Chauvin Guilty (of Floyd murder)

[Saracen999]

Something that I picked up on was the very clear statement from the Judge about how the Jury were to return their verdicts: They were to return them based on the law as the Judge had explained it to them during the trial - not on any other understanding of the law, and uninfluenced by consequence of their verdict.

That basically means we can't really comment on the verdict unless we were privy to everything the jury were and how the Judge had directed them to return verdicts. My natural inclination is of course to try and think about whether someone is guilty or not based on my understanding of the law, but that's not what a jury is asked to do (in this case at least, I don't know if that's common for these things).

Right. And the judge ordering jurors to consider this, and not consider that, means jurors will do that, of course.

The judge in one of the cases I did jury service on would have had a conniption fit if he knew the antics some jurors pulled. Like the woman that had consistently voted not-guilty switching her vote to guilty because :-

- it was getting late,
- she was bored,
- she was hungry, and
- she wanted to go home.

The only saving grace was, IMHO, the bloke was guilty as sin, but nonetheless, that was disgraceful. And no, I'm not kidding. The arrogant a-hole of an idiot judge kept us there until 10pm with naff-all food and drink since lunch, and deserved a kick in the nads himself for that, but it wasn't the judge that she was punishing. It was the poor so-and-so expecting "due process" and a fair trial.

Another juror informed me, as he was drawing out designs for his new fireplace in the courtroom during the trial, that he had a conviction for the very offence the case was about and he wasn't voting guilty no matter what, so why listen to the evidence? He didn't care. How the hell he got jury-selected beat me.

But I kinda figured those two jurors cancelled each other out.

[TeePee]

Right. And the judge ordering jurors to consider this, and not consider that, means jurors will do that, of course.

The judge in one of the cases I did jury service on would have had a conniption fit if he knew the antics some jurors pulled. Like the woman that had consistently voted not-guilty switching her vote to guilty because :-

- it was getting late,
- she was bored,
- she was hungry, and
- she wanted to go home.

The only saving grace was, IMHO, the bloke was guilty as sin, but nonetheless, that was disgraceful. And no, I'm not kidding. The arrogant a-hole of an idiot judge kept us there until 10pm with naff-all food and drink since lunch, and deserved a kick in the nads himself for that, but it wasn't the judge that she was punishing. It was the poor so-and-so expecting "due process" and a fair trial.

Another juror informed me, as he was drawing out designs for his new fireplace in the courtroom during the trial, that he had a conviction for the very offence the case was about and he wasn't voting guilty no matter what, so why listen to the evidence? He didn't care. How the hell he got jury-selected beat me.

But I kinda figured those two jurors cancelled each other out.

While the first Juror is inexcusable, the second is not. As member of the Jury you have both the right and obligation to consider the law itself. If, for example, I were on a jury for someone charged with drug possession, I'd be voting Not Guilty on that charge, because I don't believe it should be illegal. This is the concept of Jury Nullification.

[ik9000]

and this is why Jury can be in a number of cases a poor applicator of law. It's crazy to have people behave in this way. Utterly appalling. You're not there to reinterpret the law, just to weigh whether the evidence says someone did, or didn't, on balance, do what they are accused of. I would report anyone behaving in such a way and have them removed.

[Xlucine]

I'm not sure if you saw that part of the trial, but this method of restraint was in the training manual, before it was changed after this incident. The knee to the back is a safe method of restraint, when necessary for a violent offender.

There are some very reasonable grounds of appeal, not least a member of congress demanding people riot if the verdict is not-guilty. It's hard to believe the Jury weren't influenced by a year of rioting and media bias.

You sure you were looking at the same trial?
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/0...l-george-floyd

On Tuesday, a Minneapolis use-of-force instructor testified that officers aren't trained to use their legs or knees on somebody's neck

Inspector Katie Blackwell, who was head of the training unit last year, explained to the jury on Monday that neck restraints were allowed. But per department policy, she said officers were only allowed to use their arms in such restraints.

As she looked at a photo of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd's neck, she said: “I don’t know what kind of improvised position that is. That’s not what we train.”

[TeePee]

You sure you were looking at the same trial?
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/0...l-george-floyd

Yes. I was looking at the trial, rather than the media's reporting of the trial.

[Xlucine]

Yes. I was looking at the trial, rather than the media's reporting of the trial.

So you were in the courtroom? Or are you going off FreedomEagleNews?

The head of the training unit testified under oath than police were not trained to kneel on necks. I'm fairly certain that she had read the training manuals at some point.

[TeePee]

So you were in the courtroom? Or are you going off FreedomEagleNews?

The head of the training unit testified under oath than police were not trained to kneel on necks. I'm fairly certain that she had read the training manuals at some point.

I watched the live video. Including the prosecution's use of force experts agreement under cross examination that the knee was on the upper back, and noting the training to use exactly this type of hold, with pictures from that training manual. The Prosecution's claims moved very quickly to positional asphyxia as the cause of death, while the media has remained obsessed with the 'knee to the neck' mantra. While both would obviously be deaths caused by the Defendant, it makes it very easy to identify who actually followed the trial.

[Xlucine]

I watched the live video. Including the prosecution's use of force experts agreement under cross examination that the knee was on the upper back, and noting the training to use exactly this type of hold, with pictures from that training manual. The Prosecution's claims moved very quickly to positional asphyxia as the cause of death, while the media has remained obsessed with the 'knee to the neck' mantra. While both would obviously be deaths caused by the Defendant, it makes it very easy to identify who actually followed the trial.

You sure that's where his back is? The defence managed to find a few frames in bodycam footage (taken after the ambulance arrived) where his knee appeared to be on George's back (although other footage of that period from a different perspective looks more like the knee is on George's neck), but its an easily verified fact that Chauvin knelt on George's neck for some of the 9 minutes.

[TeePee]

You sure that's where his back is? The defence managed to find a few frames in bodycam footage (taken after the ambulance arrived) where his knee appeared to be on George's back (although other footage of that period from a different perspective looks more like the knee is on George's neck), but its an easily verified fact that Chauvin knelt on George's neck for some of the 9 minutes.

The 'other footage from a different perspective' is the same footage from which you have posted a screenshot. The bodycam clearly shows the knee was on his back. This is why, had you actually watched the trial, you'd have noticed the prosecutions pivot to 'Positional Asphyxia'. Again, still a cause of death for which Chauvin could be found responsible, but an indicator of how much the media's dishonesty has influenced people's understanding of events.