Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Labbos]

But we shouldn't make such extreme suggestions without good evidence. Would you be happy if someone made such an extreme suggestion about you based on only a feeling?

That's fair. I'm only sharing my opinion and not preaching it like it's a fact.

OK, so would you be happy for me to make this speculation following the format of your own post?

I wonder if Diarcesia thinks Shapiro deserves to be killed because in Diarcesia's eyes, Shapiro is a Jew.

If you still think that sort of question is fine, then I'll add it to my signature. If you see my point about asking questions like that implying that they might well be true, then I won't.

[South Americanastan]

Wait, isn't it illegal for people to be punished for things they say in a courtroom?

Not only "No, absolutely not", but quite the opposite. We have special rules in place to punish people for cartain things they say in a courtroom, which they would never be punished for outside of a courtroom. Punishment for perjury is a thing, for example.

I more meant "Truthful testimony that implicates crime" or what was happening here, where a medical examiner said that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd

[Seangoli]

Not only "No, absolutely not", but quite the opposite. We have special rules in place to punish people for cartain things they say in a courtroom, which they would never be punished for outside of a courtroom. Punishment for perjury is a thing, for example.

I more meant "Truthful testimony that implicates crime" or what was happening here, where a medical examiner said that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd

In this case, he is operating as an expert witness giving expert opinion based testimony. As opinions are not statements of fact, they are not perjurous *unless* the individual knowingly gives an opinion they believe to be false in order to provide false evidence.

He is capable of both believing his opinion to be true *and* being wrong without committing perjury; it only becomes perjury if he gives an opinion that is not his actual opinion, or knowingly gives false testimony on the facts to support his opinion.

Perjury requires explicit intent; simply giving testimony that is not accurate or is provably wrong is not enough. He needs to have done so intentionally, with the intent to deceive.

[Gravlen]

Not only "No, absolutely not", but quite the opposite. We have special rules in place to punish people for cartain things they say in a courtroom, which they would never be punished for outside of a courtroom. Punishment for perjury is a thing, for example.

I more meant "Truthful testimony that implicates crime" or what was happening here, where a medical examiner said that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd

Doesn't matter. You can absolutely be punished for things you say in a court of law. The example of the perjury rule just shows that it actually goes further than outside the courtroom.

So if you go to testify and you drop a bombshell like "I know Frank is innocent. He wasn't there when John was murdered. I know, because I was there when he died!", be prepared to be criminally prosecuted for your truthful testimony that implicates you in a crime.

It could also have serious civil consequences, which would of course not be punishment, as well.

[South Americanastan]

I more meant "Truthful testimony that implicates crime" or what was happening here, where a medical examiner said that Derek Chauvin did not kill George Floyd

Doesn't matter. You can absolutely be punished for things you say in a court of law. The example of the perjury rule just shows that it actually goes further than outside the courtroom.

So if you go to testify and you drop a bombshell like "I know Frank is innocent. He wasn't there when John was murdered. I know, because I was there when he died!", be prepared to be criminally prosecuted for your truthful testimony that implicates you in a crime.

It could also have serious civil consequences, which would of course not be punishment, as well.

Well what about what happened to the examiner, it's not perjury, he didn't implicate himself in a crime, and the institution punishing him is a government institution?

[Gravlen]

Doesn't matter. You can absolutely be punished for things you say in a court of law. The example of the perjury rule just shows that it actually goes further than outside the courtroom.

So if you go to testify and you drop a bombshell like "I know Frank is innocent. He wasn't there when John was murdered. I know, because I was there when he died!", be prepared to be criminally prosecuted for your truthful testimony that implicates you in a crime.

It could also have serious civil consequences, which would of course not be punishment, as well.

Well what about what happened to the examiner, it's not perjury, he didn't implicate himself in a crime, and the institution punishing him is a government institution?

Perhaps most importantly, he is not being punished.

His previous work is being reviewed because his testimony showed there's reason to believe he's bad at his job, and that his work doesn't conform to accepted standards.

