Indeed they are. However there are many that aren’t. I meant the ones that defend people that aren’t innocent. In this instance, for example. Or defending someone like Epstein in court.
George Floyd | Chauvin guilty on all counts | Sentenced to 22.5 years
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
It’s a complete non sequitur, a cute bit of obfuscation to muddy up the waters. It’s a tactic often used in debate, but this particular debate has far more consequence than ones we see on YT.
Well because everybody is actually innocent until proven guilty. You don't know that?
Exactly. How many innocent people have been condemned to death or for life. Too many.
Defending criminals in court is, I guess, just the inevitable downside to the positive aspects of being a defence attorney.
Like the fact it's their job to counter the failures/ineptitude/deceit of law enforcement. It's their job to uphold essential human rights. And also their job in many cases to keep victims and witnesses from having to go through court trials at all by negotiating plea deals.
Like the fact it's their job to counter the failures/ineptitude/deceit of law enforcement. It's their job to uphold essential human rights. And also their job in many cases to keep victims and witnesses from having to go through court trials at all by negotiating plea deals.
Prosecutors can learn a lot from the adversary system of law too and become better at their jobs. The DA in the murder trial I served on made some horrible choices and I really wanted to be able to tell him that but he didn't stick around to talk. I did talk with the defense attorney though and it was very interesting.
I was a courier during college for a large firm. I arrived back to the office late on a Friday after a round trip to Jacksonville, it was the latest I had ever been to the firm. I walked into a party where soft taffy fish candy was being thrown around in the air, mixed into cocktails, & the senior partners were walking around with their mouths open stuffed with the fish, making gurgling & choking sounds.
I asked a junior partner what in the feck I walked into. He said they were celebrating a huge win. The firm was defending a large office complex owner in a wrongful death suit - a young, mentally challenged girl choked to death on said fish in one of the offices. She had gotten away from her mother while she talked with the girl’s doctor, ran to an unattended snack shop (think Endo in ‘Die Hard’), got around to the back of the counter, grabbed the fish, & starting eating them quickly. The fish congealed (for lack of a better term) in her throat, she started choking, paramedics were called, but the combined efforts couldn’t remove the fish & she passed away.
The senior partners (& the office complex owners, I later found out) celebrated by stuffing their faces with the fish & making choking noises. Everyone at the party into which I walked was laughing & carrying on, gleeful, like pigs in shit.
@Grinner is spot on, defense attorneys are essential to our judicial process, but you are also correct that many of them are absolute cnuts whose goal is to make money by billing the highest hourly to the defendants with no apparent remorse.
I actually don't know for sure tbh.
I know that the questioning pattern was always the same - Judge gave the potential juror a brief rundown, followed by Eric Nelson (defence) questioning them before passing over to Steve Schleicher (prosecutor) to do the same.
The questions asked by each attorney differed by juror, and seemed to happen on the fly - ie if the juror said something controversial, they honed in on that...so I'd lean towards assuming that both sides were allowed to ask unvetted questions.
Nobody's disputing that. Were talking about representing people who are blatantly guilty. Everything that is presented in this case is completely secondary to the fact that there is a video of guy with a knee on his neck for 9 minutes ending up dead. There's no ambiguity in the video whatsoever.
Huh. I can see your point regarding amending questioning due to what the response from a prospective juror is. I guess the latitude is pretty wide in the formulation of the questions.
I did not watch the questioning - did the opposing attorney object to any of the questions? Or the judge strike any down? I wonder what that process entails.
OK let's just bring back lynch mobs then. I can't believe some of you people don't get basic concepts of law and order.
There's a huge amount of ambiguity.
We're currently seeing the prosecution's witnesses, yet - for me - there's been nothing compelling so far in proving premeditation or 'depraved heart' - which are needed to stick either of the murder charges.
There's also been nothing compelling to prove that the knee is what led to Floyd's death...infact, at times over the past two days the prosecution almost seemed to be conceding that point and agreeing with the defences drug induced death claims - but decrying the negligence of the cops at the scene. The direction of the prosecution's questioning towards the paramedics was almost entirely towards the police's failure to administer Narcan or other first aid. Which I think is definitely fair.
We also had the paramedic saying that he was able to check Floyd's carotid artery while Chauvin was on top of him - which was obviously a blow to the prosecution...as well as the alternate angle photos presented by the defence of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's back rather than his neck.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'd actually lean so far to strongly assuming Chauvin gets - at best - second degree manslaughter.
We've also still got the defence witnesses to come next week, which includes the Hennepin Country Coroner. The judge also ruled that this 2019 arrest video of George Floyd will be permitted, which the prosecution fought tooth and nail against. In it, it shows Floyd swallowing all the pills he could when the police approached him. That's clearly not going to play well with the jury.
There are still many, many questions to be answered. It's certainly not an open and shut conviction or decision. I just worry about the after effects of whatever conclusion the jury reaches. I think it's going to get rough again for a while.
