Judge in Floyd case opens door for an acquital.

[asaratis]

Well... they are the prosecution. That is their job, present the best case they can.

Suppressing exculpatory evidence is unethical and is not a court approved tool of the prosecutor. Both sides are obligated to seek the truth regardless of the resulting verdict.

They didn't suppress it. They just didn't consider it worth looking for at all. Or, at least, I assume that's their excuse.

Drug Dealer Hall will be testifying tomorrow, so stated the judge.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well... they are the prosecution. That is their job, present the best case they can.

Suppressing exculpatory evidence is unethical and is not a court approved tool of the prosecutor. Both sides are obligated to seek the truth regardless of the resulting verdict.

They didn't suppress it. They just didn't consider it worth looking for at all. Or, at least, I assume that's their excuse.

Drug Dealer Hall will be testifying tomorrow, so stated the judge.

If so, I'm glad to hear it.

 

[asaratis]

In watching the trial proceedings, I have noticed uncounted (but many) instances where witnesses begin their answers to questions with "So"....(answer). Are there any genius minds here that can explain that?

If so, please enlighten me with your opinion.

 

[asaratis]

Well... they are the prosecution. That is their job, present the best case they can.

Suppressing exculpatory evidence is unethical and is not a court approved tool of the prosecutor. Both sides are obligated to seek the truth regardless of the resulting verdict.

They didn't suppress it. They just didn't consider it worth looking for at all. Or, at least, I assume that's their excuse.

Drug Dealer Hall will be testifying tomorrow, so stated the judge.

If so, I'm glad to hear it.

I heard him say it. If you watch the trial on TV, you may learn something as it happens.

Don't you question my honesty?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well... they are the prosecution. That is their job, present the best case they can.

Suppressing exculpatory evidence is unethical and is not a court approved tool of the prosecutor. Both sides are obligated to seek the truth regardless of the resulting verdict.

They didn't suppress it. They just didn't consider it worth looking for at all. Or, at least, I assume that's their excuse.

Drug Dealer Hall will be testifying tomorrow, so stated the judge.

If so, I'm glad to hear it.

I heard him say it. If you watch the trial on TV, you may learn something as it happens.

Don't you question my honesty?

Wasn't questioning anything. I don't have time to watch the trial. My employer has some notion that I should actually come to work and concentrate on my job while I'm here. That is why I said "if so": because I didn't personally hear it.

Why don't you pull the stick out and stop looking for an excuse to be offended?

 

[asaratis]

Why don't you pull the stick out and stop looking for an excuse to be offended?

I have no stick in and I am not offended. I just thought you might have misread my sentence that ended with "so stated the judge."

Lighten up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why don't you pull the stick out and stop looking for an excuse to be offended?

I have no stick in and I am not offended. I just thought you might have misread my sentence that ended with "so stated the judge."

Lighten up.

Yeah, you start in with "Are you questioning my word" and then think you get to tell people to lighten up?

Never mind. I'll leave you alone with your butt-chapping and go talk to people who aren't mindlessly lashing out and then pretending they didn't.

 

[asaratis]

Why don't you pull the stick out and stop looking for an excuse to be offended?

I have no stick in and I am not offended. I just thought you might have misread my sentence that ended with "so stated the judge."

Lighten up.

Yeah, you start in with "Are you questioning my word" and then think you get to tell people to lighten up?

Never mind. I'll leave you alone with your butt-chapping and go talk to people who aren't mindlessly lashing out and then pretending they didn't.

Do as you wish, Cecilie.

BTW, lighten up was a suggestion, not an order. Your being overly sensitive is not a virtue.

 

[JoeB131]

The point is you lock your door at night to try and keep unlikely potential intruders out. You lock your car to try and insure nobody steals anything out of it or the car itself. You carry auto, home or rent insurance in the very unlikely event you face a major loss. That's why we carry our guns.

Again, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. It's like arguing why you own a rabid pit bull that mauls your family.

I've known people who went to Chicago that said the same thing. But you know as well as I do all communist cities are shit holes.

Really. Hey, check it out Chicago's Skyline.

Meanwile... Cleveland's skyline.... just need the Zombies

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. It's like arguing why you own a rabid pit bull that mauls your family.

Yeah, those guns are hard to control. Much like a dog, they can be great until they turn on you and a family member ends up dead.

Really. Hey, check it out Chicago's Skyline.

Meanwile... Cleveland's skyline.... just need the Zombies

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, they know who sold Floyd his dope. But the pusher is pleading the 5th, even though its certainly exculpatory evidence in favor of Officer Chauvin.

If the pusher gave Floyd a "hot (lethal) dose", he should be (at the very least) in the dock as well.

Yes but they would have to give the pusher immunity by testifying that he sold Floyd bad dope. Given the environment, that's not likely to happen.

I think that's rather telling. The offer of immunity has to come from the prosecution, and that they're perfectly happy to go, "No, that's fine, we don't need to hear what you have to say" tells us that the prosecution is 100% interested in preserving their narrative, and 0% interested in finding out the truth.

