Not political please. Watched closing arguments. I would not want to be a juror. Reminds me of the capital murder trial for which I was a juror, not the specifics, but the weight of your job. Ours was a slam dunk but we still all shook and cried when we put a guy away for 40 years.
I don't know what all the possible charges can be, but I'm assuming manslaughter of some sort. What was the proximate cause of death. So much evidence.
Not political please. Watched closing arguments. I would not want to be a juror. Reminds me of the capital murder trial for which I was a juror, not the specifics, but the weight of your job. Ours was a slam dunk but we still all shook and cried when we put a guy away for 40 years.
I don't know what all the possible charges can be, but I'm assuming manslaughter of some sort. What was the proximate cause of death. So much evidence.
I feel sorry for the jurors.
I believe the charges are second and third degree murder and first degree manslaughter.
The causation issue is apparently a little easier to resolve in Minnesota than it would be in most states. My understanding (based on news broadcasts -- I haven't read the relevant statutes or seen the jury instructions, which would be more authoritative) is that as long as the charged conduct was a "substantial factor" causing the death, that's enough to satisfy the statute. That's a more generous (to the prosecution) standard than most states use. So the jury won't need to worry about whether other factors also may have contributed to the death. --Bob
Re: Chauvin trial NOTPOLITICAL
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:46 pm
by Beebs52
Looks like substantial factor equals proximate cause based on my small google search. That's key.
Re: Chauvin trial NOTPOLITICAL
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:42 pm
by mrkelley23
Some thoughts. Let me know if it veers too close to politics, and I'll delete.
I talked to a guy a graduated high school with, shortly after George Floyd died. I wanted his opinion, which I respect. He's a 20 year veteran of the US Army, and now a retired 20 year police officer. He's about as firebreathing of a conservative as I've ever seen, and that includes BiT. We've had other conversations about police violence of all sorts, both committed by and on officers. Unlike the other times, he sounded genuinely puzzled. "Mike, I don't understand what he was thinking," he said. It's directly against policy and training. And to have his hand shoved in his pocket like that the whole time? (The first sentence is a direct quote -- I remember it clearly. The last two may be paraphrases, which is why I removed the quotation marks from them.) He was trying to find a legit explanation for Chauvin's behavior, and he couldn't, at least not then. I haven't messaged him since, so I don't know if his views have evolved or not.
I listened to a condensed version of the defense's arguments, and I admit I haven't read a full transcript, nor have I ever served on any jury, let alone a major crime jury. But I would be an emphatic vote for conviction in this case. Just as I would be an emphatic vote for an innocent verdict in the Daunte Wright case.
Some thoughts. Let me know if it veers too close to politics, and I'll delete.
I talked to a guy a graduated high school with, shortly after George Floyd died. I wanted his opinion, which I respect. He's a 20 year veteran of the US Army, and now a retired 20 year police officer. He's about as firebreathing of a conservative as I've ever seen, and that includes BiT. We've had other conversations about police violence of all sorts, both committed by and on officers. Unlike the other times, he sounded genuinely puzzled. "Mike, I don't understand what he was thinking," he said. It's directly against policy and training. And to have his hand shoved in his pocket like that the whole time? (The first sentence is a direct quote -- I remember it clearly. The last two may be paraphrases, which is why I removed the quotation marks from them.) He was trying to find a legit explanation for Chauvin's behavior, and he couldn't, at least not then. I haven't messaged him since, so I don't know if his views have evolved or not.
I listened to a condensed version of the defense's arguments, and I admit I haven't read a full transcript, nor have I ever served on any jury, let alone a major crime jury. But I would be an emphatic vote for conviction in this case. Just as I would be an emphatic vote for an innocent verdict in the Daunte Wright case.
There is definitely a guilty verdict, just what it is.
Looks like substantial factor equals proximate cause based on my small google search. That's key.
