Did the Chauvin trial prosecutors just torpedo their entire case

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Youre dangerously ignorant.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Your right that is exacty how the prosecution will play it. They are arguing Chauvin caused Floyd’s death unintentionally, but unlawfully. The most serious charge, second-degree murder, requires showing the death was caused during another felony. Odds are pretty good they cant prove this there idea is to show excessive force. May or may not convince the jury im leaning towards no. However heres the one that likely will, The prosecution is arguing for third-degree murder, which means causing the death in the course of conduct that poses an extreme risk to human life and in an unlawful manner, such as to exhibit indifference to human life. He had people telling him he was killing him and the prosecution is going to show that picture of him knee on his neck with hands in his pockets like he was resting. Which according to policy the knee was only supposed to be used if they were struggling in the video hes already dead as he continued with his knee on his neck. Meaning not much struggling going on at all. To be honest Kieth Ellison took over prosecution of the case instead of a local prosecutor this means hes fairly confident of a conviction because he put his political capitol on the line. If he thought he would lose he would have handed it off to the local prosecutor so he had someone to blame if they could not get a conviction.

So its not if he will be found guilty odds are good he will be the question becomes how much time will they recommend.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Youre dangerously ignorant.

It's "you're" (not youre), just for your information.

Okay, smartguy, why don't you tell us how you think the case should be tried, what are the legal issues and how the jury will find?

Do you even understand the actual charges against Chauvin?

a reply to: dragonridr

Here's what I think is going to happen...

In MN the statute for Murder in the 3rd includes a qualification which reads..."eminently dangerous act with a depraved mind and without regard for human life".

I think the prosecution will struggle with proving a 'depraved mind' in this case, and they likely know it.

They likely didn't bring Manslaughter charges because they figure he'll plead at some point. If they can make a solid case for 3rd Degree, which they should, stopping short of the 'depraved' part, then Manslaughter is a slam-dunk. I'll bet they'll put a plea offer for lower with Manslaughter with 1 to 5 on the table, and the defense will take it.

I also think if that statute read..."with complete indifference"...rather than the way it does it would be a much different story.

That's what I think is going to happen.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

It's "you're" (not youre), just for your information.

Thx but im pretty sure you know, that i already know that.. i also know that thx is actully spelled thanks.. just for your information.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

Okay, smartguy, why don't you tell us how you think the case should be tried, what are the legal issues and how the jury will find?

They should vote not guilty if they have any reasonable doubt about his guilt... the drugs, the heart condition, the stress of facing prison again.. all could have reasonably been the cause of death and not the knee.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

It's not that your missing the point which is so astounding, it's by how far!

The physical bones in Chauvin's "knee" did not necessarily have to be precisely the cause of death. It's the act of kneeling on his neck for as long as he did while he was restrained and on the ground unable to move which is what is at issue here.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Its perfectly possible the officer made the difficuct decision to prioritize the safety of innocent onlookers rather than a violent criminal clearly out of his mind on drugs.. dont expect police or anyone else to prioritize the safety of innocent ppl over violent cr8minals if you get thrown into prison for doing so.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Yes, that is entirely possible. And that is something the defense will need to prove to the jury.

That is a valid argument. And if that is indeed the case, I would hope the defense intends to demonstrate exactly that.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

Yes, that is entirely possible. And that is something the defense will need to prove to the jury.

Wrong - it is impossible to prove someones internal thought process, it just has to be a reasonable possibility and you just admitted that it is.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

SMH...okay...'demonstrate'.

Wow...you're a hoot!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

SMH...okay...'demonstrate'.

Wow...you're a hoot!

You make no sense.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Have a great day!

I'm done with you on this discussion.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Have a great day!

I'm done with you on this discussion.

Good riddance.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Do yourself, and any future clients you may have, a favor; don't ever go into law!

I'm sure you make a great Perry Mason back over on 4 Chan!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Do yourself, and any future clients you may have, a favor; don't ever go into law!

I'm sure you make a great Perry Mason back over on 4 Chan!

Says the dope who claims the defense has to prove anything.. they dont.. the standard for guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.. not "i think its more than likely he is guilty." It is perfectly proper to be 98% sure of someones guilt and still say not guilty.. its because of dopes like you that lots of innocent ppl go to prison.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

The standard for the prosecution is...'prove' beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for the defense is to create reasonable doubt. If they are able to "prove" their arguments as reasonable then there will be reasonable doubt.

Stop being obtuse. I know you're smarter than that.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

The standard for the prosecution is...'prove' beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for the defense is to create reasonable doubt. If they are able to "prove" their arguments as reasonable then there will be reasonable doubt.

Stop being obtuse. I know you're smarter than that.

Any rational person already knows there is reasonable doubt. If george was white this probably wouldnt have even gone to trial.

Attention!

Note that it indicates name-calling, baiting and activity otherwise labeled as political trolling elsewhere on the site. Not generally hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited or gratuitous personal attacks on fellow members. It's also not exempt from the usual forum expectation of remaining on topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

MUD PIT or not, attacking other members is not allowed.
Community Announcement re: Decorum

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

I never said it did. Having any drugs at all is still a factor that deserves consideration. To not consider the chemical cocktail would be a gross miscarriage or justice.

Floyd took drugs
Floyd drove bad
Floyd resisted
Floyd died.
a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: dragonridr

Here's what I think is going to happen...

In MN the statute for Murder in the 3rd includes a qualification which reads..."eminently dangerous act with a depraved mind and without regard for human life".

I think the prosecution will struggle with proving a 'depraved mind' in this case, and they likely know it.

They likely didn't bring Manslaughter charges because they figure he'll plead at some point. If they can make a solid case for 3rd Degree, which they should, stopping short of the 'depraved' part, then Manslaughter is a slam-dunk. I'll bet they'll put a plea offer for lower with Manslaughter with 1 to 5 on the table, and the defense will take it.

I also think if that statute read..."with complete indifference"...rather than the way it does it would be a much different story.

That's what I think is going to happen.

In a mormal case i agree with you. However this has become a political case as well thats why Kieth Ellison is handling the prosecution instead of one of his people. This means he is less likely to plea out the charges because that will hurt his reputation. The moment i saw his name I knew this is not a normal trial.