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 13 of 79 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 788

Thread: George Floyd murderer's trial

  1. Top | #121
    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 Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post
    You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.
    How would we know?

    Ask Zoidberg. He seems to have the straight dope.

    But you can start with naming a case where the jury ruled in favor of the black victim and against the cop. Then we can see if these is even a shred of indication that they did so out of fear of mobs.
    I could swear I heard of one not too long ago? Then, it's like we see black people dead on the ground at at least 100 times the rate*. It feels like it was specifically newsworthy because he didn't get off.

    I wonder: what is the conviction rate on police officers... For, well, anything? I mean, I know about the statistics for domestic abuse...

    *This number goes way up the further back you look.

  2. Top | #122
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    2,504
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    I've critiqued it over and over. And my arguments are the same. The magnitude of the BLM riots means that the jury members know that if they don't bend to the will of the public, they are on trial. That's not having a bad feeling about it. That is reality. Expecting anything different is expecting that the members of the jury all are autists and/or incapable of acting for self preservation. There's nothing to be done other than bump this up to the supreme court ASAP. Until that point this trial will stay a farce. I find it amusing that you think there's any part of the legal procedure that can compensate for the surrounding hubub.

    A mistrial doesn't mean he's not guilty. That's him getting off on a technicality. But even if it is, so what? It'll just get appealed. I somehow doubt the American society (as a whole) can afford to just let this one slide.

    BTW, if this was just about a cop killing a junkie on the job, nobody would care. What makes this into something different is the context. Which is why nobody is really talking about Derek Chauvin when they're talking about Derek Chauvin. It's all loaded with politics. Race politics. That's what it really is about. This thread wouldn't have survived to page 2 without that context and the inflamed political situation of USA. Chauvin is a pawn in one of the largest political battles of American recent history. I find it a bit bizarre you can't see that?
    You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.
    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.

  3. Top | #123
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,631
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    3,860
    Rep Power
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    BTW, if this was just about a cop killing a junkie on the job, nobody would care.
    Where you live, maybe. A cop killing a citizen should be a big fucking deal. The context shouldn't trivialize that very simple fact. I am so sorry that is a difficult concept for you.

  4. Top | #124
    Liberal Rastafarian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    895
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,033
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post
    You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.
    How would we know?
    Interviews from Jury members anytime afterward. They have plenty of time to speak out and even write a book. Wow, what a waste of time typing that obvious answer out.

  5. Top | #125
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    22,686
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,239
    Rep Power
    79
    All distraction.

    All that matters is did this cop act reasonably or murderously?

    Death while handcuffed by not being allowed to breathe is not a reasonable death.

  6. Top | #126
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Port Clinton, Ohio
    Posts
    4,141
    Archived
    591
    Total Posts
    4,732
    Rep Power
    71
    The defense tries to make a Big Meaningful Point about handcuffed perps still being a threat -- but Chauvin is anything but threatened in the video. He is calm, assured, and firmly in control. He's like one of our local golden-tailed hawks when it's perched firmly on a squirrel, with its talons dug deep, and the squirrel has stopped twitching.

  7. Top | #127
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Georgia, US
    Posts
    5,174
    Archived
    3,862
    Total Posts
    9,036
    Rep Power
    83
    I just want to say that I'm disgusted with people claiming the the BLM protests were violent or riots. The vast majority were peaceful. In fact, in my city, the local police marched with the protesters.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/bl...rnd/index.html

    A protester holds a large Black Power fist in the middle of a crowd gathered in New York on June 14.
    (CNN)About 93% of racial justice protests in the US since the death of George Floyd have been peaceful and nondestructive, according to a new report.

    The findings, released Thursday, contradict assumptions and claims by some that protests associated with the Black Lives Matter movement are spawning violence and destruction of property.
    The report was produced by the US Crisis Project, a joint effort by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and the Bridging Divides Initiative (BDI) at Princeton University, which collects and analyzes real-time data on demonstrations and political violence in the US.

    "These data reveal that the United States is in crisis," the report's authors wrote. "It faces a multitude of concurrent, overlapping risks -- from police abuse and racial injustice, to pandemic-related unrest and beyond -- all exacerbated by increasing polarization."

    Militias and other nonstate actors also intervened in demonstrations, with the authors writing that such groups were "becoming more active and assertive."
    Nonstate actors engaged in more than 100 demonstrations, mostly in response to Black Lives Matter protests, the report states. Those actors include militias and groups from the right and left, such as Antifa, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois and the Ku Klux Klan.
    If you care to read the entire linked article, it gives evidence that when the police intervened, the protests sometimes became violent, at least partly due to the actions of the police, who sometimes used tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray, often at peaceful protests. So, can we stop claiming the mostly peaceful protests that had wide support among a diverse group of people, were the problem, when in reality it was mostly groups associated with white supremacy that caused most of the riots and violence. And, sadly, police intervention was more common among the BLM protests compared to the protests from the far right.

  8. Top | #128
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,313
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,353
    Rep Power
    95
    Yeah, that's a picture they can't make us un-see. Chauvin with his hands in his pockets, smirking.

  9. Top | #129
    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 Gospel View Post

    You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.
    Well, to have this conversation, you really only need to ask exactly 12 people. The only people who have ever convicted a police officer of the murder of a Black man in the last 15 years...


    Q: Not following the George Floyd trial as closely as a friend of mine, I wrote him and said, "It is impossible for a white policeman to be convicted of killing a black man in America."

    I would love to be proven wrong. Especially by the outcome of this trial. But my favorite website may already have the answer: Has a white cop ever been convicted of murdering a black man in the United States? B.C., Walpole, ME


    A: There is something to be said for the racial dimension to your question; juries have historically been more willing to trust white people in a courtroom (whether as witnesses, plaintiffs, or defendants) and less willing to trust people of color. However, the main dynamic here is that it is nearly impossible for a policeman of any sort to be convicted of killing anyone in America.

    There are several major reasons why a murder/manslaughter case against a police officer is difficult to make. Here are three of the biggies:

    • Benefit of the Doubt: Juries tend to begin with the presumption that police officers are trustworthy public servants who put themselves in harm's way for the greater good of the American public. So, jurors are generally loath to submit their judgment for that of the officer(s).
    • Lack of Evidence: Since most officer-involved killings take place in the line of duty, the question is not whether they did the deed, but whether their reaction was justified. This gets into questions about the extent of the provocation and the officer's state of mind. The only folks who can speak to these issues, generally, are fellow officers. And fellow officers are reluctant to testify against one of their own.
    • Available Defenses: There are also some pretty effective defenses available, in most cases. If the victim had a weapon, an argument of self-defense almost always works. If the victim did not have a weapon, an officer can still save themselves by arguing that what they did was consistent with the training they received and with department policy. The latter issue has been a major focal point of the Floyd trial.


    For these reasons, officer-involved shootings are rarely charged, much less punished. In the 15 years prior to the Floyd trial, it only happened 110 times, for an average of about seven a year. Of those, only five resulted in a murder conviction. However, one of those five did involve a white officer killing a black victim: Jason Van Dyke's murder of Laquan McDonald. So, your statement to your friend, while substantially correct, is not entirely accurate.
    15 years of police shootings
    Approximate 1000 people per year die at their hands.
    15,000 people killed by police
    Only 110 ever charged at all
    Onl;y 5 resulted in murder conviction
    1. Only 1. Was a conviction for the murder of a Black person.


    We can assume that ALL of the other 109 juries did NOT fear for the rioting crowds.
    Last edited by Rhea; 04-10-2021 at 08:27 PM.

  10. Top | #130
    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 Gospel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post
    DrZoidberg is a riot (pun intended). He claims BLM riots have the jury under threat. I ask for historical evidence where the Jury having been under the threat of violence from black people ruled in black people's favor. He has 2 centuries of injustice against black people available to choose from. Instead, he says the current BLM riots are his proof. Guess we'd have to wait until after the verdict is in for his proof. Until then, I still think he should STFU about it.
    I have never said the BLM riots threaten the jury. The fact that they took place and the magnitude of them will of course influence the jury. That's what I've said. They haven't been sequestered for a year. The members of the jury must be aware of the forces at play. It will of course influence the jury.

    Are people here claiming this is a fair trial willfully ignorant of the situation, or what?

    And I'd appreciate it if I'm criticised for what I am saying, to read what I'm actually saying.
    Ok, I misspoke I'll give you that. But can you at least explain how my request for you to provide proof supporting your claim that the possibility of mass riots are influencing the Jury, is an invalid request? I'm genuinely curious & won't laugh (at least not post it) this time. I'm saying that Riots are not new and there have been plenty of cases where riots occurred as a result and those Juries clearly did not rule to avoid the riots based on the previous ones.
    Back in the day American jurys would often make racist judgements. Some argue this is still a problem. The context the trial finds itself in matters.

    The Zeitgeist influences jurys. Its unavoidable. This time around the riots triggered by this case was more extreme than ever before. So of course whatever judgement they make is highly questionable.

    We can turn the question around. How do you propose we make sure the BLM riots doesn't influence the jury? What proof do you have of that?

    A lot of irrelevancies have been projected onto me in this thread. I'd say that is strong evidence for my case.

Posting Permissions

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