A Struggle with the Chauvin Verdict

9,612 Views | 110 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by mjfrog
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
PhatMack19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Chauvin should have hired that Bull guy
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The fact that they convicted on three contradictory charges tells you everything you need to know.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Wabs
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Secolobo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So they're snowflakes by definition....
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie4Life02 said:

The fact that they convicted on three contradictory charges tells you everything you need to know.
Lol. How do you think juries work?
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie4Life02 said:

The fact that they convicted on three contradictory charges tells you everything you need to know.
I had not looked at from this angle, but on surface seems like they did indeed do that. Why not also assault with deadly weapon, false imprisonment, failure to render aid, unlawful assemble of Chauvin and friends.

I understand you can charge multiple, but essentially he was convicted of the same crime, 3 times over.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown

"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
mjschiller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The verdict was in before the trial ever started.
misterguinness
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How much of the medical testimony presented by both sides did the jurors even understand? The system is entirely imperfect because there is nobody for the jury to pose questions of clarification to but each other.
2+2=5
HowdyTAMU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ask yourself, how would a jury decide a politically charged case knowing their identity will be known afterwards?
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A smart person would not have put up with the other jurors acting intellectually dishonestly.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

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.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
wyoag93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It tells me that liberals are obsessed with revenge....without any consideration for accountability. **** them!
Not a Bot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fka ftc said:

Aggie4Life02 said:

The fact that they convicted on three contradictory charges tells you everything you need to know.
I had not looked at from this angle, but on surface seems like they did indeed do that. Why not also assault with deadly weapon, false imprisonment, failure to render aid, unlawful assemble of Chauvin and friends.

I understand you can charge multiple, but essentially he was convicted of the same crime, 3 times over.


I still have not gotten a good answer on that either. Usually if they find guilty on the higher charge they are instructed to stop there.

That being said, they did mention on a couple of the news broadcasts that for the purposes of sentencing the lesser two charges will not be considered.

Kind of an odd way to do it, but I guess that's how it goes in Minnesota.
aggiedaniel06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S

Agreed. Something like the French magistrate system may be needed.
FrioAg 00:
Leftist Democrats "have completely overplayed the Racism accusation. Honestly my first reaction when I hear it today is to assume bad intentions by the accuser, not the accused."
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Ag Natural
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well when there is clearly incriminating video and 10 of your own testify against you... you aren't going to get off.

I find it strange that do many want to disregard our basic civil rights. Even the worst of us don't deserve to be killed. I can't believe this is a debate. Why had this become a left right argument? Seriously, our government should not be allowed to kill citizens. The creation of our constitution was based on that philosophy!
"Always you have to contend with the stupidity of men." - Henry D. Thoreau
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.



***cough*** Bull**** ***cough****


Had to do lots of reading on fentanyl before they gave it to my dad..... the ridiculous levels in him were lethal,, thus his breathing being labored before Chauvin used an approved method of restraint.
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
Ag Natural
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not according to his fellow police officers.
"Always you have to contend with the stupidity of men." - Henry D. Thoreau
bigangrytexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.

USMC 0231, 2003-2008
OIF, OEF
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


Not enough stars!
"The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was never designed to restrain the people. It was designed to restrain the government."
gomerschlep
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
VaultingChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm disappointed in the chemist on the jury.

Of all the jury members, there were only two that could probably comprehend the "science" being presented by the prosecution and defense, and he was one.

Why hasn't the killer of Ashley Babbitt been identified, let alone charged? Did a unarmed woman breaking and entering a window pose a deadly threat? Selective prosecution is what is so irritating, more so because it always seems that Dems can get a pass on almost any crime.
TChaney
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag Natural said:

Well when there is clearly incriminating video and 10 of your own testify against you... you aren't going to get off.

I find it strange that do many want to disregard our basic civil rights. Even the worst of us don't deserve to be killed. I can't believe this is a debate. Why had this become a left right argument? Seriously, our government should not be allowed to kill citizens. The creation of our constitution was based on that philosophy!
Video vs Medical Data

Emotion vs Factual information.

When I saw the video and knew that George Floyd had died. I thought Officer Chauvin was most likely guilty, at minimum, of manslaughter. The video and time he was held from outward appearances was damning. I had an emotional reaction and what I thought was factual evidence of wrongdoing.

My view changed when I saw the level of Fentanyl in his system along with methamphetamines and a 98% blood oxygen level.

One great realization came out of this for me.
I know if I ever get accused of something, I should never let it go to trial, guilty or not. You can't depend on 12 strangers.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie4Life02 said:

The fact that they convicted on three contradictory charges tells you everything you need to know.
This, he was always going to be convicted by a jury. If the jurist had voted not to convict, then their lives in MN would be over. People like Maxine Waters would come to their homes and burn them down.

This "trial" was always going to go before an appeals court. They will reduce the charge to manslaughter or more appropriately to criminal negligent homicide.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.


Excellent idea! Only net tax payers should get to have kids.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

our government should not be allowed to kill citizens
Unless they are rampaging through the nation's Capitol, than fire away.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
aginresearch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For those here skeptical of the jury system, tell me a system that works better.

Do you want your case decided by the Biden government? By some board of woke elites? By liberal college graduates?

The citizen jury is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. It is a massive bulwark against tyranny.
gomerschlep
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Sid Farkas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

How would I vote?
If I was a non-sequestered juror and Maxine waters showed up nearby with a mob and a TV crew demanding i vote to acquit then I might vote to acquit regardless of the evidence
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.