Derek Chauvin Trial Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Derek Chauvin Trial Thread

Piell: Sep 3, 2006; Grey Worm's Ken doll-like groin throbbed with the anticipatory pleasure that only a slightly warm and moist piece of lemoncake could offer; Young Orc

Josef bugman posted:

But why? The damage is the same or greater in the case of the latter?

This is what I can't quite wrap my head around, and I am sorry if I am being thick. Why is it that someone who does damage in that moment is worthy of death but someone who has done greater harm does not deserve it in that moment? If the idea is that you can prevent the other person from taking life via violence, why does that not extend to those that would do more harm across a longer time frame?

Again, sorry if I am being slow.

Let's say Person A is going to kill Person B, right now. If I kill person A, then person B lives.
Now, take the case of Person C who has orchestrated the killing of person D & E last month (or hell, even killed them personally), and plans to kill person F next month. Killing C doesn't save anyone that putting them in prison doesn't also do.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 18:35

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

NoDamage posted:

What are you talking about? Posting a statistic that says tasers are not 100% effective is not the slam dunk you think it is and does not prove that they shouldn't be prioritized in scenarios where there is high risk to bystanders. Their failure rate should be balanced against the failure rate of gun use (statistics of which I've posted myself) and the consequences of failure in either case.

You're talking about the rate of operator error in gun use. The taser reliability issue that is being citied is on top of operator error. Tasers are not reliable even when the operator does everything right. You have no idea what you're talking about and haven't even addressed any of the factors I've mentioned nor why the use of force continuum is wrong for putting tasers below lethal force instead of as a replacement for it.

You also are overstating the risk to bystanders, based on the demonstrated reality of what happened.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:02

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

Josef bugman posted:

So it's only harm in the moment that means you should use deadly force? Wouldn't this mean that the person who arms the people who kill others is less likely to be punished than the ones who are acting on what they have been told to do?

It isn�t about right or wrong. The shooting and deadly force aren�t �justice�, they�re simply emergency acts to stop another act. Not judgements of guilt.
You have a conservative approach here, where the use of force by public servants has some sort of "justice-o-meter". They don't, and they sure as gently caress shouldn't.

Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Apr 22, 2021

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:03

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

NoDamage posted:

What are you talking about? Posting a statistic that says tasers are not 100% effective is not the slam dunk you think it is and does not prove that they shouldn't be prioritized in scenarios where there is high risk to bystanders. Their failure rate should be balanced against the failure rate of gun use (statistics of which I've posted myself) and the consequences of failure in either case.

The cop in this instance successfully used his gun, he clearly had confidence in his ability to kill the attacker to prevent the attacker killing the victim and do so safely in the alternatives

The failure rate and unreliability of a taser massively increases the risk to the intended victim. She was mid swing. Even if, and it�s a big if, the taser lands successfully, the electric current may not have prevented her as she was mid lunge at the victims head and throat.

Are you saying you would take that risk?

Not only does a taser take longer to draw, prime and fire, what if it doesn�t connect. Now you�ve got a girl with a knife who�s just stabbed someone to death, rounding on you, with said knife. You going to draw your gun and shoot now? What if she�s now stabbing someone else. What if she stabs you and then takes your gun and starts shooting people?

You want to talk about statistics, meanwhile, you�ve got a cop who actually signed up for the job, saving the life of a girl who another girl tried to kill. Your armchair quarterbacking is based on what expertise and experience with combat?

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:06

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Josef bugman posted:

But why? The damage is the same or greater in the case of the latter?

This is what I can't quite wrap my head around, and I am sorry if I am being thick. Why is it that someone who does damage in that moment is worthy of death but someone who has done greater harm does not deserve it in that moment? If the idea is that you can prevent the other person from taking life via violence, why does that not extend to those that would do more harm across a longer time frame?

Again, sorry if I am being slow.

You can stop this �lobotomized ethics student� schtick you�ve been carrying on for who know how long. People will still be happy to debate you.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:08

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Zore posted:

Because violence should be a last resort you use after all other options fail.

Did the officer in this case do that though?

idiotsavant posted:

Uh, absolutely? If I sell you a car and you go drive over some protestors with it I’m definitely less likely to be punished. Should I be to blame?

But instead of winding up hypotheticals just look at the direct question. Is it reasonable to immediately use deadly force to prevent someone else from immediately using deadly force on another person?

