Thread for Derek Chauvin trial watchers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

His intent was to kill??? Are you out of your mind? He had his camera on, multiple cops had their cameras on, bystanders were recording him in his face on their phones, he on multiple occasions repositioned GF when he was complaining - in what world do you think his actual intent was to kill the guy. Like I can’t even understand that as a possible consideration.

The defense attorney showed today that the prosecution misrepresented a few things. The blood from Floyd’s nose was from his fighting to stay out of the car. Floyd was on his side, not in the prone position when he reached the tire to reposition himself. They called EMS one minute into the scuffle when Floyd was bleeding. So much reasonable doubt. Not to mention, Floyd’s horrible health and his toxicology confirming the evidence of Fentanyl and meth in his system. I think the defense was phenomenal today, and I could not convict.

Maybe he would have died later on that day, after ingesting the drugs. But he didn't OD. He died before that ever could have happened.

It the 1L crim law discussion- if you shoot someone jumping from the Empire State Building on the way down, it’s still murder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

How about we kneel lightly on Chauvin's neck for 9 minutes and then let him go free.

It's protocol, right?

How about he get in the car and he would be alive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

How about we kneel lightly on Chauvin's neck for 9 minutes and then let him go free.

It's protocol, right?

How about he get in the car and he would be alive?

He was having an anxiety attack. That’s not an excuse to kill him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

His intent was to kill??? Are you out of your mind? He had his camera on, multiple cops had their cameras on, bystanders were recording him in his face on their phones, he on multiple occasions repositioned GF when he was complaining - in what world do you think his actual intent was to kill the guy. Like I can’t even understand that as a possible consideration.

The defense attorney showed today that the prosecution misrepresented a few things. The blood from Floyd’s nose was from his fighting to stay out of the car. Floyd was on his side, not in the prone position when he reached the tire to reposition himself. They called EMS one minute into the scuffle when Floyd was bleeding. So much reasonable doubt. Not to mention, Floyd’s horrible health and his toxicology confirming the evidence of Fentanyl and meth in his system. I think the defense was phenomenal today, and I could not convict.

Maybe he would have died later on that day, after ingesting the drugs. But he didn't OD. He died before that ever could have happened.

It the 1L crim law discussion- if you shoot someone jumping from the Empire State Building on the way down, it’s still murder

Great analogy. +1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

How about we kneel lightly on Chauvin's neck for 9 minutes and then let him go free.

It's protocol, right?

How about he get in the car and he would be alive?

He was having an anxiety attack. That’s not an excuse to kill him.

Chauvin's a lousy cop and an idiot. That's his excuse to kill people.

Should it be? PP thinks so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

His intent was to kill??? Are you out of your mind? He had his camera on, multiple cops had their cameras on, bystanders were recording him in his face on their phones, he on multiple occasions repositioned GF when he was complaining - in what world do you think his actual intent was to kill the guy. Like I can’t even understand that as a possible consideration.

The defense attorney showed today that the prosecution misrepresented a few things. The blood from Floyd’s nose was from his fighting to stay out of the car. Floyd was on his side, not in the prone position when he reached the tire to reposition himself. They called EMS one minute into the scuffle when Floyd was bleeding. So much reasonable doubt. Not to mention, Floyd’s horrible health and his toxicology confirming the evidence of Fentanyl and meth in his system. I think the defense was phenomenal today, and I could not convict.

Maybe he would have died later on that day, after ingesting the drugs. But he didn't OD. He died before that ever could have happened.

It the 1L crim law discussion- if you shoot someone jumping from the Empire State Building on the way down, it’s still murder

But the key difference is if you shoot someone, you have intent to kill them and it is reasonable to anticipate it will kill them. Those are factors relevant to the requisite legal standard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any guesses on how long the jury will be out? Will they try to have the verdict read in the AM vs PM?

The judge said that he would allow the jury to deliberate until 7pm tonight and then they would break and begin again the next day. He indicated that if the jury returned a verdict in the afternoon/evening, it would likely be read the next day and wouldn’t be read near dark. They are going to have a 2-3 hour delay between the return of the verdict and the public reading.

