The Trial of Derek Chauvin - Judgement(?) Day(?) has arrived!

[Leibowitz]

I've only listened to a few hours of the trial so far, but the prosecution does not seem to be presenting their case well. I thought their opening statements were straightforward and well organized, but now that they have to deliver the actual evidence, they are very hard to follow. With constant breaks, out of order witnesses, and meandering questioning, I would guess the jury is as confused about their message as me.

 

[Daddy Problems]

View attachment 2046350

> Claims to be a victim of "micro aggressions"
> Meanwhile, attempting to dox jurors may be considered a macro aggression by some.

This shit is too good.

Edit cuz I can't spell too good.

 

[Shovel Mech Pilot]

Derek is obviously innocent but I wouldn't be surprised if the jury convicts him anyway. If they acquit, the violence of the BLM mob will descend on them and their families. Which is, of course, what BLM intends to do - make people so afraid of opposing the narrative that they cave to mob violence.

 

[Obscure Creature]

I've only listened to a few hours of the trial so far, but the prosecution does not seem to be presenting their case well. I thought their opening statements were straightforward and well organized, but now that they have to deliver the actual evidence, they are very hard to follow. With constant breaks, out of order witnesses, and meandering questioning, I would guess the jury is as confused about their message as me.

They seem to be relying solely on emotional appeal which is hilarious.

 

[Ruin]

I've only listened to a few hours of the trial so far, but the prosecution does not seem to be presenting their case well. I thought their opening statements were straightforward and well organized, but now that they have to deliver the actual evidence, they are very hard to follow. With constant breaks, out of order witnesses, and meandering questioning, I would guess the jury is as confused about their message as me.

The strategy seems to be "Floyddindunuffin and here lots of random people who say he dindunuffin."

Itsaboldstrategycotton.jpg

 

[The Demon]

idk if im very late on this but that obese fat bitch cuaght taking photos yesterday just confirmed she was there and the twitter account is real

https://twitter.com/ATLinfluencer/status/1377243207440928768/photo/1

Archive

View attachment 2046350


i know some people were doubting if that twitter account was the same as the woman from yesterday becuase she called herself "Rachel Jackson" instead of kelly but this dumb bitch just confirmed it was her

I see

Well someone better pick up the phone

 

[7he47r0n]

If they did it would probably be really easy for the defendant to appeal the ruling.

But that's the point, isn't it? Until the cameras are pointed towards the trial, do everything to appease the mob. Then, once a verdict has been jammed through that appeals to said unwashed masses, and the attention goes away, quietly appeal the case and make it all go away. A parlour trick disguised in the robes of justice.

 

[Had]

Derek is obviously innocent but I wouldn't be surprised if the jury convicts him anyway. If they acquit, the violence of the BLM mob will descend on them and their families. Which is, of course, what BLM intends to do - make people so afraid of opposing the narrative that they cave to mob violence.

What do you think BLM will do if Derek is convicted?

 

[Fields Of Rye]

Gather round kids let me tell you
Of the judge for Mr. Chauvin
On a tragic and faithful day

He put on his vest and breeches
Put a gavel in his pocket
and went out take take a little break

and did he ever return (No)
He never returned
And his fate is still unlearned
He may, break forever
neath the courts of Minnea
He's the judge that never returned.

Chauvin declared it just wasn't worth it
He' rather be locked away
"I'm guilty!" he screamed
10 more minutes!
Judgie was still out on his break

And did he ever return (No)
He never returned
And his fate is still unlearned
He may, break forever
neath the courts of Minnea
He's the judge who never returned.

 

[X Pac Heat]

What do you think BLM will do if Derek is convicted?

Celebratory riot.

 

[HarblMcDavid]

What a self centered cunt, honestly making this all about herself
bitch no one cares about you.
View attachment 2046386

The ratio is impressive. Zero likes on that tweet as of this writing.

 

[Leibowitz]

Derek is obviously innocent but I wouldn't be surprised if the jury convicts him anyway. If they acquit, the violence of the BLM mob will descend on them and their families. Which is, of course, what BLM intends to do - make people so afraid of opposing the narrative that they cave to mob violence.

If the case doesn't look like a slam dunk by the time the prosecution rests, I fully expect someone will pull shenanigans (like doxing or threatening the jurors) leading to a mistrial so the state can start all over again.

 

[Not Really Here]

I'm not familiar with how the United States justice system operates, so I'll ask something basic - can a judge/jury choose to completely ignore a medical expertise if it doesn't fit their bias towards a given case?

Yes.
It can be appealed later, but juries don't get overturned because they chose not to believe a witness.
An expert testifying is just another witness.

