What the hell will happen when the cop who killed George Floyd walks?

[Asclepias]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

That won't happen because that is not how a change in venue works. The defense can request a change in venue because they believe a fair trial is not possible in the current venue. If the judge agrees he will allow a change in venue of his choice but he will not dismiss the case without hearing it. The system has a number of safeguards against prejudice toward the defendant. Both the prosecution and the defense can dismiss jurors for cause or no cause at all. The judge can set a side any verdict if he believes the jury is not acting impartially.

He's been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion.

There is no impartial jury possible anywhere in America.

If he is convicted, it will be the same as lynching him.

I'm good with him being lynched. Actually they should skin him alive.

 

[Andylusion]

And I'll say something else. His wife apparently separated before this went down... apparently the very day before it went down.... if she thinks these evil disgusting slimy left-wingers are going to let her go, she is wrong. She needs to pack up the kids, and move to another state. Her name change isn't going to help her either. She needs to run. These people are literally sub-human animals at this point.

 

[Asclepias]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

It could happen.
When they had him on for manslaughter, I thought he'd get a fair penalty. But now with 2nd degree murder, when he clearly was not intentionally trying to murder the man, he may in fact walk. In fact I think he should.

You should read up on mizzos laws. The 3rd degree was impossible to prove. 2nd degree doesnt require any proof of intent.

" the prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed an individual without lawful justification. "

 

[Flopper]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

That won't happen because that is not how a change in venue works. The defense can request a change in venue because they believe a fair trial is not possible in the current venue. If the judge agrees he will allow a change in venue of his choice but he will not dismiss the case without hearing it. The system has a number of safeguards against prejudice toward the defendant. Both the prosecution and the defense can dismiss jurors for cause or no cause at all. The judge can set a side any verdict if he believes the jury is not acting impartially.

He's been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion.

There is no impartial jury possible anywhere in America.

If he is convicted, it will be the same as lynching him.

No so. I have strong opinions but I certainly can set them aside if I serve on a jury. Not all but most people can. In a trial the jury hears both side, something the public will not hear. You would be surprised at the number of people in this country who only have a passing interest in this issue. This case, like most highly charge criminal cases rarely come to trial within a year and most people will barely even remember the name of the victim.

 

[candycorn]

Inadvertently (of course) the OP does bring up the overarching point to all of this. In October or whenever...there will be another instance of police brutality. If the victim of the brutality is black, there will be more protests. There will be no real change until we start teaching our children that we are all, in fact, the same. That would require effort on the part of parents to A) stay together B) turn off the TV and practice the gospel of inclusion C) instill values education into the curricula of the school districts.

 

[Flopper]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

It could happen.
When they had him on for manslaughter, I thought he'd get a fair penalty. But now with 2nd degree murder, when he clearly was not intentionally trying to murder the man, he may in fact walk. In fact I think he should.

No, a judge can not dismiss the charges because he can not seat an impartial jury. The judge will just look further. A person's right to a fair trial includes the right to counsel, right to speedy and public trial, right to be free from use of unlawfully seized evidence and unlawfully obtained confessions, and the like. But this does not exhaust the requirements of fairness. “Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. Due process is also violated by the participation of a biased or otherwise partial juror, although there is no presumption that all jurors with a potential bias are in fact prejudiced.

The jury selection process requires that 12 impartial jurors be selected out of a jury pool that may be as much as 125 potential jurors. If the judge believes selecting impartial jurors will be a problem, that pool can be enlarged. Each jury completes a questionnaire to determine their suitability. Failure to disclose biases can result in perjury charges. Either judge or prosecutor or defense lawyers will dismiss any juror who can not render an impartial verdict. The jury selection process, change of venue, and trial delays will provide a strong guarantee to the defendant of and impartial jury. The court has the responsibility to assemble as impartial a jury as is possible.

 

[Blackrook]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

It could happen.
When they had him on for manslaughter, I thought he'd get a fair penalty. But now with 2nd degree murder, when he clearly was not intentionally trying to murder the man, he may in fact walk. In fact I think he should.

No, a judge can not dismiss the charges without hearing the case. A person's right to a fair trial includes the right to counsel, right to speedy and public trial, right to be free from use of unlawfully seized evidence and unlawfully obtained confessions, and the like. But this does not exhaust the requirements of fairness. “Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. Due process is also violated by the participation of a biased or otherwise partial juror, although there is no presumption that all jurors with a potential bias are in fact prejudiced.

