NorthHawk wrote:One of the most significant things to come out of this trial is the crumbling of the Blue Wall where Police Officers would not say anything negative about another Officer. That Training Officers, the Police Chief, Detectives and others said under oath that this is not what the Police are trained to do, nor is it acceptable is a big step in my opinion towards some type of Police reform where they may be held more accountable for their actions.
However, after seeing the video over and over, how could any reasonable person come to any other conclusion that kneeling on Floyds neck for almost 9
minutes be anything other than improper or criminal.
The "Blue Wall" had come down long before the trial
The "Blue Wall" had come down long before the trial
c_hawkbob wrote:I disagree, I see this as the first solid evidence of the dissolution of the "thin blue line" as well, and see that as the one good thing about this whole incident. When else have we seen an officer's trainers, supervisors, fellow officers, et al testify against a cop in such a trial? This is huge, and it's new. It's the first indication that the police themselves recognize the need for a change as well. There have always been bad cops, it's nice to see that the vast majority that are good cops are finally done covering for them.
NorthHawk wrote:Most of the Police Officers I have known get into policing because they want to help people and their community. However, there are some unsavory types who seem to get into it to exercise power over others. The good Police Officers are justly horrified/disgusted by Chauvin's actions and I would think hope for his conviction in this case.
Aseahawkfan wrote:As long as people are going to react crazy to every reported instance of this, it won't slow down because the number of police shootings is extremely small to start with, but it will likely never be zero or enough for most people. The reaction seems to come before the investigation. Sorry, but I don't want a legal system based on mob anger.
Aseahawkfan wrote:As far as the "Blue Wall" crumbling, we'll see about that. One obvious idiot who engaged in terrible behavior being called out isn't necessarily a crumbling of the "Blue Wall." Some politicians have turned on the police, but I'll wait a while before I start believing cops are now going to tell the truth and throw each other under the bus every time a police officer engages in questionable behavior. We'll see if this more PR or a real change in the long run.
NorthHawk wrote:Like someone on TV said the other day all it takes is to put doubt into one juror for there to be an acquittal.
That's what the defense is trying to do - sway one person, and it may happen.
NorthHawk wrote:I agree with you 100%, but the speaker was talking about the Defense Attorney's tactics given the evidence. He seemed to think that a hung jury would eventually mean Chauvin would get to walk. He has to be convicted of one of the charges and do time for things to move forward from this event, in my opinion but for some it won't be enough unless he gets life.
RiverDog wrote:Leave it to Maxine Waters and her big mouth to give Chauvin "a lifeline":
The judge in Derek Chauvin's murder trial in the death of George Floyd criticized recent comments by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and said her words could be grounds for the defense to appeal a verdict.
Chauvin's lawyer asked the judge to declare a mistrial over Waters' comments, arguing that she had prejudiced the jury. Judge Peter Cahill denied the request, but said that Waters' comments were "abhorrent" and that she may have handed the defense a lifeline anyway.
"We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational,” Waters told reporters when asked what would happen if the Chauvin trial, which is wrapping up this week, ends in acquittal. “We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."
"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Cahill said as arguments in the case concluded Monday and the jury began deliberations.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... cid=msnews
RiverDog wrote:Manslaughter was a slam dunk and IMO just added as insurance against an innocent verdict of the murder charges. I felt that the most appropriate charge was 3rd degree murder as Chauvin did not get off him for 9.5 minutes, an incredibly long period of time much of which there was zero physical movements made by the suspect. The squeezing and bending of the suspects fingers, while he was handcuffed, was further evidence that clearly showed that Chauvin had no concern for the welfare of the suspect.
However, I was a little surprised that they got the Murder 2 conviction as the definition of it is that it is a result of an assault, and in my mind, it wasn't an assault as Chauvin wasn't the aggressor, rather he was responding (entirely inappropriately) to Floyd's resisting arrest. I'm not necessarily saying that I wouldn't have voted for a Murder 2 conviction had I been on the jury, just that it would have been a lot more difficult argument for me to accept.
This case is far from over. The defense will undoubtedly demand a mistrial based on Maxine Watters' public comments, and if the judge's opinion is any kind of gauge, they stand a fair chance of getting the conviction overturned.
c_hawkbob wrote:I believe it was Shep Smith's newscast that it was explained by a legal expert that by that state's guidelines that if a person dies as a result of your actions and those actions are a felony (not necessarily assault) that's enough for Murder 2. That's why in that state they refer to second degree murder as "unintentional murder"; you don't have to be trying to kill him, you just have to be committing a felony that results in his death. In that light I say it is the single most appropriate conviction. Even though I seriously only expected 3rd degree at best and was worried it would be manslaughter.
Second-degree murder charge
Second-degree murder is causing the death of a human being, without intent to cause that death, while committing or attempting to commit another felony. In this case, the alleged felony was third-degree assault. Chauvin is charged with committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.
c_hawkbob wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/04/19/derek-chauvin-murder-manslaughter-charges-sentencing-breakdown/7286597002/
So it didn't have to be assault but in this case it was ... third degree anyway.
c_hawkbob wrote:Dude, I literally just did! Reread what I put in quotes, particularly the italicized portion!
It says "while committing or attempting to commit another felony". It does not say while committing assault.
It goes on to say IN THIS CASE the other felony was third degree assault. But as for the way the law is written that other felony needn't necessarily be assault.
c_hawkbob wrote:Merci Monsieur!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests