Derek Chauvin Murder Trial

[WIP]

I have never been summoned but I have always thought it would be interesting to serve on a jury. Of course, the downside has always been the need to take a leave of absence from work and the compensation rarely is equitable. Now that I’m retired, maybe I’ll yet get that chance.

It is also rare for trials to be publicly broadcast. I believe the reasoning is to avoid grandstanding and such. However, the murder trial for Derek Chauvin has been allowed to be broadcast in its entirety on television for all to see.

I am finding it to be very interesting and have been watching the proceeds all week. I am also trying to listen to the witness testimonies with impartiality as if I was serving on that jury. Has anyone else been watching the trial, particularly with impartiality in mind as much as possible? What has been your take away so far.

For me, I understand that the prosecution is in the process of presenting their case so by design the emphasis is leaning toward the guilt of the defendant with the defense introducing what could be grounds for reasonable doubt.

Since the earliest part of this trial, one very important point that crossed my mind was why did the officers continue to restrain Mr. Floyd in the prone position on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back, particularly after he had stopped resisting them? I feel this question will need an answer before this trial is over. Yesterday afternoon and particularly this morning, the prosecution has begun addressing this question.

I also noticed when the officers first approached the defendant in his car, their demeanor sure didn’t seem to be very friendly with him. In my experience, whenever I have been approached by police they have always treated me with respect and personable. This too gives me pause as it plays into the character of the officers. Of course, Mr. Floyd was immediately combative but it could have been in part as a response to the aggressive nature of the officers that approached him.

 

[WIP]

Well, they've adjourned for the weekend. Today's proceedings were very powerful for the prosecution because they interviewed a Lt. that serves in the homicide division and he testified that it is considered deadly force to restrain a suspect in the prone position (on his belly) while handcuffed from behind. He said once handcuffed the defendant's threat level to the officers drops considerably and he should be able to be turned onto his side to facilitate breathing. He defined that as the "side recovery position."

He also testified that it was not part of his training to use his knee on the back of a suspect in order to restrain any more than necessary to gain control and in his opinion the officers, particularly, Derek Chauvin had used excessive force by doing so for so long.

Yesterday, they also talked about using belts to contain a suspect's legs if necessary, although this was not used on Mr. Floyd. I think they considered it because in one view from an officer's body camera, the officer had removed a rubber band from a folded belt and it appeared he was considering using it on Mr. Floyd's ankles but never did actually put it on.

 

[humble soul]

Guilty

 

[GodsGrace]

Nice updates.
I can't see it here, but I would have liked to.
Watched the entire OJ trial. Very interesting.
I think the guy is guilty of manslaughter, or worse.

 

[WIP]

His guilt or innocence may depend on what the actual cause of death was and they haven't got into that part of the trial yet. If I'm watching with a jurist's mind, I must reserve my prognosis until the trial has ended and all of the evidence has been presented. My feelings would have nothing to do with it. I would have to decide based on the evidence presented and how it applies with law and in the United States the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example, if it is shown that Mr. Floyd did not die from asphyxiation but as result of a drug overdose, then it becomes a case of excessive use of force but not murder. It should be noted that it has already been presented (by the prosecution) that Mr. Floyd had an opioid drug addiction problem and appeared to be under the influence of opioid drugs at the time. It was also presented that one of the two other people that were with him when he was first approached by police was one of his suppliers of said drugs.

All I can say at this point is that so far it does not look good for the defendant receiving an acquittal but he may see lesser conviction. That's just my opinion, obviously, as this trial could go on for weeks.

 

[humble soul]

We all think we are objective. But our prejudices influence us more than we know.

 

[WIP]

We all think we are objective. But our prejudices influence us more than we know.

That's probably accurate but I don't know what my prejudices would be. I don't know anyone in the twin cities and I have no personal conviction either way.

