Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[KG1]

Maybe not as an adult; but as a kid, you're head would probably be resting on your grandmothers lap, and you eating the worst flavors of Brach's dug from the bottom of her purse... I still hate butterscotch.

I'm with you there. Butterscotch was a staple of my church going youth as well.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm with you there. Butterscotch was a staple of my church going youth as well.

Yup. There was a man that always had a bag of candy for us kids; gotta love small, country churches.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Doubtful. Like very doubtful. You'd have to prove that the jurors were ignorant of the elements of the charges; and you won't be able to do that. They most certainly had the elements explained more than once. Some jurors just want refreshers to put it all together.

That is not my understanding... pretty sure that the judge's instruction are that only he, in his instructions, presents the law and that any attorney representations of the law are to be ignored.

Pretty apparent they, at least 11 of the 12, did not.

 

[buckwacker]

Yeah sorry, I try not to like people's posts too much, because people DO notice.

I don't care if you like my posts, but it never really happens.

 

[jamil]

You know that nobody in their right mind will answer that question truthfully. Well, I'd say that nobody would search themselves for what they unconscious bias is. There's a reason I call my end of town "Vanilla Village". A white guy can sit at the community pond fishing all day without a sideways glance. But black man? I guarantee this HOA vice president is going to hear about it.

Honestly I don't think there's such a thing as "unconscious bias". That's basically ********. I think bias is conscious but may be suppressed for whatever reason. The Karens aren't reporting black people for reasons they can't explain if they were being honest.

Put that in the context of vaccinations.

I see the modern nationalist movement as an outgrowth of self-interest; the nationalist circle and "don't inconvenience me" circles have a lot of overlap.

I consider myself as a patriotic American, but not a nationalist.

Well, jeez. You can say that the motivation for just about everything stems from self interest, even altruism, ironically. I don't think there is anything wrong with nationalism as long as it doesn't get too far. There is nothing wrong, in fact a sign that a nation is doing it right, when it takes care of its own citizens first. That's the primary duty a government has, to protect its own citizens, all of them. If that's the extent of it, it's good to go.

NBC Today just interviewed one of the jurors, Brandon Mitchell.

To paraphrase, 11 out of twelve jurors wanted to walk into the jury room, vote guilty-guilty-guilty and walk back out.

One did not, and he clarified that juror was not a "hold-out" but wanted to walk through the judge's instructions and the elements of each count... he wanted "due diligence".

That took 4 hours of deliberations, which Mitchell quantified as "too long".

This is pretty much what I thought was happening. The trial itself was just a long winded formality that the jury had to endure before they could get to their cultural duty to find Chauvin guilty.

Virtue signalling? Prove they didn't even feel the need to think about it?

I don't think it was even that. Everyone knew what they saw on the video. It didn't matter what other information they were missing. Chauvin is a racist cop who murdered a black guy intentionally. That's what they believed from the start and I'd wager that they were there to make sure Chauvin was convicted regardless of facts. It's teams. Prosecution were the heroes and the defense were the despicable villains.

 

[buckwacker]

When I first moved to Missippi i found it remarkable that blacks and whites were sitting at the same break tables.

I think there is (ironically) less cultural differences between Southern Blacks and Southern Whites. Of course everyone was fat and ugly so maybe that gave them a familiarity of appearance that overcame skin color. In the deep south you can find whole isles at grocery stores devoted to lard. Okay, maybe that’s a bit hyperbolic but lard is a staple there regardless of race. Point is, once you get past skin color people notice things they have in common.

Hmmm... I'd not have expected that since we're told the south is where the most racist people live.

But when you get down to the nitty, there are often as many similarities between people with different skin pigmentation as there are with the same ligmentation. Except people with freckles. They’re just oddballs.

Yes but where is the locus of the focus? The result of pushing all the diversity and inclusion b.s. and seems to have the deleterious effect of focusing people on differences rather than similarities. Maybe by design.

