What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Floyd verdict thread (moments away)

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
77,265
Reaction score
15,651
Points
2,210
Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.
Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...
Hopefully not.
I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.
LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??
Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do
Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.
I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about
Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.
That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens
"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.
well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.
Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!
I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.
You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.
They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been
Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts
it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.
I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.
yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.
A mistrial based on what?
Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that
With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.
No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant
You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.
I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.
And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
2,886
Points
893
Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.
Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...
Hopefully not.
I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.
LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??
Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do
Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.
I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about
Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.
That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens
"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.
well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.
Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!
I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.
You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.
They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been
Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts
it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.
I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.
yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.
A mistrial based on what?
Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that
With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.
No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant
You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.
I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.
And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine
 
Last edited:

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
8,581
Reaction score
785
Points
140
Every intelligent reader should now know just who and what to boycott.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,540
Reaction score
22,149
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.
Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.




Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.
He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?
I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.


The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.
Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad


We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basis. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
77,265
Reaction score
15,651
Points
2,210
Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.
Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...
Hopefully not.
I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.
LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??
Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do
Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.
I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about
Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.
That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens
"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.
well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.
Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!
I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.
You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.
They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been
Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts
it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.
I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.
yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.
A mistrial based on what?
Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that
With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.
No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant
You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.
I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.
And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine
You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.


Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.

"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.

John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.

"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
2,886
Points
893
The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.
Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.




Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.
He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?
I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.


The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.
Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad


We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basic. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.
e
yeah, we hire them to protect and serve...all people....not commit extrajudical killings.

No the store owner should feel that if he calls the cops because someone was drugged out, or passed a fake bill...that call won't lead to that suspect's extrajudicial killing...and that police will investigate, and determine if there is evidence a crime was committed, and if so the person afforded to Due Process....not choked to death in the street in front of my store, by some small dick cop with a Napoleon complex.

I hope your neighbor is happy this criminal thug, is going to prison for the murder he committed.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
2,886
Points
893
Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.
Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...
Hopefully not.
I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.
LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??
Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do
Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.
I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about
Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.
That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens
"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.
well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.
Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!
I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.
You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.
They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been
Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts
it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.
I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.
yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.
A mistrial based on what?
Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that
With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.
No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant
You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.
I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.
And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine
You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.

Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.
"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.
John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.
"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."
Baker is simply wrong.

Direct evidence is obviously a slam dunk, but not necessary.

I've addressed this over and over and the legal standard. I have never said, that all one has to say is Mad Max and the Dems threatened violence...so not sure why you keep throwing up that red herring
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
77,265
Reaction score
15,651
Points
2,210
Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.
Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...
Hopefully not.
I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.
LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??
Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do
Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.
I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about
Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.
That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens
"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.
well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.
Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!
I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.
You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.
They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been
Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts
it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.
I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.
yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.
A mistrial based on what?
Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that
With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.
No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant
You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.
I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.
And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine
You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.

Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.
"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.
John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.
"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."
Baker is simply wrong.

Direct evidence is obviously a slam dunk, but not necessary.

I've addressed this over and over and the legal standard. I have never said, that all one has to say is Mad Max and the Dems threatened violence...so not sure why you keep throwing up that red herring
LOL

Suuuure he is.
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
18,182
Reaction score
3,519
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Show me 3rd degree murder please.
What kind of person commits 3rd degree in front of a livestream??

An idiot?
So, you are saying it wasn't racially motivated but rather ineptitude?

Correct mostly.

The racial motivation is impossible to determine.
But that was the ENTIRE raison d'etre of the BLM riots, and Democrat demand of "Defund the Police."

