Should any guilty verdict be accepted in the State vs Chauvin trial?

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

There was no link. It is simple courtesy to share a link where you get your statement. Percho should do so.

OK. "Here's your sign." His was post #16. It directly followed post #15 below. Yours was post #17.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...uards_warns_jury_to_vote_her_way_or_else.html

Here it is with its headline.

Maxine Waters blows into Minnesota --with bodyguards; warns jury to vote her way or else

But your question says more about you than you should want to display so obviously.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I have changed my mind based on the evidence. There is reasonable doubt that Officer Chauvin caused the death of Mr. Floyd.

The prosecution’s three medical experts stated the cause of death for Mr. Floyd was heart failure due to low blood oxygen levels caused by extended restraint including the knee on the neck.

The autopsy showed normal (98%) blood oxygen saturation levels, destroying the prosecutions theory.

The problem for Chauvin is this fact didn’t come out until they had rested their case. The prosecution called a rebuttal expert after the defense rested to testify there was no evidence on exhaust poisoning.

During that presentation, he gave the blood oxygen saturation levels. The defense wanted to call a witness to bring that evidence to the attention of the jury.

The judge denied that request, saying it would result in a mistrial(I guess because they already rested their case)

I could say it's good you've finally come round, but… Surprise! Instead, based on your original opinion, you may want to reconsider.

Expert testimony seems to admit there is nothing in the autopsy to support the view that Floyd died from asphyxiation due to police action. Zero. The sole evidence is expert medical observation of videos from multiple angles. Doctors painstakingly analyzed what happened, and not in real-time.

The judge's instructions are likely to determine much of what an unbiased jury would conclude. Closing arguments will likely focus on what those instructions should be.

 

[AustinC]

OK. "Here's your sign." His was post #16. It directly followed post #15 below. Yours was post #17.
Here it is with its headline.

Maxine Waters blows into Minnesota --with bodyguards; warns jury to vote her way or else

But your question says more about you than you should want to display so obviously.

Whatever. Clearly you are a superior human being.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Whatever. Clearly you are a superior human being.

Suit yourself, judge. But DuckDuckGo could be your friend, if you'd let it. DuckDuckGo — Privacy, simplified.

 

[canadyjd]

I could say it's good you've finally come round, but… Surprise! Instead, based on your original opinion, you may want to reconsider.

Expert testimony seems to admit there is nothing in the autopsy to support the view that Floyd died from asphyxiation due to police action. Zero. The sole evidence is expert medical observation of videos from multiple angles. Doctors painstakingly analyzed what happened, and not in real-time.

The judge's instructions are likely to determine much of what an unbiased jury would conclude. Closing arguments will likely focus on what those instructions should be.

Both of my opinions were based on the information I had at the time. It is still clear to me the officers conduct was inappropriate, however it did not cause the death of Mr. Floyd.

Seeing the video and watching Mr.Floyd die with the knee on his neck, it seemed reasonable to me they had crushed the life out of him.

The state’s expert medical witnesses confirmed my opinion when they concluded he had died from cardiac arrest due to low blood oxygen levels caused by the prolonged restraint.

But the normal blood oxygen saturation levels (98%) found in the autopsy completely disprove that opinion.

And so, I can only admit I was wrong.

There is clear reasonable doubt the officers caused the death of Mr. Floyd.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

Something tells me - even with a guilty verdict - there might be some rioting

 

[AustinC]

Something tells me - even with a guilty verdict - there might be some rioting

Yep. National Guard and police were shot at in Minneapolis today.
Minnesota National Guard and police team were shot at in a drive-by shooting, official says - CNN

 

[Salty]

Yep. National Guard and police were shot at in Minneapolis today.
Minnesota National Guard and police team were shot at in a drive-by shooting, official says - CNN

unbelievable - (had not heard about that yet)
;sounds like Gov may need to declare martial law

 

[AustinC]

unbelievable - (had not heard about that yet)
;sounds like Gov may need to declare martial law

The same governor who quit the national guard when his battalion was being sent to Iran to backup the Army? The same governor who refused to call in the troops when South Minneapolis burned last summer? The same State where a judge just issued an injunction not allowing the police to use flash grenades and tear gas? This is a State that seems bent on supporting lawlessness.

 

[Scott Downey]

Both of my opinions were based on the information I had at the time. It is still clear to me the officers conduct was inappropriate, however it did not cause the death of Mr. Floyd.

Seeing the video and watching Mr.Floyd die with the knee on his neck, it seemed reasonable to me they had crushed the life out of him.

The state’s expert medical witnesses confirmed my opinion when they concluded he had died from cardiac arrest due to low blood oxygen levels caused by the prolonged restraint.

But the normal blood oxygen saturation levels (98%) found in the autopsy completely disprove that opinion.

And so, I can only admit I was wrong.

There is clear reasonable doubt the officers caused the death of Mr. Floyd.

peace to you

Floyd was like a walking dead man, overdosed on drugs, enlarged heart, major arterial blockages. A person in good health would have lived through that arrest, but then a normal person he was not. A normal person would not have been resisting to that extreme, and you know he worked himself up into something called an excited delirium, most likely his blood pressure went through the roof, then his system collapsed.

Excited delirium - Wikipedia

 

[atpollard]

Should any guilty verdict be accepted in the State vs Chauvin trial?

Aw, what the heck. I was just watching a show about Appalachian feuds and feel inspired ...

NO! the only appropriate response to a guilty verdict is to BURN THE COURT DOWN WITH THE JUDGE, PROSECUTOR AND JURY STILL IN IT!!! That's the first step towards restoring old fashioned "eye for an eye" justice.

Then the Minneapolis Police Force should all call in with "blue flu" until the politicians, courts and prosecutors clarify what it is they want the police to do about violent criminals ... You cannot give the police a mandate to confront violent people and then charge the police with a crime when they use violence in confronting those bent on violence. Let the city burn while the police avoid trespassing on anyone's "civil rights" and the Lawyers decide what it is that they want done about the violence.

Once the mission is defined, then the police can execute it.

In the mean time, the National Guard can stand in the street with guns and orders not to shoot anyone. See how well THAT works.

 

[Revmitchell]

Apparently maxine waters incitement of violence may give grounds for an appeal and mistrial said the judge in this case

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Apparently maxine waters incitement of violence may give grounds for an appeal and mistrial said the judge in this case

Ruling a mistrial would be reasonable, as the jurors were not sequestered at the time. MW should be impeached and brought up on charges, but that would require Dems cooperate and do the right thing.

 

[AustinC]

With Waters comments I think this is declared a mistrial.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The judge did say that certain elected officials being disrespectful of the rule of law when talking about the case is abhorrent.

The problem with his denial of the motion for mistrial is that he characterized Maxine Waters’ words as a mere opinion of a congresswoman. That completely ignores what she really said and to whom she said it.

 

[Salty]

With Waters comments I think this is declared a mistrial.

Judge said no

 

[Salty]

The judge did say that certain elected officials being disrespectful of the rule of law when talking about the case is abhorrent.

The problem with his denial of the motion for mistrial is that he characterized Maxine Waters’ words as a mere opinion of a congresswoman. That completely ignores what she really said and to whom she said it.

In theory - you are correct -
But in reality - how many will listen and act by what she said