George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

True, I know it wasn’t in front of the jury but it still struck me as getting ahead of himself.

Re: Floyd’s past vs Chauvin’s - why is it okay to taint the jury’s mind against the victim in this case, but not bring up Chauvin’s past behavior?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the reason that I just posted. He isn't on trial but Chauvin is . We're talking about taking Chauvin's freedom away. Floyd is already dead. It sounds harsh but the only person who has anything to lose at this point is Chauvin and therefore the rules are there to try to make sure that we don't make these decisions lightly when we are taking away someone's freedom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, if the defense paints Floyd as the villain, then a jury would be empathetic to Chauvin. Doesn’t that seem wrong?

Showing a past pattern of Chauvin’s “work history” though - that would clearly illustrate that this is his go-to method when dealing with suspects who don’t (in his eyes) comply.

I don’t think this is a fair “rule.” lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's "fair" to Chauvin and Chauvin is the only one on trial. Let's say you were sympathetic towards Floyd and Floyd was on trial for robbery and had also been involved in another robbery in the past (and had gone to prison for it).

The judge might not let the prosecution let the jury know that he had already been convicted of robbery once. This is because the current trial would be about a current robbery. It would be prejudicial to Floyd to bring up a past robbery.

Maybe the arresting officer had been abusive to Floyd in the past. The defense would be able to show that maybe that same officer was being abusive to Floyd in the present case. They wouldn't be allowed to bring up Floyd's past robbery conviction.

You would agree that was fair because your sympathies lay with Floyd. In this case you feel that the same principals are not fair because your sympathies lay with Floyd.

You need to focus, young grasshopper.

I rest my case your honor!

 

Each case should stand on its own, a jury to decide on the facts of that specific case. As you say, that is fair to the defendant. I don’t think past work history/conduct should be brought in unless the defense brings in the deceased’s past conduct, in this case Floyd’s history. Capiche?

 

I understand what you think is fair and unfair. It's just not how our system works.

 

Thanks for letting me share my “take” on it, even though it doesn’t matter.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Haha...I'm magnanimous that way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's very true.

But if there were an eyewitness who saw the defendant preparing to rob the bank (i.e. getting a disguise ready, buying the gun) that would also be quite prejudicial to tell the jury as well. It might bias the jury towards thinking he was guilty, and it happened before the robbery in any case.

Should such evidence be suppressed as well?

 

No, because it's related to the current crime/trial. An eye witness to a crime is prejudicial to the defendant but it's quite relevant.

 

So is a witness who sees the defendant doing the same thing to someone else. It speaks to whether the defendant's actions are a one off event, or a pattern of behavior.

 

Yes, but it's usually not allowed.

 

The medical examiner testified that he found no evidence of asphyxia and didn't initially list it as a cause of death, until after he watched the video. Nor do medical experts have expertise in determining the amount of force applied, without corroborating physical evidence, from a video alone. So that's just a fallacious appeal to authority outside of their expertise.

So you're fine with whitewashing many diverse ethnic groups? Got it. You're fine erasing their diversity as long as it serves your bigotry, and you try to project it on others.

No, perpetrators can be behind cover, moving, or otherwise hard to hit center-mass. Just add that to the list of real world situations you're clueless about.

That doesn't follow when BLM will yell at anyone who tries to say "all lives matter". And where are the protests over white people killed by police?

Correlation is not causation. Higher crime rates lower property values and incentives for businesses to create jobs, thus leading to more poverty. Urban areas present more opportunities for crime, stricter gun laws being among them. Criminals often do justify their behavior with anger or have low impulse control, and people do tend to avoid angry, uncontrolled people. The vast majority of African Americans live in Democrat-run cities. So it follows that the vast majority of any discrimination they may face originates with Democrats, as well as all the policies that keep them poor and segregated in urban areas.

So you admit to only pretending to care about whites, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to pull this tu quoque crap. I care about the very rare cases where it is not legally justified.

Government sources of how black victims classify the race of their perpetrator. Or are you trying to blame the victims?

Quit lying. Otherwise, show me where I've rejected due process for any race. You can't, because you're just a floundering liar.

If you want to link any of those to BLM, who expressly deny "all lives matter", you're going to have to show me protests with significant black presence over those deaths. And like I said, any death that is not legally justified is a problem, but they are an extremely small percent of all police use of force.

Don't be naive. Lawyers represent anyone they think will earn them money.

Especially with body cameras, police do not get away with most unjustified killings.

Unlike you and your appeals to authority, my eyes don't lie. Again, criminal complaints are only alleged facts. Too bad you can't seem to comprehend that.

