Riots in Minneapolis

And now the prosecutor is trying to sidestep the lethal fentanyl amounts, claiming tolerance is different for addicts and, oh by the way...this was not how an opioid overdose looks- those occur with people just 'going to sleep and they don't wake up.' Hmm...since they showed the nine plus minutes, inclusive of getting put on the gurney...looks about like he basically *checks notes* went to sleep.
 
Now trying to hone in on the listing of 'homicide' as cause of death, but at least acknowledged that it was not the same as how a court views homicide by definition.

I sure as hell hope the defense counsel seizes upon this to ask how a state-sanctioned execution in a death penalty State would be recorded. Pro-tip: those are ALSO homicides. Not all homicides carry with them any element of illegality in the death itself.
 
Horn6721 said:
mb
Really enjoying your analysis of the trial.
Helps me understand
More please
Click to expand...
I am not keeping up with all of it...the opening statements were streaming on whatever I had in the background from Sling.

I figure this will be a lot like the OJ trial...openings were interesting, closing will be interesting, but until you get to experts a few days in, lots of bloviating nonsense. Not that the bloviating will stop, but it gets to the technical stuff that shows the innocence in this case of the charged conduct but, unfortunately, will put most of the jurors to sleep.
 
If the State is down to arguing that the pinning of Floyd’s shoulder was the proximate cause of his death, I’d say we’d better get ready for another round of riots.
 
I am not a lawyer and like the fact there are lawyers on this board. My take on this is Chauvin would go free in this under most circumstances. But he is not most circumstances. He is probably an ******* cop, but he followed protocol on a very big man resisting arrest who was high on really bad drugs with health problems. Let’s see where the evidence goes, but I wouldn’t convict him at this point.
 
Right. Let’s see what the admitted evidence shows. For now, I’d say the State is climbing uphill on a fairly steep slope.

The lingering wildcard—the jury doesn’t play it straight.
 
And they won't - look at the OJ jury. Woman brutally killed by a knife with no apparent robbery motive. Abusive ex-husband with a history of stalking his ex-wife, acts strangely that night, no alibi for the time in question, cuts on his hand that are laughably explained away as punching a mirror. Not Guilty!

It's a hoot that only now, grudgingly, as part of pre-trail motions, is the press having to report that not only St. George of Floyd swollen a big bag of fentanyl right before his (last) arrest, but he'd done the same thing in 2019, with similar bug-out results. Maybe the bag of drugs was just too big this time?

For want of a nail, the Kingdom was lost. For too big a baggie of fent, the city burned down.
 
Last edited:
The OJ case is different. The OJ jury was so idiotic that even if he was caught on videotape the jury's reaction would be "the police faked the video"

They were not going to convict OJ under any circumstances, whether it be video tape, confession, eyewitness, etc
 
AustinHorn24 said:
The OJ case is different. The OJ jury was so idiotic that even if he was caught on videotape the jury's reaction would be "the police faked the video"

They were not going to convict OJ under any circumstances, whether it be video tape, confession, eyewitness, etc
Click to expand...

Does that make the case different? There's no way for us to know that yet. However, I remember two big factors in the OJ trial that led to jury nullification. First, it was loaded with racial politics and polarization that distorted how people looked at the evidence. (OJ's blood and DNA were worthless, but Mark Fuhrman dropping a N-bomb sometime in his life was worth everything.) Second, there was a threat of rioting if the politically correct outcome wasn't reached.

Both factors are present here. The biggest difference is that in the OJ trial, an acquittal was the politically correct outcome, while in this case a conviction is the politically correct outcome. That means that there can't be any holdouts. It'll take a unanimous verdict. Furthermore, it means that jury nullification will be much easier to review on appeal.
 
From what I saw watching a little Court TV yesterday the prosecution was going to have their "police experts" testify that Chauvin's actions were not in line with correct procedure, while the defense was going to have their "police experts" testify that his actions were absolute SOP for handling a resistant suspect in this type of encounter.

It may come down to which "experts" the jury wants to believe.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Or if it's willing to accept riots and physical threats to their personal safety.
Click to expand...

It is sad that the media and the democrats have turned this into a racist police issue. The real lesson learned should be to cooperate with the police, dont use drugs, and don't commit crimes. If Floyd does any one of those he would still be alive.
 
Mr D's point is the sad reality. Fear for personal safety and that of your loved ones.
We see signs of that fear even in the judiciary
and we know it would happen.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Does that make the case different? There's no way for us to know that yet. However, I remember two big factors in the OJ trial that led to jury nullification. First, it was loaded with racial politics and polarization that distorted how people looked at the evidence. (OJ's blood and DNA were worthless, but Mark Fuhrman dropping a N-bomb sometime in his life was worth everything.) Second, there was a threat of rioting if the politically correct outcome wasn't reached.

Both factors are present here. The biggest difference is that in the OJ trial, an acquittal was the politically correct outcome, while in this case a conviction is the politically correct outcome. That means that there can't be any holdouts. It'll take a unanimous verdict. Furthermore, it means that jury nullification will be much easier to review on appeal.
Click to expand...

Back in the 90's I worked with a very opinionated black woman. We got to know each other and discussed racial realities many times. I asked her point blank if a white person used the N word, would it mean they were capable of framing a black man for murder?

She said yes.
 
Run Pincher said:
From what I saw watching a little Court TV yesterday the prosecution was going to have their "police experts" testify that Chauvin's actions were not in line with correct procedure, while the defense was going to have their "police experts" testify that his actions were absolute SOP for handling a resistant suspect in this type of encounter.

