Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

Chauvin trial.

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, youngredbullfan said:

Did he lie? He was vague about the protest he was at: was it specifically about police brutality? And can they prove he lied? 

 

Conservatives are really wishcasting on this one. 

I don’t think anyone here, republican or otherwise are arguing that Chauvin is not guilty of a crime. I think what lawlor and others are arguing is that everyone (even the worst of the worst of humanity) is granted their due process under the 6th amendment. If we just throw judicial process to the wind, we will begin pulling on the threads of what we know as a free democracy.
 

Republicans and democrats can argue all day long on the 1st and 2nd amendment. Everyone on both sides of the aisle should be firm believers of the 6th amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The jury wasn’t sequestered until Monday, April 19th when deliberations began. Waters made her comments on Saturday the 17th. Sequestering keeps the jury from going home and talking to other people about the case. It probably wasn’t enough to make a difference before but the lying juror changes a lot in the appeal.

I thought I remembered the judge saying the jury would be sequestered that Friday before deliberations started, but fair enough, looks like I was mistaken. I still think the sequestering issue has an almost 0% at working, but I’m sure they’ll raise it nonetheless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bob said:

Looks like Chauvin got a fair trial. not. Seemed like a textbook case of manslaughter to me.

when have you ever read a textbook about manslaughter

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 hour ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Yea the juror lying seems appeal worthy. But I still don’t understand the logic behind the fact that they weren’t sequestered earlier AND Waters’ comments AFTER the jury was sequestered BOTH being worthy of appeal. The arguments stemming from the sequestering decision and Waters’ comments undercut each other; if sequestering protects the jury from seeing the news, Waters’ comments were irrelevant because the jury was already sequestered, and if sequestering the jury doesn’t stop them from seeing the news then it wouldn’t have mattered if they’d been sequestered earlier.

I looked up when they were sequestered because I was curious.

This says Monday April 19

https://www.foxnews.com/us/derek-chauvin-trial-what-happens-when-a-jury-is-sequestered

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

when have you ever read a textbook about manslaughter

What kind of a stupid comment is this ^^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, #1Stunner said:

What kind of a stupid comment is this ^^^

it is pointing out that it does not matter what it looks like, or how much bob knows about it. He'll support police power, because he is philosophically a fascist. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 hour ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Chances that Chauvin's attorney will ask the trial judge to declare a mistrial: Close to 100%

Chances of there being public protests if the trial judge SHOULD declare a mistrial: Close to 100%

Chances that the trial judge WILL declare a mistrial: 20% maybe? (judges never want to do so and that would particularly be so in the Chauvin matter)

 

I agree.  Good take.

People need to let the legal system play out.

Unfortunate that this juror lied, and now we could see riots and shouts of racism because there might be a mistrial ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

I agree.  Good take.

People need to let the legal system play out.

Unfortunate that this juror lied, and now we could see riots and shouts of racism because there might be a mistrial ruling.

Who decides if a new trial is allowed based on appeal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
6 minutes ago, happycamper said:

it is pointing out that it does not matter what it looks like, or how much bob knows about it. He'll support police power, because he is philosophically a fascist. 

Dude, you are calling folks that aren't aligned with your very liberal political views fascists? That people who support police are fascists?  Please... Calm down.

Bob is probably representative of 2/3 of the people living in Wyoming.  I mean, I don't agree with a lot of their views (anti-vaxxer being one), but I hardly doubt that most of the State of Wyoming is "fascists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, soupslam1 said:

Who decides if a new trial is allowed based on appeal? 

My guess is that the appeals court in Minnesota will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to data from the Minnesota Judicial Branch, lawyers filed 816 criminal appeals last year. The national average is that 4 percent of those appeals succeed. 

It doesn’t say how many were successful in Minnesota, but looks like Chauvin chances are slim and none

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, #1Stunner said:

Dude, you are calling folks that aren't aligned with your very liberal political views fascists?  Please... Calm down.

Bob's the single most conservative member of this board that has a decent diversity of conservative voices. He's consistently been the only one voicing support for

  • The January 6th coup attempt
  • The Big Lie
  • Science denial
  • A police state
  • virulently anti-gay and anti-trans

In addition, he's voiced support for

  • a golden history to return to 
  • devaluing intellectual criticism
  • constantly voices disgust at the Other - immigrants, gay people, trans people, Californians

 

Just now, #1Stunner said:

Bob is probably representative of 2/3 of the people living in Wyoming.  I mean, I don't agree with a lot of their views (anti-vaxxer being one), but I hardly doubt that most of the State of Wyoming is "fascists".

He does not. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

Dude, you are calling folks that aren't aligned with your very liberal political views fascists? That people who support police are fascists?  Please... Calm down.

Bob is probably representative of 2/3 of the people living in Wyoming.  I mean, I don't agree with a lot of their views (anti-vaxxer being one), but I hardly doubt that most of the State of Wyoming is "fascists".

He has a history of labeling people that disagree with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, soupslam1 said:

He has a history of labeling people that disagree with him. 

THANKS BOARD NAZI !! !! !! !! !! !!

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bob said:

tenor.gif

what do you think triggered is

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, soupslam1 said:

Who decides if a new trial is allowed based on appeal? 

I assume it would be the trial judge and that if his decision goes against Chauvin, Chauvin can appeal that decision to the appellate court.

It's been eons ago but having taken criminal procedure it seems probable to me that if the trial judge so rules, the prosecution's only option would be to try Chauvin again. The first trial was surprisingly uneventful but can you imagine a retrial? Never in a million years would I agree to sit on that jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bob said:

That is you when I write anything. Pathetic.

nah. when you stick to sports, or hobbies, or nature appreciation, I tend to agree.

When you delve in to politics, I disagree. Vociferously. Not only do I find your political ideas repugnant, you communicate them in a clumsy manner so you're easy to quip on. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...