It doesn't matter whether the officer thought it was warranted or not. He was almost certainly in the wrong on both counts, and the whole thing is completely irrelevant to you trying to refute police securing someone already in custody. So you can stop flogging this red herring.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xuCIvVdiko @4:45:51 Paramedic Seth Bravindar testified that he and his partner decided to do a "load and go", and that was out of concern because of the people and atmosphere at the scene. So you're either lying to yourself or never watched that testimony. Maybe you should watch more than the prosecution's questioning.

That's a lot of deflection to keep from answer two simple questions. You're the one arguing anyone who looks white, like a Syrian, is considered white. So put up or shut up.

You and your sources twisted everything she said, and now you're projecting.

I's clear you either didn't comprehend anything she's said or you are completely out of touch with reality. I can't help you with either. Seek help.

Oh, you mean while things like "Black Wall Street" existed? And even ignoring that, you still haven't managed to refute the fact that more black families remained intact during that time. And they didn't start to break down until the advent of welfare.

I believe it's acceptable to cite anyone who I agree with. You're the one who made it about race: "After all, white supremacists have to white supremacists."(post #326)

No, you asserted that anyone who looks white is white, regardless of ethnicity. How can someone no one realizes is black be subject to discrimination for being black? And if you claim that happens, show us where.

Thanks for verifying that it was a hasty generalization, whether you can manage to understand how or not.

Again, you're the one who made this about race. Because you're the racist.

 

Claiming it's the "system", without being able to point to specific examples, is a boogeyman. Citing statistics without being able to demonstrate racism as the cause is confusing correlation for causation, at best.

Their unemployment graph is just their employment graph flipped upside down, so they're trying to pad their list from the very beginning.
A higher percentage of blacks were in the labor force than whites in 1952, prior to LBJ's Great Society welfare. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1953/article/pdf/employment-and-income-of-negro-workers-1940-52.pdf
It beggars belief that there was less racism during Jim Crow that would account for their higher employment, and welfare very directly disincentivizes working. Just like the Covid stimulus checks have, leading McDonalds to offer $50 to interview for a job and still having trouble getting enough applicants.

Are Asians over represented in high paying jobs due to Asian privilege? You know, when they aren't being victims to black perpetrated hate crimes? Or do different people just make different choices?

If blacks don't turn out to vote, or don't vote for black candidates, is that racism? How many white Democrats represent significantly black areas?

Comparing "average earnings" fails to account for individual choices that have nothing to do with the "system". It's the same nonsense used for the fictitious gender wage gap. Again, they have a whopping eight graphs that essentially relay the same info. The gap in wage, income, median household, historical household, specific age range, gender, "equal pay days", and generational. All confounded by a host of other factors.

1/2-1/3 the advanced placement in education as whites is significantly higher than their percent of the population.

Blacks segregated in poorer schools is the doing of Democrats who fight against school vouchers.

Again, do Asians have higher educational mobility than whites due to Asian privilege? Or do some demographics just make different choices?

Banks use credit worthiness and ability to repay to grant loans. Again, individual choices have a greater impact than any systemic conspiracy.
They got two graphs out of that one.

For a year that includes access to Obamacare, personal choice is a factor in lacking health insurance.

The article explains away one of its own graphs: "Black Americans have higher rates of underlying health conditions like diabetes and hypertension that could put them at a higher risk for developing complications from the novel coronavirus."

Blacks commit more crimes than their percent of the population, according to black victim identification of the race of their perpetrator.
They got two graphs out of that one.

Due to higher crime rate, blacks have more police interaction, accounting for higher marijuana arrests.
Two graphs.

Higher crime rate leads to more parolees, and even higher in Democrat-run states like New York.

Police shootings similarly fail to account for the disproportionate crime rates, the vast majority who are armed, and the disproportionate violent resistance.


But, no doubt, you'll continue to believe whatever you already do, and that you think this article affirms for you.

 

Whatever mental gymnastics you need to tell yourself to avoid facing plain English. It's transparent and sad.

One of the cops on the scene got into the ambulance and performed chest compressions. So they took your supposed "atmosphere" with them.

 

We all know your aversion to facts...and plain English apparently.

Without a criminal record, he will not get the max sentence, even if the judge rules there were aggravating factors, all sentences will run concurrently, as they're for a single act, and will likely only serve 2/3 of the sentence. But all that ignores the many grounds for appeal the prosecutors, judge, city, and Democrat politicians amply provided.

Doubt it. This is likely just an excuse to evade inconvenient facts.

 

Inconvenient facts? Like the facts that Chauvin was convicted on all three charges after the best evidence the defense could produce? Yes, that is surely inconvenient for you.