Chauvin - Guilty or no?

[this user was banned]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well that was predictable given the judge's pro-prosecution idiocy .That said, I'd still would have thought it would be a jury compromise on a manslaughter charge, given the persecutions case was so weak and their attorney's performance so poor. This case will eventually be appealed and overturned though due the aforementioned judge's asshatttery.

How was their case weak? They had several medical professionals testify that the asphyxiation was the cause of death and ruled out pretty much everything else. How much of the trial did you watch?

That being said, I agree with the judge said about disrespectful elected officials causing trouble with this trial. And I think Maxine Waters needs to shut up and retire already.

[DMN]

Originally Posted by this user was banned [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How was their case weak? They had several medical professionals testify that the asphyxiation was the cause of death and ruled out pretty much everything else. How much of the trial did you watch?

Virtually everyone on planet earth will eventually die of asphyxiation. The question is WHAT CAUSED IT. The medical experts the prosecution called almost all contradicted each other one what actually caused the asphyxiation. When even the prosecution's own experts are contradicting each other, it's a giant truck load of reasonable doubt that any one of them has actually "got it right".

All but Baker rules out other contributing causes, such as high drug levels and serious heart disease. The fact these "experts" dismissed these things as having potentially contributed the "asphyxiation" would make any juror doubt everything that expert had to say, because those same experts on cross examination said that heart disease alone could have killed him and his drug levels alone could have exclusively killed him. But magically, they conclude, all had no effect on how he actually died. Baker and the defense expert witness disgreed and suggest that those other things did indeed play a part.

it's like a giant neon sign of reasonable doubt.

then you get to the Mens Rea issues specifically the murder charge, and it would be virtually impossible to find a non-biased jury come to the conclusion it was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Essentially you'd have to believe that there is no doubt in your mind whatsoever that Chaucvin had intended to kill Floyds-- despite the fact he was being recorded by a dozen cameras 9which he knew full well were all on him).

[Vivitron]

Originally Posted by DMN [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

then you get to the Mens Rea issues specifically the murder charge, and it would be virtually impossible to find a non-biased jury come to the conclusion it was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Essentially you'd have to believe that there is no doubt in your mind whatsoever that Chaucvin had intended to kill Floyds-- despite the fact he was being recorded by a dozen cameras 9which he knew full well were all on him).

He wasn't charged with that kind of murder. The murder 2 charge was felony murder -- not that he intended to kill, but that he caused the death while committing a felony assault. The murder 3 charge also wasn't that he intended to kill -- but rather that he caused Floyd's death with an act that was highly likely to cause a death, and was consciously indifferent to that outcome.