Derek Chauvin Trial - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15168470
If the police can't murder people in broad daylight then why would they even want to show up to their jobs in the first place? It's time they stood up to these radical Democrat antifa communazis.
By Doug64
#15168471
Image

wat0n wrote:@Doug64 that's not true, there was an attempt to storm Oregon's State Capitol 2-3 weeks before the attempts to do the same in DC.

Link?

I wonder what @Doug64 thinks about that kind of rhetoric.

Are you claiming those were incitements to violence? Can you point to any Right-wing violence involving Supreme Court justices? I personally consider Trump's rhetoric to be extremely distasteful, it played a large part in my refusal to vote for him twice. That doesn't mean it was incitement to violence. But at a minimum, anyone supporting the Trump impeachment on those grounds have to explain why Maxine Waters' statements aren't the same, grounds for expulsion from the House.

And Alan Dershowitz has a rather strong opinion about the appeal, especially considering the 1920's history of the Deep South and the Supreme Court precedent of Sheppard v. Maxwell:

Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz predicted Monday that Derek Chauvin's conviction would be overturned on appeal because of the unusual number of "outside influences" that potentially tainted the jury, which was unsequestered for the majority of the trial.

Chauvin was convicted Tuesday of murdering George Floyd last May. The jury reached a verdict more quickly than expected, declaring Chauvin guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

What did Dershowitz say?

Speaking on Newmax TV, Dershowitz declared that Chauvin's actions were "inexcusable morally," but called the verdict "very questionable," citing outside influences.

In fact, Dershowitz said the verdict "should be" overturned on appeal.

"The verdict is very questionable because of the outside influences from people like Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters. Their threats and intimidation and hanging the 'Sword of Damocles' over the jury — basically saying that if you don't convict on the murder charge, or all the charges, the cities will burn, the country will be destroyed — seeped into the jury room because the judge made a terrible mistake by not sequestering a jury," Dershowitz explained.

"I think it should be reversed on appeal," he predicted.

Despite the amount of attention Chauvin's trial received, the jury was only fully sequestered on Monday when closing arguments took place.

Because the jurors were not sequestered for the duration of the trial and were open to outside voices threatening protest violence, Dershowitz said it would be inconceivable to think the jurors were not consciously or subconsciously weighing the impact their decision would have on society.

"That should never, ever be allowed to seep into a jury room," Dershowitz said, adding that he has no confidence the verdict was "produced by due process and the rule of law."

What about an appeal?

Dershowitz predicted Chauvin's case will ultimately be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which he said would be Chauvin's best hope for a conviction reversal.

Citing Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Al Sharpton, Dershowitz said, "These folks took what they did right out of the playbook of the Deep South in the 1920s when prominent public officials would whoop up the crowds in front of the courthouse, demanding conviction of black people and acquittal of white people."

"The Supreme Court and other courts reversed convictions based on that because jurors should not be intimidated or influenced by what goes on outside the courtroom," he added.

Specifically, Dershowitz cited the infamous Sam Sheppard murder trial in the 1950s. Sheppard was convicted of murdering his wife, but was exonerated a decade later. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately determined Sheppard was deprived of a fair trial because the jury was tainted by media attention that engulfed the case.

Dershowitz also said Judge Peter Cahill, the judge who presided over Chauvin's trial, supports his hypothesis.

On Monday, Cahill castigated Waters for urging protesters to "get more confrontational" if Chauvin was not found guilty. "You got to make sure that they know we mean business," Waters said.

Cahill said Waters' comments could be used by the defense in an appeal to argue for a mistrial.

"I will give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Cahill said after denying the defense's motion for a mistrial over Waters' remarks.

"This goes back to what I've been saying from the beginning. I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law, and to the judicial branch and our function," the judge added. "I think if they want to give their opinions they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution to respect a coequal branch of government."

"Their failure to do so is abhorrent!" he said.
By wat0n
#15168475
Doug64 wrote:Link?


Here you go:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/heavily-a ... ref=scroll

It seems a Representative also let these guys in:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/orego ... index.html

Doug64 wrote:Are you claiming those were incitements to violence? Can you point to any Right-wing violence involving Supreme Court justices? I personally consider Trump's rhetoric to be extremely distasteful, it played a large part in my refusal to vote for him twice. That doesn't mean it was incitement to violence. But at a minimum, anyone supporting the Trump impeachment on those grounds have to explain why Maxine Waters' statements aren't the same, grounds for expulsion from the House.


I'm simply pointing the similarities between both speeches out.
User avatar
By colliric
#15168482
SpecialOlympian wrote:If the police can't murder people in broad daylight then why would they even want to show up to their jobs in the first place? It's time they stood up to these radical Democrat antifa communazis.


Your right on Police brutality, but Waters should be kicked out of the party for inciting people to get violent if they got "the wrong decision", since that would have resulted in bodily harm for innocent people getting assaulted by the mob, and the widespread destruction of property.

Police brutality should be fucken illegal and the use of aggressive Krav Maga concepts, moves and restraints should be outlawed outside of the military usage. They should teach cops Jeet Kune Do or Wing Chun instead, explicitly self-defensive martial arts styles.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15168485
colliric wrote:Your right on Police brutality, but Waters should be kicked out of the party for inciting people to get violent if they got "the wrong decision", since that would have resulted in bodily harm for innocent people getting assaulted by the mob, and the widespread destruction of property.
:roll: Was Trump kicked out of the party? No. He was whole-heartedly supported by his party, which is why the impeachment failed.

Waters' statements didn't end up in any riots, violence, or (what's really important to you) property damage. Trump's did. You're conflating two completely different outcomes.

colliric wrote:Police brutality should be fucken illegal and the use of aggressive Krav Maga concepts, moves and restraints should be outlawed outside of the military usage.
QFT.

colliric wrote:They should teach cops Jeet Kune Do or Wing Chun instead, explicitly self-defensive martial arts styles.
They shouldn't teach cops any martial arts. In order to use martial arts properly you need years of training. It's already been shown that cops are already under-trained. The cops would be better off being taught how to talk to people(social skills), and how to use the weapons and tools that they already possess.

Better training, for sure!
#15168487
Nah, they do need to be trained in some form of self defence martial arts so they don't become fully dependant on Tasers and firearms. The weapons and tools they currently posess can be lethal when overused and the temptation will always be there to "hit him with one more electric shock". Some people just can't be talked down or restrained without some violence, hence the phenomenon of "suicide by cop".

Tasers can cause heart attacks and guns are basically designed to straight up kill people. The cops need to be encouraged to use them in as little situations as possible.
Last edited by colliric on 22 Apr 2021 03:38, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15168490
They need to be taught a few holds that will not endanger the life of the person they are trying to restrain. That doesn't require extensive martial arts training, just situational training.

I took some such training when I was in college for Law Enforcement(in Canada), in the late 80's. A professional taught us a few takedowns, wristlocks, and control methods that didn't endanger the life of the person you were trying to restrain. We weren't trained in any neck holds or such, as those were deemed to be excessive use of force.

I think police policy in the USA has to change drastically. The "make sure that you make it home at the end of a shift" bullshit needs to end. A more, "We need to protect the people we police" idea needs to take root. Policing isn't in the top 10 most dangerous jobs out there, but it's touted as being the most dangerous. This is a false perception from both the public and police side of things.


Monitoring is important, but a non-police investigative force needs to be created to not only monitor, but police the activities of the people who are supposed to be enforcing laws, not committing them.
#15168492
colliric wrote:Your right on Police brutality, but Waters should be kicked out of the party for inciting people to get violent if they got "the wrong decision", since that would have resulted in bodily harm for innocent people getting assaulted by the mob, and the widespread destruction of property.


Lmao.

Loving all the Trump humpers here suddenly acting concerned about calls to violence because a black lady said to protest. Meanwhile, a senile orange rapist purposely pandered to a cult whose end vision is the mass murder of Democrats for years and I guess that was fine.

This is just the saddest and most disingenuous pearl clutching I've ever seen.
#15168498
wat0n wrote:But it's an important reason. Grand juries are meant to be check against prosecutors trying to prosecute people for no good reasons, and also help to involve the broader community into the judicial process (for good or evil).


If you wish to say that the reasons I am correct are important, feel free.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The whole incident arose from a call alleging Floyd had paid with a fake bill and left, which did warrant some police action - meaning that a plain assault charge wouldn't really hold on its own. Then there were the claims about Floyd's state (also part of the call, alleging he was "drunk") and how that was the cause of death, which were discarded by the autopsy.

It may sound like nitpicking, but it's not because the police did show up as part of their legitimate functions whether one likes it or not.


So, these factors somehow mean that the recordings of Mr. Floyd’s killer murdering him in front of a crowd of cameras in broad daylight was not enough evidence to make an arrest?

Indeed, but they would be charged for assault before the autopsy would come up confirming Floyd died as a result of it. Then you would get the homicide charges up. A citizen would not generally have a right to arrest Floyd because citizens arrests are only legitimate if an actual crime had been committed - probable cause doesn't apply for regular people.


