View Poll Results: What Do You Think The Jury Will Do?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Murder in the 2nd Degree

    4 30.77%
  • Manslaughter

    4 30.77%
  • Not Guilty

    1 7.69%
  • Hung Jury

    1 7.69%
  • Murder in the 3rd Degree

    3 23.08%
Page 14 of 79 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 788

Thread: George Floyd murderer's trial

  1. Top | #131
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,106
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,852
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

    I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.
    You have been making no sense in this thread. None at all.
    How the fuck would you know what the jurors are thinking and what motivates them? Human beings are all different.
    Who are you accusing of trying to ignore due process? Is this is a conspiracy of the jurors or are there other people involved as well?
    A jury trial is the opposite of mob justice. It is an exercise of the rule of law.
    If you "don't like it" the way things are being done, what remedy would you suggest that might provide a more fair outcome? How would you guarantee that your preferred remedy rectifies the alleged shortcomings of the jury trial process?
    I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP. That's the first instance the trial will be truly interesting.

    I think very few people in this thread have actually bothered with reading what I have written. All manner of nonsense and positions have been projected onto me. I'm sorry if I can't be bothered in defending positions I have never held.

    I don't want anything different to happen. I just don't find it particularly interesting what expert witnesses are saying or to speculate on how Chauvin should have acted or his motivations.

    Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

    But what I reacted to above all is how this forum seems to be a part of the mob. Too many for comfort on this forum just want to see Chauvin suffer and are willing to accept the dumbest accusations and flimiest speculations on his character.

    Its been said many times that of late the liberals have become the intolerant and the conservatives have become the defenders of liberal values. Which is so backward. This trial demonstrates it so well.

    We live in a time when liberals are the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is way beyond party politics. It's not confined to any single nation. Its a global poison

  2. Top | #132
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Georgia, US
    Posts
    5,174
    Archived
    3,862
    Total Posts
    9,036
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

    I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.
    You have been making no sense in this thread. None at all.
    How the fuck would you know what the jurors are thinking and what motivates them? Human beings are all different.
    Who are you accusing of trying to ignore due process? Is this is a conspiracy of the jurors or are there other people involved as well?
    A jury trial is the opposite of mob justice. It is an exercise of the rule of law.
    If you "don't like it" the way things are being done, what remedy would you suggest that might provide a more fair outcome? How would you guarantee that your preferred remedy rectifies the alleged shortcomings of the jury trial process?
    I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP. That's the first instance the trial will be truly interesting.

    I think very few people in this thread have actually bothered with reading what I have written. All manner of nonsense and positions have been projected onto me. I'm sorry if I can't be bothered in defending positions I have never held.

    I don't want anything different to happen. I just don't find it particularly interesting what expert witnesses are saying or to speculate on how Chauvin should have acted or his motivations.

    Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

    But what I reacted to above all is how this forum seems to be a part of the mob. Too many for comfort on this forum just want to see Chauvin suffer and are willing to accept the dumbest accusations and flimiest speculations on his character.

    Its been said many times that of late the liberals have become the intolerant and the conservatives have become the defenders of liberal values. Which is so backward. This trial demonstrates it so well.

    We live in a time when liberals are the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is way beyond party politics. It's not confined to any single nation. Its a global poison
    You obviously don't even understand how SCOTUS operates. This case isn't going to SCOTUS. At best, if Chauvin is found guilty, his attorneys can appeal and ask for a retrial, but they would have to provide very good evidence that there were things in the current trial that weren't fair.

    I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

    There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

    So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.

  3. Top | #133
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    16,481
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    17,188
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP.
    WTF???
    That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.



    If you can cite a specific law that can be credibly argued to have violated the Constitution and was determinative in this case, you might have grounds for a SCOTUS review.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. Top | #134
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,054
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    So presenting the evidence is declaring the verdict before the trial.
    No. Calling the defendant a murderer is declaring the verdict before the trial.
    Yeah, we saw the act on video, but it might be a deep fake so we best defer to the people who were there.
    Oh wait - no, we best believe the autopsy results were all wrong and he died of a fentanyl overdose, and would have died even if cops weren't speaking roughly to him.
    That's the ticket... he was dying before the cops even got there!