In my opinion, the issue that should be focused on is police incompetence.
He was not incompetent, he was trained to use that kind of restraint.
Bullshit! Did you ignore the entire prosecution's presentation?
I have not watched the trial. Floyd resisted arrest and died from a drug overdose. I would rather not see our justice system failing again like they did by ignoring the massive fraud. More threats more race baiting. More chaos. Just what the destroyers of America want. You are just one of them.
You did not watch the trial, yet you have the temerity to render an opinion? That tells me alot about you . Todays verdict is proof that our justice sysrtem is alive and well. You'r willful ignorance and denial of reality is no ones problem but your own. People like you afre the destroyers of America, but you will fail.
Justice system is alive and well??
A leading member of the Biden regime threatens violence on Monday if a man is found Not Guilty, Then on Tuesday, the man is found guilty.
That's something you'd read from some Latin American tinpot dictatorship.
Who threatened violence? In any case the Jury was sequestered and was unaware of any comments made. So I have no idea what yiu are bloviating about.
The jury was sequestered only for the last 24 hours, and AFTER Maxine Waters threats
1. Saying that we need to stay in the streets and be confrontational is not a threat. It is a commitment to the right to protest.

2. Calling Waters a leading member of the Biden Administration is proof of how fucking stupid you people can be.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,540
Reaction score
22,149
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.
Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.




Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.
He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?
I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.


The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.
Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad


We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basic. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.
e
yeah, we hire them to protect and serve...all people....not commit extrajudical killings.

No the store owner should feel that if he calls the cops because someone was drugged out, or passed a fake bill...that call won't lead to that suspect's extrajudicial killing...and that police will investigate, and determine if there is evidence a crime was committed, and if so the person afforded to Due Process....not choked to death in the street in front of my store, by some small dick cop with a Napoleon complex.

I hope your neighbor is happy this criminal thug, is going to prison for the murder he committed.


Did you see all the videos? Floyd was resisting arrest and that is what led to hm being treated like he was.

Bad things have a tendency to happen when you resist arrest and it is your own damn fault.

If you don't want to be treated like a thug and have bad things happen then don't be a drugged out piece of shit committing a crime.

I get sick and tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydindunutin" excuse for the criminal behavior of these assholes.

The cop was just doing his job and he was lynched by hateful racist mob and it is disgusting. Shame!
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,540
Reaction score
22,149
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Show me 3rd degree murder please.
What kind of person commits 3rd degree in front of a livestream??

An idiot?
So, you are saying it wasn't racially motivated but rather ineptitude?

Correct mostly.

The racial motivation is impossible to determine.
But that was the ENTIRE raison d'etre of the BLM riots, and Democrat demand of "Defund the Police."

In my opinion, the issue that should be focused on is police incompetence.
He was not incompetent, he was trained to use that kind of restraint.
Bullshit! Did you ignore the entire prosecution's presentation?
I have not watched the trial. Floyd resisted arrest and died from a drug overdose. I would rather not see our justice system failing again like they did by ignoring the massive fraud. More threats more race baiting. More chaos. Just what the destroyers of America want. You are just one of them.
You did not watch the trial, yet you have the temerity to render an opinion? That tells me alot about you . Todays verdict is proof that our justice sysrtem is alive and well. You'r willful ignorance and denial of reality is no ones problem but your own. People like you afre the destroyers of America, but you will fail.
Justice system is alive and well??
A leading member of the Biden regime threatens violence on Monday if a man is found Not Guilty, Then on Tuesday, the man is found guilty.
That's something you'd read from some Latin American tinpot dictatorship.
Who threatened violence? In any case the Jury was sequestered and was unaware of any comments made. So I have no idea what yiu are bloviating about.
The jury was sequestered only for the last 24 hours, and AFTER Maxine Waters threats
1. Saying that we need to stay in the streets and be confrontational is not a threat. It is a commitment to the right to protest.

2. Calling Waters a leading member of the Biden Administration is proof of how fucking stupid you people can be.


But not as stupid as that dumb bitch Maxine Waters calling for an insurrection if the policeman was not found guilty of "1st degree murder".

It must be hell for to be going through life dumber than a doorknob. Can you imagine how fucking stupid somebody would have to be to vote for her to represent them in Congress? Unbelievable, isn't it?
 

