Derek Chauvin trial starts in a week
The Powerline Blog offers some specifics on the case in terms of the timing, logistics, which counsel is representing who, and other details. The article fairly refers to the "lynch mob atmosphere" and the mentality that has gone along with it. Absent is the idea of any assumption of innocence or any neutrality from our Governor and other political leaders. Derek Chauvin has been labeled a murderer, repeatedly declared by everyone within power to be guilty, and pretty much everything that questions that has been squelched and silenced to the best of their ability.
Meanwhile explicit and implicit threats have already been made against a jury that hasn't even been chosen yet, should they come back with any verdict other than guilty. Attempts to move the case out of the area (where jurists will understand that a not-guilty verdict would likely cause the burning of their own neighborhoods if not their own homes) have been shot down by local judges, who insist that if there is a fair trial to be had, it can be had locally.
The prosecution is made up a team of high profile attorneys, including former Obama Solicitor General Neal Katyal. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is also throwing the full support of his office that employees 130 attorneys as back up for the team he has put together. Derek Chauvin is being represented by one local attorney who is likely the sort of attorney that a police officer going through a divorce can afford. There has been no other attorneys willing to step up in this high profile case, which is sort of an oddity considering the stature of the case and the desire for attorneys to be in the spotlight. But the lack of anyone stepping up also tells you just how much stigma is attached to this.
On paper, there really isn't much of a case against Derek Chauvin. The restraining action he used is and has been an approved and trained measure of police control. There is no valid medical or logistic reasoning to prove that it can be used to "choke" someone. Meanwhile, the autopsy of George Floyd showed that he had three times the lethal amount of the drug Fentanyl in his system, and nearly all of the physical evidences points to a drug overdose as the cause of Floyd's death.
That being said, many times the law is decided not by common sense or obviously legal principles, but rather it is decided by the lawyering and can be easily manipulated by the emotions of the people sitting on the jury. There is a good chance that Derek Chauvin will be found guilty of murder for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the law, the legal system, or whether or not he is actually guilty of murder.
The jury in this situation will face a very real ethical and moral dilemma if they come to the conclusion that it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Floyd was murdered, but that they believe there is guilt associated with the actions. I believe that the prosecution will make a strong case that there was negligence and that the police involved could have acted differently. I am sure they will attempt to correlate the restraining move with any drug involvement to claim that it exasperated the situation, if not caused it. I believe that they will provide a reasonable set of circumstances that will allow a jury to come to the conclusion that the police were at least partially to blame. Then they will ask in a clever legally murky manner for that conclusion to be used as justification for a guilty plea that would save the city, state, and country from burning again.
27 comments:
I've sat on two juries. I wouldn't want any part of this one.
based upon the autopsy results and the fact that Chauvin followed procedure according to the police procedural rules of detaining a suspect at the time, I'd be inclined to acquit him...
...but because he's the poster child for the entire BLM grift and con, he's probably fucked. there's an overwhelming mountain of dishonesty against him led by that scumbag Keith Ellison.
so now I'll turn it over to the alky for his usual alky-lanche of idiotic plagiarisms.
Rat
In the previous thread, Roger suggested that the detainment (using a trained and approved method of restraint) was a "choke" hold that he used for eight minutes and implied that the entire situation was based on race.
The first is demonstrably false and the second is barely alleged.
Then he went on to claim that saying it wasn't a choke or to not agree that it was racism was akin to me spreading propaganda.
Isn't it sad when liberals now believe that "propaganda" is quite literally a word to define anything stated that does not conform to the liberal talking points memo in any situation?
Then he went on to claim that saying it wasn't a choke or to not agree that it was racism was akin to me spreading propaganda.
take any alky post that isn't outright plagiarism and you will consistently see his standard psychological projection wrapped in his typical invincible arrogance.
there is an old adage concerning liberals - that whatever they accuse us of doing, they have done, are doing, or will do. and roger is the poster child for this behavior.
Scott, the defense attorney is going to have a tough case.
You claim that a drug overdose was the only reason he died.
The prosecution will discredit the allegations of drug overdose was the only reason he died. Even if he was drugged, he would not have died if he hadn't made strangled for eight minutes and 42 seconds.
The autopsy showed drugs contributed to his death, not the only reason why he died.
In your previous life, Lil Schitty....you probably would have hung the cop out to dry....But your trump bias only tilts one way.....sadly in the direction of lawlessness and fealty.....LOLOLOLOL!!!
