aggiedaniel06 said:

---

Concepts like Trial by Jury and democracy are only concepts that work when the majority of the population is above a certain threshold of intelligence and awareness.

The general American population does not meet that anymore.

---

Unless the jury did what you wanted, then they are so smart, right?

aginresearch said:

---

I was on a DWI jury. First video off the bat from the prosecution was the dashcam video of a sheriff's cruiser that just happened to be at the intersection when the defendant plowed through it. That video was highly incriminating. Based on that video and the testimony of the officers on scene the defendant was guilty of DWI.

But wait once the defense had an opportunity to present their case it was abundantly clear that the state had failed to perform a HGN test on scene, drawn blood incorrectly, stored blood incorrectly, transmitted blood to state toxicology incorrectly, had not calibrated BAC measuring equipment correctly and had inadequate controls and QA in the recording of testing data.

I was able set aside my bias against drunk driving, the highly incriminating dashcam video evidence and come to a not guilty verdict along with the rest of the jury. Here's the kicker I am convinced, even to this day, that the defendant was indeed drunk. However, the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was intoxicated to the level the charges required.

I know people are excusing this jury but it is possible to set aside biases, inflammatory evidence and render a verdict based on the cold hard facts. To do anything else is to fail in your civic duty as a juror and corrupts our legal system. I know because I did it.

---

That's contradictory. "Drunk" is a much higher level than mere intoxication.

I'm still curious how he is convicted on all three charges as they do not neatly stack, and contain some seemingly contradictory elements, as in if he did one thing, how could he have also done the other lesser charge with different elements for the same actions?

aggiedaniel06 said:

---

Concepts like Trial by Jury and democracy are only concepts that work when the majority of the population is above a certain threshold of intelligence and awareness.

The general American population does not meet that anymore.

---

Up until about 25 or 30 years ago, there was no law on how jury lists were complied. Most counties took their jury list from the voter registration rolls, since the requirements are almost identical. Then the legislature decided too many people were on the rolls, so they passed a law mandating that jury lists be taken from voter registration AND driver's license rolls. The difference in jury quality was immediate and stark. Not for the better.

Fightin TX Aggie said:

---

Wabs said:

---

My question: Would've GF died if he had complied with simple instructions?

---

...Does resisting arrest mean a death sentence?

---

When you resist in such a way that the police need to pull their gun and point it at you - then yes, resisting arrest can mean a death sentence.

gomerschlep said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

That's a lot of words to say the average American is too stupid to comprehend basic science being spoon fed to them at a fifth grade level.

This country would be a hell of a lot better place if only net tax payers got a vote. It's the exact reason my kids don't get to be involved in my investment portfolio. They bring nothing to the table.

---

So you're advocating that only people making over a certain income should be allowed to vote, or serve on a jury?

What's next, being allowed to have kids?

Your fascism is showing, dude.

---

Because forcing me me to act, to say, to think a certain way isn't fascism. At least this way taxpayers can save a little.

The way I see it if you're a ward of the state you're a 2nd class citizen by choice already. Honestly I think a forced vasectomey/historectomy at birth that can be rescinded after several years of tax returns would be far superior to the current systemic dependancy/recreational abortion culture we currently have. If the people screwing don't want consequences for their actions then why the hell should the tax payer be responsible for it as well?

gomerschlep said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

That's a lot of words to say the average American is too stupid to comprehend basic science being spoon fed to them at a fifth grade level.

This country would be a hell of a lot better place if only net tax payers got a vote. It's the exact reason my kids don't get to be involved in my investment portfolio. They bring nothing to the table.

---

So you're advocating that only people making over a certain income should be allowed to vote, or serve on a jury?

What's next, being allowed to have kids?

Your fascism is showing, dude.

---

That's actually not a bad idea!!!!

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I'm still curious how he is convicted on all three charges as they do not neatly stack, and contain some seemingly contradictory elements, as in if he did one thing, how could he have also done the other lesser charge with different elements for the same actions?

---

The Minnesota murder statutes are unique ones, to be sure. I think most of us, if you were to bottom-line it, would differentiate manslaughter from murder using intent.

Manslaughter = no intent to kill
Murder = intent to kill

Their law isn't written like that, though, and I think it can lead to juries saying "We don't understand the nuances between murder 2/murder 3/manslaughter, so we'll just vote to convict on all and let the appeals process sort it out." I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I don't think it can be completely discounted, either.

