What the Chauvin jury knows and we don't

black dog

Free America
The what?
The husband stitch or husband's stitch, also known as the daddy stitch, husband's knot , anal or vaginal tuck, is a purported surgical procedure in which one or more sutures than necessary are used to repair a woman's mans perineum / rectum after it has been torn or cut during childbirth or excessive anal sex.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Chauvin files for new trial on grounds of juror misconduct.

👍🍿
From the top down the system is stacked against him.
They got the verdict they wanted.
No amount of "anecdotal' evidence, and that's what they will call it, will get him a new trial.
Not in Minnesota. It was clear going in that there was no such thing as impartial in Minneapolis, yet change of venue was denied.
Body camera video showed his knee was not on the neck. Toxicology reports and the ME all point to drugs.
But just like Michael Brown, the left has their sainted martyr, knee on neck is as honest as hands up don't shoot.
 

Dakota

~~~~~~~
The verdict, over all, surprised me. I thought for sure he would be convicted of manslaughter (negligent homicide) but not 2nd degree murder.

I saw the fragmented videos after it happened and the entire video soon after it was released. I did feel the officer screwed up in the handling of the incident. When he said he was having trouble breathing, that is when I felt the officer should have asked "do you have any medical conditions that are causing this or have you taken any drugs recently?" I never heard that asked and felt it should have been especially knowing of Floyd and his past drug use. Remember, his drug use history was known.

Another thing, yes, Floyd said he was having trouble breathing and wanted to be on the ground and not in the back of the police car. Since when is an offender under arrest allowed to make requests and have them granted? It seemed it took too long for fire/EMS to get there and nobody attempted to administer Narcan? It also seemed odd that when medical personal arrived, they didn't attempt to revive him at least not from what I saw or heard.

So much of what we do know really doesn't make complete sense IMO.

I do not believe the officer targeted a black man to kill and to continue that narrative is just beyond ridiculous. I also am not real confident in saying this should have even been a criminal matter - perhaps administrative matter within the department and discipline administered that way if policies and procedures were not followed. I have witnessed many overdoses over the years and when I originally saw the full video, I was suspicious right away he had swallowed some type of CDS. I was a parole officer and had overdoses in my office before and a couple outside my office door in the parking lot. I would imagine the officer has much more experience in seeing this than I have and if I could see that, he should have been able to as well.

The case should have been moved out of jurisdiction and the jury pool better critiqued. And now we know the jury was not critiqued well at all.

When he was found guilty, the judge ordered a Pre-sentencing investigation and the sentencing date is June 16th. That is when all hell will break loose. As Ken King already pointed out, the guidelines are not going to be what the mob wants to hear. They will be low. I agree with Ken King on that 100%.

The problem with society is most, not all, but most have the attention span of a gnat and are more focused on looking out for themselves and only themselves. They will look at the fragmented videos and make a quick decision without wanting to know more about the details especially if it supports their own beliefs.
 
Last edited:

BernieP

Resident PIA
What I'd like is if lawyers actually wanted to serve justice instead of win cases at all cost. This is why people tell mean jokes about them.
That is not mutually exclusive, there are rules of evidence and such that the judge is suppose to uphold.
But it is an adversarial process, and it's suppose to be the job of the state to prove the case, so there can be no reasonable doubt.
A phrase often mistaken for throw out any fantasy and prove it could not have happened that way.
All the evidence the state holds, including witnesses are suppose to be disclosed to the defense and the defense is suppose to have access to those witnesses and evidence in order to examine them before trial.
It's not a "justice system", it's suppose to be the rule of law. Justice implies some sort of emotional attachment
What I'd like is if lawyers actually wanted to serve justice instead of win cases at all cost. This is why people tell mean jokes about them.
We have a legal system, not a justice system. In that system each side is suppose to mount a "vigorous" presentation of the facts.
There are rules, which the judge is suppose to impartially uphold.
There is the admittance of evidence, discovery. The state is required to prove guilt, so that no reasonable person has doubt. The defense only needs to form a case for reasonable doubt.
In this case impartiality was thrown out the window. The state all but fabricated evidence. They made it so that the defense could not call what would have been a key eye witness, not a bystander with a cell phone. The other occupant of the car. The judged blocked calling that witness.
