Chauvin Verdict?

@shavixmir said
His right wing framing of people as activist is activism. You do know that, don’t you?

no I dont, because it is a leftist tactic to accuse others of what they themselves are doing

@no1marauder said
It's not unusual at all for a DA to charge different crimes using different elements and types of intent in a homicide case.

Right wingers were always going make evidence free charges of jury intimidation if Chauvin was convicted; it's no surprise our particularly gullible representatives of that mindset are quickly regurgitating FoxNews talking points.

bloody pig heads at a witnesses residence, a congress woman inciting violence, a president influencing jurors is not quite evidence free

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"Wrongful death" doesn't always equate to criminal charges. A hospital can be sued for accidently giving a patient the wrong medicine that results in death; but that doesn't necessarily mean there are criminal causes. This, combined with the fact the suit was against the Minneapolis police force rather than Chauvin himself, makes the timing of the civil suit *arguably* irrelevant.

I do agree that there is some merit in waiting for a civil suit to be filed until after a criminal trial. That's what happened with OJ. It's possible that this is already a legal rule, but I'm not sure.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I agree with you that a civil trial *may* affect jurors. I think there's simply a stronger argument that any such influence may be negligible, especially in high-profile cases where the media has a stronger effect on the public than court decisions.

@no1marauder said
It's not unusual at all for a DA to charge different crimes using different elements and types of intent in a homicide case.

Right wingers were always going make evidence free charges of jury intimidation if Chauvin was convicted; it's no surprise our particularly gullible representatives of that mindset are quickly regurgitating FoxNews talking points.

The proof is in the pudding. We'll see when the verdict is appealed.

@vivify said
I agree with you that a civil trial *may* affect jurors. I think there's simply a stronger argument that any such influence may be negligible, especially in high-profile cases where the media has a stronger effect on the public than court decisions.

It's literally impossible to keep everyone in a vacuum and unaffected. But sometimes influences like Maxine Waters,
who I believe scared the jurists into saying "guilty" to everything in sight, did do enough influencing to warrant a do-over.

my opinion.

@earl-of-trumps said
It's literally impossible to keep everyone in a vacuum and unaffected. But sometimes influences like Maxine Waters,
who I believe scared the jurists into saying "guilty" to everything in sight, did do enough influencing to warrant a do-over.

my opinion.

the only way to get a fair trial is to sequester the jurors and keep their identity concealed forever.

@earl-of-trumps said
The proof is in the pudding. We'll see when the verdict is appealed.

The chances of the verdict being overturned because Maxine Waters scared the jurors is zero.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Minneapolis probably agreed to the settlement before the end of the criminal trial because they feared a criminal conviction (which would be conclusive of liability in a civil action https://minnlawyer.com/wp-files/fulltext-072312/opa111699-071612.html) would lead to an even higher judgment.

Minneapolis conceded at trial that Chauvin's actions were wrongful by testimony of their Chief of Police and others. Therefore, I do not think that an appellate court will be receptive to an argument that the verdict should be overturned on such grounds.

@earl-of-trumps said
It's literally impossible to keep everyone in a vacuum and unaffected. But sometimes influences like Maxine Waters,
who I believe scared the jurists into saying "guilty" to everything in sight, did do enough influencing to warrant a do-over.

my opinion.

You believe a lot of BS but a functioning legal system is not going to overturn a murder conviction on such spurious grounds.

@earl-of-trumps said
It's literally impossible to keep everyone in a vacuum and unaffected. But sometimes influences like Maxine Waters,
who I believe scared the jurists into saying "guilty" to everything in sight, did do enough influencing to warrant a do-over.

my opinion.

That goes both ways. Secure a jury's identity, you may get a more honest verdict; however, keep their identities sealed, there's nothing stopping a jury from voting out of pure bias.

Honestly, juries should be done away with. A man's life shouldn't be decide by a random pool of people.

@vivify said
That goes both ways. Secure a jury's identity, you may get a more honest verdict; however, keep their identities sealed, there's nothing stopping a jury from voting out of pure bias.

Honestly, juries should be done away with. A man's life shouldn't be decide by a random people of people.

hahahahaha

@mott-the-hoople said
no I dont, because it is a leftist tactic to accuse others of what they themselves are doing

Yes. It’s right wing tactics to...


See where that rabbit hole goes?