The Derek Chauvin trial is underway..GUILTY on all charges

[transplant99]

Just caught a bit of the opening arguments from the prosecution.

They played that entire 9+ minute video as part of it, and truthfully that could have been their entire presentation. Maybe even effectively. Put that thing on, drop the lights, turn up the volume and just let it play out.

I have no idea what the defense will be. Though I am sure they will blame the victim for being a drug user etc, but I just have a hard time not seeing a conviction in ths case. Of course i thought the same about OJ and others through the years, so who knows.

I just hope whatever happens leads to real changes where needed and without any more violence/bloodshed/rioting etc...as I believe that is even less productive than doing nothing.

[CroFlames]

We all saw the video. I hope he gets convicted, but like you said bigger changes need to be made in that country.

And I have no hope that will happen unfortunately.

For those wondering, Chauvin killed George Floyd.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Just caught a bit of the opening arguments from the prosecution.

They played that entire 9+ minute video as part of it, and truthfully that could have been their entire presentation. Maybe even effectively. Put that thing on, drop the lights, turn up the volume and just let it play out.

I have no idea what the defense will be. Though I am sure they will blame the victim for being a drug user etc, but I just have a hard time not seeing a conviction in ths case. Of course i thought the same about OJ and others through the years, so who knows.

I just hope whatever happens leads to real changes where needed and without any more violence/bloodshed/rioting etc...as I believe that is even less productive than doing nothing.

I have it on on the background, We're seeing the prosecution opening argument and it is pretty damning. It does sound like the defense is going to go after his death from health reasons, drugs, heart disease. etc.



I think that before we frame up guilty verdicts (and man it should be guilty just based on the video alone). We need to see the framing of the defense case, and how they're going to attack that video.


But the DA went right into definition of reasonable doubt, and reason and common sense. So, he's planting the seed with the jury.

[CaptainCrunch]

Does anyone know what the Jury make up looks like, I think its important. The Defense really going after Floyd's drug and alcohol usage during the day of and even in the events between the store and his death.


Really pushing hard on reasonable doubt.

[troutman]

What the prosecution and the defense are expected to argue

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...trial-n1262198

The defense will try to sow doubt in the prosecution’s claims by offering up evidence that suggests Floyd could have died from his health maladies and use of drugs.

In a motion to dismiss the charges, the defense argued Chauvin did not assault Floyd and did not have intent to harm him.

The defense states the medical examiner found “no bruising of Mr. Floyd’s neck or on any neck muscles or any injury to neck structures.”

The defense also argues the state has not offered evidence showing “objective gross negligence” from Chauvin.

[dammage79]

I was listening to NPR when they did a story on how contentious the jury selection was. This is going to be a tough case to convict IMO.

IMO, this is the 2nd chapter of the U.S playbook when it comes to the Police and racism. As we saw in the L.A.P.D case that caused the 92 riots, they get off with little to no jail time.

I still think the other officers should be charged with the same crime in the Floyd death. Chauvin may have been the tool but the complicity from the others on scene was equally murderous IMO.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

What the prosecution and the defense are expected to argue

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...trial-n1262198

Maybe you can help me, cause I'm unsure of opening arguments, but this all sounds like testimony instead of presentation of the case they were going to use.



It feels like they're trying the case in the opening arguments.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

I was listening to NPR when they did a story on how contentious the jury selection was. This is going to be a tough case to convict IMO.

IMO, this is the 2nd chapter of the U.S playbook when it comes to the Police and racism. As we saw in the L.A.P.D case that caused the 92 riots, they get off with little to no jail time.

I still think the other officers should be charged with the same crime in the Floyd death. Chauvin may have been the tool but the complicity from the others on scene was equally murderous IMO.

There was no plea deal, that makes me think that the defense firmly believes that they can sow reasonable doubt. And the defense attorney is using the term doubt in nearly every single sentence.

[troutman]

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...ingstatements/

The purpose of opening statements by each side is to tell jurors something about the case they will be hearing. The opening statements must be confined to facts that will be proved by the evidence, and cannot be argumentative.

The trial begins with the opening statement of the party with the burden of proof. This is the party that brought the case to court--the government in a criminal prosecution or the plaintiff in a civil case--and has to prove its case in order to prevail. The defense lawyer follows with his or her opening statement. In some states, the defense may reserve its opening statement until the end of the plaintiff's or government's case. Either lawyer may choose not to present an opening statement.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof rests with the government, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not need to prove his or her innocence--the burden is on the government.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I have no idea what the defense will be.