"Proximate cause" is a legal term that simply means "the level of causation necessary to legally connect an effect to a cause." So it means different things in different legal contexts. --Bob
Re: Chauvin trial NOTPOLITICAL
Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:21 pm
by Vandal
A recent SNL cold open nailed the current feeling:
I listened to a condensed version of the defense's arguments, and I admit I haven't read a full transcript, nor have I ever served on any jury, let alone a major crime jury. But I would be an emphatic vote for conviction in this case. Just as I would be an emphatic vote for an innocent verdict in the Daunte Wright case.
This is probably best moved to a different thread, but I hope in the Wright case you'd at least consider a negligent homicide verdict (which is what I understand the officer's been charged with). --Bob
I listened to a condensed version of the defense's arguments, and I admit I haven't read a full transcript, nor have I ever served on any jury, let alone a major crime jury. But I would be an emphatic vote for conviction in this case. Just as I would be an emphatic vote for an innocent verdict in the Daunte Wright case.
This is probably best moved to a different thread, but I hope in the Wright case you'd at least consider a negligent homicide verdict (which is what I understand the officer's been charged with). --Bob
I would hope she wouldn't consider ANY verdict since no evidence has been presented to her, let alone in a court, under oath.
And to have his hand shoved in his pocket like that the whole time?
Not that it makes much difference, but, since you brought this up, you should know that that statement has been shown to be false. There are many other angles than the one you've been shown, which show the officer was wearing black gloves which extended above his wrists, and, at no time, had his hand(s) in his pocket(s).
And to have his hand shoved in his pocket like that the whole time?
Not that it makes much difference, but, since you brought this up, you should know that that statement has been shown to be false. There are many other angles than the one you've been shown, which show the officer was wearing black gloves which extended above his wrists, and, at no time, had his hand(s) in his pocket(s).
I would hope she wouldn't consider ANY verdict since no evidence has been presented to her, let alone in a court, under oath.
I guess she hasn't seen that bodycam footage that everyone else has seen. I'm sure it can be easily authenticated once this case gets to court.
I find it amazing (not really) that the two Bored Lawyers think someone should consider verdicts in a case when no evidence has been presented in court, probably no real legal knowledge of the definition and burdens of proof for the charge, and the only knowledge of the event comes from bodycam video shown and edited by the media outlets that want to incite the rage.
I'm sure Bob was considering a 1st degree murder verdict in the death of Brian Sicknick, too.
A healthy 42-year-old man just coincidentally suffers two strokes the day after he is trampled nearly to death and had chemicals sprayed in his face. Happens all the time.
We probably haven't seen the last autopsy here.
And the bodycam video that's been making the rounds in the Daunte Wright case was released by the police department. I think that BiT's real problem is that these videos show what a lot of people knew anecdotally to be true, that police overreact in these situations; they just weren't reported or believed before the widespread availability of bodycam and similar footage.
A healthy 42-year-old man just coincidentally suffers two strokes the day after he is trampled nearly to death and had chemicals sprayed in his face. Happens all the time.
We probably haven't seen the last autopsy here.
And the bodycam video that's been making the rounds in the Daunte Wright case was released by the police department. I think that BiT's real problem is that these videos show what a lot of people knew anecdotally to be true, that police overreact in these situations; they just weren't reported or believed before the widespread availability of bodycam and similar footage.
I know people who have suffered strokes at young ages. It happens.
Plus, I don't think the officer overreacted. She made a mistake in the heat of the moment. She was in danger. We've had police officers dragged by suspect vehicles in such situation. But I understand your position, you hate the police and wish they'd go away. You may just get your wish.
A healthy 42-year-old man just coincidentally suffers two strokes the day after he is trampled nearly to death and had chemicals sprayed in his face. Happens all the time.
We probably haven't seen the last autopsy here.
And the bodycam video that's been making the rounds in the Daunte Wright case was released by the police department. I think that BiT's real problem is that these videos show what a lot of people knew anecdotally to be true, that police overreact in these situations; they just weren't reported or believed before the widespread availability of bodycam and similar footage.
There are two types of strokes. One caused by a blood clot, the other caused by bleeding from a rupture. Sicknick had two ruptures. Those can be caused by a beating.
But I understand your position, you hate the police and wish they'd go away. You may just get your wish.
