Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[Brooklyn]

he remarked about the possibility of an appeal based on Water's influence ...


... Nah, the Judge is PO'd at Waters, rightfully so, and he did say that the defense might well file an appeal on that basis, but it was also quite clear, more than clear, that he thought it would fail on appeal.

If such an appeal took place the defense (assuming a guilty verdict) would have to establish that the jury was unduly influenced by Waters comments. Jury members would have to be asked under oath if this occurred. Each has already sworn not to allow any outside influence and I seriously doubt any would break that mandate. But this is America and anything could happen as we all know.

[MDlaxfan76]

The jury will convict. They don't want their city torched. Mad Maxine has spoken.

The jurors don't want to be doxxed then targeted. The mob will rule.
They just saw the home of a defense witness attacked.

You make it sound like (but I'm not going to assume) the only reason Chauvin would be convicted would be because of fear of the mob, not that he's a bad cop who killed a man and was caught on camera doing so.

Tell us straight, Salty, do you think Chauvin is guilty or not?

I didn't watch enough of the trial to have an opinion.
I'd need to hear all the evidence & study the elements of each crime charged.
I know that if I were on the jury, I'd fear for my safety if I had reasonable doubt & voted to acquit.
I'm glad I don't have to decide.

Did you watch the full video?

I watched the entire video when it first came out months ago. including Floyd resisting arrest.
I didn't follow the trial because I expect Floyd to be convicted of something, no matter the merits of the case, due to jury intimidation in that venue.

You meant Chauvin...your assumption, from the video, was that Chauvin was innocent but would be convicted anyway...because the jury would be intimidated? Yikes.

I prefer your analysis on the National Security thread.

Mask slipped years ago.....along with the credibility. I called it a loooong time ago......

I still find him credible on the National Security thread. And well informed. Which I appreciate.

Doesn't mean that I agree with him on all turns, but despite my former razzing him about being from Putin's troll farm, I think he's genuinely engaged in thinking about those sorts of issues. And definitely better informed than I am on the military aspects. Interestingly, I think some of the other sorts of biases creep in in that arena too, but the military insights are truly helpful to the discourse.

[Brooklyn]

That was before social media & doxxing. The mob already showed up at the home of a witness for the defense.

As we have discussed previously that was a public figure who lives 2,000 miles away. Not a jury member who remains publicly unknown.

[MDlaxfan76]

he remarked about the possibility of an appeal based on Water's influence ...


... Nah, the Judge is PO'd at Waters, rightfully so, and he did say that the defense might well file an appeal on that basis, but it was also quite clear, more than clear, that he thought it would fail on appeal.

If such an appeal took place the defense (assuming a guilty verdict) would have to establish that the jury was unduly influenced by Waters comments. Jury members would have to be asked under oath if this occurred. Each has already sworn not to allow any outside influence and I seriously doubt any would break that mandate. But this is America and anything could happen as we all know.

Heck, they'd have to admit they even knew about them...which they're not supposed to know about. Same for the defense witness Salty.

Jury is not supposed to have seen anything, paid attention to anything, on the news.

[old salt]

Did Chauvin decide to arrest Floyd or was he called in to assist in an arrest that was already underway ?

In light of you just read, that is inconsequential.

Chauvin was the 3rd officer to arrive. The first 2 had been trying (unsuccessfully) to take Floyd into custody.
The arresting officer told Chauvin that he was arresting Floyd for forgery.

[old salt]

he remarked about the possibility of an appeal based on Water's influence ...


... Nah, the Judge is PO'd at Waters, rightfully so, and he did say that the defense might well file an appeal on that basis, but it was also quite clear, more than clear, that he thought it would fail on appeal.

If such an appeal took place the defense (assuming a guilty verdict) would have to establish that the jury was unduly influenced by Waters comments. Jury members would have to be asked under oath if this occurred. Each has already sworn not to allow any outside influence and I seriously doubt any would break that mandate. But this is America and anything could happen as we all know.

Heck, they'd have to admit they even knew about them...which they're not supposed to know about. Same for the defense witness Salty.

Jury is not supposed to have seen anything, paid attention to anything, on the news.

They were not sequestered.

[MDlaxfan76]

That was before social media & doxxing. The mob already showed up at the home of a witness for the defense.

As we have discussed previously that was a public figure who lives 2,000 miles away. Not a jury member who remains publicly unknown.

And more importantly, the jury is supposed to be unaware of ANY news, including that bit. Are the 12 of them all going to violate that order?

That said, it's obviously a gross thing and as much as that jerk deserves public shaming at some point, that's not the way to do so. And to be further clear, the shame is not for having been an "expert" witness for the defense but rather for the outrageousness of his testimony.

[MDlaxfan76]

he remarked about the possibility of an appeal based on Water's influence ...


... Nah, the Judge is PO'd at Waters, rightfully so, and he did say that the defense might well file an appeal on that basis, but it was also quite clear, more than clear, that he thought it would fail on appeal.

