So we see where this is going.
More rigged *****
More rigged *****
yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.Dumb_Loggy said:
Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?
It was peremptory but Juror #28 brought up that he takes a dim view when defendants don't testify but he would try to put those feelings aside.larry culpepper said:
peremptory or for cause?
I've always understood that attorneys are guaranteed strikes as jurors. However one of my old supervisors (attorney) was chosen in a civil trial.Dumb_Loggy said:
Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?
LOL. Prosecution will not want a litigator on this jury. Sometimes other types of lawyers are not that threatening but trial lawyers are a different breed.GeorgiAg said:yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.Dumb_Loggy said:
Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?
If she's on the jury, she's instantly the foreperson. And she'll be explaining all the legal concepts to everyone else.aggiehawg said:LOL. Prosecution will not want a litigator on this jury. Sometimes other types of lawyers are that threatening but trial lawyers are a different breed.GeorgiAg said:yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.Dumb_Loggy said:
Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?
His health is irrelevant. As soon as the MRT technique was employed, Floyd was at increased risk to death (E: to add, any one under any health condition placed under the restraint is at increased odds for adverse outcomes so health of one is irrelevant). The restraint was justifiable (albeit incorrectly applied) to neutralize whatever threat Floyd was perceived. As soon as Floyd was no longer a threat, the restraint should be minimized or the recovery position introduced as instructed in the technique. You can argue the degree of "threat" Floyd presented while handcuffed with 4 officers around, but he wasn't a threat when Lane notice he looked passed out at 5:30 minutes. He certainly wasn't a threat when they checked for a pulse and couldn't find one.UTExan said:2PacShakur said:aggiehawg said:
You do realize that the policy and the manual were changed after the Floyd incident, more than once in fact. The judge ruled that discussion of the changes to policy or training subsequent to event are inadmissible.Carolin_Gallego said:
STATE'S RESPONSE OPPOSING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE
Under MPD policies in effect at the time of Floyd's death, the most extreme uses of forceMRT, Neck Restraints, and Deadly Forceare reserved for the most extreme situations. Officers are trained to use the MRT only "where handcuffed subjects are combative and still pose a threat to themselves, officers or others, or could cause significant damage to property if not properly restrained." Id. at 5-316(IV)(A)(1). "As soon as reasonably possible, any person restrained using the MRT who is in the prone position"that is, on his or her stomach"shall be placed" in "the side recovery position" if "the hobble restraint device is used." Id. at 5- 316(IV)(B)(1). Officers are instructed that, "as soon as possible," they must "[p]lace a restrained subject on their side in order to reduce pressure on his/her chest and facilitate breathing." Exhibit 3, 2019 MPD Use of Force Manual, at 3.
And the question is whether or not that was a causal factor in Floyd's death. Note the Hennepin County ME notation of natural diseases;
"Natural diseases
A. Arteriosclerotic heart disease, multifocal, severe
B. Hypertensive heart disease
1. Cardiomegaly (540 g) with mild biventricular
dilatation
2. Clinical history of hypertension
C. Left pelvic tumor (incidental, see microscopic".
That's right. Severe arteriosclerosis. Combine the stress of an arrest (out of the officer's discretion for action) plus LD50 range of controlled substances present plus CV19 plus natural disease affecting his vascular system characterized as "severe": this is why I lean toward hung jury or NG of murder. They might have gotten manslaughter.
If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.Quote:
Second-degree unintentional (felony) murder
This crime is defined broadly in Minnesota, so it will not be hard for the state to prove. The state need only show that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while Chauvin was committing a felony that posed a "special danger" to human life. The applicable dangerous felony here is third-degree assault. (In many states, felony assault is not deemed to be a crime sufficiently independent of the victim's death to qualify for felony murder, but Minnesota does not apply that rule.) Third-degree assault is defined as any assault causing substantial bodily harm. At some point while being held down Floyd lost consciousness; prior cases have held that this constitutes substantial bodily harm and poses sufficient danger to permit felony murder liability. The state does not have to prove that Chauvin intended substantial harm (although that might be provable here police use of an "unconscious neck restraint," cutting off blood flow to the suspect's brain, is designed to cause loss of consciousness). Instead, under Minnesota's unusually broad felony assault rules, the state need only show that Chauvin intentionally did an act that constituted fifth-degree (i.e., misdemeanor) assault, and that substantial bodily harm occurred as a result. Fifth-degree assault consists of intentionally doing an act that causes some degree of bodily harm (including pain, such as to Floyd's neck or to his face against the rough pavement) or that is intended to cause fear of immediate bodily harm.
GeorgiAg said:If she's on the jury, she's instantly the foreperson. And she'll be explaining all the legal concepts to everyone else.aggiehawg said:LOL. Prosecution will not want a litigator on this jury. Sometimes other types of lawyers are that threatening but trial lawyers are a different breed.GeorgiAg said:yes. She is a dangerous juror for them.Dumb_Loggy said:
Current potential juror is a civil litigator. She sounds very smart. Think the prosecutor will strike her?
That's always a fool's errand, trying to assess who will be a foreperson of a jury, in my experience. I was wrong many times..
2PacShakur said:
If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.
I believe that would be called murder too.aginlakeway said:2PacShakur said:
If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.
It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.
Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?
Murder is still murder even if the victim was breaking the law. If the subject is not a direct threat to the cop's safety then deadly force is almost never justified. And unless there's a huge piece of evidence we're not aware of, it's clear that Floyd was not a threat to any of the police officers' lives.aginlakeway said:2PacShakur said:
If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.
It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.
Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?
2PacShakur said:I believe that would be called murder too.aginlakeway said:2PacShakur said:
If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.
It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.
Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?
Probably because I have such a low opinion of lawyers in general as I have encountered more bad lawyers than great ones, I would be hesitant to put her on my jury for just that reason.Readzilla said:
idk how i feel about her. The other jurors are going to look to her for clarification for a lot of things and may side with her just because shes a lawyer
I prefer showing up with a hang em high t-shirt on.aggiehawg said:It was peremptory but Juror #28 brought up that he takes a dim view when defendants don't testify but he would try to put those feelings aside.larry culpepper said:
peremptory or for cause?
Pro tip: If you want to get out of jury duty for a criminal trial, say that and stick to it.
I wont call it murder (yet), but there is a problem with this line of reasoning. "If he didnt break the law this never would have happened." Technically true, but two wrongs do not make a right. If a subject is breaking the law, the cop is not supposed to kill them unless the subject is a direct threat to their safety. In other words the fact that Floyd had a criminal history and was resisting arrest did not give Chauvin carte blanche to do whatever he wantedaginlakeway said:2PacShakur said:I believe that would be called murder too.aginlakeway said:2PacShakur said:
If Chauvin did anything to decrease risk to Floyd at some point, then I would be right there with everyone saying what an unfortunate event.
It was unfortunate regardless. Floyd started/created the event.
Notice that NONE of these incidents involve people who are NOT breaking the law?
Who committed murder?
You realize that Floyd had a length criminal history who was being arrested and resisted arrest.
But feel free to keep defending him. This NEVER happens if Floyd didn't resist.
Done with you.
They have a crappy case. They wouldn't want a lawyer in the jury room reviewing it.Dumb_Loggy said:
Prosecutors exercised their strike. Darn, I was hoping they'd keep her.
Of course you'd say that. You have the brainpan of a stage coach tilter!aginlakeway said:
Can we keep this thread to what is actually going on in court please?
Lost track. 4, I think.Readzilla said:
was that 3 or 4?