• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bad day for the Prosecution in Chauvin trial

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
5,714
Reaction score
2,120
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Would you care to explain how it is you think Harris can reach down and control the prosecution, defence, the witnesses and the jury? Or is this just something you heard on RW media?
Common sense, my friend.

(De facto) President Harris has no doubt indirectly (in some ways that this nobody would not know) let the big boys (and girls) know that a "Not guilty" verdict would plunge the nation into rioting the likes of which would make last year's outrages look like child's play.

The judge, of course, does not want to be known as the judge who let the ex-cop go free. The jury, of course, are terrified of what would happen to them if they came back with "Not guilty."

Of course, the media would love rioting because (a) it would "sell papers" and (b) it would help to spread the mantra that certain folks are treated so badly in this country.

C'mon. We all know the verdict will be GUILTY! (And yet there will still be rioting -- out of joy, of course!)
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That has nothing to do with whether the level of force used was warranted. Seems like every one of Chauvin's fellow officers are testifying that it was not warranted.
Even though one fellow officer says it was excessive force, he said he could of used MORE force to subdue him, a taser. A police officer has to make many decisions. Continue to restrain a suspect who previously resisted arrest, for fear of continued resistance if he releases hold. George Floyd was a bigger man and could still over power him if he stopped the restraint.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
1,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Even though one fellow officer says it was excessive force, he said he could use MORE force to subdue him, a taser. A police officer has to make many decisions. Continue to restrain a suspect who previously resisted arrest, for fear of continued resistance if he releases hold. George Floyd was a bigger man and could still over power him if he stopped the restraint.
Your post makes no sense. If they truly feared for their safety they could have legally tasered him or used other restraint techniques legally available to them but instead of making that choice, Chauvin used an inappropriate hold that ultimately became the use of excessive force. You are going with information totally unrelated to this specific case and, like I said earlier, my worry is there is a "Linuxcooldude" on the jury.
 

Cope

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
663
Reaction score
120
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
We already know he had drugs in his system. That doesn't mean that the knee on the neck wasn't a contributing factor to his death.
It can be the 80% contributing factor. If it wasn't THE factor then they will not get a verdict that they are going to be happy with.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
1,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
If it wasn't THE factor then they will not get a verdict that they are going to be happy with.
That's not how Minnesota law works. It only needs to be a contributing factor to get a manslaughter verdict. Based on the testimony I heard today, I think there is strong evidence it was more than a contributing factor.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
144,000
Reaction score
47,231
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It can be the 80% contributing factor. If it wasn't THE factor then they will not get a verdict that they are going to be happy with.
If that's the BS the whites are selling, then the blacks are 100% justified in rioting if the jury acquits.
 

Carleen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
7,725
Reaction score
3,162
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal

Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.

What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.

No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.

Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.

Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m


Ka. Boom.

So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.

And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!

Amazing.
And to that I say if there are two different takes on what George Floyd said, it should be ignored by the jury.
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your post makes no sense. If they truly feared for their safety they could have legally tasered him or used other restraint techniques legally available to them but instead of making that choice, Chauvin used an inappropriate hold that ultimately became the use of excessive force. You are going with information totally unrelated to this specific case and, like I said earlier, my worry is there is a "Linuxcooldude" on the jury.
Makes perfect sense. As the Prosecution's own witness said they could of used more force to subdue him, which makes the excessive force claimed by the same witness, contradictory. The supposid inappropriate hold that is covered by its own policies, which again is contradictory. The Prosecution's case is more than falling apart by its own witnesses. Probably why the Defence wants them back.
 

Mashmont

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
17,463
Reaction score
1,428
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The facts don't matter to you, you mean. By the way, aren't you also black? I seem to recall you telling the forum that you are.
Blacks, too, are sick of the divisive tactics of the Marxist left. I know I am. It hurts us more that it hurts you It causes people to resent us. And that is the whole goal. It’s not to help the black man. Why don’t you people see that?
 

Cope

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
663
Reaction score
120
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So, if you have taken too many drugs, it's OK for a police officer to kneel on your neck until you choke to death?
Or back and shoulder blades ...
Again, more of a contributing factor.