If I have told you "I am going to hit people with this" or "I lust for the deaths of thousands" quite possibly.

Do you want my own personal take? In general yes. However I am somewhat unsure about it when it comes to governments deciding to give themselves monopolies on force and its use. I, as an individual, could use violence. However a state should usually not.

Piell posted:

Let's say Person A is going to kill Person B, right now. If I kill person A, then person B lives.
Now, take the case of Person C who has orchestrated the killing of person D & E last month (or hell, even killed them personally), and plans to kill person F next month. Killing C doesn't save anyone that putting them in prison doesn't also do.

I accept those hypotehticals, however would it be okay if I proposed my own?

C is never likely to see the inside of a cell. They are abstracted from the point of any violence, they don't even harm anyone directly they just ensure that people die by ordering it and a vast and complex machine kills people at the end of it. Why is it not acceptable to do violence to C?

Baronash posted:

You can stop this �lobotomized ethics student� schtick you�ve been carrying on for who know how long. People will still be happy to debate you.

I'm trying to be polite, I don't like making people upset and this is not a "schtick".

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:09

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Too much focus is being placed on whether the cop was, in that exact moment, justified in taking the shot.

I want to hear more about the whole situation. Who called the cops and why, how long did it take them to arrive, what information did they have about the situation? Even if you want to argue the shoot was justified in that exact moment, I don't think it necessarily absolves the police of responsibility if they hosed up on the way to that exact moment.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:09

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Josef bugman posted:

But why? The damage is the same or greater in the case of the latter?

This is what I can't quite wrap my head around, and I am sorry if I am being thick. Why is it that someone who does damage in that moment is worthy of death but someone who has done greater harm does not deserve it in that moment? If the idea is that you can prevent the other person from taking life via violence, why does that not extend to those that would do more harm across a longer time frame?

Again, sorry if I am being slow.

Sometimes deadly force is necessary to prevent an immediate threat. If the threat is not immediate, then deadly force is not needed.

Nobody is arguing using deadly force is a good thing, it�s just necessary to prevent an immediate threat to someone else some times. Other than in that situation, deadly force isn�t necessary so won�t be used, because someone innocent isn�t literally about to die because of the person you need to stop. Alternative forms of preventing that person can then be used, like restraint and prison.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:10

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

PT6A posted:

Too much focus is being placed on whether the cop was, in that exact moment, justified in taking the shot.

I want to hear more about the whole situation. Who called the cops and why, how long did it take them to arrive, what information did they have about the situation? Even if you want to argue the shoot was justified in that exact moment, I don't think it necessarily absolves the police of responsibility if they hosed up on the way to that exact moment.

i am curious how long the fight was going on and who/how many called the cops.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:11

James Garfield: May 5, 2012; Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Josef bugman posted:

I accept those hypotehticals, however would it be okay if I proposed my own?

C is never likely to see the inside of a cell. They are abstracted from the point of any violence, they don't even harm anyone directly they just ensure that people die by ordering it and a vast and complex machine kills people at the end of it. Why is it not acceptable to do violence to C?

Because violence isn't appropriate as a punishment.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:13

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Josef bugman posted:

Did the officer in this case do that though?

People like myself and others have explained that yes, no humans have super powers, the only option for that police officer to realistically prevent harm to the girl who was being stabbed was to shoot the stabber.

Josef bugman posted:

I accept those hypotehticals, however would it be okay if I proposed my own?

C is never likely to see the inside of a cell. They are abstracted from the point of any violence, they don't even harm anyone directly they just ensure that people die by ordering it and a vast and complex machine kills people at the end of it. Why is it not acceptable to do violence to C?

I'm trying to be polite, I don't like making people upset and this is not a "schtick".

Give me an example of your scenario.

A crime lord or someone involved in organised crime ordering hit men to execute people from behind a desk? That�s a crime, they would be arrested for their involvement in the murder and see the inside of a cell. Do they need a swat team to breach his house and shoot him in the head? No, he�s not a physical threat to anyone.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:15

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

James Garfield posted:

Because violence isn't appropriate as a punishment.

So, it's okay to kill to prevent violence but not to do violence to people.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:18

knox_harrington: Feb 18, 2011; Running no point.

Josef bugman posted:

More to blame then if you would prefer. If the person trying to stab someone else at fault and must be killed, then why are the people who armed and encouraged such a situation not also as guilty? Why is it only the individual to blame, as it were?