Isn’t it just going to be the fact that Floyd was telling the officers he couldn’t breath before anyone got on his neck? And the one autopsy that said asphyxiation was not the cause of death but rather heart failure?

The other autopsy commissioned by his family was quite clear that he was strangled to death by the officer but the discrepancy between the two could lead to doubts.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Does anyone know what the Jury make up looks like, I think its important. The Defense really going after Floyd's drug and alcohol usage during the day of and even in the events between the store and his death.


Really pushing hard on reasonable doubt.

The jury that will decide the fate of Derek Chauvin, a white former Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd's death, is unusually diverse by local standards, and that's boosting activists' hopes for a rare conviction.

The panel of 15 includes nine people who are white and six who are Black or multiracial, according to the court. If the court follows standard practice and the alternates are the last three chosen, the 12 who deliberate would be evenly split between white people and people of colour. Opening statements are to begin Monday.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/george...erse-1.5962500

[nik-]

I still think going for second degree was a mistake. A handful of states have third degree and Minnesota is one. It would be a slam dunk. Obviously I don't have all the facts and don't fully understand the reasoning, but from an outside perspective it seems ambitious on the part of the prosecutor.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There was no plea deal, that makes me think that the defense firmly believes that they can sow reasonable doubt. And the defense attorney is using the term doubt in nearly every single sentence.

That's not entirely true. He was ready to plea to 3rd degree murder but William Barr blocked the deal . The deal was reportedly said and done untill Barr got involved

Take your pick for a source.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dere...obile&ie=UTF-8

[CaptainCrunch]

k didn't know that.

[Coach]

Breonna Taylor's murderers are free. I wouldn't be surprised to see Chauvin walk too. Followed by more protests and riots. And rinse and repeat.

[transplant99]

There is maybe the worlds oddest witness on the stand right now. I'm sure it is just nerves but holy smokes...

"where are you from"

"Arizona"

"Where in Arizona"

"Just Arizona"



The best part?

Her last name is.....Oiler.

Poor girl looks like she would rather be ANY where else but in this court room.

Cringey and awkward.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think he has a few things going against him. The first being that the knee on the neck technique is well known to be dangerous and is not encouraged be the police during their training.

There was no imminent threat. Taking his knee of the neck wouldn't have made the situation less safe. The guy was apprehended at that point. Chauvin himself seemed really calm and in no stress at the time

Lastly, bystanders and even one of the other police officers pointed out that Floyd was in extreme distress and he had to get off him, but he didn't listen. When you have an officer suggest it is time to take the knee of the neck, and bystanders screaming; "You're killing him! You're killing!", I don't think you can argue that it was just a mistake at that point.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think he has a few things going against him. The first being that the knee on the neck technique is well known to be dangerous and is not encouraged be the police during their training.

There was no imminent threat. Taking his knee of the neck wouldn't have made the situation less safe. The guy was apprehended at that point. Chauvin himself seemed really calm and in no stress at the time

Lastly, bystanders and even one of the other police officers pointed out that Floyd was in extreme distress and he had to get off him, but he didn't listen. When you have an officer suggest it is time to take the knee of the neck, and bystanders screaming; "You're killing him! You're killing!", I don't think you can argue that it was just a mistake at that point.

In his opening statement, defense counsel stated that his client did exactly what his training told him to do.

Its a long leap in my mind, but will be interesting to see how he tackles that whole aspect.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think he has a few things going against him. The first being that the knee on the neck technique is well known to be dangerous and is not encouraged be the police during their training.

There was no imminent threat. Taking his knee of the neck wouldn't have made the situation less safe. The guy was apprehended at that point. Chauvin himself seemed really calm and in no stress at the time

Lastly, bystanders and even one of the other police officers pointed out that Floyd was in extreme distress and he had to get off him, but he didn't listen. When you have an officer suggest it is time to take the knee of the neck, and bystanders screaming; "You're killing him! You're killing!", I don't think you can argue that it was just a mistake at that point.

I don’t know that he’ll get convicted for murder. Maybe criminal negligence causing death or manslaughter. Proving the intent was to kill Floyd may prove difficult for the prosecution.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by transplant99

In his opening statement, defense counsel stated that his client did exactly what his training told him to do.

Its a long leap in my mind, but will be interesting to see how he tackles that whole aspect.

I don’t know how it is done in the states but in Canada one golden rule used is, “cuffs on cop off”. Meaning once the suspect is handcuffed, kneeling on them or putting all your body weight on them should stop unless they’re completely out of control.