So you are saying that because cops are special, it should be treated as completely normal when cops kill people in broad daylight 9n camera and are not arrested.

The autopsy results were necessary to establish Floyd died as a result of the restraint. The videos were necessary to understand the circumstances of the whole thing, and get cops themselves to acknowledge that Chauvin misused force.


So yes, you are saying that cops can kill and not be arrested for it.

This is why protests are media attention are needed.

I don't think the protests were as important for the outcome as you make them seem. All the available evidence (videos, autopsy reports, police testimony, medical testimony, etc) more than justified the verdict.


Just because a guilty verdict is justified does not mean that it does not require protests and media attention as well.
By wat0n
#15168500
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to say that the reasons I am correct are important, feel free.


The decisions not to prosecute or allow indictments to proceed don't come from public bodies alone.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, these factors somehow mean that the recordings of Mr. Floyd’s killer murdering him in front of a crowd of cameras in broad daylight was not enough evidence to make an arrest?


No need to repeat ad nauseam. You could perhaps say why is that not a good reason in this case.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you are saying that because cops are special, it should be treated as completely normal when cops kill people in broad daylight 9n camera and are not arrested.


No, what I'm saying is that since it's part of their job to use force, the mere use of force doesn't really prove misconduct.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So yes, you are saying that cops can kill and not be arrested for it.


Sure, they can do that if they kill in self-defense for instance. So can an average Joe for that matter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is why protests are media attention are needed.


I don't think it would have affected the outcome of the trial.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Just because a guilty verdict is justified does not mean that it does not require protests and media attention as well.


Sure, and just because of the US history it doesn't mean protests and media attention are necessary either. Not when videos can both doom and exonerate a cop, depending on what happened.
User avatar
By colliric
#15168501
SpecialOlympian wrote:Lmao.

Loving all the Trump humpers here suddenly acting concerned about calls to violence because a black lady said to protest. Meanwhile, a senile orange rapist purposely pandered to a cult whose end vision is the mass murder of Democrats for years and I guess that was fine.

This is just the saddest and most disingenuous pearl clutching I've ever seen.


No it's not fine, your country has become way too partisan in the streets. Both your political parties are basically partisan cults at the moment. I was supporting Trump because he beat Bush then Clinton.... And I liked some of his policies.

I mean Biden as designated Cult Leader tried to sell Afghanistan as a victory, so let's pull out now, and your party is eating that lie right up. The ruling Republican party back in the day explicitly stated the aim was to absolutely destroy the Taliban, and that clearly did not happen. But I guess the Democrats won, even though America obviously lost??? Lol.
User avatar
By MadMonk
#15168510
colliric wrote:I mean Biden as designated Cult Leader tried to sell Afghanistan as a victory, so let's pull out now, and your party is eating that lie right up. The ruling Republican party back in the day explicitly stated the aim was to absolutely destroy the Taliban, and that clearly did not happen. But I guess the Democrats won, even though America obviously lost??? Lol.


Afghanistan is a fucking disaster 20 years in the making (started during your fucking Republicans, though the Democrats are barely any better). What are they going to do, stay another 20 years and still accomplishing nothing?

"Wooohoooo, we got Osama!!!".... In Pakistan, their "allies".....

No, there was no victory in Afghanistan but certainly no victory in continuing this farce.
User avatar
By colliric
#15168511
The problem is cult leader Biden clearly sold it to his acolytes as a victory by explicitly stating "we(the USA) achieved our main objectives we set out to do", when people with good memories remember the main objective was to destroy the Taliban.
#15168512
colliric wrote:The problem is cult leader Biden clearly sold it to his acolytes as a victory by explicitly stating "we(the USA) achieved our main objectives we set out to do", when people with good memories remember the main objective was to destroy the Taliban.

Most people have trouble remembering what happened the week before last, let alone twenty years ago. And anyone under 30 will likely have only the haziest ideas as to why the US (and its allies) invaded Afghanistan in the first place. No, they will sell this as a "victory" and get away with it.

But the mistake was not pulling out from Afghanistan. The mistake wasn't even staying in Afghanistan. The mistake was invading it in the first place with such a vague unattainable goal as "destroying the Taliban". Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the history of Afghanistan would have know how lunatic that was. Besides, the Taliban offered to give Osama bin Laden to the Americans even before the invasion. They should have taken the deal. And as for not being allowed to try him themselves,. I'm sure an "accident" could have been arranged for him while he was in their custody. Lol.
#15168570
wat0n wrote:The decisions not to prosecute or allow indictments to proceed don't come from public bodies alone.