Well... they are the prosecution. That is their job, present the best case they can.

No, actually, their job was to have found the truth as best as they possibly could in order to determine whether a case needed to be made at all. And they blew it off in favor of serving a political narrative.

Well, no. Their job really is not to find the truth. That is what we WANT the outcome to be and our system uses the competing sides of a prosecutor and a defense in hopes of actually getting at the truth. The job of the prosecutor though is to present the best possible case they can minus actively hiding exculpatory evidence. They do not have any obligations whatsoever to present that exculpatory evidence though, again they are to present the best case possible. They just have to provide that evidence to the defense so they can present it if they choose. You may think that there was not enough to bring this to trial but I would disagree there. Chauvin may be innocent and the case to weak but that does not mean there is not enough there to convince the DA there is a good chance he was guilty. It is pretty clear there is a case here, the prosecution has presented at least that much. We will see after the defense gets to tear it apart. I think they have made some solid points on some details in the body cam footage as well as details on the coroners report. The prosecution managed to get an expert witness to make this amazing claim though:

George Floyd’s death ‘was absolutely preventable,’ a cardiologist testifies. (Published 2021)

Dr. Jonathan Rich said Mr. Floyd had an “exceptionally strong heart” and ruled out a drug overdose and a primary cardiac event.

www.nytimes.com

"Dr. Rich said he had considered two other potential causes, including a primary cardiac event and possibly a drug overdose. But he said: “I can state with a high degree of medical certainty” that Mr. Floyd “did not die from a primary cardiac event and did not die from a drug overdose.”

Clearly there is at least a case here.

They certainly are not going to provide immunity for the defense. That may be a weakness in our system but no one anywhere afaik has had the DA offer immunity for a defense witness. I wonder if testimony in such situations should not be sealed and protected in the first place so that immunity was not even a question and the defense could freely call the dealer.

If the job was to get to the truth there would be only the judge who would investigate the case but we know such a system is rife with corruption and does not work.

I will not argue that politics is getting in the way though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, they know who sold Floyd his dope. But the pusher is pleading the 5th, even though its certainly exculpatory evidence in favor of Officer Chauvin.

If the pusher gave Floyd a "hot (lethal) dose", he should be (at the very least) in the dock as well.

Yes but they would have to give the pusher immunity by testifying that he sold Floyd bad dope. Given the environment, that's not likely to happen.

I think that's rather telling. The offer of immunity has to come from the prosecution, and that they're perfectly happy to go, "No, that's fine, we don't need to hear what you have to say" tells us that the prosecution is 100% interested in preserving their narrative, and 0% interested in finding out the truth.

Well... they are the prosecution. That is their job, present the best case they can.

No, actually, their job was to have found the truth as best as they possibly could in order to determine whether a case needed to be made at all. And they blew it off in favor of serving a political narrative.

Well, no. Their job really is not to find the truth. That is what we WANT the outcome to be and our system uses the competing sides of a prosecutor and a defense in hopes of actually getting at the truth. The job of the prosecutor though is to present the best possible case they can minus actively hiding exculpatory evidence. They do not have any obligations whatsoever to present that exculpatory evidence though, again they are to present the best case possible. They just have to provide that evidence to the defense so they can present it if they choose. You may think that there was not enough to bring this to trial but I would disagree there. Chauvin may be innocent and the case to weak but that does not mean there is not enough there to convince the DA there is a good chance he was guilty. It is pretty clear there is a case here, the prosecution has presented at least that much. We will see after the defense gets to tear it apart. I think they have made some solid points on some details in the body cam footage as well as details on the coroners report. The prosecution managed to get an expert witness to make this amazing claim though:

George Floyd’s death ‘was absolutely preventable,’ a cardiologist testifies. (Published 2021)

Dr. Jonathan Rich said Mr. Floyd had an “exceptionally strong heart” and ruled out a drug overdose and a primary cardiac event.

www.nytimes.com

"Dr. Rich said he had considered two other potential causes, including a primary cardiac event and possibly a drug overdose. But he said: “I can state with a high degree of medical certainty” that Mr. Floyd “did not die from a primary cardiac event and did not die from a drug overdose.”

Clearly there is at least a case here.

They certainly are not going to provide immunity for the defense. That may be a weakness in our system but no one anywhere afaik has had the DA offer immunity for a defense witness. I wonder if testimony in such situations should not be sealed and protected in the first place so that immunity was not even a question and the defense could freely call the dealer.

If the job was to get to the truth there would be only the judge who would investigate the case but we know such a system is rife with corruption and does not work.

I will not argue that politics is getting in the way though.

No, the prosecutor's job involves more than just what happens in the courtroom, where I agree it's his job to present the best possible case. His job starts far sooner than that point, though, when he's supposed to find out if there genuinely is a case to be made, period. What the prosecution appears to have done in this case is say, "Well, this guy has been accused, so how can I convince people he's guilty?" As a representative of the state - of which any accused is also a citizen - that is not okay.