hey close enough, could you post about the normal content of your posts?

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
A sh!tload of gaslighting

yeah, we noticed that part

quote:

I think people who support Derek Chauvin's actions should be investigated.

All Derek Chauvin did was his job.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think people who support Derek Chauvin's actions should be investigated.

All Derek Chauvin did was his job.

Like I said before, Chauvin got raw deal only because druggie was black
It’s actually ridiculous that nowadays we celebrate violent criminals…what the hell…

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think people who support Derek Chauvin's actions should be investigated.

All Derek Chauvin did was his job.

All he did was to show how to do it so well that you get your ass thrown in the slammer. You might feel differently if it was your neck getting knelt on. I've no sympathy for George Floyd, but that amount of force was unnecessary given that other means was available to restrain Floyd. Fuck him, he deserves what he got.

Unless they're friend or family, people like him mean nothing to me. Same for Brian Thompson. He was from a small town 25 miles from me. People die every day. Didn't know him. No reason to celebrate his demise or mourn it either.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think people who support Derek Chauvin's actions should be investigated.

All Derek Chauvin did was his job.

All he did was to show how to do it so well that you get your ass thrown in the slammer. You might feel differently if it was your neck getting knelt on. I've no sympathy for George Floyd, but that amount of force was unnecessary given that other means was available to restrain him. Fuck him, he deserves what he got.

I would have stayed in the patrol car the first time and would not have been high on fentanyl and meth.

All Chauvin did was his job. And we punished him for it. We will suffer the consequences for that action for decades now.

Antelope,

Don't get high and pass counterfeit bills, resist arrest, and you won't have a cop kneeling on your neck. Pretty simple actually.

100% correct David.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Antelope,

Don't get high and pass counterfeit bills, resist arrest, and you won't have a cop kneeling on your neck. Pretty simple actually.

Don't use excessive force if you don't have to and you won't lose your job and end up in the slammer. Fuck him and we don't need cops like him. There are plenty of cops out there just like him. Nobody should die in police custody.

Your comment about investigating people who wish/want other people dead is equally stupid. There's no law against wishing someone dead, but be careful how you express your wish/es. If they investigate is there going to be a note in your criminal record saying so? Would that show up in a background check if you wanted to purchase a firearm? Would that be grounds to deny the sale?

quote:

Nobody should die in police custody.

Criminals die in police custody commonly. If what you say is true…they shouldn’t carry guns. He resisted custody. He was safely in the car once. Had he sat there quietly he would have been fine. He CHOSE to come out of the car and he had to be subdued. Chauvin did his job and we imprisoned him for it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Nobody should die in police custody.

Criminals die in police custody commonly. If what you say is true…they shouldn’t carry guns. He resisted custody. He was safely in the car once. Had he sat there quietly he would have been fine. He CHOSE to come out of the car and he had to be subdued. Chauvin did his job and we imprisoned him for it.

How man of the common police custody deaths are police assisted? He had others there watching him who could have helped restrain Floyd. IIRC he also had a history of abusive behavior as a bouncer. You're entitled to your opinion and me to mine. People who support police brutality have fucked up thinking. He's where he belongs IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

All Chauvin did was his job. And we punished him for it. We will suffer the consequences for that action for decades now.

Not sure why we waste time and money with jury trials anymore. We could just let you be judge, jury and executioner. Seems like every jury just gets it wrong in your view. Oh I forgot, we have that pesky little document called The Constitution . . . maybe Trump will get rid of that for us.

Many years ago I had my passport stolen from a hotel room in the Republic of Ireland, my wife’s too, from a locked room with no sign of forced entry and nothing else pinched except a pair of sunglasses. This was before the end of the violence in N Ireland.

I then had to go to see the police back home a couple of times for various reasons and whilst waiting on the public side of the counter I was just amazed at the abuse the police got from people being bought in, random people walking in off of the street and people coming in to demand this or that.

Throughout it all the police staff were unfailingly polite, professional and didn’t rise to the constant provocation … they followed their training.

A world away, probably, from what the police in major US cities have to deal with I know, but obviously police training over there isn’t to kill people. The easiest defence for Chauvin surely is I followed my training … a get out of jail free card. But evidently he didn’t or he wouldn’t have been convicted?