 

[Swerf'n'Terf]

This video on the OJ Simpson trial was recommended earlier, and I just got to this clip of Newsweek talking about the aftermath. This seems like a really relevant point in todays culture.

I didn't think about that when I posted but... yeah, basically. Johnny Cochran's got a lot to answer for,
Do keep an eye out for the black prosecutor saying 'get up or let up'. He's surely trying to evoke 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit'.

Does anyone actually know where this is supposed to go? Like what is the actual thrust of these witnesses? It all seems completely irrelevant in the long run. Guy who talked to him saying he was clearly high? Yeah okay sure. Random guy on street? But why though? Emotional manipulation?

I think they're trying to establish that black people didn't find him threatening, plus the emotional appeal of the little girl and the old guy (I'm just at the start of old guy's testimony). Possibly hoping the defense would cross aggressively and appear unsympathetic. IMO Nelson is doing really well at pitching his cross-examinations, he might be going a bit soft, but he's successfully avoiding the racism trap.

We haven't seen any expert witnesses yet. There will likely be a coroner or medical examiner (maybe two, testifying against each other). There might also be someone expert in police procedure or restraint techniques. Maybe one of the medics that took Floyd to hospital. I'm not American and I know shit about the law so pure guesswork...

Finally, if anyone wants the sheer vindictive thrill of watching a really aggressive prosecutor destroy a beyond-incompetent defense, go for any part of the Jodi Arias case, it's fucking savage.

Edit:

I'm not familiar with how the United States justice system operates, so I'll ask something basic - can a judge/jury choose to completely ignore a medical expertise if it doesn't fit their bias towards a given case?

This is a snippet of jury instructions in the Arias case. These were repeated before the jurors went to deliberate:

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts of this case, you should consider what testimony to accept, and what to reject. You may accept everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it.

In evaluating testimony, you should use the tests for truthfulness that people use in determining matters of importance in everyday life, including such factors as: the witness’s ability to see or hear or know the things the witness testified to; the quality of the witness’s memory; the witness’s manner while testifying; whether the witness had any motive, bias, or prejudice; whether the witness was contradicted by anything the witness said or wrote before trial, or by other evidence; and the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony when considered in the light of the other evidence.

Consider all of the evidence in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.

There will be something similar given to these jurors. Full text archive.

 

[Hard Right Cross-Claim]

Can the judge actually do anything or does the prosecution just have free reign to keep dragging in random street people as surprise witnesses forever?

There are no "surprise witnessess." This isn't Perry Mason.

 

[Fields Of Rye]

I'm not familiar with how the United States justice system operates, so I'll ask something basic - can a judge/jury choose to completely ignore a medical expertise if it doesn't fit their bias towards a given case?

So, the jury can deny literally anything. It's called Jury Nullification and it is the mass shooting equivalent for a lawyer to try and encourage. If the expert says "He was literally seconds till death" the the jury says "I don't care", that's a right they have. It's the whole reason for being tried by your peers.

If lawyers try to encourage it, I think they get debarred.

 

[Had]

we back
we got a cop tech nerd witness

 

[X Pac Heat]

Yeah, you can basically get out of any Jury Duty if you say you are aware of Jury Nullification I've heard. It's not supposed to be mentioned to jurors by anyone I believe.

 

[Ari Gold]

I didn't think about that when I posted but... yeah, basically. Johnny Cochran's got a lot to answer for,
Do keep an eye out for the black prosecutor saying 'get up or let up'. He's surely trying to evoke 'if it doesn't fit you must acquit'.


I think they're trying to establish that black people didn't find him threatening, plus the emotional appeal of the little girl and the old guy (I'm just at the start of old guy's testimony). Possibly hoping the defense would cross aggressively and appear unsympathetic. IMO Nelson is doing really well at pitching his cross-examinations, he might be going a bit soft, but he's successfully avoiding the racism trap.

We haven't seen any expert witnesses yet. There will likely be a coroner or medical examiner (maybe two, testifying against each other). There might also be someone expert in police procedure or restraint techniques. Maybe one of the medics that took Floyd to hospital. I'm not American and I know shit about the law so pure guesswork...

Finally, if anyone wants the sheer vindictive thrill of watching a really aggressive prosecutor destroy a beyond-incompetent defense, go for any part of the Jodi Arias case, it's fucking savage.

Do you see the defense calling any one? Or simply arguing that the burden has not been met? I legit don't see who the fuck they could call that the prosecution will not.

 

[Shovel Mech Pilot]

What do you think BLM will do if Derek is convicted?

Riot as always. They'll never pass up the chance for a free TV. But the jurors, if they do not convict, will be personally targeted and doxxed within 12 hours of the verdict.