So it's only harm in the moment that means you should use deadly force? Wouldn't this mean that the person who arms the people who kill others is less likely to be punished than the ones who are acting on what they have been told to do?

You need to read up on the law of self defense/ce. This (quite bad) thread aside, it is probably worthwhile you doing that anyway so you understand the UK law.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:18

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

Josef Bugman just be honest: are you trolling all of us? Is this a TobleroneTriangular situation? Just come clean if so. If not the only other explanation that makes sense to me is that you�re some sort of deep language AI program being tested and they forgot to program the �context� function.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:20

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Owlspiracy posted:

Josef Bugman just be honest: are you trolling all of us? Is this a TobleroneTriangular situation? Just come clean if so. If not the only other explanation that makes sense to me is that you�re some sort of deep language AI program being tested and they forgot to program the �context� function.

No? This is how I am?

If a rule is only applicable some of the time I'd like to find out why and where people draw that line. Because I often don't understand why people think the way they do. I'm sorry.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:21

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

PT6A posted:

Too much focus is being placed on whether the cop was, in that exact moment, justified in taking the shot.

I want to hear more about the whole situation. Who called the cops and why, how long did it take them to arrive, what information did they have about the situation? Even if you want to argue the shoot was justified in that exact moment, I don't think it necessarily absolves the police of responsibility if they hosed up on the way to that exact moment.

Yeah, I think we're just kind of stuck on this right now because it's the only thing we have information on. I'm still expecting the cops hosed this up somehow for this situation to get to this.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:24

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Josef bugman posted:

So, it's okay to kill to prevent violence but not to do violence to people.

Killing people is violent. It is ok to commit violence to prevent someone committing violence on someone innocent.

I�ve punched someone recently, that�s violent, I punched them because they were strangling someone else who they shouldn�t of been strangling, it stopped them strangling that other person. I was not arrested by the filth and would of been a witness to the crime of strangulation had they not pled guilty.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:26

Calamity Brain: Jan 27, 2011; California Dreamin'

This is basically the trolley problem, except on the other track is the guy who decided to tie a bunch of people to the railroad tracks. (edit: I should really clarify I'm definitely not referring to the actual shooting in this case, just the general philosophical debate that's been occurring over the last page or so)

Josef bugman posted:

No? This is how I am?

If a rule is only applicable some of the time I'd like to find out why and where people draw that line. Because I often don't understand why people think the way they do. I'm sorry.

People are just frustrated because most people agree that:
Violence to person A is appropriate (if not morally obligatory, at times) IF
Person A is knowingly committing a very violent act towards person B
AND the only way to prevent said violent act is to perform a violent act towards person A

Which, of course, you're free to debate! But people I think are exasperated that you seem to not be familiar with this widespread (but admittedly not airtight) belief, as if it's a really novel concept.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:27

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Jarmak posted:

Yeah, I think we're just kind of stuck on this right now because it's the only thing we have information on. I'm still expecting the cops hosed this up somehow for this situation to get to this.

Lots of people have pointed out that there may have been a serious failure from across lots of different sectors for this girl to be attacking people with a knife.

I think someone has pointed out that her carers, rather than stopping her getting a knife and trying to stab multiple people, were actively attempting to kick other girls she had attacked in the head after they were floored by her. That�s utter madness to me here in the UK, how in gently caress were they able to foster her.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:29

James Garfield: May 5, 2012; Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Josef bugman posted:

So, it's okay to kill to prevent violence but not to do violence to people.

Is this supposed to be a sick gotcha?

Obviously if murdering people were ok, there would be no reason to shoot someone to stop them from murdering people.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:29

NoDamage: Dec 2, 2000

Jarmak posted:

You're talking about the rate of operator error in gun use. The taser reliability issue that is being citied is on top of operator error. Tasers are not reliable even when the operator does everything right.

Yes, you could miss with a taser too. Now consider what happens if you accidentally shoot a bystander with a taser versus shooting them with a gun.

quote:

You have no idea what you're talking about and haven't even addressed any of the factors I've mentioned nor why the use of force continuum is wrong for putting tasers below lethal force instead of as a replacement for it.

You're citing a bunch of rules made up by cops to legally justify why they should be able to open fire whenever the gently caress they want even if innocent people might get hit in the process. It's not set in stone and is something that should absolutely be reconsidered, considering, you know, the entire issue this country has with police shooting people unnecessarily.

quote:

You also are overstating the risk to bystanders, based on the demonstrated reality of what happened.

