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

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

This is meant to be a continuation of this thread, starting out specifically focusing on the alleged drug dealer's interview/statement and "non-testimony."

NOTE: Clicking on the above link goes to the post that cites the decisions about these as primary reasons to find Chauvin not guilty.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Here (see very beginning of clip) is the alleged drug dealer and his lawyers admitting that if he were to testify, even along a very narrow range of questioning, he could be charged due to a drug overdose causing George Floyd's death.

This key witness about Floyd being on drugs at the time is allowed to plead the fifth. Why? Because the state will not grant immunity, and only they can.

That might be understandable, if they went after this alleged drug dealer for Floyd's death. However, the state's case against Chauvin is built largely on the premise that drugs were of no effect. This makes that refusal to grant immunity entirely self-serving.

Again, their theme song is "[We]'ve Been Working on the Railroad."

 

[AustinC]

Thank you for sharing the bias that drives your assumption and thus demands an innocent verdict from a police officer who had been reprimanded nearly 50 times for his poor behavior as a police officer. It seems you have your conspiracy theory.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Thank you for sharing the bias that drives your assumption and thus demands an innocent verdict from a police officer who had been reprimanded nearly 50 times for his poor behavior as a police officer. It seems you have your conspiracy theory.

LOL. Sounds like sour grapes. Your posts have already contradicted themselves.

This was my response to your post stating that "they should have had a different venue." It tainted the entire process. You are free to try to argue otherwise, but you never responded.

And this was my response to your continued false accusations. Presumption of innocence and proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the Law of the Land. You never responded to that either.

 

[canadyjd]

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)

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

LOL. Sounds like sour grapes. Your posts have already contradicted themselves.

This was my response to your post stating that "they should have had a different venue." It tainted the entire process. You are free to try to argue otherwise, but you never responded.

And this was my response to your continued false accusations. Presumption of innocence and proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the Law of the Land. You never responded to that either.

You are free to your opinion. You can construct your opinion any way you wish, even with a conspiracy theory. However, your opinion is insignificant since the only opinion that counts is the collective decision of 12 jurists who will decide guilty or not guilty. Ultimately this ends with either you or the progressive left crying injustice and ultimately claiming that the rule of law doesn't exist.

As a Christian, I will not partake in rebellion against the rule of law. Therefore, I accept whatever outcome results as being the ordained will of God.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are free to your opinion. You can construct your opinion any way you wish, even with a conspiracy theory. However, your opinion is insignificant since the only opinion that counts is the collective decision of 12 jurists who will decide guilty or not guilty. Ultimately this ends with either you or the progressive left crying injustice and ultimately claiming that the rule of law doesn't exist.

As a Christian, I will not partake in rebellion against the rule of law. Therefore, I accept whatever outcome results as being the ordained will of God.

Again, your false accusations only come back to judge your own attitudes. By your own standards, you've already rebelled by stating that "they should have had a different venue."

But go ahead and try to justify your statement as accepting the ordained will of God. You won't be able to without resorting to a hypocritical double standard.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You are free to your opinion. You can construct your opinion any way you wish, even with a conspiracy theory. However, your opinion is insignificant since the only opinion that counts is the collective decision of 12 jurists who will decide guilty or not guilty. Ultimately this ends with either you or the progressive left crying injustice and ultimately claiming that the rule of law doesn't exist.

As a Christian, I will not partake in rebellion against the rule of law. Therefore, I accept whatever outcome results as being the ordained will of God.

BTW, there is a big difference between the existence of the rule of law and it being applied fairly. It's even possible that both the Progressive Left and those who believe in the rule of law will claim injustice.

And who claimed my opinion is significant? My posts are just "yelling at the TV," which evidently irritates some of those who mindlessly believe it.

 

[777]

Ya. canadyjd, that's exactly what I think - the prosecution just never proved their case. I think this has to be a purely political trial because the state's case was just that weak. Now there's still closing arguments to consider but I don't see how Chauvin gets a conviction of any charge that isn't overturned.

The mistrial issue was because the state withheld the arterial blood gas data until the end of the trial, probably because it contradicted the narrative of asphyxiation. Judge didn't like that at all and wasn't the first time the prosecutors pulled this stunt during the trial.

Whole thing was supposed to take a month, good riddance to bad rubbish.

 

[AustinC]

Ya. canadyjd, that's exactly what I think - the prosecution just never proved their case. I think this has to be a purely political trial because the state's case was just that weak. Now there's still closing arguments to consider but I don't see how Chauvin gets a conviction of any charge that isn't overturned.