I'm sorry I should have been more precise. All of the jury thought the defendant was intoxicated to some level but we did not see enough convincing evidence to convict the defendant on the charges presented to us which required a very specific level of intoxication.

aginresearch said:

---

I'm sorry I should have been more precise. All of the jury thought the defendant was intoxicated to some level but we did not see enough convincing evidence to convict the defendant on the charges presented to us which required a very specific level of intoxication.

---

Was this in Texas?

BusterAg said:

---

I have sat through over 20 civil trials given to a jury, from voir dire through verdict, and I have a very real realization: Juries are usually only one or two people.

The rest of the jury people that sit through the trial are there, but, they have no strong conviction, and will go with the strongest person in the jury room in order to get the ordeal completed and get on with their lives.

The result of a jury trial is more about how the most alpha person in the room feels than anything else. Sometimes you have two very strong alpha personalities that struggle against each other, and that is what creates very long deliberations. Sometime, both of these people are very stubborn, and it creates a hung jury.

The only thing required to get a conviction on all three of these counts is for one of the strongest willed jurors to fear for their own safety, fear for the safety of their community, or to have made a decision based on the videos as opposed to the evidence, and that is that. There was apparently no strong willed juror that was willing to stand up to argue for the rule of law.

I do not believe that most jurors are dumb. I do believe that most people are sheep.

---

I have been on four jury trials in my lifetime and your points are well taken.

The element that always effected the outcome was the strength or weakness of either side's counsel or prosecutor. And this was always apparent from the get go.

The most important part of the process, after the culmination of evidence by both sides, was always the judge's instructions. Instructions we had to follow to the letter and come to a conclusion on. That's where so many jury members appear to get confused.

2 people generally lead the discussion, specifically addressing the instructions and evidence, and then express the reasons for their decision / vote. 2-4 more add general comments with some different levels of conviction. The other 6-8 shake their head, up and down or side to side, only offering a word or two for the discussion, and then generally vote with the leaders.

At the end of this deliberation process, which always took longer than you would think, once again because of the judge's specific instructions - you gave your unanimous decision.

You really only need 2-3 intelligent people on a jury to make the process work. Doesn't mean it works to everyone's satisfaction - but it works.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Wabs said:

---

My question: Would've GF died if he had complied with simple instructions? My guess is that it would have been 50/50 due to the way over lethal amount of Fentanyl in his system. What say you?

Nevermind, we have a new hero so all is well.

---

No he would not have died. He ingested the drugs when he saw police approaching. Then had, what looked like, a panic attack.

Put a 140 lb person on your back and you'll be fine. Put a 140 lb person on your back while ODing on drugs and having a panic attack, you may die.

---

so are you saying the police never should have approached the vehicle in the first place? Just ignore the fact he was using fake money, or doing drugs in a car with his drug dealers, who were possibly fixing to sell them to other people?

gomerschlep said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Wabs said:

---

My question: Would've GF died if he had complied with simple instructions? My guess is that it would have been 50/50 due to the way over lethal amount of Fentanyl in his system. What say you?

Nevermind, we have a new hero so all is well.

---

No he would not have died. He ingested the drugs when he saw police approaching. Then had, what looked like, a panic attack.

Put a 140 lb person on your back and you'll be fine. Put a 140 lb person on your back while ODing on drugs and having a panic attack, you may die.

---

This isn't even remotely true. Go to medical school then get back with me.

---

A lot of people making impossible judgments about whether Floyd would or would not have died.

Based on the medical evidence he could have died regardless of Chauvin's restraint (approved Minneapolis restraint). That is reasonable doubt and should have resulted in acquittal.

The calculus is simple

Is standing up for a stranger who at least appeared to maybe have done something wrong on the surface worth:

-Your job

-Your home

-Your family's safety

-Your own life

We all like to think we'd stand up to the mob no matter what but the truth is very few people have the stomach for risking the lives of their family for a stranger

If I, as a medical provider, had used the same method of restraint for ANY patient, including those who may be violent or combative, I would have lost my license in a heartbeat, and would likely been charged criminally. I would also be rightfully convicted. There was an off duty firefighter/EMT on scene who begged the officers to stop and they refused. She testified at the trial. It's a pretty open and shut case. And they got it right.

gomerschlep said:

---

If I, as a medical provider, had used the same method of restraint for ANY patient, including those who may be violent or combative, I would have lost my license in a heartbeat, and would likely been charged criminally. I would also be rightfully convicted. There was an off duty firefighter/EMT on scene who begged the officers to stop and they refused. She testified at the trial. It's a pretty open and shut case. And they got it right.