It may come down to which "experts" the jury wants to believe.
Click to expand...
Yep. Side A's hired guns vs Side B's hired guns. Nothing atypical with that.
 
The past history of injustice towards black people is not something they will just forget. And yes, they see things differently than white people do. Riots are not good; justice should not be influenced by fear. But this is the reality of our racial history. We're not even close to a climate where the truth, however that can be described, can be accepted by all parties. The threat of a riot today is the blowback from the lynching's of yesterday. And no, they're not just going to get over it.

I don't have the answers but the fragility of the human mind is something that is extremely complex and the legacy of the past is as real as if it happened today.
 
Chop said:
Right. Let’s see what the admitted evidence shows. For now, I’d say the State is climbing uphill on a fairly steep slope.

The lingering wildcard—the jury doesn’t play it straight.
Click to expand...
What is going to occur in the coming days and weeks is that the masses may finally be forced to admit that things exist that they told people like me we were inventing for the past ten months.
 
bystander said:
Back in the 90's I worked with a very opinionated black woman. We got to know each other and discussed racial realities many times. I asked her point blank if a white person used the N word, would it mean they were capable of framing a black man for murder?

She said yes.
Click to expand...
If "that person" was a member of law enforcement in Conroe in the early-mid 80's, she could actually have had a point...

I still feel sorry for Cheryl Fergeson's family that they never got justice...
 
Mr. Deez said:
I won't defend CNN, because we know they wouldn't be consistent on this. If two white kids carjacked a black guy and killed him in the process, they'd be framing it as a murder and find a way to frame it as involving racial animus whether it was or wasn't. They are calling it an accident because they care about precision in their language.

However, there is a logical case to frame it as an accident. They clearly intended to steal the car, but they probably did not intend to kill the guy.

They're being charged with murder, but it's under the felony murder doctrine. Ordinarily, to be charged with murder, the prosection has to prove intent. However, if the homicide is committed in the course of committing another intentional, violent felony, the intent can be transferred from the violent felony to the homicide, making it a murder as opposed to manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, etc.

So in the case of these idiots, they committed the carjacking, which obviously was done intentionally. In the course of doing that, they killed someone. It would be hard to prove that they intended to kill the guy, but the intent from the carjacking will transfer to the killing. Hence, they can be charged with murder. But in a vacuum, is it crazy to call the killing an "accident?" No. It probably was an accident, even if it's leading to a murder charge.

Just FYI - some commentators (liberal and libertarian) think the felony murder doctrine is unconstitutional. I'm undecided on the matter, but it's not a BS argument.
Click to expand...

Forgive my ignorance but I thought that killing someone in the act of a felony was capital murder? Is there something I don't know or have I just watched too much TV?
 
Just my opinion, but the trial is a farce, it will never go in favor of the cop. If he is found not guilty, our cities will be destroyed again and the jurors will likely be attacked.

It is easier for everyone to kill this dude than set him free.

I don't bother following the story because I know he is a dead man walking.
 
Sheldon Cooper said:
Just my opinion, but the trial is a farce, it will never go in favor of the cop. If he is found not guilty, our cities will be destroyed again and the jurors will likely be attacked.

It is easier for everyone to kill this dude than set him free.

I don't bother following the story because I know he is a dead man walking.
Click to expand...
I see this playing out much like the Rodney King case...acquittal on State-charges and screwed in federal court on the civil rights claims that are waiting in the wings...and because of the notoriety, he will not appear on the BoP locator page but will STILL be buried at Florence ADX for the four or five year term...
 
Chop said:
If the State is down to arguing that the pinning of Floyd’s shoulder was the proximate cause of his death, I’d say we’d better get ready for another round of riots.
Click to expand...

Immediately after the trial, I suspect and fear there will be senseless and deadly riots in Minneapolis regardless of the verdict. Certainly could be riots elsewhere, especially in Portland and Salem OR.
 
On NPR this morning they referred to "traces" of fentanyl in his bloodstream.

For some reason I had been led to believe there was more than that.
 
I think he had fentanyl and meth. My eastern Oklahoma chemistry says that the meth would counteract the fentynal. Also the MD/MBA that I work with laughed at the "fentanyl overdose".
 
huisache, do you think NPR is an honest source of information?

Any drug can be described as a trace because it doesn't take much to have an effect. I think they used a factual statement to obfuscate the reality.

Also the MD/MBA that I work with laughed at the "fentanyl overdose".
Click to expand...

Laughing about overdoses is sick and twisted. I feel sorry for your workplace having to endure a person like that.
 
huisache said:
On NPR this morning they referred to "traces" of fentanyl in his bloodstream.

For some reason I had been led to believe there was more than that.
Click to expand...
There was. In fact, the prosecutor even alluded to "tolerance" in the abuser even if the amount would be fatal for "you and I." In other words, the State is conceding he was stoned out of his oversized gourd...

And yes, there were levels detected of THC, meth and fentanyl. But a detectable level of meth does not negate a potentially lethal level of fentanyl.
 
huisache said:
On NPR this morning they referred to "traces" of fentanyl in his bloodstream.

For some reason I had been led to believe there was more than that.
Click to expand...

It was the right wing blogosphere that stated he had enough to kill any person. In reality, he had only a small amount of fentanyl, an amount an regular user of the drug might not feel due to tolerance levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top