Far too many of you have this guy convicted already.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
18,809
Reaction score
8,552
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Race card duty noted. Many of us don't think the police are innocent, maybe not of murder, but more manslaughter. Sorry if evidence gets in the way of your agenda.
My agenda? Manslaughter? You've got to be kidding. Every witness has basically testified the cops went overboard, way overboard. That's the evidence so far. The defense came up with the phrase I ate too many drugs, no witness before that point had said they heard any such thing from floyd.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
1,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
As the Prosecution's own witness said they could of used more force to subdue him, which makes the excessive force claimed by the same witness, contradictory.
Your logic fails me. They didn't say they could use more than they did in totality They said they could have used certain legitimate restraint techniques instead of kneeling on his neck, but didn't. Leg restraints and tasers are examples of what they could have done instead of kneeling on his neck and keeping him prone.
 

SNOWFLAKE

Crazy Canuck
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,793
Reaction score
2,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I can't believe you OP Klattu and much less believe how unbelievably wrong you are that this hurts the prosecution.

First of all, Police have been trained to take people that have suffered a possible overdose to take them to the hospital for care to save their lives. The last thing a policeman should do with a person that has already been cuffed and under police control is to continue to use force. Drugged people cannot help themselves and it is the responsibility of a policeman to do what is best (medically speaking) to prevent the man's death from drugs.

There was no threat of personal harm to the policeman from Floyd.

To me, the fact that Floyd stated that he had eaten"too many drugs" is a negative for the defense as that means the policeman knew that he was drugged and didn't care about his health.

Klattu, you always surprise me in a negative way. You often appear to be non-thinking, no common sense, uncaring person. You are doing harm to yourself with these OP's. The only thing you are accomplishing with them, is making yourself look bad.
My words would be less kind but I have to watch my Ps and Qs, still his comments make some things all too obvious.
 

SNOWFLAKE

Crazy Canuck
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
4,793
Reaction score
2,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Common sense, my friend.

(De facto) President Harris has no doubt indirectly (in some ways that this nobody would not know) let the big boys (and girls) know that a "Not guilty" verdict would plunge the nation into rioting the likes of which would make last year's outrages look like child's play.

The judge, of course, does not want to be known as the judge who let the ex-cop go free. The jury, of course, are terrified of what would happen to them if they came back with "Not guilty."

Of course, the media would love rioting because (a) it would "sell papers" and (b) it would help to spread the mantra that certain folks are treated so badly in this country.

C'mon. We all know the verdict will be GUILTY! (And yet there will still be rioting -- out of joy, of course!)
Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time. Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.

 

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
17,977
Reaction score
10,334
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
LAFFRIOT

I know you're fraught with worry that Chauvin isn't going to get away with killing a black man.
Not to worry. Convicted or not his days on this planet are numbered.

Someone inside or out will end his days.

I will cry for him just as much as I did when I heard of Jeffrey dahlmers death in prison...
 

GDViking

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
17,977
Reaction score
10,334
Location
SW Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
My words would be less kind but I have to watch my Ps and Qs, still his comments make some things all too obvious.
It summer a time out frees up time for the garden, go for it!!!
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your logic fails me. They didn't say they could use more than they did in totality They said they could have used certain legitimate restraint techniques instead of kneeling on his neck, but didn't. Leg restraints and tasers are examples of what they could have done instead of kneeling on his neck and keeping him prone.
Knee to the neck was a legitimate restraint under the police manual. Tasers are not a restraint technique. It to force compliance and/or to allow police to restrain the suspect after they tase them. Tasers are not what you would do instead of restraining a resisting suspect.
 

Cope

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
663
Reaction score
120
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's not how Minnesota law works. It only needs to be a contributing factor to get a manslaughter verdict. Based on the testimony I heard today, I think there is strong evidence it was more than a contributing factor.
I agree that manslaughter is the most likely verdict. I just don't think that is going to be enough for the media, people, and whoever else would riot in the streets.
 

Cope

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
663
Reaction score
120
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Not to worry. Convicted or not his days on this planet are numbered.

Someone inside or out will end his days.

I will cry for him just as much as I did when I heard of Jeffrey dahlmers death in prison...
I mean , everyone's days are numbered but are you seriously calling for some sort of vigilante "justice" if the actual justice system doesn't go the way YOU think it should?

That is sad.
 

Linuxcooldude

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
362
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I mean , everyone's days are numbered but are you seriously calling for some sort of vigilante "justice" if the actual justice system doesn't go the way YOU think it should?

That is sad.
Rule of law many liberals are not.
 
Top Bottom