He's guilty

[Legion]

I can't imagine. The reality is the video evidence is not solely "emotional" evidence, even if you want to pretend it is; it was information that you chose to ignore because you wanted a specific result.

Irony.

Chauvin is not a nice man. He seems callous, egocentric, and has a record of excessive use of force complaints.

In my view, the Minneapolis police force should have fired him long ago. but that doesn’t mean he murdered George Floyd.

Justice is supposed to depend on judging a case on its factual merits, not on an emotional response triggered by an edited video.

[Legion]

frankly legion I he was guilty of negligence manslaughter in my opinion his actions led up o Floyd's death and Floyd's action also led up to his own death

He was convicted of way more than manslaughter by a jury that had to know what would happen if they didn't arrive at the "correct" verdict, IMO.

[archives]

I knew you'd call what happened last night "mostly peaceful protests", Anchovies, and I was right.

Poor Anchovies.

No, not peaceful, but I don’t think anyone would label “harassing diners” at one restaurant a riot and hardly the riots you and “popeye” predicted would happen because of the verdict

[Legion]

I don’t think

No need to state the obvious, Anchovies.

Poor Anchovies.

[archives]

No need to state the obvious, Anchovies.

Poor Anchovies.

The only obvious is that you took another ten count on one of your own posts, you should go back to banning everyone, you don’t fare well in exchanges

[Bulletbob]

He was convicted of way more than manslaughter by a jury that had to know what would happen if they didn't arrive at the "correct" verdict, IMO.

yes I understand that

[Damocles]

Irony.

Chauvin is not a nice man. He seems callous, egocentric, and has a record of excessive use of force complaints.

In my view, the Minneapolis police force should have fired him long ago. but that doesn’t mean he murdered George Floyd.

Justice is supposed to depend on judging a case on its factual merits, not on an emotional response triggered by an edited video.

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.

[Sailor]

Not sure about what sentence will be handed down. If your claims about the judge are true, then he can obstruct true justice with his sentences.

Other than that, Chauvin will never see the light of day.

You are sounding a bit desperate here Althea. I just post the facts. democrats should be worried because of their politicians big mouths.

[Althea]

10-12 hours is very typical for a murder trial. There wasn't much for them to examine. They saw a murder on tape. Your suggestion is stupid. They could have avoided serving on that jury if they had wanted to. They didn't. They were seated, they did their job, and your suggestion that something untoward happened is an insult to them.

I assume you know the research. Care to cite somthing?

Saw multiple Federal prosecutors say the same thing. In comparable police trials, this was typical length of time. The more convincing and one-sided the evidence, the shorter time to deliberate. This evidence was overwhelmingly one-sided.

How many police are tried for murder?

Enough to get a sample size.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/derek-cha...ury-deliberate

This one cites a couple of them, I heard a couple others this afternoon. This wasn't a particularly short deliberation, especially considering that there was a clear consensus that Chauvin was guilty of something.

Oh, never look at FOX. Thanks anyway.

Why? They can report a fact just as easily as anyone else can.

He never said 'police trials'. He said 'murder trials'.

I said "police trials."

I understand. I was just following the progression of the thread.

[NiftyNiblick]

Once consensus was reached on the most serious charge, the others didn't require a verdict.
Minnesota is really weird.

[Althea]

What you're doing is ignoring the facts. Is that desperation? Why don't you comment about Tucker Carlson's opinion regarding the trial? You think more people saw Maxine Waters?

You are sounding a bit desperate here Althea. I just post the facts. democrats should be worried because of their politicians big mouths.

[Legion]

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.

The ME's official autopsy results precluded a reasonable conviction for murder.

[Sailor]

What you're doing is ignoring the facts. Is that desperation? Why don't you comment about Tucker Carlson's opinion regarding the trial? You think more people saw Maxine Waters?

Ignoring facts? Everyone is talking about how democrats have probably allowed Gauvin to go free. Once again, time will tell.

[Legion]

Ignoring facts? Everyone is talking about how democrats have probably allowed Gauvin to go free. Once again, time will tell.

No appeals court would dare to set aside the mob's verdict.

[Sailor]

No appeals court would dare to set aside the mob's verdict.

Appeals are not immediate right? When people forget (and they will for the new "crisis" of the moment) I would not be surprised to see it happen. Time will tell.