Chauvin debatably followed training. The question is was whether previously taught techniques were officially banned and communicated as such.

Both sides were brought forward at trial- leadership saying they had been banned, and trainers saying that they were still authorized.

The jury believed the leadership.

The other part was how his department leadership made him the scapegoat.

Frankly, this case was a good argument for change of venue, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Nobody should die in police custody.

Criminals die in police custody commonly. If what you say is true…they shouldn’t carry guns. He resisted custody. He was safely in the car once. Had he sat there quietly he would have been fine. He CHOSE to come out of the car and he had to be subdued. Chauvin did his job and we imprisoned him for it.

How man of the common police custody deaths are police assisted? He had others there watching him who could have helped restrain Floyd. IIRC he also had a history of abusive behavior as a bouncer. You're entitled to your opinion and me to mine. People who support police brutality have fucked up thinking. He's where he belongs IMO.

He did his job…nothing more…nothing less a we put him in jail. Sickens me.

No he did not.

He used unnecessary and excessive force.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

I think people who support Derek Chauvin's actions should be investigated.

All Derek Chauvin did was his job.

If we, as private citizens, continued to apply lethal force after a threat was abated, we'd get the same treatment.

Magical thinking leads to the belief that a jury verdict is just and correct only if it agrees with your own bias.

And when your bias was reached without hearing all the evidenece the jury heard, your preference is not only magical--it's boneheaded.

Jury verdicts are entitled to effect and respect regardless of whether you agree with them.

quote:

after a threat was abated

A very difficult threshold to nail down. Those who have first-hand experience in physical life-threatening altercations will testify.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Magical thinking leads to the belief that a jury verdict is just and correct only if it agrees with your own bias.

And when your bias was reached without hearing all the evidenece the jury heard, your preference is not only magical--it's boneheaded.

Jury verdicts are entitled to effect and respect regardless of whether you agree with them.

Juries get it wrong all the time. No matter how strong the evidence every defense lawyer worth their salt waits with bated breath for verdicts as they know it is a crapshoot — OJ walks…Chauvin goes to prison.

I suspect Luigi watched "Jack Reacher" a few too many times, and got lost in the story.

Life imitates art, once again...

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Magical thinking leads to the belief that a jury verdict is just and correct only if it agrees with your own bias.

And when your bias was reached without hearing all the evidenece the jury heard, your preference is not only magical--it's boneheaded.

Jury verdicts are entitled to effect and respect regardless of whether you agree with them.

Juries get it wrong all the time. No matter how strong the evidence every defense lawyer worth their salt waits with bated breath for verdicts as they know it is a crapshoot — OJ walks…Chauvin goes to prison.

Except the medical proof relies upon by the jury was upheld and good science, and not the nonsense you spew.

Chauvin sets in prison where he deserves to be and by his own actions.

I seem to recall that Chauvin was familiar with Floyd's work as a bouncer. Perhaps he knew what Floyd was capable physically and he made sure he kept him subdued. He is not responsible for crazed, psychotic behavior resulting from unkown drug use and medical issues that use could aggravate.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

after a threat was abated

A very difficult threshold to nail down. Those who have first-hand experience in physical life-threatening altercations will testify.

While I agree Chauvin did wrong, my view was that he owed a duty to care for Floyd once he was in his control. He was guilty of a lesser charge than 2nd degree murder.

The medical evidence was not clear cut either way. Floyd had drugs in his system that are known to both cause psychotic agitation and a risk of respiratory collapse and sudden cardiac death. Remember that the initial coroners report was changed. That tends to show at least some debate as to relative causation. I’ve done some forensic pathology rotations. There is a rather substantial number of autopsies that find no cause of death.

The DA involved is a known political hack, at least here in MN. The trial was being held in a community that at the time was being held hostage by the threat of renewed significant rioting. If nothing else, there should have been a change of venue.

While I am content to accept the jury verdict as being mostly right, I do think it was somewhat overcharged and a somewhat unfair trial.

The relation here is that more of the OJ trial. I am quite concerned that given the victim’s job and responsibilities and the political climate in NYC, that this guy may well get a goofy jury nullification verdict.