 

[GodsGrace]

His guilt or innocence may depend on what the actual cause of death was and they haven't got into that part of the trial yet. If I'm watching with a jurist's mind, I must reserve my prognosis until the trial has ended and all of the evidence has been presented. My feelings would have nothing to do with it. I would have to decide based on the evidence presented and how it applies with law and in the United States the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example, if it is shown that Mr. Floyd did not die from asphyxiation but as result of a drug overdose, then it becomes a case of excessive use of force but not murder. It should be noted that it has already been presented (by the prosecution) that Mr. Floyd had an opioid drug addiction problem and appeared to be under the influence of opioid drugs at the time. It was also presented that one of the two other people that were with him when he was first approached by police was one of his suppliers of said drugs.

All I can say at this point is that so far it does not look good for the defendant receiving an acquittal but he may see lesser conviction. That's just my opinion, obviously, as this trial could go on for weeks.

You're not supposed to do some things as a juror,,but they're done anyway. I've been a juror.

 

[WIP]

Actually, now that I've given it some thought, before I began to watch the trial unfold, my prejudice was leaning more toward the police officers. I believe my prejudice stems from my belief that it is inappropriate for people to fight with law enforcement and not be respectful of their authority. As a Christian I have been instructed per Romans 13.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
Romans 13:1-2 NKJV

The job of law enforcement is to enforce the laws and when we are on the receiving end, there's no point in fighting with them. That will undoubtedly bring about counter aggressive action. The place for disputing the charges is in a court of law before a judge and/or jury. I'm speaking of here in the US. Perhaps it's different elsewhere.

 

[WIP]

You're not supposed to do some things as a juror,,but they're done anyway. I've been a juror.

I'm sure they are. People are not completely capable of thinking objectively or fairly. They allow their own prejudices and emotions dictate or direct much of their thought processes. This is why attorney's are very much involved in jury selection as they try to find jurors that can think without partiality or I suppose can bolster their own position (defense or prosecution).

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm sure they are. People are not completely capable of thinking objectively or fairly. They allow their own prejudices and emotions dictate or direct much of their thought processes. This is why attorney's are very much involved in jury selection as they try to find jurors that can think without partiality or I suppose can bolster their own position (defense or prosecution).

Yes
Bolster their own position is right.
And, unless it's a really complicated situation, most have their mind made up before entering the jury room.
I did find that we all did not speak of the proceedings,,,as we were told not to discuss the trial at all.

 

[WIP]

Pretty strong evidence the last couple days in favor of the prosecution. They've begun presenting expert testimony now.

In a nutshell they brought in witnesses that said placing the suspect in the prone position should not be used except to perhaps apply handcuffs and/or what they call a hobble to restrain the feet. After that, they should turn the suspect on his/her side to facilitate breathing.

Today they had a medical doctor testify how putting weight on Mr. Floyd's back and neck could have caused his death and he backed it up with strong medical scientific data. He also showed, based on body and facial movements, the exact moment when he believes Mr. Floyd took his last breath and when his life left him. It also showed that Mr. Floyd was continued to be restrained for over 3 minutes after this took place.

They are now on a lunch break and the defense will cross examine the doctor when they return.

Please keep in mind that so far, this is the prosecution's case as the defense has not yet begun to call their witnesses.

 

[Truthfrees]

Actually, now that I've given it some thought, before I began to watch the trial unfold, my prejudice was leaning more toward the police officers. I believe my prejudice stems from my belief that it is inappropriate for people to fight with law enforcement and not be respectful of their authority. As a Christian I have been instructed per Romans 13.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
Romans 13:1-2 NKJV

The job of law enforcement is to enforce the laws and when we are on the receiving end, there's no point in fighting with them. That will undoubtedly bring about counter aggressive action. The place for disputing the charges is in a court of law before a judge and/or jury. I'm speaking of here in the US. Perhaps it's different elsewhere.

that's wise

fighting good police is a bad idea

fighting with corrupt police may get you killed

either way it's best to not fight with police

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I have never been summoned but I have always thought it would be interesting to serve on a jury.

It's a boring experience at best. Hopefully if you do, you'll at least get good chairs to sit on. I haven't bothered with this latest "Media diversion" from Biden's trainwreck. The simple fact is, that the cop is a PIG, that should never be on a police force. Everybody knows that they'll HAVE to find him guilty of SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT, if they don't want their precious city burnt to the ground.