Foreigner Looking In.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
3,229
Reaction score
4,451
Points
1,903
Show me 3rd degree murder please.
What kind of person commits 3rd degree in front of a livestream??

An idiot?
So, you are saying it wasn't racially motivated but rather ineptitude?

Correct mostly.

The racial motivation is impossible to determine.
But that was the ENTIRE raison d'etre of the BLM riots, and Democrat demand of "Defund the Police."

In my opinion, the issue that should be focused on is police incompetence.
He was not incompetent, he was trained to use that kind of restraint.
Bullshit! Did you ignore the entire prosecution's presentation?
I have not watched the trial. Floyd resisted arrest and died from a drug overdose. I would rather not see our justice system failing again like they did by ignoring the massive fraud. More threats more race baiting. More chaos. Just what the destroyers of America want. You are just one of them.
You did not watch the trial, yet you have the temerity to render an opinion? That tells me alot about you . Todays verdict is proof that our justice sysrtem is alive and well. You'r willful ignorance and denial of reality is no ones problem but your own. People like you afre the destroyers of America, but you will fail.
Justice system is alive and well??
A leading member of the Biden regime threatens violence on Monday if a man is found Not Guilty, Then on Tuesday, the man is found guilty.
That's something you'd read from some Latin American tinpot dictatorship.
Who threatened violence? In any case the Jury was sequestered and was unaware of any comments made. So I have no idea what yiu are bloviating about.
The jury was sequestered only for the last 24 hours, and AFTER Maxine Waters threats
1. Saying that we need to stay in the streets and be confrontational is not a threat. It is a commitment to the right to protest.

2. Calling Waters a leading member of the Biden Administration is proof of how fucking stupid you people can be.
1. Going to an area where rioting is currently taking place and telling the crowd to get MORE confrontational, and "making sure they know we mean business" is textbook incitement to riot. Trump was impeached and deplatformed for telling a crowd to protest peacefully.
She is trying to weasle out of what she said.
2. She is the most senior black Democrat in the country. She is Head of the Financial Services Committee. Ranked in the top 100 most influential people by Time magazine.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,540
Reaction score
22,149
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Show me 3rd degree murder please.
What kind of person commits 3rd degree in front of a livestream??

An idiot?
So, you are saying it wasn't racially motivated but rather ineptitude?

Correct mostly.

The racial motivation is impossible to determine.
But that was the ENTIRE raison d'etre of the BLM riots, and Democrat demand of "Defund the Police."

In my opinion, the issue that should be focused on is police incompetence.
He was not incompetent, he was trained to use that kind of restraint.
Bullshit! Did you ignore the entire prosecution's presentation?
I have not watched the trial. Floyd resisted arrest and died from a drug overdose. I would rather not see our justice system failing again like they did by ignoring the massive fraud. More threats more race baiting. More chaos. Just what the destroyers of America want. You are just one of them.
You did not watch the trial, yet you have the temerity to render an opinion? That tells me alot about you . Todays verdict is proof that our justice sysrtem is alive and well. You'r willful ignorance and denial of reality is no ones problem but your own. People like you afre the destroyers of America, but you will fail.
Justice system is alive and well??
A leading member of the Biden regime threatens violence on Monday if a man is found Not Guilty, Then on Tuesday, the man is found guilty.
That's something you'd read from some Latin American tinpot dictatorship.
Who threatened violence? In any case the Jury was sequestered and was unaware of any comments made. So I have no idea what yiu are bloviating about.
The jury was sequestered only for the last 24 hours, and AFTER Maxine Waters threats
1. Saying that we need to stay in the streets and be confrontational is not a threat. It is a commitment to the right to protest.