No, what I wish is that unarmed teenagers don't get shot by 26-year police veterans who claim to have mistaken a dark, heavy handgun on their dominant side for a much lighter, yellow, plastic taser worn on their other side. Plus, she was serving as a training officer at the time.
If these incidents happened with unarmed white teenagers, you'd probably change your tune pretty quickly, especially if they were people from your neck of the woods. But, of course, they don't because police give white suspects a whole lot more latitude than they afford black suspects.
And someone who has a lot more experience with the subject than a police fan who's had a couple of cops over for dinner weighs in:
A US police officer has demonstrated the “huge difference” between a gun and a Taser in a viral TikTok video, describing how it is difficult to confuse the two items in an officer’s arsenal, in the wake of Daunte Wright’s death. The video posted from the account of a man named Brian B had about 6 million views and 1.4 million likes before the account was taken down after it became viral and triggered an extensive online conversation.
The officer, appearing in his police uniform in the Tiktok video, can be seen loading his belt with both Taser and pistol before tapping the pistol as “dominant” and Taser as “not so dominant.” "Huge weight difference, guys - I don’t understand how we can mistake a Taser for a gun or a gun for a Taser,” he said in the video before sitting down. "If you’re in the heat of the moment and you do something like that, you shouldn’t be doing this job." He went on to say that “nobody likes a bad cop less than a good cop” and an officer does not have to be quick in pulling out a gun or Taser thinking everyone is a threat.
“I’m not going to put my life on the line to try and fix your stupidity and deal with restoring the peace with my public that I serve just because of your stupid actions,” he said. “It makes no sense. Ninety-nine percent of our job is communication. You don’t have to be quick to pull out a gun or a Taser on somebody and think everybody’s a threat.”
A healthy 42-year-old man just coincidentally suffers two strokes the day after he is trampled nearly to death and had chemicals sprayed in his face. Happens all the time.
We probably haven't seen the last autopsy here.
And the bodycam video that's been making the rounds in the Daunte Wright case was released by the police department. I think that BiT's real problem is that these videos show what a lot of people knew anecdotally to be true, that police overreact in these situations; they just weren't reported or believed before the widespread availability of bodycam and similar footage.
There are two types of strokes. One caused by a blood clot, the other caused by bleeding from a rupture. Sicknick had two ruptures. Those can be caused by a beating.
A healthy 42-year-old man just coincidentally suffers two strokes the day after he is trampled nearly to death and had chemicals sprayed in his face. Happens all the time.
We probably haven't seen the last autopsy here.
And the bodycam video that's been making the rounds in the Daunte Wright case was released by the police department. I think that BiT's real problem is that these videos show what a lot of people knew anecdotally to be true, that police overreact in these situations; they just weren't reported or believed before the widespread availability of bodycam and similar footage.
There are two types of strokes. One caused by a blood clot, the other caused by bleeding from a rupture. Sicknick had two ruptures. Those can be caused by a beating.
I listened to a condensed version of the defense's arguments, and I admit I haven't read a full transcript, nor have I ever served on any jury, let alone a major crime jury. But I would be an emphatic vote for conviction in this case. Just as I would be an emphatic vote for an innocent verdict in the Daunte Wright case.
This is probably best moved to a different thread, but I hope in the Wright case you'd at least consider a negligent homicide verdict (which is what I understand the officer's been charged with). --Bob
I would hope she wouldn't consider ANY verdict since no evidence has been presented to her, let alone in a court, under oath.
I know you're not a big fan of pronouns, but I respectfully request that you use mine.
And I hope I made it clear that I was talking about my response based only on the evidence I had seen or read, which is nowhere near what I would see or hear as a member of a jury.
And to have his hand shoved in his pocket like that the whole time?
Not that it makes much difference, but, since you brought this up, you should know that that statement has been shown to be false. There are many other angles than the one you've been shown, which show the officer was wearing black gloves which extended above his wrists, and, at no time, had his hand(s) in his pocket(s).
Thank you for pointing this out. I did indeed bring this up, although I was only attempting to paraphrase a friend who was basing his statement on the original video that circulated. It has been thoroughly debunked, by Politifact and other sources. I can see why my post would be prolonging the narrative, though.