No need to repeat ad nauseam. You could perhaps say why is that not a good reason in this case.

No, what I'm saying is that since it's part of their job to use force, the mere use of force doesn't really prove misconduct.


I am trying to underline how ridiculous it is to believe that killing someone in front of a crowd of cameras in broad daylight is not enough evidence for an arrest.

You seem to think that is fine for cops, and so you want to also pretend that this is normal for everyone else. But this is obviously not true.

So, you are then forced to argue that it is fine for cops to do this but no one else.

Sure, they can do that if they kill in self-defense for instance. So can an average Joe for that matter.


No.

You are arguing that cops can kill someone who is not a threat, like Mr. Floyd, in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras, and not get arrested for it until further evidence is produced.

I don't think it would have affected the outcome of the trial.


And I think there would have been no trial if there had not been international media attention and months of protests. The MPD released a statement that Mr. Floyd died of medical conditions while being arrested, and only changed their story after the international media attention and months of protests.

Sure, and just because of the US history it doesn't mean protests and media attention are necessary either. Not when videos can both doom and exonerate a cop, depending on what happened.


I doubt it.
By wat0n
#15168577
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am trying to underline how ridiculous it is to believe that killing someone in front of a crowd of cameras in broad daylight is not enough evidence for an arrest.

You seem to think that is fine for cops, and so you want to also pretend that this is normal for everyone else. But this is obviously not true.

So, you are then forced to argue that it is fine for cops to do this but no one else.


Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

You are arguing that cops can kill someone who is not a threat, like Mr. Floyd, in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras, and not get arrested for it until further evidence is produced.


Sure, until evidence that such action killed him when there could be doubts on the matter. And yes, there were doubts in this case.

What happens in the US is, again, much better than what happens regarding the police forces you support, such as those in Cuba, where they can shoot Black people and never get tried or arrested at all - even if things like American due process may make the process slower there in some cases. And no, this is not "whataboutism", it's exposing your double standards: The countries you support get a pass for doing much, much worse things in policing than the US is doing. The US isn't perfect, but justice has been served thus far in this trial, which is why you need to change your discourse to justify your anti-Americanism, going from "Chauvin will likely get free" to "w-well b-but they didn't arrest him immediately!!!1!".

I'll believe your outrage when you explicitly condemn the Cuban government for not arresting and trying the cop who shot Hansel Hernandez in the back.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And I think there would have been no trial if there had not been international media attention and months of protests. The MPD released a statement that Mr. Floyd died of medical conditions while being arrested, and only changed their story after the international media attention and months of protests.


They didn't "change their story after months of protests", they changed it the same day as the videos viralized. At least get your facts straight :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt it.


Just like you doubted Chauvin would get guilty verdicts. I don't care about what you doubt.
#15168581
wat0n wrote:Sure, until evidence that such action killed him when there could be doubts on the matter. And yes, there were doubts in this case.


So, yes, you are arguing that police can kill people in broad daylight et cetera. and not be arrested.

What happens in the US is, again, much better than what happens regarding the police forces you support, such as those in Cuba, where they can shoot Black people and never get tried or arrested at all - even if things like American due process may make the process slower there in some cases. And no, this is not "whataboutism", it's exposing your double standards: The countries you support get a pass for doing much, much worse things in policing than the US is doing. The US isn't perfect, but justice has been served thus far in this trial, which is why you need to change your discourse to justify your anti-Americanism, going from "Chauvin will likely get free" to "w-well b-but they didn't arrest him immediately!!!1!".

I'll believe your outrage when you explicitly condemn the Cuban government for not arresting and trying the cop who shot Hansel Hernandez in the back.


Strawman and whataboutism. Ignored.

They didn't "change their story after months of protests", they changed it the same day as the videos viralized. At least get your facts straight :eh:


Prove it.

Just like you doubted Chauvin would get guilty verdicts. I don't care about what you doubt.


Your feelings about my historical facts are not important. It is a historical fact that the MPD never charged a single officer before the last few years.

Unless you think that cops only magically started being bad in the last few years, the only logical conclusion is that charging and convicting cops is a new and unprecedthing.
By wat0n
#15168593
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, yes, you are arguing that police can kill people in broad daylight et cetera. and not be arrested.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Strawman and whataboutism. Ignored.