2. Calling Waters a leading member of the Biden Administration is proof of how fucking stupid you people can be.
1. Going to an area where rioting is currently taking place and telling the crowd to get MORE confrontational, and "making sure they know we mean business" is textbook incitement to riot. Trump was impeached and deplatformed for telling a crowd to protest peacefully.
She is trying to weasle out of what she said.
2. She is the most senior black Democrat in the country. She is Head of the Financial Services Committee. Ranked in the top 100 most influential people by Time magazine.


For a dumb hateful piece of shit like her to be considered influential is an indictment on America.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
2,886
Points
893
Even Fox News is saying he was guilty.
Well he is...sadly it will be overturned on appeal due to the comments by the Dems...Mad Max especially....we'll have to do it all again...
Hopefully not.
I woudn't be surprised if the DA offers a plea then....folks forget that early on he was willing to plea to the 3rd Degree Murder charge. But at the time the DA didn't think that was enough.
LOL

The DA won. Why on Earth would they offer a deal??
Instead of putting the family, city and taxpayers through another jury trial....moreover you never know what a second jury would do
Who says there's gonna be another trial? It's not a slam dunk Waters will cause one.
I said there was...and you responded...I thought that was what we were talking about
Sorry, my bad. I thought you meant Waters would cause another trial.

At any rate, there are no deals coming. DA's don't have to make deals after they win.
That's what I said...as the Judge said, Water threats of violence if the their wasn't a guilty verdict could lead to a new trial...at which time I could see the DA offering a deal.

Obvoiusly, they won't offer a deal until that happens
"Could."

We'll see. To prevail, the defense has to prove the jury was tainted by Waters' threats.
well no they don't have to prove that. They simply have to show that the jury could have been tainted by her threats of violence. They don't actually have to have testimony from the jurors.
Uh, no, they have to have evidence of jury tampering. Otherwise, every trial would end in mistrial... uh, your Honor, CNN ran a story about my client... mistrial now!
I never said anything about jury tampering. Jury tampering is a crime. An appealable issue, and one that can reverse a trial or somethign in the case doesn't have to be a crime.

This isn't merely a news network running a story...but if a juror did watch the story, it could grounds for a mistrial.

Mad Max threatened violence, in a city that has been torn by riots, if the jurors didn't return a certain verdict.
You're right, "jury tampering" is a crime and the wrong term. They still have to offer some evidence the jury was influenced by it. At this time, I don't know they have any evidence anyone on the jury even heard what she said. I didn't watch the trial but I'd be surprised if the jury [edit: wasn't] instructed from the beginning to avoid the news.
They do not have to prove the jury actually heard it. They don't have to get disposition from jury members. Jurors don't have to talk at all. They only have to show that they could have been
Not true. It's a court of law. Of course evidence is needed. On what grounds could they possibly win an appeal if they can't show Waters' moronic words tainted the jury? The judge already dismissed their motion for a mistrial. Their only chance now is at the appellate courts
it’s an appeals court. They don’t bring in new evidence. They use the record. They Court find the Court errored in not grant ring a mistrial and reserve, thus giving a new trial.
I didn't say they do. But they do need evidence to win an appeal. By win an appeal, I mean to be granted one. They have to appeal on grounds that Waters' comments tainted the jury...

Potential grounds for appeal in a criminal case include legal error, juror misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. Legal errors may result from improperly admitted evidence, incorrect jury instructions, or lack of sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. To grant the appeal, the appellate court must find that these errors affected the outcome of the case. If the errors would not have changed the verdict, they are considered harmless, and the conviction will stand.

If they can't show the jury wasn't swayed by Waters, there's no reason they'll get an appeal. AR least not on those grounds.
yep and they got a great case that the judge errored in not granting the mistrial or the numerous request to seequester the jury.
A mistrial based on what?
Because there was serious misconduct by Mad Max, and other elected officials through their threats for violence if the jury didn't return a verdict the mob demanded. The jury at the time was not sequestered, had access to the world around them when these very serious threats were made. By not granting either the prior request for sequestion, or the mistrial...the Judge committed reversal error. Even the Trial Court Judge, who gave a serious tongue lashing to the reckless, and disrespectful dems, acknowledged his rulings likely did just that
With no evidence it affected the jury, it has no bearing on this case.
No new evidence is allowed on Appeal....the issue is could it of had an impact and been prejudical...you add the riots that were taking place due to Wright, and the riots after the killing...very well could have been....and the fact IT COULD have would violate the the Due Process rights of the Defendant
You need evidence to get the appeal. If the judge did something wrong which is grounds for an appeal, they have to show what he did wrong. If they want an appeal because Waters tainted the jury, they have to show that it did.
I am sorry, I have repeatedly told you that the Appeals Court doesn't need use "new" evidence. They use the record.

I am not sure how, when you continue to be confronted with this fact, you ignore it?

I do agree, they have to argue, the Judge's ruling was wrong. Argue it.....that's it. They have to show what is on the record, and argue the legal points...in this case, the issue is the Judge made the wrong ruling, and that his ruling prejudiced, or likely prejudiced, the Defendent's right to a fair trial.

The outlandish threats of violence by the Dems if the Jury didn't return a verdict they liked, might in fact be enough. The lawyer, and the Judge for that matter, did a great job of putting on the record those threats.
And I've not said they present new evidence in appeal. I said they need evidence that the grounds for which they seek an appeal is warranted. Just saying the judge fucked up is not grounds for appeal. They have to show how the judge fucked up to be granted an appeal.

Well what they do, is cite the record....and provide legal arguements to show the Court abused their discretion in making the incorrect ruling....and in doing so, did, or could have, prejudiced the jury, so that the defendant did not get a fair trial.

It's just what is on the record, no new evidence...ie what happened in the jury room is required.

I don't know how much more I can spell this out for you. I think that you might be there, now that you realize no new evidence is needed, but just aren't quite ready to say you were wrong and now understand. That's fine
You're simply wrong. They have to show evidence an appeal is warranted. Just crying, Maxine Waters said..., is not gonna do it.

Joseph Friedberg, a Minnesota criminal defense attorney, said an appeals court would not overturn a conviction because of media coverage or emotional protests.
"Cases aren't going to be reversed on that basis," he said.
John Baker, assistant professor of criminal justice at St. Cloud State University, said publicity around the city’s settlement with Floyd’s family was also unlikely to affect Chauvin's conviction.
"That will be another issue he will appeal on but I don't think he will be successful," said Baker. "You're going to need direct evidence: a juror who says they were impacted. You cannot just speculate."
Baker is simply wrong.

Direct evidence is obviously a slam dunk, but not necessary.

I've addressed this over and over and the legal standard. I have never said, that all one has to say is Mad Max and the Dems threatened violence...so not sure why you keep throwing up that red herring
LOL

Suuuure he is.
icon_rolleyes.gif
Well he's just expressing an opinion...his opinion is wrong...certainly it would be a slam dunk if they had direct evidence but that is not the legal standard on appeal..as I have already shown
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
2,886
Points
893
The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.
Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.




Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.
He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?
I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.


The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.
Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad


We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basic. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.
e
yeah, we hire them to protect and serve...all people....not commit extrajudical killings.

No the store owner should feel that if he calls the cops because someone was drugged out, or passed a fake bill...that call won't lead to that suspect's extrajudicial killing...and that police will investigate, and determine if there is evidence a crime was committed, and if so the person afforded to Due Process....not choked to death in the street in front of my store, by some small dick cop with a Napoleon complex.

I hope your neighbor is happy this criminal thug, is going to prison for the murder he committed.


Did you see all the videos? Floyd was resisting arrest and that is what led to hm being treated like he was.

Bad things have a tendency to happen when you resist arrest and it is your own damn fault.

If you don't want to be treated like a thug and have bad things happen then don't be a drugged out piece of shit committing a crime.