For the dumb fucking slurpers who still think ANTIFA led the capital riots instead of trumps phonies!!!!!
Michael M. Grynbaum
Mon, March 1, 2021, 8:09 AM
At 1:51 p.m. on Jan. 6, a right-wing radio host named Michael D. Brown wrote on Twitter that rioters had breached the U.S. Capitol — and immediately speculated about who was really to blame. “Antifa or BLM or other insurgents could be doing it disguised as Trump supporters,” Brown wrote, using shorthand for Black Lives Matter. “Come on, man, have you never heard of psyops?”
Only 13,000 people follow Brown on Twitter, but his tweet caught the attention of another conservative pundit: Todd Herman, who was guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh’s national radio program. Minutes later, he repeated Brown’s baseless claim to Limbaugh’s throngs of listeners: “It’s probably not Trump supporters who would do that. Antifa, BLM, that’s what they do. Right?”
What happened over the next 12 hours illustrated the speed and the scale of a right-wing disinformation machine primed to seize on a lie that served its political interests and quickly spread it as truth to a receptive audience. The weekslong fiction about a stolen election that former President Donald Trump pushed to his millions of supporters had set the stage for a new and equally false iteration: that left-wing agitators were responsible for the attack on the Capitol.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
In fact, the rioters breaking into the citadel of American democracy that day were acolytes of Trump, intent on stopping Congress from certifying his electoral defeat. Subsequent arrests and investigations have found no evidence that people who identify with antifa, a loose collective of anti-fascist activists, were involved in the insurrection.
But even as Americans watched live images of rioters wearing MAGA hats and carrying Trump flags breach the Capitol — egged on only minutes earlier by a president who falsely denounced a rigged election and exhorted his followers to fight for justice — history was being rewritten in real time.
Within hours, a narrative built on rumors and partisan conjecture had reached the Twitter megaphones of pro-Trump politicians. By day’s end, Laura Ingraham and Sarah Palin had shared it with millions of Fox News viewers, and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida had stood on the ransacked House floor and claimed that many rioters “were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.”
Nearly two months after the attack, the claim that antifa was involved has been repeatedly debunked by federal authorities, but it has hardened into gospel among hard-line Trump supporters, by voters and sanctified by elected officials in the party. More than half of Trump voters in a Suffolk University/USA Today poll said that the riot was “mostly an antifa-inspired attack.” At Senate hearings last week focused on the security breakdown at the Capitol, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., repeated the falsehood that “fake Trump protesters” fomented the violence.
For those who hoped Trump’s don’t-believe-your-eyes tactics might fade after his defeat, the mainstreaming of the antifa conspiracy is a sign that truth remains a fungible concept among his most ardent followers. Buoyed by a powerful right-wing media network that had just spent eight weeks advancing Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud, pro-Trump Republicans have succeeded in warping their voters’ realities, exhibiting sheer gall as they seek to minimize a violent riot perpetrated by their own supporters.
If anyone was responsible for desecrating the Capitol, Johnson said in a radio interview as the violence was unfolding that day, “I would really question whether that’s a true Trump supporter or a true conservative.”
The autopsy said that nearly all of the physical evidences points to a drug overdose as the cause of Floyd's death.
The autopsy showed drugs contributed to his death.
The defense has to provide reasonable doubt to acquit the defendant.
The video shows he said "I can't breathe" several times before the officer quit standing George Floyd.
If the police officer was an African American, and the suspect was a caucasian, you would be making the same comments I have provided.
I would still want to convict the police officer.
The video shows he said "I can't breathe" several times before the officer quit strangling George Floyd.
Because I don't make my up my mind for political reasons.
Or racial reasons.
I judge people upon who they are, on my observations upon their actions and words.
The defense has to provide reasonable doubt to acquit the defendant.
Goddamn you’re stupid
It works both ways.
The prosecution must provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
The defense has to provide the opposite.
Put down the PBR
I don’t want Donald Trump to be the Republican nominee in 2024,
Guess who??? A RINO ??????
Roger Amick said...
If the police officer was an African American, and the suspect was a caucasian, you would be making the same comments I have provided.
I would still want to convict the police officer.
first of all you're flatly wrong. the race of those involved is irrelevant to me. even if the races were reversed.
second, you already have Chauvin convicted.
I said I would be inclined to acquit based upon facts already in evidence. but you have no equivocation at all. you're at 'GUILTY!' right from the jump.
you're wasting our time, alky.