...And you are showing where your concern about police killings of Black people stops, along with the double standard involved. And no, it's not whataboutism when you have no issues with cases that aren't even tried when the perpetrator is a repressive force you like, yet you still whine about Chauvin not being arrested immediately - even though he's now gotten a guilty verdict and is risking a long sentence.

By the way, another reason for why Chauvin wasn't arrested seems to be the following:

Wiki wrote:Failed plea bargain

On May 28, state and federal prosecutors held a press conference at a regional FBI office in Brooklyn Center, a Minneapolis suburb, in what was anticipated to be a major development to the case against the officers who were at the scene of Floyd's death.[122] Hennepin County Attorney Michael O. Freeman, the local official with jurisdiction to bring forth criminal charges for police misconduct, said his office needed more time to investigate.[123] In explaining the anticipation of the media briefing and its two-hour delayed start, U.S. Attorney Erica MacDonald said, "I thought we would have another development to talk to you about, but we don’t." On June 9, it was revealed that state and federal prosecutors had discussed a plea deal with Chauvin that would have included state murder charges and federal civil rights charges,[122] but the deal fell apart after United States Attorney General William Barr rejected the arrangement.[124] Chauvin believed his prospects of winning at trial could be poor, and was willing to plead guilty to third-degree murder for a ten-year prison sentence. As he would have gone to federal prison, the federal government was involved. Barr worried that protestors might view the agreement as too lenient and prefer a full investigation.[124]


So he actually wanted to plea guilty for third degree murder and a 10 year sentence, but the Feds rejected it. And yes, that rejection was due to protests, and this likely also delayed the arrest. It's also interesting to learn Chauvin believed he had slim chances of winning the trial, I'm guessing this whole thing happened once all the involved parties learned about the autopsy reports' conclusions.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Prove it.


Wiki wrote:Minneapolis police response

Early on May 26, the Minneapolis Police Department issued a statement which said nothing about Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck:[89][90][91] "After Floyd got out [of his car], he physically resisted officers. Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress."[92] Hours later, witness and security camera video circulating on the internet showed Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck.[93] The department updated its statement[94] by stating that new information had "been made available" and that the FBI was joining the investigation.[92] The four officers were briefly placed on paid administrative leave[22] before being fired later that day.[95] On June 17 the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training took up a review of the four officers' law-enforcement licenses.[96]


As the note says, the MPD then involved the FBI on May 26, of course as a result of the videos that surfaced.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your feelings about my historical facts are not important. It is a historical fact that the MPD never charged a single officer before the last few years.

Unless you think that cops only magically started being bad in the last few years, the only logical conclusion is that charging and convicting cops is a new and unprecedthing.


...And this also shows how irrational your position was, since you are admitting there were prior examples from recent years of other cops being tried for misusing force. Now what would be truly unprecedented would be to see your beloved Cuban dictatorship doing the same when their police kills Black people, and see you condemning that since you are so concerned about the plight of BIPOCs :roll:
#15168605
wat0n wrote:By the way, another reason for why Chauvin wasn't arrested seems to be the following:


It would have been perfectly easy and normal to arrest him for murder and then discuss plea bargains.

In an egalitarian society where cops are not treated better than everyone else and black people are not treated worse, this would have been the case.

So he actually wanted to plea guilty for third degree murder and a 10 year sentence, but the Feds rejected it. And yes, that rejection was due to protests, and this likely also delayed the arrest. It's also interesting to learn Chauvin believed he had slim chances of winning the trial, I'm guessing this whole thing happened once all the involved parties learned about the autopsy reports' conclusions.


Your text does not say that this was due to the protests, Please read it again more carefully.

As the note says, the MPD then involved the FBI on May 26, of course as a result of the videos that surfaced.


So we see that the MPD initially tried to argue that Mr. Floyd died of medical conditions.

And we also see that when videos of the murder surfaced, they still did not charge the cops.

So, at this point, we can see that video evidence is enough to stop them from openly lying, but not enough to get a murderer arrested.

...And this also shows how irrational your position was, since you are admitting there were prior examples from recent years of other cops being tried for misusing force. Now what would be truly unprecedented would be to see your beloved Cuban dictatorship doing the same when their police kills Black people, and see you condemning that since you are so concerned about the plight of BIPOCs :roll:


I find your moral outrage over my imagined moral flaws to be amusing.

You should pretend I am also racist so you can feel justified about attacking me for my imagined racism while you are at it. :lol:
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 22
Hartlepool By-Election

Farage and Johnson peddle a dream of returning to […]

US administration's reaction is so important. If B[…]

There is no definition of scale which helps you. […]

What basic human rights are minorities denied? No[…]