The announcement came less than 24 hours after the attorney general’s office received a letter from the former medical examiner of Washington, D.C., Roger A. Mitchell, signed by 431 doctors from around the country, saying Fowler’s testimony and conclusions were so far outside the bounds of accepted forensic practice that all his previous work could come into question. “Dr. Fowler’s stated opinion that George Floyd’s death during active police restraint should be certified with an ‘undetermined’ manner is outside the standard practice and conventions for investigating and certification of in-custody deaths. This stated opinion raises significant concerns for his previous practice and management,” the letter said.

[Ethel mermania]

Doesn't matter. You can absolutely be punished for things you say in a court of law. The example of the perjury rule just shows that it actually goes further than outside the courtroom.

So if you go to testify and you drop a bombshell like "I know Frank is innocent. He wasn't there when John was murdered. I know, because I was there when he died!", be prepared to be criminally prosecuted for your truthful testimony that implicates you in a crime.

It could also have serious civil consequences, which would of course not be punishment, as well.

Well what about what happened to the examiner, it's not perjury, he didn't implicate himself in a crime, and the institution punishing him is a government institution?

The state of Maryland is saying if what is a clear case of murder to us, is not one to him, we may want to look at his cases where this may have happened for review

He isn't being punished except for his professional reputation is being trashed. If the state is lying, he can sue

[Seangoli]

Doesn't matter. You can absolutely be punished for things you say in a court of law. The example of the perjury rule just shows that it actually goes further than outside the courtroom.

So if you go to testify and you drop a bombshell like "I know Frank is innocent. He wasn't there when John was murdered. I know, because I was there when he died!", be prepared to be criminally prosecuted for your truthful testimony that implicates you in a crime.

It could also have serious civil consequences, which would of course not be punishment, as well.

Well what about what happened to the examiner, it's not perjury, he didn't implicate himself in a crime, and the institution punishing him is a government institution?

He's not being punished as of yet. Given his previous determinations are a matter of public record, the State could hypothetically review all of his work at any time for any reason. They don't simply because that is a *lot* of work just to perform due diligence, and they trusted his expert opinion. His credibility was called into question, so they are reviewing his work as a previous examiner to determine if his previous conclusions were accurate. They could do this at any time if they wanted, but had little reason to undertake the massive amount of work needed.

He's not being punished in the least at this point. He will only face punishment if they find evidence of intentionally falsifying his reports, which are a matter of public record and free to be examined at any time by any person.

[Seangoli]

Well what about what happened to the examiner, it's not perjury, he didn't implicate himself in a crime, and the institution punishing him is a government institution?

The state of Maryland is saying if what is a clear case of murder to us, is not one to him, we may want to look at his cases where this may have happened for review

He isn't being punished except for his professional reputation is being trashed. If the state is lying, he can sue

To be frank, there is nothing to sue the state for. They aren't the ones making claims towards his credibility; instead they are responding to claims made by others by making a review of his previous examinations and records.

[Eahland]

lmaooooooooooo

The defense witness Dr. David Fowler's work on in-custody death reports as Chief Medical Examiner of Maryland is going to be be re-examined

The guy should've known not to contradict the opinion of violent rioters!

TIL that hundreds of medical doctors are "violent rioters".

[Grinning Dragon]

The state of Maryland is saying if what is a clear case of murder to us, is not one to him, we may want to look at his cases where this may have happened for review

He isn't being punished except for his professional reputation is being trashed. If the state is lying, he can sue

To be frank, there is nothing to sue the state for. They aren't the ones making claims towards his credibility; instead they are responding to claims made by others by making a review of his previous examinations and records.

Wait. Trying to understand this, if a medical examiner comes to a different conclusion than what is perceived by the public opinion as murder is the basis for looking into past cases?

[Seangoli]

To be frank, there is nothing to sue the state for. They aren't the ones making claims towards his credibility; instead they are responding to claims made by others by making a review of his previous examinations and records.

Wait. Trying to understand this, if a medical examiner comes to a different conclusion than what is perceived by the public opinion as murder is the basis for looking into past cases?

Literally anything can be a basis for it, up to and including the State just wanting to do it for no particular reason.