I don't think I am, when over half of the shots cops fire end up missing their intended target. Pointing out in hindsight that this particular situation worked out okay (aside from the person that died, of course) doesn't change the overall statistics.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:30

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

the king of the hill carton of cigarettes scene but with murder

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:30

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

NoDamage posted:

Yes, you could miss with a taser too. Now consider what happens if you accidentally shoot a bystander with a taser versus shooting them with a gun.
You're citing a bunch of rules made up by cops to legally justify why they should be able to open fire whenever the gently caress they want even if innocent people might get hit in the process. It's not set in stone and is something that should absolutely be reconsidered, considering, you know, the entire issue this country has with police shooting people unnecessarily.
I don't think I am, when over half of the shots cops fire end up missing their intended target. Pointing out in hindsight that this particular situation worked out okay (aside from the person that died, of course) doesn't change the overall statistics.

Are you comparing all police shootings with this exact scenario of shot. Large target, close range, car as a back stop, etc etc?

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:33

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

willie_dee posted:

Lots of people have pointed out that there may have been a serious failure from across lots of different sectors for this girl to be attacking people with a knife.

I think someone has pointed out that her carers, rather than stopping her getting a knife and trying to stab multiple people, were actively attempting to kick other girls she had attacked in the head after they were floored by her. That�s utter madness to me here in the UK, how in gently caress were they able to foster her.

you can see her foster dad De Niro kicking a girl in the head just before she is shot.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:33

Sjs00: Jun 29, 2013; Yeah Baby Yeah !

I feel like I have read 'you have no idea what you're talking about' over a dozen times now
Does anyone know what the gently caress theyre even talking about

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:37

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

DetoxP posted:

People are just frustrated because most people agree that:
Violence to person A is appropriate (if not morally obligatory, at times) IF
Person A is knowingly committing a very violent act towards person B
AND the only way to prevent said violent act is to perform a violent act towards person A

Which, of course, you're free to debate! But people I think are exasperated that you seem to not be familiar with this widespread (but admittedly not airtight) belief, as if it's a really novel concept.

That's fair. It's probably me being poo poo at talking about stuff again.

James Garfield posted:

Is this supposed to be a sick gotcha?

Obviously if murdering people were ok, there would be no reason to shoot someone to stop them from murdering people.

Not in any way. It's intended to have me sounding a tad confused but I don't dunk on people who I'm talking with?

But this is the thing, your initial idea is based around "this person is going to do immediate harm, I had best kill them". Would the IRA therefore have been in the right to blow up Thatcher? She was going to get a lot of people in Northern Ireland killed, so blowing her up would prevent that happening!

The problem is that if you are able to justify "I think you are a threat and you should be killed to prevent the harm you will do" becomes a touch more fraught when it begins to be applied more widely, is what I am getting at.

-new thread created, can delete if folks would prefer-

Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Apr 22, 2021

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:37

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Hello, a new thread has been made! If you have thoughts about the police's use of firearms, the killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, or really anything else about American Policing that is more related to yesterday's killing than to the Chauvin Trial, please take it to that thread so that this one can remain on some semblance of topic. :siren:

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:38

NoDamage: Dec 2, 2000

willie_dee posted:

The cop in this instance successfully used his gun, he clearly had confidence in his ability to kill the attacker to prevent the attacker killing the victim and do so safely in the alternatives

The failure rate and unreliability of a taser massively increases the risk to the intended victim. She was mid swing. Even if, and it�s a big if, the taser lands successfully, the electric current may not have prevented her as she was mid lunge at the victims head and throat.

Are you saying you would take that risk?

Not only does a taser take longer to draw, prime and fire, what if it doesn�t connect. Now you�ve got a girl with a knife who�s just stabbed someone to death, rounding on you, with said knife. You going to draw your gun and shoot now? What if she�s now stabbing someone else. What if she stabs you and then takes your gun and starts shooting people?

You want to talk about statistics, meanwhile, you�ve got a cop who actually signed up for the job, saving the life of a girl who another girl tried to kill. Your armchair quarterbacking is based on what expertise and experience with combat?

