Floyd verdict thread (moments away)

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,424
Reaction score
21,948
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Nothing good will come of this injustice to the police officer. The Negroes will expolit this stupid woke weakness as much as they can to get money and not be held accountable for their crimes. These pathetic weak White Guilt pukes will fall all over themselves kissing Black ass.
Why don't you and your friends just grab your Trump flags, and storm the Minnesota prison and free Chauvin.


Why don't you stupid Moon Bats pull your head out of your filthy Libtard asses?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
76,913
Reaction score
15,510
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
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
And why should anyone accept your opinion over his?
Because mine is based on the law. Feel free not to, nobody has to accept anyone's opinion
LOL

But the lawyer's opinion is not based on the law??
Is conclusion isn't. He's incorrect in stating that direct evidence is absolutely needed.
Great, post your proof he's wrong...
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
76,913
Reaction score
15,510
Points
2,210
Quick verdict. Looks like Nig-Nog celebration day.
Have to wait for an appeal for a mistrial.


The Nig-Nogs will get their asses kissed today.

Stay classy, Trumpsters.


The US has lost its class pandering to the Black scum. The officer did nothing wrong dealing with this street thug and he is being lynched because of racial hatred from the Negroes. Shame!
The only scum is the racist right.

Meanwhile in Virginia, you made sure this guy still has his job.

ralph-northam-racist-yearbook-photo-kkk-blackface.jpg
So now you admit C_Clayton_Jones is also more of a man than you? You have such a low opinion of yourself.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,880
Reaction score
11,745
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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.
I will add that there is still hope for a Chauvin deal as slim as it is. It would work like this: Chauvin appeals. The appellate courts find a mistrial. The state does not want to go through another trial. They offer a plea to avoid a retrial. Very slim chance that the state would agree to a plea bargain rather than a retrial even in the event of a mistrial ruling, but not out of the realm of possibility either.

It would be tough. The knowledge that you people will riot and destroy more black peoples' property is a strong deterrent to the justice system working as it's designed.
and with a powerful Congresswoman making the threat...that's very real....now I think the jury was sequestered by the time Xiden and Nancy backed her up on her calls for violence....but still, her threats alone could be enough to reverse the verdict and order a new trial. If the Appeals Court doesn't, tragically I think this conviction will be tainted by Mad Max's threats

I doubt many jurors know who Maxine Waters is

During the Manson trial, Nixon declared Manson guilty and Manson held the headline up in court. No mistrial and Manson spent his life in jail

View attachment 482167
I am sure many do...not sure why you are assuming the jurors are stupid.

That claim close to hanging the trial....and expressing his opinion is far different then saying he will destroy the their city if the verdict isn't what she wants.

As usual, the RW media creates a crisis where none exists

Maxine Waters national influence is very small. She is little known outside of Fox News who demonize her
Crisis where none exist?

.

" New reporting from Axios reveals that the total insured property losses incurred during the George Floyd riots will come in at $1 billion to $2 billion."

Axios isn't rightwing, and two billion is very real.

and please....I get that you are a Dem and think people are simply stupid...but the people of this country, including Minn, aren't stupid. They pay attention to the news, and current events as much as you...Mad Max is a well known public figure that is a regular on MSNBC, CNN, and the Sunday Shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC. She is a leading spokesperson for the DNC, and is wildly covered....
Waters did not advocate violence

Only the RW media presented it that way


You commies would have shit your pants if Trump had told people to go to the capitol and be more confrontational. So just stop lying already.

.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,880
Reaction score
11,745
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Did Maxine offer to pay the fines of those who may be arrested or is that something that only a white male presidential candidate can do? White male privilege took a hit yesterday.


No, kneepads harriss helped raise money for bail and fines of actual rioters and other assorted felons. Do try to keep up commie.

.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,880
Reaction score
11,745
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.


.
Freak, I showed you an image of that cop taken from another cop's body cam next to him which clearly shows a knee on Floyd. You're literally trying to counter that with an unsteady video from across the street and behind them where you can't even see his knees. :cuckoo:

Deal with it.


Too lazy to freeze it at the point I told you to, eh? The video I posted showed the officer sitting on his heels, knees on the ground. So if he had a knee on Floyd, it didn't stay there.

.
 

B. Kidd

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
28,132
Reaction score
10,830
Points
900
Location
Western Lands
Did Maxine offer to pay the fines of those who may be arrested or is that something that only a white male presidential candidate can do? White male privilege took a hit yesterday.


No, kneepads harriss helped raise money for bail and fines of actual rioters and other assorted felons. Do try to keep up commie.

.

Even El Presidente Joe gave kudos to the protestor/rioters last year!
Is Waters fellating him?
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,880
Reaction score
11,745
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
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.


Wow, another commie lie, the jury wasn't sequestered until they were sent to deliberate on Monday afternoon. Long after the black bitch made her threats.

.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
6,755
Reaction score
7,863
Points
1,918
Nothing good will come of this injustice to the police officer. The Negroes will expolit this stupid woke weakness as much as they can to get money and not be held accountable for their crimes. These pathetic weak White Guilt pukes will fall all over themselves kissing Black ass.
Why don't you and your friends just grab your Trump flags, and storm the Minnesota prison and free Chauvin.
Really want to---if It had a chance of working, I would and I am pretty sure others would. At some point we are going to stand up or lay down and die. These abuses in the name of our country have to stop.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
42,424
Reaction score
21,948
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Nothing good will come of this injustice to the police officer. The Negroes will expolit this stupid woke weakness as much as they can to get money and not be held accountable for their crimes. These pathetic weak White Guilt pukes will fall all over themselves kissing Black ass.
Why don't you and your friends just grab your Trump flags, and storm the Minnesota prison and free Chauvin.
Really want to---if It had a chance of working, I would and I am pretty sure others would. At some point we are going to stand up or lay down and die. These abuses in the name of our country have to stop.