BIGLY.
Goddamn you’re stupid
just like Sec. '320' we school him again and again and he STILL doesn't get it.
THWAP!!!
The Constitution says that you are innocent until proven guilty.
You failed history class too.
The Constitution says that you are innocent until proven guilty.
You failed history class too.
The prosecution is not using racial bias against the defendent.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The prosecution is not using racial bias against the defendent.
sure they are. and so are you.
Keith Ellison's racism is explicit and downright fucking nasty. and as we already know, he's in on the BLM/antifa grift.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
The Constitution says that you are innocent until proven guilty.
false.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
innocence until proven guilty is drawn from the 6th amendment, but is not stated explicitly within it.
now we know who failed history class alky.
And the dumbass still doesn’t understand it is the prosecution that must prove beyond a shadow of doubt the defendants guilt.
THWAP!!
Anonymous Caliphate4vr said...
And the dumbass still doesn’t understand it is the prosecution that must prove beyond a shadow of doubt the defendants guilt.
innocence until PROVEN guilty puts the burden of proof squarely on the prosecution.
this much is obvious to everyone but the alky.
THWAP!!!
Scott, the defense attorney is going to have a tough case.
You claim that a drug overdose was the only reason he died.
Actually Roger... the defense attorney might have a tough case, but it will have nothing to do with your insistence that he has to "prove" something.
My son just represented himself on a traffic violation that he felt was not justified (the only person on the docket to not be found guilty). It was a Zoom meeting with several cases. The Judge kept stating (to everyone there) that those defendants were not required to prove anything or even testify. That it was up to the prosecution to prove their case. My son did not testify and only asked one question in cross examination.
A simple lesson that even some adults obviously don't understand.
As it stands, in a court of law, the jury has to make a determination that the Prosecution has proven it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense doesn't have to provide anything and the defendant doesn't have to testify.
In a case where the prosecution is claiming murder, the fact that the person who died has an autopsy showing that there was a likely different cause of death would under pretty much all normal circumstances be reasonable doubt.
In most reasonable non-politically charged cases... the prosecution would have to actually prove that the Fentanyl was not the actual cause of death in order to convict someone of murder. They would literally have to rule it out to show that the neck restraint was what killed him.
As I stated in the post... my gut feeling is that the prosecution will not run away from the Fentanyl issue, but rather attempt to claim that there was negligence from the police officer standpoint and that their actions contributed to the death to the degree that it should be "murder".
Again, I don't believe that this is a strategy that would be used in any other situation. I also believe that if this was not a media spectacle that no jury would convict someone of murder because someone died of a drug overdoes while they were attempting to arrest him.
But the Minnesota powers to be have committed themselves to taking this to court and putting the Police officers on trial for murder. A Minneapolis jury who very well understands the repercussions of a "not guilty" verdict might bend over backwards to accept the prosecutions case as the path of least resistance.
So Roger...
Did you watch the entire video of the arrest. Derek Chauvin and his partner were not even there for most of it. The other officers attempted for some time to take Floyd into custody and he continued to act erratically complain about not being able to breath.
As they were attempting in many different ways to get him into the back of a police car, he kept refusing to get in... until he eventually climbed all the way through from one side of the backseat and out the other door... and simply collapsed and laid on the street next to the car...
Exactly where Derek Chauvin found him.
In other words, he had already complained about not being able to breath and had already collapsed on the ground where he appeared to have zero intention of getting back up. The medical reports showed three times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system, and his lungs were filled with fluid as is normal during a fentanyl overdose.
What you are basing your entire opinion on is the edited tape that shows none of what happened prior to Chauvin showing up. The tape you saw gives the impression that somehow Floyd was forced to the ground, where a cop held him there with his knee, causing him to have troubles breathing.
But factually he wasn't forced to the ground. He collapsed on his own.
The knee on the neck did not cause his breathing issues. He had already been complaining about a lack of breath for some time.
The knee to the neck is not a "choke" hold and it's physically impossible to actually "strangle" someone with that move. A move, by the way that was approved and provided to police with their training. It was a trained move and approved because it is not physically dangerous.
The knee to the neck is not a "choke" hold and it's physically impossible to actually "strangle" someone with that move. A move, by the way that was approved and provided to police with their training. It was a trained move and approved because it is not physically dangerous.
read the autopsy report. there was NO trauma to any part of the neck region, soft tissue, vertebra, or otherwise.
junkie George overdosed. simple as that.
Post a Comment