The jury selection process requires that 12 impartial jurors be selected out of a jury pool that may be as much as 125 potential jurors. If the judge believes selecting impartial jurors will be a problem, that pool can be enlarged. Each jury completes a questionnaire to determine their suitability. Failure to disclose biases can result in perjury charges. Either judge or prosecutor or defense law lawyers will dismiss any juror who can not render an impartial verdict. The jury selection process, change of venue, and trial delays will provide a strong guarantee to the defendant of and impartial jury. The court has the responsibility to assemble as impartial a jury as is possible.

Yes, I know all that.

It doesn't matter.

These jurors will receive death threats and if they vote to acquit some of them may even be murdered.

No fair trial is possible.

 

[Asclepias]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

It could happen.
When they had him on for manslaughter, I thought he'd get a fair penalty. But now with 2nd degree murder, when he clearly was not intentionally trying to murder the man, he may in fact walk. In fact I think he should.

No, a judge can not dismiss the charges without hearing the case. A person's right to a fair trial includes the right to counsel, right to speedy and public trial, right to be free from use of unlawfully seized evidence and unlawfully obtained confessions, and the like. But this does not exhaust the requirements of fairness. “Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. Due process is also violated by the participation of a biased or otherwise partial juror, although there is no presumption that all jurors with a potential bias are in fact prejudiced.

The jury selection process requires that 12 impartial jurors be selected out of a jury pool that may be as much as 125 potential jurors. If the judge believes selecting impartial jurors will be a problem, that pool can be enlarged. Each jury completes a questionnaire to determine their suitability. Failure to disclose biases can result in perjury charges. Either judge or prosecutor or defense law lawyers will dismiss any juror who can not render an impartial verdict. The jury selection process, change of venue, and trial delays will provide a strong guarantee to the defendant of and impartial jury. The court has the responsibility to assemble as impartial a jury as is possible.

Yes, I know all that.

It doesn't matter.

These jurors will receive death threats and if they vote to acquit some of them may even be murdered.

No fair trial is possible.

Too bad. Thats more of a trial than the person he murdered got.

 

[barn sour]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

That's been tried before, and it never works. I do think, though, that the one cop who had only been on the job a few weeks and told the main cop to let Floyd go should be let off.

 

[Flopper]

Inadvertently (of course) the OP does bring up the overarching point to all of this. In October or whenever...there will be another instance of police brutality. If the victim of the brutality is black, there will be more protests. There will be no real change until we start teaching our children that we are all, in fact, the same. That would require effort on the part of parents to A) stay together B) turn off the TV and practice the gospel of inclusion C) instill values education into the curricula of the school districts.

Very true. Teaching children that you don't judge people because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity, nor their physical features will change the culture and that is the only real solution and that can only change over many years. These protests are a small step in the right direction. There're not not likely to change the way the police apprehend criminals. Given time, they'll change hearts and minds of people and that is one huge victory for the nation. I was around in 50's and 60's and saw first hand how Blacks and Latinos were treated then. There have been huge improvements in racial equality and the treatment of minorities and I have no doubt that over this century it will improve far more.

 

[candycorn]

Inadvertently (of course) the OP does bring up the overarching point to all of this. In October or whenever...there will be another instance of police brutality. If the victim of the brutality is black, there will be more protests. There will be no real change until we start teaching our children that we are all, in fact, the same. That would require effort on the part of parents to A) stay together B) turn off the TV and practice the gospel of inclusion C) instill values education into the curricula of the school districts.

Very true. Teaching children that you don't judge people because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity, nor their physical features will change the culture and that is the only real solution and that can only change over many years. These protests are a small step in the right direction. There're not not likely to change the way the police apprehend criminals. Given time, they'll change hearts and minds of people and that is one huge victory for the nation.

And even after the generational change (assuming it happens) there will still be instances where the police or the public go over the line. The difference is how the society reacts to it on the whole. Do thousands rise up and demand justice because that is the only way it gets served or do the institutions do what they are supposed to do and address malfeasance correctly, swiftly, and transparently? This is where legislation can play a role.

 

[barn sour]

All of you, everyone in America, has already decided he's guilty so he cannot get a fair trial.

I don't agree. There are still people in America that don't watch the news at all, or they know there are protests but know nothing of what caused it. It will take awhile, but they will find a jury. That said, the evidence is overwhelming, and any person with half a brain can figure this case out. There are the officers, own words that were recorded -- to say nothing of the video. Lots of witnesses and evidence. The jury can be sequestered....and will be.

 

[Blackrook]

Everyone thought the cops who beat up Rodney King were guilty but then the jury let them off.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Everyone thought the cops who beat up Rodney King were guilty but then the jury let them off.

There was a trial, did you know that?

 

[TheParser]

1. There is no chance in H*ll that the cop will walk.

2. In fact, he will get a life sentence. If he doesn't, the insurrection will resume, something that the powers-that-be want to prevent at any cost.