I get sick and tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydindunutin" excuse for the criminal behavior of these assholes.

The cop was just doing his job and he was lynched by hateful racist mob and it is disgusting. Shame!
I did, I saw all the videos presented at trial.

I have no problem with using some force.

The issue was the 9 mins on the neck. He was not a threat at that point.

The cop was not doing his job when he did that, he was doing the lynching. Likely because, like most that resort of lynching, he's a got a small dick, and a bully with a Napolean complex. He'll enjoy the big dicks in his mouth soon enough, rightfully so.

I get sick of the folks that continue to defend these punk ass cops..it's an insult to all the good police officers out there that do a great and very tough job. Defending the punks, only makes it harder for the good police officers.
 
OP
DrLove

DrLove

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
29,009
Reaction score
12,178
Points
1,100
Location
Central Oregon Coast
Second Degree UNINTENTIONAL Murder. I think it was INTENTIONAL murder!

Anyway, a great day for the Floyd family, blacks, and the American justice system.

We should all be thankful for Steve Jobs and Darnella Frazier.

Oh it was definitely intentional. When you nonchalantly stare at the onlookers with a smirk on your face and hand in your pocket - When you refuse letting an EMT check pulse - when your knee stays down on the neck for 3.5 minutes after you know there IS no pulse - and when you don't offer CPR ... Then your clear intent is murder.

So yep, that struck me also. But jury might have seen "intentional" as an overcharge - A cardinal sin in the legal world.

He faces 40 years. Sentencing guidelines say 12 - but could be more with the extenuating circumstances. I'd be happy with 15.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,971
Reaction score
11,808
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Yeah, got to love those experts that claimed positional asphyxia, when the autopsy said there were no signs of asphyxiation.
That's the problem, the primary witness to the crime, the video tape, had no one to claim they didn't see Chauvin on the guys neck for nine minutes and twenty nine seconds. Three minutes past the point where Floyd had no pulse and no movement.


And as demonstrated by the defense he acted within his training and department policy. Also IF he was on his neck, Floyd wouldn't have been able to move his head around the way he did. But hey, feel free to keep pushing the propaganda, the video and autopsy proves you a liar.

.
The department doesn’t train cops to sit on people till they die. You trying to claim that’s how cops are trained will only fuel the narrative of a corrupt and flawed system. Is that what you’re trying to do? Blame the entire system for one rotten mans actions?


Neck restraints are allowed under dept policy. But he didn't have his knee on the neck, it was more in the area of the collar bone and upper shoulder, Floyd was able to move his head.
Flyod was handcuffed and unable to breath and pleading for his life. He then died and the cop continued to sit on him. WTF is wrong with you defending this evil act?!

I was listening to Mark Levin on my drive home today and he was talking about how disgusting the video was and how that cop was obviously guilty. He’s as whacky as they come on the right but at least he knows which battles to fight.


You dumb fuck, Floyd claimed he couldn't breathe while he was standing before they put him in the car. They called for an ambulance right after they took him out of the car because his nose was bleeding. When his symptoms worsened they told the ambulance to step it up. BTW try talking for two minutes without breathing. It can't be done. The coroner said he didn't die from asphyxiation, which wouldn't have been the case if he truly couldn't breathe. Don't expect me to shed any tears over a felon, I'll save my sympathy for his victims.

.
Oh did you think that when he said he couldn’t breath that meant not at all?! Idiot

So the guy is panicking and having a hard time breathing so you think throwing him on his face while handcuffed and sitting on his back and neck for 10 minutes was appropriate? What about after he died? Appropriate to keep sitting on him for two more minutes? Seriously man... What the fuck is wrong with you?


Who was on his neck and back when he was standing, or in the car saying the same thing? He shouldn't have panicked while being arrested, it's not like it was his first time or second. It's just a shame he didn't drop dead 30 minutes earlier.

