The Trial of Derek Chauvin - Judgement(?) Day(?) has arrived!

Outcome?

  • Guilty of Murder

    Głosy: 75 7,6%

  • Not Guilty of Murder (2nd/3rd), Guilty of Manslaughter

    Głosy: 397 40,0%

  • Full Acquittal

    Głosy: 221 22,3%

  • Mistrial

    Głosy: 299 30,1%
  • Łączna liczba głosujących
    992
  • Ankieta zamknięta .
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wyróżnienie
When this whole shitshow began i was under the impression that it was an overreaction, but Derek should be convicted of at least manslaughter, however trough these 4 days the prosecutors have absolutely convinced me he did no fucking wrong trough the sheer magnitude of their incompetence at arguing otherwise
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
I think the city officials know they ain't going to reach murder and are prepping for riots. Wouldnt be shocking if the prosecution starts getting super lazy now because I think the mindset is this:

1. Murder isn't possible so no matter what we are getting riots.

2. If we get a strict charge or manslaughter, cops here won't assist with quelling the riots and the city is proper fucked.

Better keep pigs happy because it's going to be them you calling up as soon as retards start torching shit. And if you don't back em, they can just let the crowd rush in until the feds come.
 
CharlesBarkley powiedział(a):
I think the city officials know they ain't going to reach murder and are prepping for riots. Wouldnt be shocking if the prosecution starts getting super lazy now because I think the mindset is this:

1. Murder isn't possible so no matter what we are getting riots.

2. If we get a strict charge or manslaughter, cops here won't assist with quelling the riots and the city is proper fucked.

Better keep pigs happy because it's going to be them you calling up as soon as retards start torching shit. And if you don't back em, they can just let the crowd rush in until the feds come.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
Evacuating the courthouse is gonna look like the US Embassy in 1975 Saigon.
 
Trianon powiedział(a):
Did the judge just admit the prosecutors were confusing him w/ who approves use of force?
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
My understanding of what's going on is there is a policy where the shift supervisor reviews certain uses of force, but in certain circumstances it gets elevated to a higher level supervisor and/or internal affairs. It sounds like George Floyd's death caused the review to be elevated under policy, and thus the witness did not complete the review of use of force. It appears the defense is objecting to the opinion of the witness on the use of force due to the fact that he did not perform the full review per policy,
 
The defense is arguing that he's not the officer who did the internal use of force review and so he can't be questioned on the nitty gritty surrounding what happened and the department's internal use of force review. All he's seen were the body cameras and he doesn't know anything about the case beyond that.
 
The supervisor knows what happened on the day, he just isn't the be-all, end-all word on whether the force was justified. He can give his opinion, but it has no bearing on the department's decision. They needed to clear that up before presenting it to the jury.
 
Aren't lawyers supposed to be highly educated, cunning individuals? Why are they acting as if they're taking part in the Grand Improvisation?
 
Obscure Creature powiedział(a):
What did Nelson just prove/do? The judge seemed annoyed at the prosecution
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
This was a legal motion known as a "motion in limine", wherein the defense (in this case) can request that the judge exclude a particular question or testimony if they feel that the witness is not qualified to answer the question or make said testimony. In this case, the defense requested this motion on the basis that the lieutenant was not qualified at the time to make a professional assessment as to the use-of-force and whether or not said force was appropriate. The rules for what can and cannot be asked and/or answered by a witness are extremely strict in a criminal court, and in this case the judge may have seemed annoyed that the question being asked was outside the scope of what the witness was called to the stand to testify.
 
chauvin shimmy.gif
 
Ostatnio edytowane przez moderatora:
Feline Supremacist powiedział(a):
He should be called and asked why he did nothing just for the jury to see that, because he's the most culpable person at that scene. Even if he cites the 5th Amendment he should be called. I mean what's his defense, I let my pal die because racism? Give me a fucking break, the jury needs to hear that.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I'm curious as to what he's invoking the 5th on. Is it something as minor as supplying the fentanyl? Did he print out the fake $20?

You can't really plead the 5th unless you really would potentially incriminate yourself with your answers and it's apparently something that granting immunity to get him to answer would look bad or the prosecution would have offered.

He really should be made to plead the 5th on the record, though.
 
CharlesBarkley powiedział(a):
I think the city officials know they ain't going to reach murder and are prepping for riots. Wouldnt be shocking if the prosecution starts getting super lazy now because I think the mindset is this:

1. Murder isn't possible so no matter what we are getting riots.

2. If we get a strict charge or manslaughter, cops here won't assist with quelling the riots and the city is proper fucked.

Better keep pigs happy because it's going to be them you calling up as soon as retards start torching shit. And if you don't back em, they can just let the crowd rush in until the feds come.
Kliknij, aby rozwinąć...
I mean, I suppose the jury could still somehow be convinced it was murder if as a collective they're retarded enough. But idk shit about law
 
Wyróżnienie
Status
Nie jest otwarta na dalsze odpowiedzi.
Wstecz
Top Na dole