The mistrial issue was because the state withheld the arterial blood gas data until the end of the trial, probably because it contradicted the narrative of asphyxiation. Judge didn't like that at all and wasn't the first time the prosecutors pulled this stunt during the trial.

Whole thing was supposed to take a month, good riddance to bad rubbish.

The best chance for the prosecution, in my opinion, is 3rd degree where they establish that Chauvin did not intend to kill, but his negligence resulted in death.
I expect the judge would give the maximum of 25 years with the potential for early parole. Of course an appeal would be forthcoming.

 

[percho]

Don't know if true or not but I think I saw somewhere that Chauvin was willing to take a plea to 3rd degree murder and the prosecution turned it down.

 

[AustinC]

Don't know if true or not but I think I saw somewhere that Chauvin was willing to take a plea to 3rd degree murder and the prosecution turned it down.

Third degree is one of the charges so if the jury acquits on 1st and 2nd, they can still convict on 3rd.
The prosecution is in a tough spot. If they bargained to 3rd, the left wing nuts would have come unglued. Now it will be the jury that will be hated if 1st and 2nd come out as not guilty.
In either case, if 1st degree and 2nd degree come back not guilty, but 3rd degree is guilty, there will still be left wing nut rioting.

 

[777]

no, first degree isn't even on the table and that other shooting in Minneapolis - the one where the cop shot and killed some Australian woman out of the blue that was trying to report a crime - is a big reason they reinstated the third degree charge:

What are the charges against Derek Chauvin? - StarTribune.com

the other cop pled guilty to third degree and it sounds like Minnesota law used to only use that for drug dealers and this was appealed as well and narrowly upheld. There were rumors that Chauvin was ready to plead guilty to third degree but I don't find those sources all that credible but here goes;

Officials: Chauvin was ready to plead to 3rd-degree murder (apnews.com)

I don't think I could go for third degree here, just because I can't see it as being established that Chauvin caused this death. Juries are unpredictable and may decide otherwise.

Hung jury, followed by a plea bargain to involuntary manslaughter?

 

[canadyjd]

Ya. canadyjd, that's exactly what I think - the prosecution just never proved their case. I think this has to be a purely political trial because the state's case was just that weak. Now there's still closing arguments to consider but I don't see how Chauvin gets a conviction of any charge that isn't overturned.

The mistrial issue was because the state withheld the arterial blood gas data until the end of the trial, probably because it contradicted the narrative of asphyxiation. Judge didn't like that at all and wasn't the first time the prosecutors pulled this stunt during the trial.

Whole thing was supposed to take a month, good riddance to bad rubbish.

If the prosecution withheld evidence that directly contradicted their theory of the case, a mistrial must be declared and the prosecutors must be punished, preferably lose their law license.

peace to you

 

[Aaron]

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

 

[percho]

Maxine Waters calls for violence in the streets if Chauvin isn’t convicted of murder

I thought that was an impeachable offense?

 

[AustinC]

Maxine Waters calls for violence in the streets if Chauvin isn’t convicted of murder

I thought that was an impeachable offense?

Who is Maxine Waters? Leader of BLM?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

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

Since they are not yet sequesterered, what are the odds that jurors will not be aware of these threats? Defense should definitely move for a mistrial, even if "just for the record."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Who is Maxine Waters? Leader of BLM?

SMH. And you accused me of trying to create a narrative about you. "There is no try." You've done.

Yes, she's certainly one, but also a House Representative from California. With a long history.

From the article just prior to the comment mentioning her name:

"You'd think Rep. Maxine Waters, a radical leftist, might feel among friends among the rioters and looters of Minnesota."

"It's kind of like her mansions in Los Angeles, actually, well away from the hoi polloi of mere voters in her congressional district, which is one of Los Angeles's poorest. Hypocrisy has always come easy for Maxine."

 

[AustinC]

SMH. And you accused me of trying to create a narrative about you. "There is no try." You've done.

Yes, she's certainly one, but also a House Representative from California. With a long history.

From the article just prior to the comment mentioning her name:

"You'd think Rep. Maxine Waters, a radical leftist, might feel among friends among the rioters and looters of Minnesota."

"It's kind of like her mansions in Los Angeles, actually, well away from the hoi polloi of mere voters in her congressional district, which is one of Los Angeles's poorest. Hypocrisy has always come easy for Maxine."

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