It certainly doesn’t look like he’s innocent or has a lawful self defense case.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Magical thinking leads to the belief that a jury verdict is just and correct only if it agrees with your own bias.

And when your bias was reached without hearing all the evidenece the jury heard, your preference is not only magical--it's boneheaded.

Jury verdicts are entitled to effect and respect regardless of whether you agree with them.

Juries get it wrong all the time. No matter how strong the evidence every defense lawyer worth their salt waits with bated breath for verdicts as they know it is a crapshoot — OJ walks…Chauvin goes to prison.

Except the medical proof relies upon by the jury was upheld and good science, and not the nonsense you spew.

Chauvin sets in prison where he deserves to be and by his own actions.

The medical proof survived Dalubert and multiple appellate courts (w most refusing to entrain the stupid).

We are using the same expert in a murder down here.

The medical evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find murder. That is the law of the case. The end of the discussion.

Just bc you do not like the DA politics does not make him a hack. The DA’s Office prosecuted a very solid case. Go read the appellate decision. Hacks do not prosecute murder cases that survive appellate review.

Hacks stand up for their party no matter what.

Hacks only look at party affiliation and make decisions/judgements based on that affliction.

Floyd’s life was no less valued nor surrendered than any of us here.

I am glad the 6th Circuit has made it easier to sue for wrongful death of prisoners held in custody in jails.

I’m not saying the second autopsy was incorrect, I’m saying that there is always a degree of scientific uncertainty involved in autopsies.

What is reasonable doubt?

As to hacks surviving murder case appellate review, you know very well that there needs to be proof of error rather than judgement calls that went the other way for appellate dismissal.

Chauvin introduced one autopsy result, the state introduced another, and since the jury is the finder of fact, that is not appeal able.

Find 12 physicians and put them on the jury with regards to the autopsy results and you probably get a different result.

The actual attorneys doing the work are good at their jobs, but Keith Ellison is a partisan hack and made a number of decisions in this case. If the news reports were correct, he was the one who insisted murder 2 as the charge.

Again, go read the appellate opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Ann likes to use the same approach. I am spreading bullshit with a fertilizer spreader but I don't necessarily believe it. Just laying the bullshit out there for those that might like bullshit. I think they feel intellectually conflicted. In their heart, they love the bullshit. In their head, they realize that the bullshit is so goofy that it makes them look like the real bullshit is what is between their ears.

Mike, me thinks you’ve confused dear Ann with a trial attorney.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, go read the appellate opinion.

I did.

It does not change my opinion much at all.

The opinion is very thorough in its statement of "wide latitude" that the district court enjoys.

Essentially it shifts burden of proof to the defendant.

They justified the lack of venue change due to the argument that no where in the state was not likely to "hear reporting of the case" so that made no difference.

They also said that only the Hennipen county courthouse was large enough with multiple exits to be a safe place.

Then they claimed the court was fair because they got to keep bringing forward the requests...

Then they stated that they didn't bring any precedents to show that the court had granted change of venue before.

They then stated that the jurors (in particular #52 who later admitted to what sure sounds like bias) were not biased because they said they were not, and that has to be assumed as being truthful...

also that he was asked in a questionnaire if he had engaged in protests... in Minneapolis. He hadn't... he had in Washington DC... over police violence in 2020. It was considered fair because the defense hadn't asked specifically about outside the state protesting and they had "an opportunity to ask more questions" and had challenges remaining and had not used them on this juror.

They also claimed that an example of predjudice (that had been found before) was repeated broadcasting of a defendant's confession that was later thrown out... note they were saying actual film of the confession, not reporting of there being a confession.

In essence, they said that as long as a juror says they are impartial they are...

I note that they did not address the autopsy at all. There were comments on the pathologist Dr. Baker not being prepared by the prosecution and that was felt not to be prosecutorial misconduct.

There was also a lot about the specifics of the law as to charges and sentence departure.

In essence, they stated that the lower court made no decisions that they felt were not within the "wide discretion" granted- while not really commenting on how wide this discretion is or how close the acts were to reaching this level.

