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

ILL Machina posted:

How the eff do you get a jury for this

You round up the stupidest morons and the most cop loving people who pinky swear they won't let it effect them

# ¿ Apr 1, 2021 23:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 21:47

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

ILL Machina posted:

Yeah good call but the more I think about it, the more I'm requesting an effort post on the specific process in this case.

Both teams usually get a fixed set of arbitrary objections along with bias objections, at least in WA, and I guess that favors the defender in a public case like this because you have to find nononline people. Just wondering how similar things are in this context.

To be less sarcastic, it's not nearly as bad as that in this case, here's an article about it.

quote:

In Chauvin�s case, the jury selection process began months before the potential jurors started answering questions in court; the jury pool received an extensive 16-page questionnaire in the mail in December.

Potential jurors were asked if they had seen the video of Floyd�s death and, if so, how many times. They were quizzed on their media consumption and asked whether they marched in protests after Floyd died, and, if so, whether they carried signs.
...
Jury selection for the Chauvin trial began in early March. One at a time, potential jurors were quizzed by the judge and attorneys.

Their answers were highlighted and dissected, with each side looking for evidence of bias. Some jurors were questioned for less than 10 minutes, others closer to an hour. Each side was allotted peremptory challenges, allowing them to dismiss jurors without cause. Chauvin�s defense used 14 of its 18 strikes. Prosecutors were given 10 and used eight. Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter A. Cahill, who is overseeing the case, had the unlimited ability to dismiss jurors for cause.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2021 00:29

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

I think the cases are pretty different to the point where I think Rittenhouse is a way more likely to get off free than Chauvin.

Rittenhouse has an actual defense of "well I was scared!!!" that will probably work to avoid a guilty verdict even though it shouldn't.

Chauvin doesn't really have a way to make that defense believable to even the chuds, you'll notice that their typical online defense is "he died of a drug overdose, ignore the knee on his neck, it was drugs!!!!!

# ¿ Apr 3, 2021 15:36

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

Dapper_Swindler posted:

https://twitter.com/ReutersLegal/status/1382389539428134914

yeah, they are scraping through the bottom of the barrel today.

Upon closer inspection, this barrel is empty https://twitter.com/thelauracoates/status/1382404322953138177?s=20

# ¿ Apr 14, 2021 20:04

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

Sjs00 posted:

is it done for today?

Nope, its a 20 minute break

# ¿ Apr 14, 2021 21:07

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

The actual defense is "you can't convict Chauvin of murder because the crowd was angry and concerned that he was murdering Floyd"
https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja/status/1384207380263571457?s=20

# ¿ Apr 19, 2021 19:15

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

Sky Shadowing posted:

... is this dude's defense right now seriously "yes I know all those doctors told you that such a small amount of meth in his system wouldn't have had any effect on Mr. Floyd but what do THEY know?"

Yes
https://twitter.com/UR_Ninja/status/1384223930777436165

# ¿ Apr 19, 2021 20:28

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

Verdict incoming in the next hour and a half
https://twitter.com/michaelhayes/status/1384589957524860929

# ¿ Apr 20, 2021 20:30

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:

Are you saying that it's fine he killed someone? To reverse the question.

If you are happy to accept violence towards people to prevent harm then where are you drawing the line on that?

It's generally ok to kill people who are actively attempting murder, in order to stop them

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 23:33

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:

What about those who have orchestrated murders? Are they not just as, if not more, accountable?

Why? Why draw the line there?

People who orchestrate murder but aren't doing a murder right now generally don't need to actively stopped doing a murder right this second, whereas the person attempting to murder someone right now does need to be stopped right this second

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 23:43

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:

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?

It is generally ok to kill people who are actively trying to murder someone at this moment because they need to be stopped right this second, not people who orchestrate murders are any less guilty

# ¿ Apr 21, 2021 23:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 21:47

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

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