.
Nobody was on his back before. He was panicking and struggling to breath. You don’t sit on a person who is in distress like that. You don’t stay sitting on him after he dies. The cop was rotten and is now getting what he deserves. You have the worst arguments... pathetic


Nobody was on his back when he was on the ground either, the officer was on his knees beside Floyd and was controlling his arms with his hands.

.
Yeah, that's not a knee... it's another elbow.

View attachment 482270

I swear, you're a fucking idiot. Why else would you be denying reality?


Look at the 00:09 mark of this video both of the second officers knees are on the ground. You'll have to pause it to see clearly.


.
You’re making a pointless argument. Even if your right, which you are not, it would make no difference to the case


Pointless, hardly. You said an officer was on Floyds back, when in fact the officer was sitting on his own heels.

.
 

badger2

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2016
Messages
8,581
Reaction score
785
Points
140
#464: it’s a mistake to discriminate counterfeit from fentanyl. Floyd swallowing the evidence is why: every organism that came in contact with the pos was in danger. Was it Chinese fentanyl, smuggled across China Joe’s new promiscuous border?
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,540
Reaction score
22,149
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.
Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.




Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.
He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?
I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.


The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.
Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad


We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basic. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.
e
yeah, we hire them to protect and serve...all people....not commit extrajudical killings.

No the store owner should feel that if he calls the cops because someone was drugged out, or passed a fake bill...that call won't lead to that suspect's extrajudicial killing...and that police will investigate, and determine if there is evidence a crime was committed, and if so the person afforded to Due Process....not choked to death in the street in front of my store, by some small dick cop with a Napoleon complex.

I hope your neighbor is happy this criminal thug, is going to prison for the murder he committed.


Did you see all the videos? Floyd was resisting arrest and that is what led to hm being treated like he was.

Bad things have a tendency to happen when you resist arrest and it is your own damn fault.

If you don't want to be treated like a thug and have bad things happen then don't be a drugged out piece of shit committing a crime.

I get sick and tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydindunutin" excuse for the criminal behavior of these assholes.

The cop was just doing his job and he was lynched by hateful racist mob and it is disgusting. Shame!
I did, I saw all the videos presented at trial.

I have no problem with using some force.

The issue was the 9 mins on the neck. He was not a threat at that point.

The cop was not doing his job when he did that, he was doing the lynching. Likely because, like most that resort of lynching, he's a got a small dick, and a bully with a Napolean complex. He'll enjoy the big dicks in his mouth soon enough, rightfully so.

I get sick of the folks that continue to defend these punk ass cops..it's an insult to all the good police officers out there that do a great and very tough job. Defending the punks, only makes it harder for the good police officers.


Did you see this video? It is a tactic used by police forces all over the world. It is not fatal. This Floyd piece of shit was killed by the drugs, not the policeman.

The policeman is being lynched by a hateful frenzy Black mob and it is despicable.

 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,794
Reaction score
2,886
Points
893
The verdict was BS, guilty on all 3 counts. Manslaughter should have been the charge he was convicted on. 2nd and 3rd Degree murder charges were not called for since both require intent to kill the victim, this was obviously not the case. Even more disheartening is the fact the media is trying to make Floyd some kind of hero. Fact is he was a convicted criminal with a drug habit and not a person to be looked up to.
Actually 3rd Degree Murder in Minn doesn't require an intent to kill. It is what a lot of jurisdiction refer to as a "depraved heart" murder.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.




Floyd may have been a drug addict, and convict...but that doesn't mean he should have died in that manner.
He was responsible for a home invasion and pointed a gun a the belly of a pregnant women, he should shot for that alone. They guy was a criminal thug who was also a drug addict so why is the media praising his life?
I don't care what he did in his past...he didn't deserve to die like this.

I haven't heard the media praise his life....but then again I am not sure what media you listen to.

I have heard many say he didn't deserve to die...which he didn't.

