Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
You have got to be kidding me. The prosecution's medical examiner themselves admitted that if they hadn't seen the video, they would have concluded he died from overdosing. If a medical examiner can't do their job using the evidence they are supposed to be given and need to watch a media clip to come to an alternate conclusion, then they are lying for political purposes.
SH, if you can say that where have you been this last year? I don't know the background of the defense's pathologist, but if I might ask did you look into the background of those who supported the prosecutor's case?
Yeah, I know, and that's why as I have already stated, I have contributed to the Innocent Project for years. You too? I am very well aware of how poorly our judicial system functions and that many innocents are serving long term sentences for crimes they did not commit. 96% of those accused of a felony never see a court room, since they plea bargain their case and are encouraged to do so with promises of a lighter sentence. Yeah, and that's what I've been saying, our judicial system sucks!
On this we are in 100% agreement. Its a sad state.
I do agree he didn't get a fair trial but who the hell does. The entire system is created and maintained to protect those in power and fuck those without.
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
ThatтАЩs irrelevant. Point it there was no fair trial and the jury clearly was politicized and emotionally manipulated.
If I were on the jury, I would say guilty of manslaughter but definitely not all 3. Jury giving him guilty on all 3 is another reason this was a bullshit trial. Other charges donтАЩt even make any sense in this case. And if I gave Chauvin guilty, I would give more guilty to his drug dealer in the car who asked him to swallow drugs and pass the fake bill, the crowd which was being hostile enough for EMS to not feel safe on operating on Floyd.
Well apparently 12 folks on a jury, B&W, believed it and it was rather clear to me as well ...
Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Not to mention that he had COVID and we all know how deadly that is. (sarcasm)
I May have heard that and forgotten, thanks for reminding me. Don't really get your response. Sorry.
My sense of humor is a bit warped.
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
You have got to be kidding me. The prosecution's medical examiner themselves admitted that if they hadn't seen the video, they would have concluded he died from overdosing. If a medical examiner can't do their job using the evidence they are supposed to be given and need to watch a media clip to come to an alternate conclusion, then they are lying for political purposes.
SH, if you can say that where have you been this last year? I don't know the background of the defense's pathologist, but if I might ask did you look into the background of those who supported the prosecutor's case?
Where have i been - paying attention, not just this past year ...
Well, lets just say you fooled me, and leave it be.
What makes you think anyone gets fair trials? Ask Harry Aleman.
Yucky whataboutism
You are arguing the trial wasn't fair I'm pointing out it never has been.
Therefore the assumption that someone would get a fair trial is predicated on the same bullshit reason we are all here on this forum.
The media is full of shit.
Hyperbole is so easy. it makes EVERYTHING black and white.
What are you basing a belief that trials are fair on?
You are putting words in my mouth.
You don't actually believe trials are completely unfair?
Depends on who is at trial, and a lot of other factors.
Yeah, I know, and that's why as I have already stated, I have contributed to the Innocent Project for years. You too? I am very well aware of how poorly our judicial system functions and that many innocents are serving long term sentences for crimes they did not commit. 96% of those accused of a felony never see a court room, since they plea bargain their case and are encouraged to do so with promises of a lighter sentence. Yeah, and that's what I've been saying, our judicial system sucks!
On this we are in 100% agreement. Its a sad state.
I do agree he didn't get a fair trial but who the hell does. The entire system is created and maintained to protect those in power and fuck those without.
We have finally reached a point of agreement.
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, donтАЩt tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
So you think the guy was innocent?
ThatтАЩs irrelevant. Point it there was no fair trial and the jury clearly was politicized and emotionally manipulated.
If I were on the jury, I would say guilty of manslaughter but definitely not all 3. Jury giving him guilty on all 3 is another reason this was a bullshit trial. Other charges donтАЩt even make any sense in this case. And if I gave Chauvin guilty, I would give more guilty to his drug dealer in the car who asked him to swallow drugs and pass the fake bill, the crowd which was being hostile enough for EMS to not feel safe on operating on Floyd.
Well why don't you contribute to his appeal ...
Looks like you are here to make snarky remarks instead of have a productive discussion. Remember- one day the pendulum will swing.
Well, why don't you?