The Democrats blatantly stealing the election should have resulted in a major confrontation between the Patriots and the Leftest scum.

Now we have a lynching of an innocent policeman and the filthy ass Left is going apeshit wild with giddy.

There will soon be enough of the Left Wing destruction before the Patriots have enough.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,880
Reaction score
11,745
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Pointless, hardly. You said an officer was on Floyds back, when in fact the officer was sitting on his own heels.

You're a damn nut you know. The ONLY time Chauvin may have removed his knee from Floyd's neck might have been when he repositioned to put even more pressure on the neck. What the hell is wrong with you?


Pay attention you ignorant assed commie. Chauvin isn't the one being discussed.

.
 
OP
DrLove

DrLove

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
28,850
Reaction score
12,041
Points
1,100
Location
Central Oregon Coast
Pointless, hardly. You said an officer was on Floyds back, when in fact the officer was sitting on his own heels.

You're a damn nut you know. The ONLY time Chauvin may have removed his knee from Floyd's neck might have been when he repositioned to put even more pressure on the neck. What the hell is wrong with you?


Pay attention you ignorant assed commie. Chauvin isn't the one being discussed.

.

Oh fuck off - NAZI ;)
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,556
Reaction score
2,786
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
And why should anyone accept your opinion over his?
Because mine is based on the law. Feel free not to, nobody has to accept anyone's opinion
LOL

But the lawyer's opinion is not based on the law??
Is conclusion isn't. He's incorrect in stating that direct evidence is absolutely needed.
Great, post your proof he's wrong...
I did...I already posted the legal standard.
 

struth

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
4,556
Reaction score
2,786
Points
893
I am not sure where you quote suggest that Felony Murder is only about charging co-conspiritors...it's not.

Then you ignored the example

Your citation:

Initially it was strictly applied, encompassing any death that occurred during the course of a felony, regardless of who caused it. Therefore, if a police officer attempting to stop a Robbery accidentally shot and killed an innocent passerby, the robber could be charged with murder.
Yep...co-conspiritors to the robbery could be charged with the felony murder as well.

I again fail to see how your quote proves your point or disproves mine? I never suggested a co-conspirator couldn't be charged. Some states however have put some limits, on that though.

But that's why off the mark of what we are talking about...we were discussing how assault couldn't be the felony used for felony murder, and that would merge, via the merger doctrine.

Chauvin was not charged with felony murder.

Felony murder came about as a solution to the "prisoners dilemma".

Imagine a gang assault where one gang member commits murder, but the only witnesses are the other gang members. If they all refuse to identify who did the killing, nobody gets charged with murder.

But under the felony murder statute, they don't need to know which gang member pulled the trigger, as they can all be charged with the murder.

Do you get it now?
Minn State for 2nd Degree, is their felony murder law. I provided the link.

I know what felony murder is, I just showed you over and over again what it was.

Under your hypo they wouldn't be charged with felony murder unless they were engaged in a different felony...like robbery. If it was just a murder, they could be charged with conspiracy to murder, or principals, but not felony murder unless they were engaged in a felony that didn't merge.

In Minn, under the Second Degree murder stat, if it was a drive by they could be charged however with 2nd degree murder.

Yes keep reading dude... This has been pointed out. Go to section 2 part 2

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:


(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.
I did...the officer to my knowledge wasn't subject to a protective or restraining order against George. Do you have something to show us differently?
I’m not claiming that Floyd had a restraining order nor am I claiming that he needed to have one against the cop for the charge to apply. 2nd degree murder clearly can be applied to more cases than just victims of drive by shootings and those who have restraining orders against their offenders. The judge laid it out pretty clearly. If the Cop is believed to have intended to hurt Floyd outside what he was permitted to do within his job then that is assault and if that assault contributed to Floyd’s death then he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.
The law, and what you bold requires that he does for second degree.

It can only apply to what is in the Stat.

I don't disagree the judge read the law, judges always do, that doesn't mean juries don't get it wrong at times, hence why we have appeals and cases overturned
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,880
Reaction score
11,745
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Did Maxine offer to pay the fines of those who may be arrested or is that something that only a white male presidential candidate can do? White male privilege took a hit yesterday.


No, kneepads harriss helped raise money for bail and fines of actual rioters and other assorted felons. Do try to keep up commie.

.

Even El Presidente Joe gave kudos to the protestor/rioters last year!
Is Waters fellating him?


Nah, that would be kneepads job. Trying to give the old bastard a heart attack so she can take over.

.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
52,880
Reaction score
11,745
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Pointless, hardly. You said an officer was on Floyds back, when in fact the officer was sitting on his own heels.

You're a damn nut you know. The ONLY time Chauvin may have removed his knee from Floyd's neck might have been when he repositioned to put even more pressure on the neck. What the hell is wrong with you?


Pay attention you ignorant assed commie. Chauvin isn't the one being discussed.

.

Oh fuck off - NAZI ;)


Need a tissue or a safe space commie?

.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top