Chauvin Will Be Innocent- Prepare For Riots

[*michaelsean*]

(04-15-2021, 08:21 AM)Au165 Wrote: He basically melted on cross-examination. The prosecution did a great job dismantling his testimony and frankly made him look very unexpert like. There were times he walked dangerously close to perjury and even admitted to googling research on topics he wasn't an "expert" on before writing his report. 

It was just a shitshow, but not as bad as the use of force guy the defense put up the day before who essentially said the force was not warranted, even by his whacky standard, the last few minutes he kept kneeling on Floyd. 

Probably because the defense didn’t have a lot to work with. They do the best they can with what they have, just sometimes that isn’t a lot, and the good expert witnesses are probably like, “Hell no I’m not taking this one.”

[Au165]

(04-15-2021, 07:54 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Probably because the defense didn’t have a lot to work with. They do the best they can with what they have, just sometimes that isn’t a lot, and the good expert witnesses are probably like, “Hell no I’m not taking this one.”

Yea, an expert witness who resigned as part of a cover up for police in a murder of a black man, who left South Africa at the end of the apartheid probably wasn’t what they were looking for in their medical expert.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-15-2021, 02:34 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: When Chauvin is found innocent, am I going to get a bunch of rep points from all of you admitting that you were wrong and apologizing for taking all of these personal shots at me?

This statement says everything.  Pathetic.

[BFritz21]

(04-15-2021, 10:45 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: This statement says everything.  Pathetic.

Another personal shot and that was my point with that post, so thanks.  

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(04-15-2021, 11:11 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: You use so much empty rhetoric to try and act and feel smart.  It's sad.

We're passed the overdose part.  However, he did say that Chauvin's knee wasn't on his neck or blocking the artery and, even if it were, he has two of those arteries.

The truth is that he'll be found innocent, most likely in trial, but, at the very least, in appeal, and there will be riots.

I think it's less likely that he'll be found innocent as opposed to general reasonable doubt of 2nd degree murder.

Should have went for manslaughter.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-15-2021, 11:05 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Another personal shot and that was my point with that post, so thanks.  

Your giddiness about gaining fake internet 'rep points' due to some maligned prognostication is in bad taste when speaking about a man's death.

Again.  Pathetic.  I'd be interested in knowing if you espouse these beliefs to your classes or if you're just blowing off pent up idiot steam on the internet. 

calm down.  please.  

[BFritz21]

(04-15-2021, 11:48 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Your giddiness about gaining fake internet 'rep points' due to some maligned prognostication is in bad taste when speaking about a man's death.

Again.  Pathetic.  I'd be interested in knowing if you espouse these beliefs to your classes or if you're just blowing off pent up idiot steam on the internet. 

calm down.  please.  

Another personal shot with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BACK IT UP.

And then take a shot at what I do in life.

And then you tell ME to calm down?

What an absolute joke.

[fredtoast]

(04-15-2021, 07:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Because the prosecution gets to tear you a new one.

I’m sure attorneys do a risk/reward analysis and advise their client accordingly.

The defendant has such a strong motive to lie it is usually useless to put him on the stand.

No criminal defense attorney ever wants his client to testify.  Generally you only do it when you absolutely have to like when claiming self defense or when the defendant is the only one who can testify to certain facts.

[fredtoast]

I just have one question for Brad,

If the 12 people who heard every single word of testimony in this trial (not just little snippets that only support one side) determine that Chauvin is guilty will you accept it, or will you claim they were all wrong and you are right?

[BFritz21]

(04-16-2021, 01:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I just have one question for Brad,

If the 12 people who heard every single word of testimony in this trial (not just little snippets that only support one side) determine that Chauvin is guilty will you accept it, or will you claim they were all wrong and you are right?

If it is not overturned in appeal, then yes, I will.

If he is found not guilty or if it is overturned on appeal, will you accept it, or will you claim they were all wrong and you are right?

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2021, 02:30 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: If it is not overturned in appeal, then yes, I will.

If he is found not guilty or if it is overturned on appeal, will you accept it, or will you claim they were all wrong and you are right?

An appeal usually has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.  Appeals are about technical mistakes made by the judge.

Since I did not hear all of the evidence I would accept the ruling of the jury.

I don't know if he will be convicted of the murder charge, but from what I have seen and heard I expect him to be at least convicted of some lesser included charge like manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Classifications of crimes are different from state to state so it is hard to say exactly what they have to prove to get the murder conviction.  He is not facing what we call a First Degree pre-meditated murder charge.

[*Nately120*]

Can you be found "innocent" at trial?  I was under the impression that the best you can get is "not guilty" which isnt the same thing.


Ok looks like the verbiage changed by page 7. 