Not sure I should bother responding to this considering the :eng101:

I am very tough :eng101:

vibes coming across here... but I don't know why you're assuming the other girl would have died when:

quote:

Stab wounds occur four times more than gunshot wounds in the United Kingdom, but the mortality rate associated with stabbing has ranged from 0-4% as 85% of injuries sustained from stab wounds only affect subcutaneous tissue.[7][9][27]

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:38

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Paracaidas posted:

Hello, a new thread has been made! If you have thoughts about the police's use of firearms, the killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, or really anything else about American Policing that is more related to yesterday's killing than to the Chauvin Trial, please take it to that thread so that this one can remain on some semblance of topic.

thanks.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:39

Josef bugman: Nov 17, 2011; Pictured: Poster prepares to celebrate Holy Communion (probablY)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

-New thread-

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:39

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

Josef bugman posted:

No? This is how I am?

If a rule is only applicable some of the time I'd like to find out why and where people draw that line. Because I often don't understand why people think the way they do. I'm sorry.

Shooting nazis in war: ok
Shooting surrendering nazis in war: not ok
Shooting a nazi war criminal who is arrested at his house: not ok
Shooting a nazi war criminal who whips out a pistol when the police close in, and aims at the cops: ok

It is not �not some of the time�. It is literally all the time the same thing. Lethal Force by the government should only be used to stop immediate danger to life. Any other time, alternative solutions should be used, unless the situation devolves into life-death, where using lethal force becomes ok for that fraction of a time again.

There�s no judgement. A dude steals a candy bar, but then tried to shoot the cop who asks him �oi wots this then�. You can return fire, that�s fine.

A dude who killed fifteen people but isn�t resisting arrest? No, you can�t kill him or shoot him.

-new thread ok done-

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:39

ryde: Sep 9, 2011; God I love young girls

Sjs00 posted:

I feel like I have read 'you have no idea what you're talking about' over a dozen times now
Does anyone know what the gently caress theyre even talking about

This is the something awful forums so no.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:40

Relentless: Sep 22, 2007; It's a perfect day for some mayhem!

In isolation, there's an argument that the cop did the right thing shooting that girl. Eminent danger, defense of others, etc.

But that's not where the anger is coming from. There was a SERIES of systemic failures that landed Ma'Khia in that situation. Foster care, with adults around her who weren't helping, and an argument that she thought was going to escalate to the point where she called the cops about it.

This shooting doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists in an environment where a cop who tortured and slowly murdered a black man on camera didn't think he did anything wrong, and appeared SHOCKED that he was found guilty an HOUR before this went down. An environment where cops have gotten away with shooting African Americans with no repercussions for LITERAL DECADES. No individual circumstances can negate that. An environment where cops have been killing 3 people PER DAY during Chauvin's trial.

Maybe that cop did everything he was supposed to and that was the right call at the time. That doesn't change the fact that a situation was created that lead to the death of a 16 year old black girl when it shouldn't have, and the police are a part of that situation. It doesn't change that statistically if she'd been white, she'd be alive. Maybe with burn marks or a broken arm, but alive. There is no acceptable path that should have lead to Ma'Khia dying yesterday. Any number of people SHOULD have done something before it reached the point of her being murdered by the the cops she called 15 minutes earlier. That's why we're loving pissed.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 00:56

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Lord Stimperor posted:

I'm.sorry for just kramering in.

Has it been addressed here or elsewhere what the chances are on an appeal on the Chauvin conviction? Will the conviction be safe?

How dare you interrupt with discussion of the thread topic, Lord Stimperor?!

(I'd appreciate if someone more qualified took a crack at this, but as an initial effort post)
There is a belief among right wing media and the general police bootlickers that Chauvin's conviction will be overturned on appeal. Depending on the depth of the fever swamps, a few reasons commonly listed are:

The ruling allowing Chauvin to be charged and tried with 3rd degree murder is being appealed to the state supreme court and it was improper to take any action in the trial, including jury selection, with that charge attached until the state supreme court issues a ruling.
The city announced its $27m settlement with the Floyd family on the eve of the trial, unfairly prejudicing the already-selected jurors and unfairly impeding Chauvin's defense.
Maxine Waters Said A Thing
Joe Biden Said A Thing
Jurors were not sequestered until deliberations, perhaps most specifically on the heels of the killing of Daunte Wright.
The trial was held in Minneapolis, with Judge Cahill denying Chauvin's request for a change of venue.
Prosecutors wanted to (but did not directly) rebut a defense witness with evidence that they improperly denied to the defense
Prosecutors mocked, belittled, and otherwise were mean to Nelson

