Chauvin found guilty of all 3 charges in death of George Floyd - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15168157
Verdict just came in.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/derek-chau ... -1.5394195

MINNEAPOLIS -- Former Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted Tuesday of murder and manslaughter for pinning George Floyd to the pavement with his knee on the Black man's neck in a case that touched off worldwide protests, violence and a furious reexamination of racism and policing in the U.S.

Chauvin, 45, could be sent to prison for decades.

The jury of six white people and six Black or multiracial ones came back with its verdict after about 10 hours of deliberations over two days. Chauvin was found guilty on all charges: second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.


Finally over, except for the appeals.
#15168169
Wellsy wrote:Damn! Didn't know you could get slapped for multiple degrees of murder, I thought it was a one or the other thing.

Goranhammer wrote:So did I.


I recall reading about this a few months ago. Basically, there are a few strategies you can do when you prosecute. You can lay out varying degrees of a charge. Then let the jury select which are the appropriate one's to be guilty on. I recall reading/hearing that this is actually a VERY risky strategy, so it's not done very often. It has something to do with the fact that when juries acquit on a higher charge, they are actually much more likely to also acquit on the lower charges. Whereas, if you just start with the lower charge, you are more likely to get a guilty verdict. Basically, the prosecution took a risk here. They did this because they figured that they can get him guilty on at least one of these charges, but this move is still considered risky, as you increase the chance of losing them all.

The other strategy, is to go for a lesser charge to increase the odds you get a guilty verdict of some kind, even if it's lax for the crime. Basically, just going for a win of any kind.

The other is to simply try on the highest offense the prosecution thinks the person committed. This is much more common. The prosecution can focus all of their energy on just proving this one charge.
Last edited by Rancid on 20 Apr 2021 22:59, edited 1 time in total.
#15168174
Rancid wrote:I recall reading about this a few months ago. Basically, there are a few strategies you can do when you prosecute. You can lay out varying degrees of a charge. Then let the jury select which are the appropriate one's to be guilty on. I recall reading/hearing that this is actually a VERY risky strategy, so it's not done very often. It has something to do with the fact that when juries acquit on a higher charge, they are actually much more likely to also acquit on the lower charges. Whereas, if you just start with the lower charge, you are more likely to get a guilty verdict. Basically, the prosecution took a risk here. They did this because they figured that they can get him guilty on at least one of these charges, but this move is still considered risky, as you increase the chance of losing them all.

The other strategy, is to go for a lesser charge to increase the odds you get a guilty verdict of some kind, even if it's lax for the crime. Basically, just going for a win of any kind.

The other is to simply try on the highest offense the prosecution thinks the person committed. This is much more common. The prosecution can focus all of their energy on just proving this one charge.

The killer will be sentenced according to only the most serious crime. He could serve decades in prison.
#15168175
Rancid wrote:I recall reading about this a few months ago. Basically, there are a few strategies you can do when you prosecute. You can lay out varying degrees of a charge. Then let the jury select which are the appropriate one's to be guilty on. I recall reading/hearing that this is actually a VERY risky strategy, so it's not done very often. It has something to do with the fact that when juries acquit on a higher charge, they are actually much more likely to also acquit on the lower charges. Whereas, if you just start with the lower charge, you are more likely to get a guilty verdict. Basically, the prosecution took a risk here. They did this because they figured that they can get him guilty on at least one of these charges, but this move is still considered risky, as you increase the chance of losing them all.

The other strategy, is to go for a lesser charge to increase the odds you get a guilty verdict of some kind, even if it's lax for the crime. Basically, just going for a win of any kind.

The other is to simply try on the highest offense the prosecution thinks the person committed. This is much more common. The prosecution can focus all of their energy on just proving this one charge.


I thought Man 2 was a slam dunk myself. I also thought Murder 2 failed on a prima facie basis because proving intent based on that situation is borderline impossible.

I think a lot of this goes back to Zimmerman with the Trayvon Martin case. They tried him on Murder 2 which I knew was a way, WAY overreach. I just didn't know that you could try this tactic, where you throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

I'd like to see if a Constitutional lawyer tries to overturn this ruling with an offshoot of the Fifth Amendment. Would make for interesting discussion.
#15168176


He was found guilty because of cellphone videos that captured George Floyd's arrest. These incriminating videos were taken because we live in an era when everyone has a cellphone. Witness after witness testified at the trial and provided commentary to cellphone videos they took of Floyd dying.
#15168189
ThirdTerm wrote:
He was found guilty because of cellphone videos that captured George Floyd's arrest. These incriminating videos were taken because we live in an era when everyone has a cellphone. Witness after witness testified at the trial and provided commentary to cellphone videos they took of Floyd dying.

Seeing the video evidence is what clinched this verdict. Some governments, such as Israel, have sought to make it a crime to video the police or military killing or mistreating civilians. This is testimony to the power of video evidence.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-bill-idUSKBN1JD0KT
#15168232
IMHO, from what I've seen of the evidence and heard from the experts, on appeal a mistrial should be declared because of the riots, threats of more riots, and the calls by some increasing that threat ... and with a retrial, the jury should reach the same decision.
#15168554
Suchard wrote:This is irrelevant and immaterial to the verdict.

No, it actually is relevant to the verdict. Ask yourself, with all the violence and threats of more of the same in the case of a "not guilty" verdict, would the jury's decision have been the same even if Chauvin had been innocent? That is why we need a new trial--if the process wasn't fair, you can't really say that the outcome was, either.
#15168573
Doug64 wrote:No, it actually is relevant to the verdict. Ask yourself, with all the violence and threats of more of the same in the case of a "not guilty" verdict, would the jury's decision have been the same even if Chauvin had been innocent? That is why we need a new trial--if the process wasn't fair, you can't really say that the outcome was, either.


Please provide evidence that the jury was aware of these “threats”, also felt they were threats, and were swayed by said threats.

Thanks.
#15168574
Doug64 wrote:No, it actually is relevant to the verdict. Ask yourself, with all the violence and threats of more of the same in the case of a "not guilty" verdict, would the jury's decision have been the same even if Chauvin had been innocent? That is why we need a new trial--if the process wasn't fair, you can't really say that the outcome was, either.

The process was fair. There is no evidence to suppose that members of the jury believed the killer was innocent but voted him guilty because they feared riots.
#15168604
Scamp wrote:The solution to this type incident is very clear. Just have Black Cops police Black people, if none are available at the moment they'll just have to wait....black on black, they wouldn't be able to blame race anymore.


Many police departments are in fact trying hire police that live in the communities they patrol. Basically, what you are saying is what they are trying to do.
#15168606
Scamp wrote:The solution to this type incident is very clear. Just have Black Cops police Black people, if none are available at the moment they'll just have to wait....black on black, they wouldn't be able to blame race anymore.


This assumes that black people cannot be racist.

Is that what you are arguing?
#15168746
Suchard wrote:The process was fair. There is no evidence to suppose that members of the jury believed the killer was innocent but voted him guilty because they feared riots.

What is fair about violence and threats of even more violence if a not guilty verdict was handed down?

@Russianbear Go away you paid Moscow troll. Yo[…]

@Unthinking Majority @Wellsy AND GET THIS, t[…]

Big Vehicles: War Wagons

There's a weird dominance thing with some drivers […]

Unless the deep state is selectively arresting j[…]