My guess is the jury won’t be out that long in this case but there’s no way to know.

Correction: looks like they deliberated until 8pm. They have retired for the night.

As far as the 2-3 hour delay, I don’t know for certain but I would assume they are going to enact whatever they need to for Operation Safety Net.

https://safetynet.mn.gov/Pages/default.aspx

This is just what I remember and I can’t find a source where Cahill has it written down, but it makes sense. This is the first televised trial in MN. And it is for an incident that led to widespread social unrest. So having some delay makes sense. They will probably be shifting resources from other areas to the courthouse at that point in preparation for the verdict to be read and trial to conclude, so they can safely remove the jurors at the conclusion.

[Anonymous]

The fact they deliberated for several hours tonight with no verdict says to me it’s going to be hung....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact they deliberated for several hours tonight with no verdict says to me it’s going to be hung....

Analysts were saying it would be unusual to conclude quickly. They have to go over the whole trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

How about we kneel lightly on Chauvin's neck for 9 minutes and then let him go free.

It's protocol, right?

How about he get in the car and he would be alive?

They tried to calmly put him in the car multiple times, even offered to keep the windows open for him. And he resisted and struggled back preventing them from putting him in there because he was a harm to himself demonstrating by his injury and guess what he was screaming while they were trying to put him in the car? “I can’t get in there. I’m going to die, I’m going to die, man. It’s going to kill me. I’m going to die. I just had covid. I’m going to die.” This is when he was standing by the cop car and the cops were trying to put him in there. That reasonably alters the perception those cops would have when he is later yelling the same words for something that also doesn’t typically lead to dying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact they deliberated for several hours tonight with no verdict says to me it’s going to be hung....

I don't think that's necessarily true. Hopefully if they do convict, they will recognize how serious it is and will take their time to go over every piece of evidence carefully. It shouldn't be a quick decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

How about we kneel lightly on Chauvin's neck for 9 minutes and then let him go free.

It's protocol, right?

How about he get in the car and he would be alive?

They tried to calmly put him in the car multiple times, even offered to keep the windows open for him. And he resisted and struggled back preventing them from putting him in there because he was a harm to himself demonstrating by his injury and guess what he was screaming while they were trying to put him in the car? “I can’t get in there. I’m going to die, I’m going to die, man. It’s going to kill me. I’m going to die. I just had covid. I’m going to die.” This is when he was standing by the cop car and the cops were trying to put him in there. That reasonably alters the perception those cops would have when he is later yelling the same words for something that also doesn’t typically lead to dying

He was right to have a panic attack. He was right to fear arrest. And death.

Also, that type of restraint is well known to kill people. It's not atypical to lead to dying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As much as I hope not, I’m betting it’s going to be a hung jury. That will be the worst on all levels.... but you know there’s going to be one “blue lives matter” person who holds out on conviction and is truly convinced this was justified

So, are we to assume that all “BLM” supporters on the jury will vote to convict just because they’re BLM, regardless of what they have heard during this trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

How about we kneel lightly on Chauvin's neck for 9 minutes and then let him go free.

It's protocol, right?

How about he get in the car and he would be alive?

They tried to calmly put him in the car multiple times, even offered to keep the windows open for him. And he resisted and struggled back preventing them from putting him in there because he was a harm to himself demonstrating by his injury and guess what he was screaming while they were trying to put him in the car? “I can’t get in there. I’m going to die, I’m going to die, man. It’s going to kill me. I’m going to die. I just had covid. I’m going to die.” This is when he was standing by the cop car and the cops were trying to put him in there. That reasonably alters the perception those cops would have when he is later yelling the same words for something that also doesn’t typically lead to dying

+1. New poster here. What happened was horrific, but I could not convict, as I believe that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact they deliberated for several hours tonight with no verdict says to me it’s going to be hung....

Analysts were saying it would be unusual to conclude quickly. They have to go over the whole trial.

They do not have to go over the whole trial. They could get back there, do an initial vote, all be unanimous and be done.