 

[JettaKnight]

This is pretty much what I thought was happening. The trial itself was just a long winded formality that the jury had to endure before they could get to their cultural duty to find Chauvin guilty.



I don't think it was even that. Everyone knew what they saw on the video. It didn't matter what other information they were missing. Chauvin is a racist cop who murdered a black guy intentionally. That's what they believed from the start and I'd wager that they were there to make sure Chauvin was convicted regardless of facts. It's teams. Prosecution were the heroes and the defense were the despicable villains.

Or the evidence they saw in court was enough, and completely clear. Sometimes all the facts are clear and all lead to an obvious conclusion that doesn't require hours of deliberation. Just because the outcome doesn't agree with your take on it, doesn't mean the the fix was in.

But, IANAL, and I wasn't in the court room.



PS - Jamil, what's with quoting my other posts?

 

[jamil]

Hmmm... I'd not have expected that since we're told the south is where the most racist people live.

Hey, during my years in Missippi I met some people who I was sure went to klan rallies at some point. But most people seemed very friendly, down to earth, religious, and they didn't care as much about race as people seem to care in the north. But even that's changing from generation to generation.

Yes but where is the locus of the focus? The result of pushing all the diversity and inclusion b.s. and seems to have the deleterious effect of focusing people on differences rather than similarities. Maybe by design.

Real ass diversity is culture and thinking, not skin color and gender fluidity. If you have to push it, it's probably ********. I suppose those people in the breakroom decided that they have a lot more important things in common than skin pigment.

Where diversity becomes dangerous to a society is wide ideological diversity where there is no common ground. Considering the two main visions of the future, they're incompatible. And that's a reason why we're in a culture war.

 

[jamil]

PS - Jamil, what's with quoting my other posts?

Go back and reread. I had gone through and quoted the stuff I was going to reply to, but I hit the Post Reply before I was ready.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Or the evidence they saw in court was enough, and completely clear. Sometimes all the facts are clear and all lead to an obvious conclusion that doesn't require hours of deliberation. Just because the outcome doesn't agree with your take on it, doesn't mean the the fix was in.

But, IANAL, and I wasn't in the court room.



PS - Jamil, what's with quoting my other posts?

Two problems:

First, I watched the defense present reasonable doubt.

Second, there is no conceivable justification for convicting on two mutually exclusive charges.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Or the evidence they saw in court was enough, and completely clear. Sometimes all the facts are clear and all lead to an obvious conclusion that doesn't require hours of deliberation. Just because the outcome doesn't agree with your take on it, doesn't mean the the fix was in.

But, IANAL, and I wasn't in the court room.



PS - Jamil, what's with quoting my other posts?

IANAL, but I thought the jury hears and weighs testimony and evidence to determine the FACTS. They alone are the determiners of fact.

Deliberation is supposed to be applying the FACTS they determine to the LAW (each element of each count) to render a verdict on each count.

If Mr Mitchell's account is accurate, 11 out of 12, including himself, were ready to render a verdict prior to doing so and only examined the LAW because of one obstinate juror... who insisted upon "due diligence".

Again, IANAL, but I think this alone yields a healthy chance on appeal if it were any other case.

 

[buckwacker]

Hey, during my years in Missippi I met some people who I was sure went to klan rallies at some point. But most people seemed very friendly, down to earth, religious, and they didn't care as much about race as people seem to care in the north. But even that's changing from generation to generation.


Real ass diversity is culture and thinking, not skin color and gender fluidity. If you have to push it, it's probably ********. I suppose those people in the breakroom decided that they have a lot more important things in common than skin pigment.

Where diversity becomes dangerous to a society is wide ideological diversity where there is no common ground. Considering the two main visions of the future, they're incompatible. And that's a reason why we're in a culture war.

It doesn't matter what anyone considers real diversity, if any group's focus shifts from similarities to differences, whether physical, cultural, or logical, the result is division, not unity.

 

[buckwacker]

I don't care if you like my posts, but it never really happens.