If such an appeal took place the defense (assuming a guilty verdict) would have to establish that the jury was unduly influenced by Waters comments. Jury members would have to be asked under oath if this occurred. Each has already sworn not to allow any outside influence and I seriously doubt any would break that mandate. But this is America and anything could happen as we all know.

Heck, they'd have to admit they even knew about them...which they're not supposed to know about. Same for the defense witness Salty.

Jury is not supposed to have seen anything, paid attention to anything, on the news.

They were not sequestered.

So the 12 of them violated the order from the Judge?
Really? would you?

You realize that it takes all 12 to convict, right?

[Brooklyn]

Did Chauvin decide to arrest Floyd or was he called in to assist in an arrest that was already underway ?

In light of you just read, that is inconsequential.

Chauvin was the 3rd officer to arrive. The first 2 had been trying (unsuccessfully) to take Floyd into custody.
The arresting officer told Chauvin that he was arresting Floyd for forgery.

The cashier testified under oath that it was never established that Floyd knowingly tried to pass a counterfeit bill.

[MDlaxfan76]

Did Chauvin decide to arrest Floyd or was he called in to assist in an arrest that was already underway ?

In light of you just read, that is inconsequential.

Chauvin was the 3rd officer to arrive. The first 2 had been trying (unsuccessfully) to take Floyd into custody.
The arresting officer told Chauvin that he was arresting Floyd for forgery.

And we thought you weren't paying attention...

actually, not forgery, for paying for a pack of cigarettes with a counterfeit bill. The clerk testified that while he knew from its color that it was counterfeit, Floyd did not seem to know.

[njbill]

he remarked about the possibility of an appeal based on Water's influence ...


... Nah, the Judge is PO'd at Waters, rightfully so, and he did say that the defense might well file an appeal on that basis, but it was also quite clear, more than clear, that he thought it would fail on appeal.

If such an appeal took place the defense (assuming a guilty verdict) would have to establish that the jury was unduly influenced by Waters comments. Jury members would have to be asked under oath if this occurred. Each has already sworn not to allow any outside influence and I seriously doubt any would break that mandate. But this is America and anything could happen as we all know.

Yep. Good point. Unless the defense can prove the jury, at a minimum, knew about Waters’ comments, they have no basis to appeal on this point. Even if they had heard the comments, it would be an extremely heavy lift to jump to the conclusion from that that the jury verdict was unduly influenced by her comments.

As I said, not gonna happen.

My read of the judge’s comments is that he, like everyone else involved in the trial, is worn out. He thinks he has tried a very fair case and would be extremely unhappy to have a guilty verdict overturned on appeal because of something Maxine Waters said. Understandable.

I expect the defense will renew the motion if Chauvin is found guilty. Then, maybe the judge will interrogate the jurors individually before deciding the renewed motion. If they all say they never heard what she said, then he’ll deny the motion again, and there would be no basis for appeal.

If they say they heard her, then it becomes a bit more complicated, but I suspect the jurors would all say the comments didn’t affect their verdict, and the judge would deny the motion on that basis.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Did Chauvin decide to arrest Floyd or was he called in to assist in an arrest that was already underway ?

In light of you just read, that is inconsequential.

Chauvin was the 3rd officer to arrive. The first 2 had been trying (unsuccessfully) to take Floyd into custody.
The arresting officer told Chauvin that he was arresting Floyd for forgery.

The cashier testified under oath that it was never established that Floyd knowingly tried to pass a counterfeit bill.

Floyd was the mastermind behind a counterfeit scheme!

[old salt]

Did Chauvin decide to arrest Floyd or was he called in to assist in an arrest that was already underway ?

In light of you just read, that is inconsequential.

Chauvin was the 3rd officer to arrive. The first 2 had been trying (unsuccessfully) to take Floyd into custody.
The arresting officer told Chauvin that he was arresting Floyd for forgery.

And we thought you weren't paying attention...

actually, not forgery, for paying for a pack of cigarettes with a counterfeit bill. The clerk testified that while he knew from its color that it was counterfeit, Floyd did not seem to know.

I (reluctantly) researched it before I replied. When Chauvin arrived, an officer already on scene told Chauvin he was arresting Floyd for forgery. Chauvin did not make the decision to arrest Floyd. The arrest was already underway when Chauvin arrived. I believe the initial dispatch call also included "forgery" but I can't find a transcript of that call, & it's irrelevant since Chauvin did not initiate the arrest.

[Brooklyn]

And we thought you weren't paying attention...

actually, not forgery, for paying for a pack of cigarettes with a counterfeit bill. The clerk testified that while he knew from its color that it was counterfeit, Floyd did not seem to know.

Therefore, no grounds for making an arrest. Otherwise, my neighbor and a few hundred like him would have been arrested as well. There simply was no reason to arrest the victim - had he been white the cops would never have shown up.

[Brooklyn]

Floyd was the mastermind behind a counterfeit scheme!

Ach! I should have known!!!