    Sorry Derec.
    The guy is OBVIOUSLY a murderer. There is no question about that.
    The question is whether or not he will be convicted.
    IANAL but it sure seems to be 99%+ that Derek is guilty of murder or manslaughter. But if the jury fails to convict, that will NOT prove Derek is innocent: one stupid juror will not alter facts even if creates "innocence in the eyes of the law."

    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    I am finding it fascinating at the moment just how many police have given expert testimony on why Chauvin was wrong. It seems like the defense's opening argument is debunked. Yet, there are still people trying to defend Chauvin over this.

    Is it faith?
    People want facts to fit their prejudged narrative. One cop-loving black-hating fanatic — there are many millions in America — on the jury can deliver a hung trial or even acquittal. Were reporters present when the jury was selected? What do we know about the jury?


    Historical note: The cops who beat Rodney King were tried TWICE. (Not double jeopardy supposedly, because the 2nd trial was in federal court with a "different" charge.) Getting convictions in the second trial was considered very important: authorities did NOT want another round of riots.

    Apparently one reason the 1st jury acquitted is that the videos of the beating were unclear. A Professor in the art/craft of Image Enhancement was called upon to improve the images for the 2nd trial. IIRC, he used (one of the alternatives to?) Wiener filtering and histogram equalization to improve the images. I attended a seminar by that Professor where he spent some time detailing his work for that King trial.

  5. Top | #135
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,106
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,852
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

    I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.
    So you think the French revolution was a bad outcome?

    You think the US revolution was unnecessary?

    Hell, almost every revolution ever was 'mob justice'.

    Sometimes, the mob is the only real justice available.
    That's a disturbing post.

  6. Top | #136
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,728
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,639
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Worldtraveller View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

    I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.
    So you think the French revolution was a bad outcome?

    You think the US revolution was unnecessary?

    Hell, almost every revolution ever was 'mob justice'.

    Sometimes, the mob is the only real justice available.
    That's a disturbing post.
    Be disturbed. You are over there in a country where people seem to give a shit about each other fairly universally.

    We are over here, across the ocean in a cesspit wherein the only means that seems left to a society tired of justice denied is to take a fresh knife to once again blind the eyes of justice.

    What, you don't think Justice was born blind, do you?

  7. Top | #137
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,313
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,353
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP.
    What? Why would the supreme court hear this one?
    That's not what they do...

  8. Top | #138
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,313
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,353
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by southernhybrid View Post
    I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

    There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

    So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.
    Wanting to amplify this. The evidence is being shown to us. We can watch. The evidence is all being presented fairly.

    It seems that the only argument against it is that a Jury Trial can never be fair. Which means they argue that the entire basis of the USA system of justice, the elevation of the trial by jury as the best possible way of being fair, is what's actually being argued against.


    Zoidberg, you appear to be arguing that trial by jury should be abolished in teh US.

  9. Top | #139
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,574
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    10,159
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by southernhybrid View Post
    I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

    There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

    So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.
    Wanting to amplify this. The evidence is being shown to us. We can watch. The evidence is all being presented fairly.

    It seems that the only argument against it is that a Jury Trial can never be fair. Which means they argue that the entire basis of the USA system of justice, the elevation of the trial by jury as the best possible way of being fair, is what's actually being argued against.


    Zoidberg, you appear to be arguing that trial by jury should be abolished in teh US.
    Or we could have professional jurors who live their lives sequestered, learning only the information about cases when they hear it in trial, with no stake in the outcomes.

  10. Top | #140
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,728
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,639
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by southernhybrid View Post
    I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

    There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

    So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.
    Wanting to amplify this. The evidence is being shown to us. We can watch. The evidence is all being presented fairly.

    It seems that the only argument against it is that a Jury Trial can never be fair. Which means they argue that the entire basis of the USA system of justice, the elevation of the trial by jury as the best possible way of being fair, is what's actually being argued against.


    Zoidberg, you appear to be arguing that trial by jury should be abolished in teh US.
    Or we could have professional jurors who live their lives sequestered, learning only the information about cases when they hear it in trial, with no stake in the outcomes.
    But also lacking the perspective of a normal life, by which one could be considered a peer in the first place.

    Maybe doing a jury selection draft like a 6 month deployment of sequestration prior to the expected trial date? Shit would suck tho.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •