Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
12 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

 

I've already commented; you just don't like the answer.

 

You said MURDER!  Your answer was incomplete.  There are several degrees of murder in MN.  1st/2nd/3rd?  For some reason you fail to stipulate which one you think he should be convicted of.  Why is that?  

Posted
Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

You said MURDER!  Your answer was incomplete.  There are several degrees of murder in MN.  1st/2nd/3rd?  For some reason you fail to stipulate which one you think he should be convicted of.  Why is that?  

 

Jim, is the officer the real victim here?

Posted
4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Jim, is the officer the real victim here?

 

No but it sounds like you are.  I'll stop victimizing you to clarify your accusation.  Sorry.....carry on.  

 

Would I accuse him of voluntary manslaughter if I thought he was a victim?  

  • Sad 1
Posted
9 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I'm going to leave this to the jury. I have neither the time or the interest to hear all the evidence or weigh all the sentencing factors in a single murder case. It's just not that important. 

I made this mistake during the OJ trial.

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

I'm not a psychologist but it does not matter:

 

9+ minutes - face down - in cuffs - surrounded by officers - no matter what this guy did leading up to his death - he was not in a position to cause harm on anyone.

 

 

Exactly.  The problem of the crime itself is a no-brainer.  Fox gets 'em to argue about the minutia instead.  I remember when people used to accept the fact, and move on.  Now everyone just makes the Tucker Carlson face when you're right, and hates you later for it.

Edited by daz28
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, daz28 said:

Exactly.  The problem of the crime itself is a no-brainer.  Fox gets 'em to argue about the minutia instead.  I remember when people used to accept the fact, and move on.  Now everyone just makes the Tucker Carlson face when you're right, and hates you later for it.

 

you say its a no brainer.

 

im not sure that's true. if your putting it into the context of arrest then, yes. the man showed zero signs of being a threat. that may not have been the case if looked at differently.

 

what is the protocol for someone who is exhibiting a medical issue such as a seizures and such? im not trained enough to answer but you cant discount the foaming at the mouth and delirium exhibited as he became panicked, asked to be removed from the car and placed on the ground for no reason. i know certain types of conditions you want to restrain as much as possable.

 

for example.

 

i know a woman who had a stroke where she bit off a good portion of her tongue in the episode and another that must be under constant watch with epilepsy as any moment could lead to her severely injuring herself from the violence of the shaking.

 

their training did include this...for what purpose? to subdue a criminal or as a response to a medical event while waiting for ambulance to arrive. and even if it was a medical tactic what must someone exhibit first? it doesn't hold much water as i very much doubt it should even be considered if there is a issue breathing! none the less, if the defense shows instances where this tactic was used to prevent injury like the examples given and give reasoning they thought this was the case one could argue the police thought this was a proper response.

 

Edited by Buffarukus
Posted

Here in Colorado we just had a memorial service for the cop killed in the Boulder grocery store shooting.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/30/us/officer-eric-talley-funeral-colorado/index.html

 

By absolutely all accounts, a fine and decent man who brought honor to the phrase "to protect and serve." And who went in to that active shooter situation to save more innocent lives. He became a cop at 40 after working in IT for all the right reasons: he felt that it was important to serve his community.

 

Watching some of this trial I'm struck by the contrast. Guilty or not (or, to be honest, guilty of what level of offense is the only question in my mind), I just keep thinking about the contrast between Chauvin and Officer Talley in Boulder. And maybe we should take a moment to think about what it means to honor that badge.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Agree 3
Posted
1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

"We've all had cases where those kinds of of levels come into play. You've got to look at the whole picture," Nelson said. "It's one thing to die *with* something. It's another thing to die *from* something."


Huh.....where have we heard this before?  🤔

Posted
15 hours ago, B-Man said:

That’s not new information, conclusion was still a homicide.
 

Seems like the place they may arrive is that Floyd’s health situation was so poor, and if it’s true hold/restraint wouldn’t have killed a healthy person not on tons of drugs, it was involuntary manslaughter. 
 

For all the misinformed out there, the autopsy concluded the trachea wasn’t compromised and no asphyxiation. “Couldn’t breath” was the result of cardiopulmonary issues, not asphyxiation.  So the scumbag cop (imo)  exacerbated cardiopulmonary issues leading to death.  
 

if I were prosecuting, I’d then pivot to the fact medical attention was not called in the moment he became unresponsive. That might be how to argue it back to being voluntary... 

Posted

I am honestly worried that this prosecutor is going to mess this up. He has spent 3 days setting the scene with witnesses but has shown us nothing new. I was never a lawyer but it seems they could have shown the video for all the facts we need and then turned it over to the defense. I don't understand what the store clerk or all the bystanders has to do with chauvins actions, they already wish they had done things differently. I am worried that the prosecutor will spend too much time winding up the emotion and then not enough on how he broke the law.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

I am honestly worried that this prosecutor is going to mess this up. He has spent 3 days setting the scene with witnesses but has shown us nothing new. I was never a lawyer but it seems they could have shown the video for all the facts we need and then turned it over to the defense. I don't understand what the store clerk or all the bystanders has to do with chauvins actions, they already wish they had done things differently. I am worried that the prosecutor will spend too much time winding up the emotion and then not enough on how he broke the law.

I presume the emotion is meant to sway the jury. Objectivity is not common, AND the jury selection process incorporates the intent of the attorneys. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

I presume the emotion is meant to sway the jury. Objectivity is not common, AND the jury selection process incorporates the intent of the attorneys. 

Working up emotion can definitely be a double edge sword but I get what you mean. 

  • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...