He's guilty

Althea said:
I see. This is what you consider 'facts'? 'Everyone' on this board is talking about Floyd's pre existing conditions. Not a fact to be offered. Just Fox News talking points.

If you're looking for facts, read the transcript of Tobin's testimony.
Click to expand...

Facts? Read the papers. Stay away from Tweets.
 
Sailor said:
Yes. Read any media source. It is in there. Hell, even CNN was talking about it.
Click to expand...
Talking about Waters' big mouth? She can't control herself. Nobody takes her seriously. They do take Tucker Carlson seriously, and he said Floyd died due to his heart condition
 
Althea said:
Talking about Waters' big mouth? She can't control herself. Nobody takes her seriously. They do take Tucker Carlson seriously, and he said Floyd died due to his heart condition
Click to expand...

The law takes her seriously. Enough that if this case is appealed it could be turned over. Now that to me would be poetic justice for democrats.
 
Damocles said:
Which again, is ignoring that motivation is the purview of the courts as well. In order to know if it was 2nd Degree of 1st for instance depends on the state of mind that you see in the video (unedited or edited, they've seen both). You shouldn't ignore a body of evidence because you think it may evoke emotion, it is the job of the juror to look past that for the salient information that was on the video.
Click to expand...

Jurors are human.

There is always room for miscalculation, fear, and error.

In this case, however, it is my considered opinion that these human weaknesses were deliberately amplified to catastrophic proportions.

A fair trial might indeed have come to the same conclusion.

But we’ll never know, and I will never be able to trust this outcome, because America’s left made a fair trial impossible
 
Sailor said:
The law takes her seriously. Enough that if this case is appealed it could be turned over. Now that to me would be poetic justice for democrats.
Click to expand...
There is zero chance that this gets heard in appeals court because of Waters. None. In fact, 90% are denied, with Minnesota being a tough state for appeals.

He can try to argue prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecution called Nelson's closing argument lies what they were...'stories'.
But it won't work.
 
Althea said:
There is zero chance that this gets heard in appeals court because of Waters. None. In fact, 90% are denied, with Minnesota being a tough state for appeals.

He can try to argue prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecution called Nelson's closing argument lies what they were...'stories'.
But it won't work.
Click to expand...

Democrats do not have a good record of being correct Althea. No Judge would have said that explicitly, particularly in public, if there were not a good chance it could happen. Time will tell.
 
Sailor said:
Democrats do not have a good record of being correct Althea. No Judge would have said that explicitly, particularly in public, if there were not a good chance it could happen. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
The judge didn't say it. The prosecutors called out the laundry list of Nelson's lies during their rebuttal. They used the word 'story' a few times.

The most glaring lie Nelson told was that the prosecutor had to prove beyond a doubt that Floyd didn't die from carbon monoxide, or from his health conditions.

That should get him sanctioned.
 
Althea said:
The judge didn't say it. The prosecutors called out the laundry list of Nelson's lies during their rebuttal. They used the word 'story' a few times.

The most glaring lie Nelson told was that the prosecutor had to prove beyond a doubt that Floyd didn't die from carbon monoxide, or from his health conditions.

That should get him sanctioned.
Click to expand...

He certainly did. Quite clearly.
 
Althea said:
What are you claiming the judge said? We got crossed here.
Click to expand...

The judge overseeing the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on Monday excoriated House Financial Services Chair Maxine Waters after she urged protesters to "get more confrontational" if the jury did not return a guilty verdict for the murder of George Floyd.

Judge Peter Cahill told Chauvin's defense team that the California Democrat "may have given you something on appeal that may result in his whole trial being overturned."

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," he said.
 
Althea said:
There is zero chance that this gets heard in appeals court because of Waters. None. In fact, 90% are denied, with Minnesota being a tough state for appeals.

He can try to argue prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecution called Nelson's closing argument lies what they were...'stories'.
But it won't work.
Click to expand...

Sailor said:
Democrats do not have a good record of being correct Althea. No Judge would have said that explicitly, particularly in public, if there were not a good chance it could happen. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
You replied to this comment. I thought you were referring to it.

Yes. The judge was angry at Waters. Why do you suppose he wasn't as angry at Tucker Carlson?

He refused to grant a mistrial based on the Waters comments. He said that there might be an issue for an appeal. We know that there is little chance of that based on Waters.

He also said the same thing when the defense claimed prosecutorial misconduct for the reason I stated above.

No mistrial, but he can try for an appeal.

You omit the fact that the judge said that he instructed the jury NOT to watch the news, so he wasn't that concerned about Waters. To admit to hearing that by any juror is to admit to ignoring a judge's direction.

What are the odds of that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top