Damn Kut, I'm a marked man on INGO now.

 

[jamil]

Or the evidence they saw in court was enough, and completely clear. Sometimes all the facts are clear and all lead to an obvious conclusion that doesn't require hours of deliberation. Just because the outcome doesn't agree with your take on it, doesn't mean the the fix was in.

But, IANAL, and I wasn't in the court room.

It sounds to me, from a juror's own words, like they made up their minds before they sat in the juror's box. I'm not saying that because I don't agree with the outcome. I think if everyone's being honest, that deliberation should have taken days if they were interested in due diligence. I mean. Juror 52 said that the fighter's testimony was one of the most influential!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

It sounds to me, from a juror's own words, like they made up their minds before they sat in the juror's box. I'm not saying that because I don't agree with the outcome. I think if everyone's being honest, that deliberation should have taken days if they were interested in due diligence. I mean. Juror 52 said that the fighter's testimony was one of the most influential!

I don't know that what Mr Mitchell said takes it that far... doesn't prove that point (but does nothing to dispel it either, in fact the opposite, tends to support it) but it does point to 11 out of 12 determining guilt before deliberating on the law.

So, yeah... it definitely points in that direction.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

First Chauvin trial juror to speak out about deliberations: 'The evidence was overwhelming'

Brandon Mitchell said Wednesday that all but one juror was immediately on board with guilty verdicts on all counts.

www.nbcnews.com

Mitchell said Wednesday that all but one person in the jury was immediately on board with guilty verdicts on all counts.

"I think they just wanted to do their due diligence and wanted to make sure they understood the terminology correctly," Mitchell said on "TODAY."

Ummm... the "terminology" is the law... I don't know how you can interpret this as other than the law was just a "technicality"... guilty-guilty-guilty.

Just to be clear, I thought the manslaughter charge was a slam dunk... guilty.

I'm not sure how you get both murder 2 and murder 3, since one is without intent and the other is with intentional, depraved indifference... they are not always mutually exclusive, but in this case, I would think only one or the other would apply... I'm left scratching my head how you arrive at both... and it is the reason that the prosecution fought so hard to have murder 3 added back in, so that "murder" could be looked at from two different directions.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hmmm... I'd not have expected that since we're told the south is where the most racist people live.


Yes but where is the locus of the focus? The result of pushing all the diversity and inclusion b.s. and seems to have the deleterious effect of focusing people on differences rather than similarities. Maybe by design.

It's FAR and away the places outside of the South. And that's due to ignorance. In Indiana a town of 500, is going to be 99% White, 1% Methhead. In Alabama, a town of 500, will be 60% White, 35% Black... and 5% Beauty Pageant Contestants.

 

[Kutnupe14]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...t-deliberations-evidence-was-n1265627Mitchell said Wednesday that all but one person in the jury was immediately on board with guilty verdicts on all counts.



Ummm... the "terminology" is the law... I don't know how you can interpret this as other than the law was just a "technicality"... guilty-guilty-guilty.

Just to be clear, I thought the manslaughter charge was a slam dunk... guilty.

I'm not sure how you get both murder 2 and murder 3, since one is without intent and the other is with intentional, depraved indifference... they are not always mutually exclusive, but in this case, I would think only one or the other would apply... I'm left scratching my head how you arrive at both... and it is the reason that the prosecution fought so hard to have murder 3 added back in, so that "murder" could be looked at from two different directions.

Have YOU read the elements of the charges? It does not seem so.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It sounds to me, from a juror's own words, like they made up their minds before they sat in the juror's box. I'm not saying that because I don't agree with the outcome. I think if everyone's being honest, that deliberation should have taken days if they were interested in due diligence. I mean. Juror 52 said that the fighter's testimony was one of the most influential!

Not from what I saw.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Have YOU read the elements of the charges? It does not seem so.

Yup, have you? What would be a situation that Murder 2 was not also Murder 3 then and vice versa?