 

[WIP]

It's a boring experience at best. Hopefully if you do, you'll at least get good chairs to sit on. I haven't bothered with this latest "Media diversion" from Biden's trainwreck. The simple fact is, that the cop is a PIG, that should never be on a police force. Everybody knows that they'll HAVE to find him guilty of SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT, if they don't want their precious city burnt to the ground.

So far, I have not found any of it to be boring.

The threat of the city being burned should have no bearing on the jurists' decision. They should rule on the basis of the evidence presented and that is all.

Imagine if you were accused of some crime and the jury of your peers pronounced you guilty simply because they "think" it may go bad for them if they don't. Would you be willing to take that with the same grain of salt.

As far as that police officer being a pig, that's just your opinion not based on any facts only conjecture. As the trial unfolds, it may be shown that his actions were not necessarily that far out of line. We just don't know yet since we don't yet have all the evidence at our disposal.

 

[Christ_empowered]

ugh. I do think this cop should be found guilty of...something. I personally lean towards a manslaughter charge, because...murder, to my non-expert mind, implies a degree of hatred and premeditation that...I dunno. it seems like a really -bad- idea, from the defense's position, to take it to trial, right now. maybe they couldn't secure a good plea bargain? i dunno...

although I think this particular cop is guilty of a serious felony and is probably not a good human being...I feel badly for him, having his trial broadcast all over the world. I mean...really? really? how is this in anyone's best interest? how is this...permitted, given that he is supposed to be presumed innocent unless proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' ?

blah blah blah...I wish they'd just work out a plea bargain and spare the nation all this, honestly. -can't we all just get along?-

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So far, I have not found any of it to be boring.

The threat of the city being burned should have no bearing on the jurists' decision. They should rule on the basis of the evidence presented and that is all.

But we both know that's not necessarily what's going to happen. And it's RIDICULOUS to think that the well orchestrated Holocaust that'll break loose if the jury acquits Chauvin is definitely on their minds. It's their city, after all.

 

[daninthelionsden]

that's wise

fighting good police is a bad idea

fighting with corrupt police may get you killed

either way it's best to not fight with police

Unless crooked copmafia indicate they're going to kill you anyway. Then fight for your life.

 

[daninthelionsden]

So far, I have not found any of it to be boring.

The threat of the city being burned should have no bearing on the jurists' decision. They should rule on the basis of the evidence presented and that is all.

Imagine if you were accused of some crime and the jury of your peers pronounced you guilty simply because they "think" it may go bad for them if they don't. Would you be willing to take that with the same grain of salt.

As far as that police officer being a pig, that's just your opinion not based on any facts only conjecture. As the trial unfolds, it may be shown that his actions were not necessarily that far out of line. We just don't know yet since we don't yet have all the evidence at our disposal.

The video says it all. If that had been your child under that cop's knee begging for his life.......

 

[WIP]

The video says it all. If that had been your child under that cop's knee begging for his life.......

And that's why they would never allow a family member or friend of Mr. Floyd's on the jury. As far as innocent or guilty and to what degree, I'll reserve my opinion until after the trial and even then, I may have to withhold my view if I don't get to see all of the witnesses testimonies.

Imagine being the defendant who's very life would be decided by popular opinion? That's not how our judicial system works nor is it how God said it is to be done.

The Lord also spoke to Joshua, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Appoint for yourselves cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you through Moses, that the slayer who kills a person accidentally or unintentionally may flee there; and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. And when he flees to one of those cities, and stands at the entrance of the gate of the city, and declares his case in the hearing of the elders of that city, they shall take him into the city as one of them, and give him a place, that he may dwell among them. Then if the avenger of blood pursues him, they shall not deliver the slayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor unintentionally, but did not hate him beforehand. And he shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the one who is high priest in those days. Then the slayer may return and come to his own city and his own house, to the city from which he fled.’ ”
Joshua 20:1-6 NKJV

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you."
Deuteronomy 19:15-20 NKJV

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Exodus 20:16 NKJV