In all of these cases, Judge Cahill determined that they did not prevent or obstruct a fair trial. Nelson will be appealing that Judge Cahill was wrong in those decisions. I'm not equipped to discuss the actual standards at play (again, anyone more qualified is urged to jump in), but in paraphrased and overly generalized form, a successful appeal will be challenging for these reasons:

The appeals court will not just need to disagree with Cahill's decision, they will need to declare that it is wrong (contrary to the evidence or otherwise an abuse of discretion). "I'd have ruled differently" isn't sufficient, it needs to be "I'd have ruled differently and Cahill was clearly wrong to rule as he did". Mere disagreement will not result in a successful appeal.
Any error that passed the first test will have to be shown to have caused harm to Chauvin. To use a totally absurd example, Chauvin may appeal that the judge erred by sequestering the jury at a location that served only meat-lovers pizzas and hotdogs and that, as there were vegetarians on the jury, this put undue pressure on them to quickly assent to the majority's decision because they were hungry and further deliberation (and a potential hung jury) would have meant starvation. If one juror testified that she was only vegetarian because of her partner's dietary preferences so she actually ate the meat lovers pizza and please don't snitch her out, and the other said he had no objection to picking the meat toppings off of his pizza, so both were well-fed and not undernourished or in any way pressured, the appeals court would find that Cahill hosed up by limiting the dietary options of the jurors but that because it was harmless and didn't impact the verdict, the conviction stands

My understanding from a few lawyers I've seen on twitter (and cannot currently find, so take with all the grains of all the salt) is that this is made even more difficult for Chauvin because of the video and the focus on it at trial.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:10

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Lord Stimperor posted:

I'm.sorry for just kramering in.

Has it been addressed here or elsewhere what the chances are on an appeal on the Chauvin conviction? Will the conviction be safe?

So, I am not a lawyer, but there's a MN criminal defense attorney that made a great effort post on Reddit, in which they went over this issue (along with sentencing/trials for other officers). This is what they said:

quote:

After Chauvin's sentenced, how long will his appeals take?

Nelson will begin work on them immediately. But realistically the first appellate court to decide anything, the MN Court of Appeals, won't hear argument for over a year from now, and they won't issue a decision until months after that. If the CoA doesn't help Chauvin, then it will take approximately another year or so for the MN Supreme Court to hear his appeal and decide issues of their own.

If Minnesota courts deny Chauvin's appeals, can the US Supreme Court grant an appeal?

Yes. Chauvin will be appealing many issues that a federal court will have authority to decide.

What issues will Chauvin be appealing?

Almost certainly, he will be appealing the denial of the change of venue, as well as the denial of Nelson's request to sequester the jury during selection and the trial itself, as a violation of statutory and constitutional rights to defense under both Minnesota and federal law. He may also appeal the way in which evidence was disclosed in a disorganized and late fashion at times, and the manner in which the State was allowed to call so many eyewitnesses and expert witnesses who testified to more or less the same information, as a violation of rules of evidence, rules of criminal procedure, and constitutional or statutory due process. There are probably several others as well, but no need to go into all of them here. All of these issues could foreseeably land in front of the US Supreme Court depending on how badly the SCOTUS wants to address issues that it finds lacking from the MN Supreme Court.

Two issues that is more likely to come down only to the MN Supremes are: (1) is the Murder 3 conviction proper for the facts of this case? (see Noor case, appealing the same issue); and (2) whether the prosecution committed prosecutorial misconduct by belittling Eric Nelson in its closing argument. Those particular issue rest almost solely on MN state law, and are not something the US Supreme Court would likely be able to consider.

Will Chauvin win on appeal?

I am not commenting on Chauvin's chances of winning any of these issues. It's not productive to do so. Nobody knows how his appeals will shake out. But I can say what could happen below.

If Chauvin wins an appeal, what could happen?

There are four possible outcomes of an appeal:

The higher court upholds the trial court's decision and affirms the guilty verdict.

The higher court overturns the trial court's decision on an issue, but holds that it was harmless error because of other overwhelming evidence of guilt, and still affirms the guilty verdict.

The higher court overturns the trial court's decision on an issue in the case, finds it was not harmless error, and declares a mistrial, ordering that a new trial be held.