[Mickeypoo]

(04-14-2021, 03:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: To add a little to this, someone can be subpoenaed and forced to be in court. Key witness or not. If they refuse to answer questions, they can be held in contempt. However, all of this is trumped by a person's constitutional rights. If someone could potentially incriminate themselves by giving testimony, then they are protected from testifying. If they are truly a key witness, however, they can receive immunity for certain crimes that they may end up admitting to during their testimony.  

Tl;dr: Someone's rights protecting them from self-incrimination overrides attempts to compel them to testify.

That makes sense.  Thanks.

[fredtoast]

(04-15-2021, 11:23 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I think it's less likely that he'll be found innocent as opposed to general reasonable doubt of 2nd degree murder.

Should have went for manslaughter.

If you are charged with the highest level of murder you can usually be convicted of any "lesser included" offense like manslaughter.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-16-2021, 12:42 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Another personal shot with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BACK IT UP.

And then take a shot at what I do in life.

And then you tell ME to calm down?

What an absolute joke.

Slow down and re-read written language to slow your mind from immediately jumping to the interpretation easiest to accept.

You previously said I made it personal when I pointed out you requested ‘rep points’ if the trial was decided to your liking. I’d say you set the precedence.

Brad, I’ve know you on various boards for a long time (underlined). I have genuinely liked interacting with you for much of that. We’ve shared common experiences we had growing up in close proximity before we met on the internet. When I say, I wish you the best, it’s because I genuinely do. Honestly.

I’m not taking ‘shots’ about your profession. I’m asking you to earnestly reflect on if some of your current rage and outlook are in line with what I believed to be the message you convey to youth. If all you’re saying is ‘hey don’t drink and drive’; maybe they aren’t in conflict, maybe I was incorrect to believe they contained more nuanced lessons and this is all for naught.

To be honest, I’m a little disappointed in my anticipation you’ll mangle my sincerity here into some deep-forum plot against you. I don’t give enough ***** to engage in a classic Brad multi-decade internet pissing contest, no matter how many chuckles it provides the rest of these nickel-dick pissants trying to avoid their wive’s incessant yapping by seethe-posting into their phones. If I need to put you on ignore, I think it will be pretty obvious by your response to this and I’ll gladly oblige.

Warmest Regards,
VD

[*michaelsean*]

(04-16-2021, 02:30 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: If it is not overturned in appeal, then yes, I will.

If he is found not guilty or if it is overturned on appeal, will you accept it, or will you claim they were all wrong and you are right?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you not only think he will be found not guilty, but you don’t think he did anything wrong. I don’t think I know a single person, I’m talking people I actually know, who thinks this guy didn’t do anything seriously wrong.

[BFritz21]

(04-16-2021, 08:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you not only think he will be found not guilty, but you don’t think he did anything wrong. I don’t think I know a single person, I’m talking people I actually know, who thinks this guy didn’t do anything seriously wrong.

It's easy to look back in hindsight and say "he did something wrong," and, yes, we can all say "it's obvious that he should have gotten off of him."

However, he wasn't on his neck, Floyd was talking, so how could he be choking, and he was messed up non drugs, along with his previous encounters with the law, so how does Chauvin know that he's not going to go crazy once he lets up?

Aren't cops supposed to restrain suspects until they quiet down and comply?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-16-2021, 09:47 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's easy to look back in hindsight and say "he did something wrong," and, yes, we can all say "it's obvious that he should have gotten off of him."

However, he wasn't on his neck, Floyd was talking, so how could he be choking, and he was messed up non drugs, along with his previous encounters with the law, so how does Chauvin know that he's not going to go crazy once he lets up?

Aren't cops supposed to restrain suspects until they quiet down and comply?

No they restrain them until they can get the cuffs on them and put them in the car. What prevented him from doing that? During that whole time did it look to you like they wouldn’t be able to get him in the car?

[Stewy]

(04-16-2021, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you are charged with the highest level of murder you can usually be convicted of any "lesser included" offense like manslaughter.

So please frogive the origin of my information on the subject, but it's lead to a real question.

On certain crime drama's (L&O I think) the jury could only convict of the lesser charge if the prosecution left it on the table beforehand.  In other words the jury was given the option to convict of murder 2 (example(, but not manslaughter.  It was Murder 2 or nothing.  Is that dramatic license on their part?  New York law?  Would a prosecutor WANT to limit it that way?

Honest questions.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(04-16-2021, 01:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you are charged with the highest level of murder you can usually be convicted of any "lesser included" offense like manslaughter.

Well I'm no lawyer, but I thought that's what happened with Zimmerman they tried to convict of a higher degree than murder, but he was found not guilty.

I guess I was wrong that's what I was drawing that conclusion from.