[njbill]

This has bugged me since I first heard the evidence at trial. The clerk called 911 and said somebody paid for cigarettes with a counterfeit bill. The cops show up. The clerk clearly tries to show the bill to the officers. They never look at it. They simply go and point a gun at Floyd and arrest him without even asking his side of the story.

Did the cops have probable cause to arrest Floyd? I say no. How do they know that the clerk had the requisite expertise to determine the bill was funny? Do the cops, themselves, have the expertise to make that determination?

It would be an entirely different situation if the clerk witnessed Floyd steal a pack of cigarettes and walk out of the store. Then the clerk’s account to the cops would be a legitimate basis for the cops to arrest Floyd.

Seems little doubt that if Floyd were a white guy, the cops would’ve simply gone up to him and said, excuse me sir, the clerk thinks you used a counterfeit bill to pay for some cigarettes. We need to talk to you about that.

By the way, from the photo of the bill, I wouldn’t know it was funny. Yeah, I know, there are supposed to be ways that store clerks can identify counterfeit bills, but the cops never asked the clerk about that to determine why he thought the bill was bad and whether the clerk had some training in spotting counterfeit bills.

[old salt]

That was before social media & doxxing. The mob already showed up at the home of a witness for the defense.

...it's obviously a gross thing and as much as that jerk deserves public shaming at some point, that's not the way to do so. And to be further clear, the shame is not for having been an "expert" witness for the defense but rather for the outrageousness of his testimony.

[old salt]

The jury will convict. They don't want their city torched. Mad Maxine has spoken.

The jurors don't want to be doxxed then targeted. The mob will rule.
They just saw the home of a defense witness attacked.

You make it sound like (but I'm not going to assume) the only reason Chauvin would be convicted would be because of fear of the mob, not that he's a bad cop who killed a man and was caught on camera doing so.

Tell us straight, Salty, do you think Chauvin is guilty or not?

I didn't watch enough of the trial to have an opinion.
I'd need to hear all the evidence & study the elements of each crime charged.
I know that if I were on the jury, I'd fear for my safety if I had reasonable doubt & voted to acquit.
I'm glad I don't have to decide.

Did you watch the full video?

I watched the entire video when it first came out months ago. including Floyd resisting arrest.
I didn't follow the trial because I expect Floyd to be convicted of something, no matter the merits of the case, due to jury intimidation in that venue.

You meant Chauvin...your assumption, from the video, was that Chauvin was innocent but would be convicted anyway...because the jury would be intimidated? Yikes.

I prefer your analysis on the National Security thread.

Mask slipped years ago.....along with the credibility. I called it a loooong time ago......

I still find him credible on the National Security thread. And well informed. Which I appreciate.

Doesn't mean that I agree with him on all turns, but despite my former razzing him about being from Putin's troll farm, I think he's genuinely engaged in thinking about those sorts of issues. And definitely better informed than I am on the military aspects. Interestingly, I think some of the other sorts of biases creep in in that arena too, but the military insights are truly helpful to the discourse.

...so says the white boyz bb gun wielding wannabe gang bangers.

[MDlaxfan76]

The jury will convict. They don't want their city torched. Mad Maxine has spoken.

The jurors don't want to be doxxed then targeted. The mob will rule.
They just saw the home of a defense witness attacked.

You make it sound like (but I'm not going to assume) the only reason Chauvin would be convicted would be because of fear of the mob, not that he's a bad cop who killed a man and was caught on camera doing so.

Tell us straight, Salty, do you think Chauvin is guilty or not?

I didn't watch enough of the trial to have an opinion.
I'd need to hear all the evidence & study the elements of each crime charged.
I know that if I were on the jury, I'd fear for my safety if I had reasonable doubt & voted to acquit.
I'm glad I don't have to decide.

Did you watch the full video?

I watched the entire video when it first came out months ago. including Floyd resisting arrest.
I didn't follow the trial because I expect Floyd to be convicted of something, no matter the merits of the case, due to jury intimidation in that venue.

You meant Chauvin...your assumption, from the video, was that Chauvin was innocent but would be convicted anyway...because the jury would be intimidated? Yikes.

I prefer your analysis on the National Security thread.

Mask slipped years ago.....along with the credibility. I called it a loooong time ago......

I still find him credible on the National Security thread. And well informed. Which I appreciate.

Doesn't mean that I agree with him on all turns, but despite my former razzing him about being from Putin's troll farm, I think he's genuinely engaged in thinking about those sorts of issues. And definitely better informed than I am on the military aspects. Interestingly, I think some of the other sorts of biases creep in in that arena too, but the military insights are truly helpful to the discourse.

...so says the white boyz bb gun wielding wannabe gang bangers.

"white boyz"?

[MDlaxfan76]

That was before social media & doxxing. The mob already showed up at the home of a witness for the defense.

...it's obviously a gross thing and as much as that jerk deserves public shaming at some point, that's not the way to do so. And to be further clear, the shame is not for having been an "expert" witness for the defense but rather for the outrageousness of his testimony.

mebbe do some more homework on the witness' testimony, Salty.