---

The appeal to nothing but emotion that was the states entire case

When put that way, it doesn't even make Darwinistic sense to do so.

That is why it takes a higher Ideal, more akin to Christ's message, then "calculus" (not disagreeing with you!).

But the Democratic MSM Party promotes selfishness, entitlement, and grift. These don't breed that kind of value or even rate it.

We have created a legal and social climate where involvement is problematical. This century can no longer lecture the mid-20th.

gomerschlep said:

---

If I, as a medical provider, had used the same method of restraint for ANY patient, including those who may be violent or combative, I would have lost my license in a heartbeat, and would likely been charged criminally. I would also be rightfully convicted. There was an off duty firefighter/EMT on scene who begged the officers to stop and they refused. She testified at the trial. It's a pretty open and shut case. And they got it right.

---

Do your patients often "resist"? Are they all criminals with a long rap sheep? Medical provider vs police officer isn't apples to apples.

titan said:

---

When put that way, it doesn't even make Darwinistic sense to do so.

That is why it takes a higher Ideal, more akin to Christ's message, then "calculus" (not disagreeing with you!).

But the Democratic MSM Party promotes selfishness, entitlement, and grift. These don't breed that kind of value or even rate it.

We have created a legal and social climate where involvement is problematical. This century can no longer lecture the mid-20th.

---

Exactly

Nobody wants to admit that the clear threat of mob violence would interfere with our lofty sense of justice, but in the real world, nobody risks their job or their home or their child's safety for a stranger when there's even a hint of doubt that the stranger might not be innocent

It's asking too much of most people and that's just reality of the human factor in justice

titan said:

---

Our legal terms are pretty stupid and not well thought out anyway.

For example, manslaughter ---- but in any account of a battle, "slaughter" denotes catastrophic wipe-out--a rout. Not just being killed. Yet we use it for a less crime than murder.

Then there is the overly complicated murders of degrees.

The relevance here is a layman outlook as juror is likely to be a bit thrown off by the dis-connect between what something sounds like it is, and what charged.

Murder for example to most people strongly, strongly connotes intentional -- did it deliberately; not stupidly from negligence. (Which some police killings are)

So when you use murder, it also prejudices interpretation of evidence, if not the forensic minded.

---

Agreed. This has never made sense to me.


Definition of slaughter
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: the act of killing specifically : the butchering of livestock for market

2: killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre) : CARNAGE


Definition of slaughter (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
1: to kill (animals) for food : BUTCHER

2a: to kill in a bloody or violent manner : SLAY
b: to kill in large numbers : MASSACRE

3: to discredit, defeat, or demolish completely


But in American legal terms it means you killed somebody but you didn't mean it?

Fightin TX Aggie said:

---

I think a struggle some have with today's verdict is that you might approach the matter thinking, "How would I vote? If I saw all this evidence, how would I vote?"

That isn't the way to think about juries, and I don't mean that in relation to the Chauvin case particularly or to cases that involve race or even to cases that are politically charged. That just isn't the way to try to predict a jury. Your take on a matter doesn't matter.

The question is, "How would a jury vote?"

Your answer to that question will of course depend on the makeup of your jury.

There's also a bit of a science to this. Lawyers will run panel after panel of mock jurors. They'll give them questionnaires. They'll road test themes. First, they'll develop models of jurors to strike. "What kind of person is worst for my case?" Maybe it's someone who opposes minimum wage laws. Next, they'll develop models of jurors they want. Maybe it's someone who thinks fracking causes earthquakes. You never know until you run the models.

But even after your jury is seated, there's still human nature.

No jury is going to understand medical procedures or causes...not really. They won't understand engineering calculations or ballistics or 10,000 other things that might be important to your case but which are unfamiliar to an average person.

But the jury will understand human things: greed, arrogance, kindness, recklessness, selfishness, laziness, etc.

If you want to persuade a jury, you must educate them, but you must reach them on their terms. Where they think. Where they live. They're not you.

So, if you watched the Chauvin trial and are hung up on some string of medical testimony, or whatever, you aren't really judging the verdict in a way that will ever make sense to you. Ask what a jury would do, and in these circumstances, with that video, the result makes lots of sense.

