Approximately 120 hours during recruit training for firearms, and then ongoing training throughout the year when required, and then whenever one can go on their own for either self-directed training or one-on-one training if possible. Are police awesome gun fighters like Marines or something? No, not likely. But they also don't have to be.
Not a shot, genuine curriosity, how much descilation training/mental health sensitivty training do they get?
Looks like there's going to be an appeal and a push for a new trial, one of the main points being impartiallity of the jury when a picture surfaced of a juror wearing a BLM shirt and taking part in marches.
Looks like there's going to be an appeal and a push for a new trial, one of the main points being impartiallity of the jury when a picture surfaced of a juror wearing a BLM shirt and taking part in marches.
Not just any BLM shirt but a shirt that read "Get your knee off our necks." And it wasn't just any march, it was the one organized by Floyds family to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. It was attended by many families of victims of police, including the Floyds, who spoke out against police brutality and killings. Then he said on his questionnaire that he didn't attend any protests/marches against police brutality which I mean I think was obvious "fibbing".
I agree with the verdict, I agree with this man's apparent principles, I don't agree with him being on the jury under false pretenses. I would be equally appalled if one of the jury members was attending functions organized by Chauvin's family while rocking a thin-blue line shirt mocking Floyd and then lied on his questionnaire. But, fortunately, there was still the requirement to get all of the jury to agree to the guilty verdicts which soften the blow to the justice system here.
I'm also not super happy that he was the first one to go to give an interview (I believe) which is how this all came about. Seems like he cares more about himself than true justice.
This was always going to happen, almost automatic. But the initial verdict is still a huge win.
I don't disagree, and I don't want anyone to think that I didn't completely like the verdict, I just don't really think this is going to be the final trial. I would expect a retrial. At some point I expect that he'll get tagged with the manslaughter or second degree murder. But I think that there is going to be a lot of unhappiness if this goes back to trial. I don't know why they would even allow a jury trial.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Why did they let the juror through? Quite sure they would have got a conviction either way why open the door like that? Dumb.
He allegedly lied on the questionnaire. It was 14 pages of questions. One was if you ever attended a march/protest against police brutality. Mitchell said "no" on his questionnaire.
The march he attended was announced by Sharpton during the memorial of Floyd with the express intent of protesting police brutality and was attended by many families of those murdered by police. Garner, Taylor, Floyd, Blake (not killed), etc.
Quote:
"We are tired of the mistreatment and the violence that we, as Black Americans, have been subjected to for hundreds of years," Sharpton said in a statement before the event. "Like those who marched before us, we are standing up and telling the police, telling lawmakers, telling the people and systems that have kept us down for years, 'Get your knee off our necks.'"
Just the totality of it, there's no way anyone can say that this wasn't a march against police brutality. Lying on a jury questionnaire is apparently a misdemeanor, I hope they explore that against Mitchell if a new trial is required even partially because of him.
I get that lying on the intake survey is reason for disqualification.
Taking a step back, how odd is it that the crux of the argument is "juror believes police brutality is wrong therefore cannot sit on jury". Like, are jurors supposed to be open minded about this stuff?
Should a murder trial be tried in front of jurors who are like "meh, I'm indifferent on killing people".
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
I get that lying on the intake survey is reason for disqualification.
Taking a step back, how odd is it that the crux of the argument is "juror believes police brutality is wrong therefore cannot sit on jury". Like, are jurors supposed to be open minded about this stuff?
Should a murder trial be tried in front of jurors who are like "meh, I'm indifferent on killing people".
Every sane person believes police brutality is wrong. Going into a trial having already deciding beyond a reasonable doubt police brutality occurred means you are not impartial. Facts presented at the trial are what you to decide on. Not public pressure, not activism, not preconceived notions. That is the entire point of jury vetting, find people that to the best of their ability can be open minded and most importantly follow the law.
Even if in your gut you think a person is guilty, if they are not guilty under the law they should not be convicted. Again what grinds my gears in this case is I don't see a scenario where Chauvin is not convicted, poor vetting could get the case retried or even tossed.
BTW I have already said I could not be impartial and could not be a juror in this case so I fully understand your point.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
I think the question of sequestering the jury and keeping them locked down and not being able to watch the news or read the paper is a valid one. I mean you're driving to the jury and you see store owners boarding up their businesses in anticipation of DC getting off. That influences your mind set.
The Juror in question could not be impartial, could not review the evidence with an open mind, and could probably not even look at where reasonable doubt exists. The biggest damning piece is that he lied on his application which makes it feel like he was willing to do anything to get on that jury. For the reason of influence based on his rules.
I and maybe a lawyer can tell me, can't understand why the defense didn't push for a change of venue, the emotional aspects of the trial taking place alone in an area that must of felt like a powder keg is crazy when you think about it.
I don't think there's any way that we don't see an overturning of the verdicts and a new trial ordered. Which is going to be really bad.
Just my two cents, but I'm not a lawyer (alien)
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I and maybe a lawyer can tell me, can't understand why the defense didn't push for a change of venue, the emotional aspects of the trial taking place alone in an area that must of felt like a powder keg is crazy when you think about it.
I think appealing as much as possible is the only thing the defense really has going for them. Drag things out as long as possible and hopefully get more favourable verdicts the next time around.
He was getting convicted no matter what, so having a juror lie on the application to give them ammo, probably wasn't the worst thing for them.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I and maybe a lawyer can tell me, can't understand why the defense didn't push for a change of venue, the emotional aspects of the trial taking place alone in an area that must of felt like a powder keg is crazy when you think about it.
“As far as change of venue, I do not think that that would give the defendant any kind of a fair trial beyond what we are doing here today,” Cahill said. “I don’t think there’s any place in the state of Minnesota that has not been subjected to extreme amounts of publicity on this case.”
Not just any BLM shirt but a shirt that read "Get your knee off our necks." And it wasn't just any march, it was the one organized by Floyds family to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech. It was attended by many families of victims of police, including the Floyds, who spoke out against police brutality and killings. Then he said on his questionnaire that he didn't attend any protests/marches against police brutality which I mean I think was obvious "fibbing".
I agree with the verdict, I agree with this man's apparent principles, I don't agree with him being on the jury under false pretenses. I would be equally appalled if one of the jury members was attending functions organized by Chauvin's family while rocking a thin-blue line shirt mocking Floyd and then lied on his questionnaire. But, fortunately, there was still the requirement to get all of the jury to agree to the guilty verdicts which soften the blow to the justice system here.
I'm also not super happy that he was the first one to go to give an interview (I believe) which is how this all came about. Seems like he cares more about himself than true justice.
Oh goodness. That does sound like potential grounds for a new trial.
I think Chauvin's as guilty as sin (and deserves the book thrown at him) but everyone has a constitutional right to a fair trial and this calls that into question.
If a new trial happens, the wound caused by Chauvin's behaviour is going to be re-opened and, I fear, it will be very ugly.
The Following User Says Thank You to ben voyonsdonc For This Useful Post:
