Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4231
    MEMBERS
  • 81971
    MESSAGES
  • 24
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Should the jury have been sequestered in the Chauvin trial?   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started Apr-20 by Showtalk; 2450 views.
In reply toRe: msg 1
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-20

In reply toRe: msg 1
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-20

The_Rock (JABRONI256)

From: The_Rock (JABRONI256) 

Apr-20

Voted #4, I think if this was seriously a concern they would have applied for a change of venue but even then this is an issue lighting up the entire Country, I don't think they could find anywhere in the United States to try this with any hint of impartiality among the populace. I think there are definitely grounds to appeal as well, not the least of the which the comments made by that politician, even the Judge acknowledged it was likely.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-20

They should have had a change of venue and he should have been entitled to a fair trial.  There is no way he would ever have a completely impartial trial.  Anyone who watches the tape believes he is guilty. He will definitely be granted an appeal trial but it won’t go anywhere as no one will want to reverse the decision.  

I think it met all the requirements manslaughter, but technically they did not meet the legal requirements for the other two charges.  So that could be another way to get an appeal. I think by definition of law, it’s not possible to be found guilty on all three charges as they are different.  It would either be one or another but not all.  I’m not saying they were wrong but they gave him several different grounds for appeal.

An attorney today said he will not serve more than 12 years.

The_Rock (JABRONI256)

From: The_Rock (JABRONI256) 

Apr-21

I think you can be convicted on any charge, doesn't matter if you're charged with one or three offenses, even similar ones you can be found guilty on all of them; prosecutors often "load" up the charges to get a defendant to plead, in this case they were't going to entertain that deal, they wanted a cathartic moment and they got one. 

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-21

Under Minnesota state law, a person causing the death of another person, without intent of causing the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense, is guilty of murder in the second degree

This is the charge the lawyer said would not stick, because he was doing his job, not committing a felony.  He wasn’t robbing a bank or anything similar, he was trying to arrest someone suspected of illegal activity.  He was morally wrong and he used a technique that is not authorized by police but it was not a felony in the strictest sense of the law.  The jury interpreted it as one.  In order to do so, they had to assume the felony was the intent to kill but the charge itself says no intent, so it is a contradiction.  That is the attorney’s argument, not mine.

  • Edited April 21, 2021 10:35 am  by  Showtalk
In reply toRe: msg 7
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-21

Please, no political comments.   I had to post this, though, as it is one of the most bizarre things said about this case by any politician.  
 

In reply toRe: msg 8
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-21

This attorney is correct, the jury was influenced. That’s bad because it guarantees Chauvin has grounds for appeal. Al Sharpton says pressure needed to apply to get a guilty verdict, which is another plus for the defense in an appeal. These political types should not grandstand, because if this is reversed, the blame is on them.

The_Rock (JABRONI256)

From: The_Rock (JABRONI256) 

Apr-21

I believe I referenced Waters earlier re: her comments being potential grounds for appeal. I despise Alan Dershowitz though, not only because of his Trump leanings but going all the way back to helping the OJ defence subvert the course of Justice.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784 

Apr-22

The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...

I believe I referenced Waters earlier re: her comments being potential grounds for appeal. I despise Alan Dershowitz though, not only because of his Trump leanings but going all the way back to helping the OJ defence subvert the course of Justice.

Regardless of what you think about Dershowitz, the fact is that Waters did incite violence... Which Dershowitz agrees with. This is the same from McCarthy.

McCarthy: Maxine Waters 'finds value in violence'; Democrats must censure or 'own' her, Tlaib's statements

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-maxine-waters-finds-value-in-violence-democrats-will-own-hers-tlaibs-radical-statements

And then there's McClain claiming the same thing that Dershowitz said:

Rep. McClain slams Pelosi, Democrat ‘double standards’ on Maxine Waters

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lisa-mcclain-pelosi-double-standard-maxine-waters

And then there's Lei Terrell claiming the same thing that Derschowitz said:

Leo Terrell blasts Maxine Waters: She gave 'OK' for riots after Chauvin trial

https://www.foxnews.com/media/maxine-waters-leo-terrell-chauvin-trial

And then you have all House republicans saying the same thing as Derschowitz.

House Republicans prepare to introduce resolution to censure Maxine Waters

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-prepare-introduce-resolution-to-censure-maxine-waters

So if you want to discredit Dershowitz... then you'll also have to discredit all the others saying the exact same thing as he did.

FWIW

TOP