What should the verdict be in the Floyd trial?

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

So what's the point of sequestering? If you care about reality you should know that all the jurors will have formed an opinion on the case before they were even selected. The only thing the law provides is asking them before a trial starts to just consider the facts that are presented in courts. If they are able to do that, they should be able to not consider the events of this week in their deliberations. If they are not this week's events shouldn't affect them. Cops killing unarmed people is simply not a rare event sadly enough.

There is no way to prevent a human being to form an opinion and the law asks for a jury trial in this case. There are no good options.

Sorry. Not the way it works.

Then please tell me how you think it works?

 

[B. Kidd]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

So what's the point of sequestering? If you care about reality you should know that all the jurors will have formed an opinion on the case before they were even selected. The only thing the law provides is asking them before a trial starts to just consider the facts that are presented in courts. If they are able to do that, they should be able to not consider the events of this week in their deliberations. If they are not this week's events shouldn't affect them. Cops killing unarmed people is simply not a rare event sadly enough.

There is no way to prevent a human being to form an opinion and the law asks for a jury trial in this case. There are no good options.

Sorry. Not the way it works.

Then please tell me how you think it works?

It's the Judges duty to oversee a fair trial and use at his discretion legal tools such as change of venue and/or sequestered jury's in order it to be fair in due process.

 

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

So what's the point of sequestering? If you care about reality you should know that all the jurors will have formed an opinion on the case before they were even selected. The only thing the law provides is asking them before a trial starts to just consider the facts that are presented in courts. If they are able to do that, they should be able to not consider the events of this week in their deliberations. If they are not this week's events shouldn't affect them. Cops killing unarmed people is simply not a rare event sadly enough.

There is no way to prevent a human being to form an opinion and the law asks for a jury trial in this case. There are no good options.

Sorry. Not the way it works.

Then please tell me how you think it works?

It's the Judges duty to oversee a fair trial and use at his discretion legal tools such as change of venue and/or sequestered jury's in order it to be fair in due process.

Ah, I see. And what if, like this case, due process is already compromised since everyone in the world has already formed an opinion on it well before the trial started? No trail? A trail where the jury is deaf and mute? What options does a judge have in that case?

You say at his discretion, yet you seem to have a problem with this judge using his discretion.

 

[B. Kidd]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

So what's the point of sequestering? If you care about reality you should know that all the jurors will have formed an opinion on the case before they were even selected. The only thing the law provides is asking them before a trial starts to just consider the facts that are presented in courts. If they are able to do that, they should be able to not consider the events of this week in their deliberations. If they are not this week's events shouldn't affect them. Cops killing unarmed people is simply not a rare event sadly enough.

There is no way to prevent a human being to form an opinion and the law asks for a jury trial in this case. There are no good options.

Sorry. Not the way it works.

Then please tell me how you think it works?

It's the Judges duty to oversee a fair trial and use at his discretion legal tools such as change of venue and/or sequestered jury's in order it to be fair in due process.

Ah, I see. And what if, like this case, due process is already compromised since everyone in the world has already formed an opinion on it well before the trial started? No trail? A trail where the jury is deaf and mute? What options does a judge have in that case?

You say at his discretion, yet you seem to have a problem with this judge using his discretion.

Everyone in the world has no say in the trial outcome. They can only react.
There was a jury selection process that occurred. So, once a jury was impounded, it is still under the purview of the Judge that the defendant be afforded a fair trial. The Judge dropped the ball by not, at the least sequestering the jury since the trial venue was not changed. Especially in light of subsequent events.

 

[JustAGuy1]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever the evidence shows it should be.

 

[ColonelAngus]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever the evidence shows it should be.

What evidence have you seen?

 

[JustAGuy1]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever the evidence shows it should be.

What evidence have you seen?

There is a court for that, I have no dog in the hunt. But like Trayvon, like fat Michael Brown I'll wait and see.

 

[ColonelAngus]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever the evidence shows it should be.

What evidence have you seen?

There is a court for that, I have no dog in the hunt. But like Trayvon, like fat Michael Brown I'll wait and see.

So you really are not a candidate to post in this thread.

 

[JustAGuy1]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever the evidence shows it should be.

What evidence have you seen?

There is a court for that, I have no dog in the hunt. But like Trayvon, like fat Michael Brown I'll wait and see.

So you really are not a candidate to post in this thread.

So you don't get to make that decision.

 

[ColonelAngus]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever the evidence shows it should be.

What evidence have you seen?

There is a court for that, I have no dog in the hunt. But like Trayvon, like fat Michael Brown I'll wait and see.

So you really are not a candidate to post in this thread.

So you don't get to make that decision.

You posted in this thread to let us know you have no opinion.

Thanks so much for that. Your non opinion is duly noted.

 

[forkup]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

If you know the law pretty well. You also should know that this will most likely will go to an appeal. You should probably also know that since the judge already asked the jury to avoid the news the court of appeals is unlikely to overturn the result of the trial on the basis of this?

For the Judge asking the jury to avoid the news is akin to Biden asking illegals not to come to America. It just doesn't happen in reality. Sheesh!