---

No struggle. Jurors didn't want more rioting etc. It took, what, 2 days to convict him? We all saw the video countless times, but geez, these people failed the system. There were so many variables to look out. Did the cop overreact? Yes, but to what degree. The man had a rap sheet 2 miles long. He didn't deserve to die, but his actions brought this on himself. The cop should have gotten up after a few minutes and thrown his ass in the car but he didn't and that's on him. He deserves to do some time....

EXACTLY! Makes my point even better.

Yes, Brazos County.

gomerschlep said:

---

If I, as a medical provider, had used the same method of restraint for ANY patient, including those who may be violent or combative, I would have lost my license in a heartbeat, and would likely been charged criminally. I would also be rightfully convicted. There was an off duty firefighter/EMT on scene who begged the officers to stop and they refused. She testified at the trial. It's a pretty open and shut case. And they got it right.

---

She was off-duty, had no badge nor equipment with her. No ambue bag, no airway, no IV equipment, no narcan. She could maybe have done chest compressions and call 911, which had been called twice before she even arrived on scene.

And in order for her to do chest compressions, Floyd's handcuffs would have had to have been removed. Now you have essentially a civilian in close proximity with a very recently violent suspect who may or may not be unconscious. Putting a civilian in that position is not approved procedure.

And what's more, she should know that. Fire and EMS are often instructed to hold and stage until the police call a Code 4 scene is secure enough for them to enter. That's why when parts of Dem cities burned last summer, you never saw fire on the scene trying to extinguish them. Scene was not secure. How many first responders were attacked in LA during the Rodney King riots before they just stopped responding? More than a few.

Jbob04 said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

If I, as a medical provider, had used the same method of restraint for ANY patient, including those who may be violent or combative, I would have lost my license in a heartbeat, and would likely been charged criminally. I would also be rightfully convicted. There was an off duty firefighter/EMT on scene who begged the officers to stop and they refused. She testified at the trial. It's a pretty open and shut case. And they got it right.

---

Do your patients often "resist"? Are they all criminals with a long rap sheep? Medical provider vs police officer isn't apples to apples.

---

Yes, and yes. Patients can be combative for any number of reasons. Hypoxia in the brain is a large one. Intoxicants can be another. Or simply mental health issues. There's a wide range of conditions that can lead to someone having altered mental status. I've been kicked, punched, bitten, stabbed, and shot at by patients.

I have never once knelt on their neck until they went into cardiac arrest. And I have no sidearm or armed backup, other then some nurses sitting at a desk in the other room.

gomerschlep said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

If I, as a medical provider, had used the same method of restraint for ANY patient, including those who may be violent or combative, I would have lost my license in a heartbeat, and would likely been charged criminally. I would also be rightfully convicted. There was an off duty firefighter/EMT on scene who begged the officers to stop and they refused. She testified at the trial. It's a pretty open and shut case. And they got it right.

---

Do your patients often "resist"? Are they all criminals with a long rap sheep? Medical provider vs police officer isn't apples to apples.

---

Yes, and yes. Patients can be combative for any number of reasons. Hypoxia in the brain is a large one. Intoxicants can be another. Or simply mental health issues. There's a wide range of conditions that can lead to someone having altered mental status. I've been kicked, punched, bitten, stabbed, and shot at by patients.

I have never once knelt on their neck until they went into cardiac arrest. And I have no sidearm or armed backup, other then some nurses sitting at a desk in the other room.

---

It's not in your training to do that. However, it is in a police officers training. Again, not apples to apples.

gomerschlep said:

---

Jbob04 said:

---

gomerschlep said:

---

If I, as a medical provider, had used the same method of restraint for ANY patient, including those who may be violent or combative, I would have lost my license in a heartbeat, and would likely been charged criminally. I would also be rightfully convicted. There was an off duty firefighter/EMT on scene who begged the officers to stop and they refused. She testified at the trial. It's a pretty open and shut case. And they got it right.

---

Do your patients often "resist"? Are they all criminals with a long rap sheep? Medical provider vs police officer isn't apples to apples.

---

Yes, and yes. Patients can be combative for any number of reasons. Hypoxia in the brain is a large one. Intoxicants can be another. Or simply mental health issues. There's a wide range of conditions that can lead to someone having altered mental status. I've been kicked, punched, bitten, stabbed, and shot at by patients.

I have never once knelt on their neck until they went into cardiac arrest. And I have no sidearm or armed backup, other then some nurses sitting at a desk in the other room.