There was video evidence that Chauvin's knee was not on the neck, but rather on the back. The media (and the state) only showed the time he was on the ground. Not the resisting arrest, and forcing his way out of the car. But the sympathetic "I can't breathe" with the angle that looks like his neck is being chocked by the knee. I don't know about you, but if you can't breath, you usually don't spend that amount of time, with that volume of sound, complaining about not being able to breath - because you are too busy trying to suck in air.
He suffocated from the fentanyl. That's what it does. It shuts the brain off from telling the body to breath and pump blood.
But what was most clear was that in the city of Minneapolis there was not going to be a juror that would vote for not guilty.
So instead they actually put a guy on the jury who was clearly bias (by his social media and podcasts)
Somebody in the court system didn't do their work. Attorneys do not get a list of jurors before hand, that's compiled by the court and the judge before trial.
#1 - there should have been a change of venue. That jury didn't look at any evidence except what they had seen on the news.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Chauvin files for new trial on grounds of juror misconduct.

👍🍿
And he went on freaking TV to brag about it! That's what gets me. He had to have known that would result in the defense filing for a new trial. Are they really that damn dumb??
 

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
That is not mutually exclusive, there are rules of evidence and such that the judge is suppose to uphold.
But it is an adversarial process, and it's suppose to be the job of the state to prove the case, so there can be no reasonable doubt.
A phrase often mistaken for throw out any fantasy and prove it could not have happened that way.
All the evidence the state holds, including witnesses are suppose to be disclosed to the defense and the defense is suppose to have access to those witnesses and evidence in order to examine them before trial.
It's not a "justice system", it's suppose to be the rule of law. Justice implies some sort of emotional attachment

We have a legal system, not a justice system. In that system each side is suppose to mount a "vigorous" presentation of the facts.
There are rules, which the judge is suppose to impartially uphold.
There is the admittance of evidence, discovery. The state is required to prove guilt, so that no reasonable person has doubt. The defense only needs to form a case for reasonable doubt.
In this case impartiality was thrown out the window. The state all but fabricated evidence. They made it so that the defense could not call what would have been a key eye witness, not a bystander with a cell phone. The other occupant of the car. The judged blocked calling that witness.
There was video evidence that Chauvin's knee was not on the neck, but rather on the back. The media (and the state) only showed the time he was on the ground. Not the resisting arrest, and forcing his way out of the car. But the sympathetic "I can't breathe" with the angle that looks like his neck is being chocked by the knee. I don't know about you, but if you can't breath, you usually don't spend that amount of time, with that volume of sound, complaining about not being able to breath - because you are too busy trying to suck in air.
He suffocated from the fentanyl. That's what it does. It shuts the brain off from telling the body to breath and pump blood.
But what was most clear was that in the city of Minneapolis there was not going to be a juror that would vote for not guilty.
So instead they actually put a guy on the jury who was clearly bias (by his social media and podcasts)
Somebody in the court system didn't do their work. Attorneys do not get a list of jurors before hand, that's compiled by the court and the judge before trial.
#1 - there should have been a change of venue. That jury didn't look at any evidence except what they had seen on the news.
You got anymore fantasyland tickets available if so I would like to purchase two.
 

herb749

Well-Known Member
From the top down the system is stacked against him.
They got the verdict they wanted.
No amount of "anecdotal' evidence, and that's what they will call it, will get him a new trial.
Not in Minnesota. It was clear going in that there was no such thing as impartial in Minneapolis, yet change of venue was denied.
Body camera video showed his knee was not on the neck. Toxicology reports and the ME all point to drugs.
But just like Michael Brown, the left has their sainted martyr, knee on neck is as honest as hands up don't shoot.

No way he gets a new trial. The ME could come out and say he lied about cause of death. The judge will just say the other ME's said it was murder. They don't want another riot in the city.
 

PrchJrkr

Long Haired Country Boy
PREMO Member
Ad Free Experience
Patron
And he went on freaking TV to brag about it! That's what gets me. He had to have known that would result in the defense filing for a new trial. Are they really that damn dumb??
Absolutely! :yay:
 
Last edited:

phreddyp

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Bet yer a big Mike Brown fan too then, eh? The poor lad...well ventilated for being a thug and all...
More of a fan of the 73 year old lady with dementia in Loveland , Colorado same s**t different day with the boys n girls in blue.

Cameras have changed everything about law enforcement, evolve or fade away.
 
Top