinners
I'd contend that in a case like this it wouldn't matter what the location is. You'd never be safe anywhere.
Serious question: when jurors are presented with contadictory "expert testimony", how are they supposed to resolve that? Do they revert to their own opinions/biases/experience/common sense? Decide which expert they think really knows his shit? Flip a coin?
He would be an incompetent juror, which is what Chauvin is praying for. Look no further than the poll stating "doubt" instead of "reasonable doubt."
Yes. Which one is more believable. Credible. What’s their history of testifying. Are they a whore. Where do they work. Do they testify for both sides or just one. Are they still practicing? Where? Is that prestigious? Are they local or did the lawyer have to try to find a guy from Hoboken and we’re in calif. I’ve done a ton of med mal trials with conflicting experts. You one up them as best you can. Get someone likable and relatable. Never use a DO. The Verdict with Paul Newman was great with. experts. You weigh everything and decide who you believe.
Last edited:
In theory, they are supposed to judge them on credibility. They've already both been admitted as experts, so they shouldn't question their credentials, but they should judge objectively which one sounds the most reasonable.
In real life, most jurors probably go with the expert that agrees with their predisposed opinions.
Similar threads