There were no objections that I heard from any party - and I listened to maybe 4 or 5 of them. It was all very cordial and low-key. Would be interesting to find out exactly how the process works.
- here's one as an example just incase you want to shuffle around while the trial's on break.
One thing some laypeople are hung up on / confused over is ‘cause of death’ v. ‘autopsy ruling.’
Some of my unfortunate family members are adamant that the autopsy from Hennepin County ruled that the death was an overdose. The death was ruled by both autopsies as a homicide, the cause of death is not yet determined, this is what the trial is about & the proper apportionment of blame / severity of sentence.
I know jurists have to go through vetting, etc., but, if so many can confuse this key issue, it stands to reason that the approved jurists will still have such confusion in their minds / preconceived notions.
I thought I wouldn’t mind being a juror in a case like this, but they are probably experiencing some mental butterflies right now. I don’t think I envy them at all.
Some of my unfortunate family members are adamant that the autopsy from Hennepin County ruled that the death was an overdose. The death was ruled by both autopsies as a homicide, the cause of death is not yet determined, this is what the trial is about & the proper apportionment of blame / severity of sentence.
I know jurists have to go through vetting, etc., but, if so many can confuse this key issue, it stands to reason that the approved jurists will still have such confusion in their minds / preconceived notions.
I thought I wouldn’t mind being a juror in a case like this, but they are probably experiencing some mental butterflies right now. I don’t think I envy them at all.
Much appresh.
For feck's sake. (smh)
What has this got to do with anything?
1. Every episode begins with a bad pun
2. The first suspect is a red herring.
3. Every scene change starts with
See earlier in the thread, start on the previous page. A few posts discuss it. They start at #125.
Yea I've read on and seen it explained. Thanks
No worries. It’s fecked up.
I’m curious as to the lengths the defense will go during their time on the clock. It’s one thing to do it in cross examination, it’s another to do it on the front foot when you call your own witnesses.
Day 5
I mean, he’s not wrong. Are some people so obviously guilty that they shouldn’t be entitled to a legal defence? That would undermine the whole legal system.
Yes I thought so. While I'm sure your brilliant legal analysis of this case would be compelling to read, it seems you just want to be daft.
Legal defence is a basic human right really, no matter how depraved the criminal is. You just hope the jury see through all the BS.
Yes, some people are obviously guilty and yes they are entitled to a legal defence. That is not the issue. The issue is having a legal system that enables them to wriggle out of their guilt time after time. That's why this case is a watershed moment. People know what they saw and they're not taking that shit anymore especially from police officers who have been abusing their power long before smartphones and social media were even a thing.
What part of that don't you understand?
After seeing the video I’m a bit on the fence on this one. Might not be a popular opinion of course but I can see two cops trying to arrest Floyd who is anything but cooperating.
A very big guy(I know he’s cuffed), obviously strong one and whilst maybe not the right actions from the officer in terms of technique, but with adrenaline rushing you can sometimes do whatever it takes in the heat of the moment to do your job.
Obviously there are hundreds of other angles you can look at and reasons to look at this trial, but I’m not really sure this works in prosecution favour..
A very big guy(I know he’s cuffed), obviously strong one and whilst maybe not the right actions from the officer in terms of technique, but with adrenaline rushing you can sometimes do whatever it takes in the heat of the moment to do your job.
Obviously there are hundreds of other angles you can look at and reasons to look at this trial, but I’m not really sure this works in prosecution favour..
Oh ffs
9 minutes?
I get what you are saying, but at the nine minute mark of the ordeal, Floyd should have been in a cop car heading to the jail, not being taken to the hospital lifeless.
I see the problem here. You must be under the impression that Chauvin's job was to kill George Floyd. Easy mistake to make based on the history of cops in this country, but contrary to popular opinion they are actually not paid to kill black men. Easy mistake to make.
As I said I’m not giving sentence here saying ones right or wrong. I’m looking at the officers intent and the obvious struggle to withheld him. Sometimes you brain goes blank and obviously the cop made a mistake in his actions to handle the situation properly.
Shit happens, right?
I am sure at least one juror views things in this exact way.
It is what it is.
Just another one of them bad apples, right?
Do you know how long 9 minutes is? Has your mind ever gone blank for 9 minutes?
Lads, no one argues about that. Chauvin’s job is obviously to take him into custody unharmed. It’s not about race or ethnicity. The criteria should be the same regardless of him being black or 7 ft white guy.
He obviously did wrong in his actions and will be punished for. Not saying he is innocent but what was his intentions and what punishment he should get in addition to prevent situations like these.
That’s why I said I get what you are saying.
Unfortunately, it’s not entirely certain he will get the proper punishment, or even punishment (more than likely he will get some, though). We’ve been in situations like this before here when cops get off scot free.
Nah. He straight up murdered him. Murder requires malice or forethought. I don't think he went to that call planning on killing him, but he definitely had malice at the end. Dude was reveling in Floyds struggle and pained cries. He was loving that people around him were freaking out. I bet he was rock hard from feeling powerful.