A lot of this is to my mind rather hair splitting- that Juror #52 stated no protests yet he did engage in such just not in Minneapolis and since Chauvin had the opportunity to ask the more specific follow up question and didn't, and since he didn't use all his challenges and the Juror in question said he could be fair, they assume no foul and he didn't meet the grounds.

I'd also point out that while a lawyer might consider the arguments made about change of venue realistic, to the lay person they sound very much like justification to do what they wanted to. That no other place can offer a safe trial because they don't have as big a courthouse complex implies that the only place a defendant can get a safe trial is at the Hennepin county courthouse in MN. Bullshit on its face... they don't move every case with some threat (like gang violence) to the Hennepin district court.

Basically, I get that the laws are what we abide by, but that doesn't mean they are factually correct.

Pretty much any other area other than the 5 county Metro and we did not have actual riots with destruction going on in MN. I can tell you for a fact that I avoided going up to Minneapolis at times during the trial because in my mind discretion is the better part of valor, and as we were taught in our CCW classes, avoid areas with a higher risk of problems if you can... they could have avoided it, and had a likely fairer trial.

but yeah, it likely would have caused riots in Minneapolis if it was moved... why?

BTW, the lawyer who actually handled the appeal was from the US (Federal) Attorney General's office, NOT Ellison or one of his employees (state)... Why, if this was such a professional well qualified group?

The court decided that there was no grounds to reverse the verdict because they didn't think there was "significant" error. Sounds like a judgement call, not an absolute fact. They repeatedly made those statements of it was not significant enough in their opinion to change the outcome.

You read this stuff for a living. I don't. I cannot quote precedents where there may be an error- I don't have access to a law library or research assistants. All I can say is that the court did not say there is nothing here... they said that in their opinion there was not enough to prove to a high level of certainty that it was an error that did not result in a fair trial.

I am not arguing that this was not within the letter of the law. I am saying that I don't agree that as a matter of fact they are right.

quote:

In essence, they said that as long as a juror says they are impartial they are...

Yeah, that's pretty much how it works: the court relies on jurors to reveal their biases. Since we don't have mind-reading machines. A good lawyer will dig deeper than simply asking if they have bias though.

And yes, appellate review comes down to opinion and judgment. Somebody has to exercise both, and that's what appellate courts are for.

I'm afraid our civil and criminal law does not offer the same level of certainty that your field does, doctor.

Well, actually it is on the trial lawyer to expose the prejudice of the juror to get him struck for cause.

Happens a lot.

So you are now arguing incompetence of counsel?

I thought that had already been dismissed?

I am saying Voir Dire has the basic goal is for counsel to expose prejudice.

Bias is not sufficient to strike a juror for cause. One must show the juror to be prejudice. Now, exposing bias is helpful for your strikes, but you only get 8 of those.

Conduct in Voir Dire might raise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, but the S. Ct., just limited 6th Amendment, ineffective assistance of counsel, claims to jury selection.


Jury trials are won in Voir Dire the task is to shape the jury to be predestined to your case, and against the other party.

Sometimes, there is no prejudice, not bias, to that can be exposed.

quote:

Bias is not sufficient to strike a juror for cause. One must show the juror to be prejudice.

Prejudice is one type of bias.

In Alaska, you must show not only bias, but also an admitted inability to set the bias aside in acting as a juror. Getting a juror to admit or concede this is a challenge.

It does my head in how few people understand what being a member of society means.

No one should want too be on a jury with hidden bias that might influence a verdict personally.

Just go along, answer the questions truthfully and be happy either to sit or leave. Whatever is asked of you. That's your duty.

What I usually wanted was a juror willing to do their duty, but reluctant to be on a jury because of the time or responsibility involved.

Some jurors want to be jurors and will attempt to conceal their biases to do so. I didn't want this type on the panel.

Then there are those who don't want to be a juror and will deliberately exaggerate or falsely claim to be biased because they know that will get them off the panel. I usually didn't want these people either.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Bias is not sufficient to strike a juror for cause. One must show the juror to be prejudice.

Prejudice is one type of bias.

In Alaska, you must show not only bias, but also an admitted inability to set the bias aside in acting as a juror. Getting a juror to admit or concede this is a challenge.

That is what we call prejudice down here. KY has said once prejudice has been demonstrated no words can cure it.