---

Its weird, that you, as a medical provider, don't have enough sense to see the difference between your societal role and a cops. Yeah, if you randomly used a MRT on a patient, you should lose your license. If a cop is dealing with a violent, high, criminal they're perfectly within reason to do so. That same MRT had been used some 200+ times with no fatal results in Minnesota. As a medical provider, does that not ring some bells in your head? No?

It's crazy that a man kneeling on another mans neck for 9 minutes continuing even after he was basically dead while he was handcuffed is lauded as a non-punishable offense by many "conservatives" on this board.

For those saying the jury was unquestionably influenced by the threat of riots or the threat to themselves and their families, you may well be right, but there is no way to know that they ever discussed it.

Personally, I would have found it very difficult to set such things aside.

All that said, what was the alternative for Mr. Chauvin? From what person or system would he have expected to get a more fair verdict?

You cannot just criticize the process unless you offer a valid alternative process.

nhamp07 said:

---

It's crazy that a man kneeling on another mans neck for 9 minutes continuing even after he was basically dead while he was handcuffed is lauded as a non-punishable offense by many "conservatives" on this board.

---

It's crazy that a thug that takes a legal dose of fentanyl is lauded as a hero by many liberals on this board.

Duluth? Rochester? Where the jury pool likely includes more people with medical knowledge because of the Mayo Clinic there?

My .02.

aggiehawg said:

---

Duluth? Rochester? Where the jury pool likely includes more people with medical knowledge because of the Mayo Clinic there?

My .02.

---

I agree there should have been a venue change, but in honesty, I doubt any venue in MN would have been materially better in terms of an unbiased pool.

Venue is huge appeal point for Chauvin.

nhamp07 said:

---

It's crazy that a man kneeling on another mans neck for 9 minutes continuing even after he was basically dead while he was handcuffed is lauded as a non-punishable offense by many "conservatives" on this board.

---

I firmly believe that manslaughter is an accurate charge and I believe he should serve the punishment for that. I think its ludicrous that a man who was kicking police officers and resisting arrest, is seen as a hero because he died of a freak mix of effects while in a legal MRT.

bigangrytexan said:

---

Fightin TX Aggie said:

---

Wabs said:

---

My question: Would've GF died if he had complied with simple instructions? My guess is that it would have been 50/50 due to the way over lethal amount of Fentanyl in his system. What say you?

Nevermind, we have a new hero so all is well.

---

No, he'd be alive. Does that resolve the matter?

Does resisting arrest mean a death sentence? Is there a reasonable alternative to restraining a handcuffed man on the ground with your knee, even after he stops breathing?

Floyd isn't a hero. He was a POS. A drug addicted low level criminal. His behavior was a road of destruction.

But does that predict how a jury will vote? Nah, not under these facts.

---

I suppose my question is this. George Floyd had many opportunities to make the right decision. During the entire encounter, had he made any one of numerous potential right decisions, he would be alive today, yet, we do not hold him accountable for those mistakes. We do, however, hold officer Chavin accountable for the one mistake he made after making numerous correct decisions.

That man will spend the rest of his life in jail because of his one mistake. George Floyd could have made any decision differently and nearly all would have lead to his being alive today and none of us knowing his name. It just boggles my mind how we've arrived at such a crossroads.

---

Killing someone tends to have that effect.

YouBet said:

---

titan said:

---

Our legal terms are pretty stupid and not well thought out anyway.

For example, manslaughter ---- but in any account of a battle, "slaughter" denotes catastrophic wipe-out--a rout. Not just being killed. Yet we use it for a less crime than murder.

Then there is the overly complicated murders of degrees.

The relevance here is a layman outlook as juror is likely to be a bit thrown off by the dis-connect between what something sounds like it is, and what charged.

Murder for example to most people strongly, strongly connotes intentional -- did it deliberately; not stupidly from negligence. (Which some police killings are)

So when you use murder, it also prejudices interpretation of evidence, if not the forensic minded.

---

Agreed. This has never made sense to me.


Definition of slaughter
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: the act of killing specifically : the butchering of livestock for market

2: killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre) : CARNAGE


Definition of slaughter (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
1: to kill (animals) for food : BUTCHER

2a: to kill in a bloody or violent manner : SLAY
b: to kill in large numbers : MASSACRE

3: to discredit, defeat, or demolish completely


But in American legal terms it means you killed somebody but you didn't mean it?

---

Definition of manslaughter

manslaughter
/mansldr/


Noun
the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

Different word, different meaning. It's not that tough.