The issue in this case, was the police officer's illegal and murderous actions, not George's history. Being an addict doesn't mean you fail morally, being a murderer certainly does.


The assholes was a drugged out street thug that was passing counterfeit bills. He resisted arrests.

I get tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydidunutin" bullshit out of the Negroes .

Bad things happen to street thugs all the time.

The police officer did absolutely nothing wrong.

He was lynched by a vicious hateful Negro Mob with the help of some very sorry pathetic White Guilt pukes. Disgusting.
Cool...but the short little cop with a Napoleon complex murdered him, and that is is illegal....

I get sick of people defending punk as Napoleon complex, small dick cops, who think because they have a badge they can bully people around, and harass people. The murderous cop is gonna get it deep in the ass in prison, and he should. Your deflection from that punk ass cop, and blaming his murder victim, for having a drug problem, is just sad


We hire these cops to protect us from filthy ass street thugs like this Floyd piece of shit. It is not a pleasant job dealing with that trash on a day by day basic. We want them to be tough.

My next door neighbor was a Deputy Sheriff and he told me that they deal with scum everyday. He said they know the difference between street thugs and law abiding people.

At a minimum the next time a store owner in Minneapolis calls in a report that some drugged out street thug is passing phony $20 bills the cops should just tell them to go fuck themselves and take care of it themselves.
e
yeah, we hire them to protect and serve...all people....not commit extrajudical killings.

No the store owner should feel that if he calls the cops because someone was drugged out, or passed a fake bill...that call won't lead to that suspect's extrajudicial killing...and that police will investigate, and determine if there is evidence a crime was committed, and if so the person afforded to Due Process....not choked to death in the street in front of my store, by some small dick cop with a Napoleon complex.

I hope your neighbor is happy this criminal thug, is going to prison for the murder he committed.


Did you see all the videos? Floyd was resisting arrest and that is what led to hm being treated like he was.

Bad things have a tendency to happen when you resist arrest and it is your own damn fault.

If you don't want to be treated like a thug and have bad things happen then don't be a drugged out piece of shit committing a crime.

I get sick and tired of hearing this sorry ass "mababydindunutin" excuse for the criminal behavior of these assholes.

The cop was just doing his job and he was lynched by hateful racist mob and it is disgusting. Shame!
I did, I saw all the videos presented at trial.

I have no problem with using some force.

The issue was the 9 mins on the neck. He was not a threat at that point.

The cop was not doing his job when he did that, he was doing the lynching. Likely because, like most that resort of lynching, he's a got a small dick, and a bully with a Napolean complex. He'll enjoy the big dicks in his mouth soon enough, rightfully so.

I get sick of the folks that continue to defend these punk ass cops..it's an insult to all the good police officers out there that do a great and very tough job. Defending the punks, only makes it harder for the good police officers.


Did you see this video? It is a tactic used by police forces all over the world. It is not fatal. This Floyd piece of shit was killed by the drugs, not the policeman.

The policeman is being lynched by a hateful frenzy Black mob and it is despicable.

I watched your video...noticed it wasn't on his neck for 9 mins....

with that said, did you see any of the trial? Did you see the testimony from the police-training officer that said that what the small dick, punk cop with a Napoleon complex did....was not trained by the police?


" Lt. Johnny Mercil, who has been in charge of teaching the use of force in the Minneapolis Police Department's training division, says former officer Derek Chauvin's use of his knee on George Floyd's neck is not a technique the police teach when instructing officers how to restrain people."

"

Displaying a photo of Chauvin holding his knee on Floyd's neck and looking up at a bystander, prosecutor Steven Schleicher asked Mercil, "Is this an MPD-trained neck restraint?" "No sir," Mercil replied.

He added that a "knee on the neck would be something that does happen in the use of force that is not unauthorized
."

He was killed by the officer...if he was ODing it was the job of the police officer to get him help, not aid in his death through such reckless and deadly conduct.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List