3. Ironically, the cop may be safer in prison than if he were freed. No need for details.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

All of you, everyone in America, has already decided he's guilty so he cannot get a fair trial.

In that courtroom, its not going to matter what the rest of us thinks, its going to be judge/jurors who have the final word after learning everything that took place. Anyone who puts on display their anger over the verdict in an illegal way will then be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced themselves for whatever it is that they choose to be guilty of.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Flopper]

Inadvertently (of course) the OP does bring up the overarching point to all of this. In October or whenever...there will be another instance of police brutality. If the victim of the brutality is black, there will be more protests. There will be no real change until we start teaching our children that we are all, in fact, the same. That would require effort on the part of parents to A) stay together B) turn off the TV and practice the gospel of inclusion C) instill values education into the curricula of the school districts.

Very true. Teaching children that you don't judge people because of the color of their skin, their ethnicity, nor their physical features will change the culture and that is the only real solution and that can only change over many years. These protests are a small step in the right direction. There're not not likely to change the way the police apprehend criminals. Given time, they'll change hearts and minds of people and that is one huge victory for the nation.

And even after the generational change (assuming it happens) there will still be instances where the police or the public go over the line. The difference is how the society reacts to it on the whole. Do thousands rise up and demand justice because that is the only way it gets served or do the institutions do what they are supposed to do and address malfeasance correctly, swiftly, and transparently? This is where legislation can play a role.

Racial minorities are the subject of most of the arrests in the intercities so if a policeman responds to a robbery and sees a black man and a white man running away from the store, which one is he going to follow? In a mostly white neighborhood that I live in there have been a number of homes broken into. I know for a fact that any black teenagers riding through the neighborhood at night are going to be stopped by the local police even thou they are guilty of nothing but being black. This is the kind policing that takes criminals off the streets but also results in a lot of unjust arrests and a hatred for the police by minorities. Police profiling may be wrong but it does work. It can also result in the police killing the innocent. There's a very good movie called "The Hate U Give" that illustrates this very well.

 

[Flopper]

All of you, everyone in America, has already decided he's guilty so he cannot get a fair trial.

I don't agree. There are still people in America that don't watch the news at all, or they know there are protests but know nothing of what caused it. It will take awhile, but they will find a jury. That said, the evidence is overwhelming, and any person with half a brain can figure this case out. There are the officers, own words that were recorded -- to say nothing of the video. Lots of witnesses and evidence. The jury can be sequestered....and will be.

If the evidence is overwhelming, there will probably be a plea deal an no trial.

 

[Flopper]

If I was his defense lawyer I would file a simple motion, arguing: "My client cannot get a fair trial anywhere in the United States."

The judge would have to agree, and let my client walk.

It could happen.
When they had him on for manslaughter, I thought he'd get a fair penalty. But now with 2nd degree murder, when he clearly was not intentionally trying to murder the man, he may in fact walk. In fact I think he should.

No, a judge can not dismiss the charges without hearing the case. A person's right to a fair trial includes the right to counsel, right to speedy and public trial, right to be free from use of unlawfully seized evidence and unlawfully obtained confessions, and the like. But this does not exhaust the requirements of fairness. “Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. Due process is also violated by the participation of a biased or otherwise partial juror, although there is no presumption that all jurors with a potential bias are in fact prejudiced.

The jury selection process requires that 12 impartial jurors be selected out of a jury pool that may be as much as 125 potential jurors. If the judge believes selecting impartial jurors will be a problem, that pool can be enlarged. Each jury completes a questionnaire to determine their suitability. Failure to disclose biases can result in perjury charges. Either judge or prosecutor or defense law lawyers will dismiss any juror who can not render an impartial verdict. The jury selection process, change of venue, and trial delays will provide a strong guarantee to the defendant of and impartial jury. The court has the responsibility to assemble as impartial a jury as is possible.

Yes, I know all that.

It doesn't matter.

These jurors will receive death threats and if they vote to acquit some of them may even be murdered.

No fair trial is possible.

If there is overwhelming evidence there will likely be a plea deal and no trial. If there is a trial, it won't occur for over a year. Strange as it may seem the public has a very short memory. Remember the Eric Garner police killing in 2014. 6 months after the killing a grand jury met to consider charges. At the time less than half of the public remembered who he was and that was just 6 months after the killing.

 

[Harry Dresden]

My next motion would be: "He was doing his job, which was to restrain a resisting suspect. You can't charge a police officer with murder for doing his job."

what i read and heard more than once, was that they had him cuffed and in the car.....why was he pulled back out?.....no one seems to be saying why....