The higher court overturns the trial court's decision on an issue in the case, finds it was not harmless error, and dismisses the case against Chauvin with prejudice.

The last option is extremely unlikely and almost never happens. The only times it happens are when a prosecution has been proven to have engaged in bad faith violations of ethics rules, like concealing exculpatory evidence from the defense. That does not appear to be an issue in dispute in this case. Now, the other three options? Any of them could happen depending on things way outside our ability to predict right now.

The whole post can be found at https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/mv1sli/chauvin_sentencing_and_beyond_answering_your/

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:16

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

NoDamage posted:

Yes, you could miss with a taser too. Now consider what happens if you accidentally shoot a bystander with a taser versus shooting them with a gun.
You're citing a bunch of rules made up by cops to legally justify why they should be able to open fire whenever the gently caress they want even if innocent people might get hit in the process. It's not set in stone and is something that should absolutely be reconsidered, considering, you know, the entire issue this country has with police shooting people unnecessarily.
I don't think I am, when over half of the shots cops fire end up missing their intended target. Pointing out in hindsight that this particular situation worked out okay (aside from the person that died, of course) doesn't change the overall statistics.

So you don't even understand what the use of force/escalation of force continuum even is. Because it's existence is there to do the literal opposite of what you're saying and is part of the evidence that was used to convict Chauvin.

You can't just say, sans context, that cops miss targets so shooting bad idea. You haven't presented a single cogent argument as to why this time the shot was more dangerous than letting a girl get stabbed. Not a single comment on sight picture, range, back stop, or why any of it was wrong, nothing. Just making up poo poo and handwaving away everything that's been explained to you, in detail, ad nauseam.

We're at the "knives actually aren't a threat" level of argument.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:28

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Jarmak posted:

So you don't even understand what the use of force/escalation of force continuum even is. Because it's existence is there to do the literal opposite of what you're saying and is part of the evidence that was used to convict Chauvin.

You can't just say, sans context, that cops miss targets so shooting bad idea. You haven't presented a single cogent argument as to why this time the shot was more dangerous than letting a girl get stabbed. Not a single comment on sight picture, range, back stop, or why any of it was wrong, nothing. Just making up poo poo and handwaving away everything that's been explained to you, in detail, ad nauseam.

We're at the "knives actually aren't a threat" level of argument.

Move it to the other thread created for this discussion I think wound be best.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:32

Dapper_Swindler: Feb 14, 2012; Im glad my instant dislike in you has been validated again and again.

Kalit posted:

So, I am not a lawyer, but there's a MN criminal defense attorney that made a great effort post on Reddit, in which they went over this issue (along with sentencing/trials for other officers). This is what they said:

The whole post can be found at https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/mv1sli/chauvin_sentencing_and_beyond_answering_your/

yeah. i don't think he is winning an appeal at this point. like they can shout about waters and biden and poo poo, but the world saw the 9 min 23 seconds and he still got convicted. his chance for escape was yesterday and they blew it.

what i am curious about is the other officers who helped him. i wouldnt be shocked if at least one of them pleads guilty.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:40

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Dapper_Swindler posted:

yeah. i don't think he is winning an appeal at this point. like they can shout about waters and biden and poo poo, but the world saw the 9 min 23 seconds and he still got convicted. his chance for escape was yesterday and they blew it.

what i am curious about is the other officers who helped him. i wouldnt be shocked if at least one of them pleads guilty.

It'll be interesting. If the author of that reddit post is correct, it sounds like a huge uphill battle to convict those other three since they cannot use Chauvin's trial as evidence. Maybe they can plea deal everyone down enough where they'll take it.

The big question in my mind is if the state tries harder to go after Thao, who was openly antagonistic to the crowd (e.g. saying "Don't do drugs, kids"). Also, if they'll show more leniency with Lane, since he suggested twice to move Floyd to the side recovery position.

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 18:35

Kirios: Jan 26, 2010

Paracaidas posted:

Hello, a new thread has been made! If you have thoughts about the police's use of firearms, the killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, or really anything else about American Policing that is more related to yesterday's killing than to the Chauvin Trial, please take it to that thread so that this one can remain on some semblance of topic.

Oh my God finally, thank you! Got so sick of this circular logic discussion.

(Back to lurking)

# ? Apr 22, 2021 01:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Derek Chauvin Trial Thread

«‹›32 »