So what's the point of sequestering? If you care about reality you should know that all the jurors will have formed an opinion on the case before they were even selected. The only thing the law provides is asking them before a trial starts to just consider the facts that are presented in courts. If they are able to do that, they should be able to not consider the events of this week in their deliberations. If they are not this week's events shouldn't affect them. Cops killing unarmed people is simply not a rare event sadly enough.

There is no way to prevent a human being to form an opinion and the law asks for a jury trial in this case. There are no good options.

Sorry. Not the way it works.

Then please tell me how you think it works?

It's the Judges duty to oversee a fair trial and use at his discretion legal tools such as change of venue and/or sequestered jury's in order it to be fair in due process.

Ah, I see. And what if, like this case, due process is already compromised since everyone in the world has already formed an opinion on it well before the trial started? No trail? A trail where the jury is deaf and mute? What options does a judge have in that case?

You say at his discretion, yet you seem to have a problem with this judge using his discretion.

Everyone in the world has no say in the trial outcome. They can only react.
There was a jury selection process that occurred. So, once a jury was impounded, it is still under the purview of the Judge that the defendant be afforded a fair trial. The Judge dropped the ball by not, at the least sequestering the jury since the trial venue was not changed. Especially in light of subsequent events.

The jury belongs to the world, right? I doubt the jury selection was able to put only, or probably any jurors who weren't aware and most likely already had formed an opinion on the bench. So in effect, the jury pool by default is tainted. This also means that no amount of sequestering could change that basic fact. Sequestering has a negative impact on jury's especially in longer trials, that's why a judge would be reluctant to order it.

Unless the venue change would have involved Antarctica and probably 8 penguins and 4 polar bears as jurors it would not have changed anything.

 

[JustAGuy1]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever the evidence shows it should be.

What evidence have you seen?

There is a court for that, I have no dog in the hunt. But like Trayvon, like fat Michael Brown I'll wait and see.

So you really are not a candidate to post in this thread.

So you don't get to make that decision.

You posted in this thread to let us know you have no opinion.

Thanks so much for that. Your non opinion is duly noted.

Funny thing about that.....opinions are like assholes and since you are one you'll understand that. Tell me....how will your "opinion" effect the outcome of the trial?

 

[Ringtone]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Third degree murder is the wrong crime, rather, manslaughter in the second degree (Sec. 609-205 MN statutes):

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:​

​

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. . . .​

 

[Ringtone]

They are going for 3rd degree murder. Did the cop commit 3rd degree murder?

Murder in United States law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Minnesota 3rd degree murder is pretty similar to manslaughter. Definitely fits this situation better than 1st or 2nd degree.

It's still the wrong offense. See post #413.

 

[Ringtone]

Funny thing about that.....opinions are like assholes and since you are one you'll understand that. Tell me....how will your "opinion" effect the outcome of the trial?

My asshole opinion is the right one. See post #413

Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

Verdict should be a MISTRIAL!

The judge failed to sequester the jury in such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
Jury is NOW under duress and cannot fairly weigh the evidence!!

Your a member of the court of appeals of course?

I know the law pretty damned well. I spent 28 years in Courts. The Judge fucked up by not sequestering the jury.
The jury needs to throw the case back on that stupid ass!

I agree.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.....the cops didn't kill Floyd...he died of a drug overdose.....because of incredibly bad health...

Read what the medical examiner and the prosecution expert witness testified to and then you can retract your post...

The medical examiner specifically called this a homicide, you moron.

Shit head....you aren't watching the trial, are you? The guy died from a drug over dose and complications from 3 blocked coronary arteries...blocked 75-90%....... an enlarged heart, and a cocktail of drugs that made him fall asleep so they couldn't drive away from the store where he passed the fake 20....you idiot...

There was no damage to the tissues or structures of his neck, shoulders or back...

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

The Judge's 1st mistake was not changing the venue. In light of him not doing that, his 2nd mistake was not immediately sequestering the jury.

Yep....no way to get a fair verdict in that community.....since democrats burned and looted the place not once, but now twice...right in front of the jurors..........they want to convict this cop no matter what the truth is...

 

[XponentialChaos]

Shit head....you aren't watching the trial, are you? The guy died from a drug over dose and complications from 3 blocked coronary arteries...blocked 75-90%....... an enlarged heart, and a cocktail of drugs that made him fall asleep so they couldn't drive away from the store where he passed the fake 20....you idiot...

Moron.

Once again, he SPECIFICALLY called it HOMICIDE. He explained this.

What do you think he meant when he said it was a “homicide”? Explain that please. Fucking moron.

 

[jc456]

Shit head....you aren't watching the trial, are you? The guy died from a drug over dose and complications from 3 blocked coronary arteries...blocked 75-90%....... an enlarged heart, and a cocktail of drugs that made him fall asleep so they couldn't drive away from the store where he passed the fake 20....you idiot...

Moron.

Once again, he SPECIFICALLY called it HOMICIDE. He explained this.

What do you think he meant when he said it was a “homicide”? Explain that please. Fucking moron.

did you read up on homicide in a autopsy? Dr. Baker said the term Homicide he used doesn't mean the same as the law version of Homicide. You heard him say that right? Their version doesn't mean murder.