They don't, because doing so is labor and resource intensive, and they typically assume their medical examiners are experienced enough to provide thorough, accurate interpretations of the work. In this case, the impetus wasn't because he disagreed with the public, but rather that a large body of medical professionals attested that portions of his testimony was so far outside the bounds of good practice, that it raises questions about his professional credibility and quality. This is not a moot point, as his determinations and opinions as a medical examiner were used as evidence in criminal proceedings, meaning that grievous errors in his interpretations in other cases could lead to failures in the justice system.

Basically, it's not merely that he provided expert testimony contradictory to the state witnesses that is calling his credibility into question; rather, the specific conclusions he made are claimed to be so far outside the norm of typical professional good practice that it is cause for concern of his previous work.

[Grinning Dragon]

Wait. Trying to understand this, if a medical examiner comes to a different conclusion than what is perceived by the public opinion as murder is the basis for looking into past cases?

Literally anything can be a basis for it, up to and including the State just wanting to do it for no particular reason.

They don't, because doing so is labor and resource intensive, and they typically assume their medical examiners are experienced enough to provide thorough, accurate interpretations of the work. In this case, the impetus wasn't because he disagreed with the public, but rather that a large body of medical professionals attested that portions of his testimony was so far outside the bounds of good practice, that it raises questions about his professional credibility and quality. This is not a moot point, as his determinations and opinions as a medical examiner were used as evidence in criminal proceedings, meaning that grievous errors in his interpretations in other cases could lead to failures in the justice system.

Basically, it's not merely that he provided expert testimony contradictory to the state witnesses that is calling his credibility into question; rather, the specific conclusions he made are claimed to be so far outside the norm of typical professional good practice that it is cause for concern of his previous work.

Ah ok, I understand now. Then in this regard imo this particular medical examiner is just shit as his job.

[Diarcesia]

Literally anything can be a basis for it, up to and including the State just wanting to do it for no particular reason.

They don't, because doing so is labor and resource intensive, and they typically assume their medical examiners are experienced enough to provide thorough, accurate interpretations of the work. In this case, the impetus wasn't because he disagreed with the public, but rather that a large body of medical professionals attested that portions of his testimony was so far outside the bounds of good practice, that it raises questions about his professional credibility and quality. This is not a moot point, as his determinations and opinions as a medical examiner were used as evidence in criminal proceedings, meaning that grievous errors in his interpretations in other cases could lead to failures in the justice system.

Basically, it's not merely that he provided expert testimony contradictory to the state witnesses that is calling his credibility into question; rather, the specific conclusions he made are claimed to be so far outside the norm of typical professional good practice that it is cause for concern of his previous work.

Ah ok, I understand now. Then in this regard imo this particular medical examiner is just shit as his job.

Exactly. Reminds me of a story I came across where they reviewed a certain detective's past work when it was discovered he framed someone innocent.

[Ethel mermania]

The state of Maryland is saying if what is a clear case of murder to us, is not one to him, we may want to look at his cases where this may have happened for review

He isn't being punished except for his professional reputation is being trashed. If the state is lying, he can sue

To be frank, there is nothing to sue the state for. They aren't the ones making claims towards his credibility; instead they are responding to claims made by others by making a review of his previous examinations and records.

Hi Frank,

Depends on what happens after their review is completed and the statements they make.

From my point of view, in the interests of Justice the review is a reasonable one to make

[Seangoli]

Literally anything can be a basis for it, up to and including the State just wanting to do it for no particular reason.

They don't, because doing so is labor and resource intensive, and they typically assume their medical examiners are experienced enough to provide thorough, accurate interpretations of the work. In this case, the impetus wasn't because he disagreed with the public, but rather that a large body of medical professionals attested that portions of his testimony was so far outside the bounds of good practice, that it raises questions about his professional credibility and quality. This is not a moot point, as his determinations and opinions as a medical examiner were used as evidence in criminal proceedings, meaning that grievous errors in his interpretations in other cases could lead to failures in the justice system.

Basically, it's not merely that he provided expert testimony contradictory to the state witnesses that is calling his credibility into question; rather, the specific conclusions he made are claimed to be so far outside the norm of typical professional good practice that it is cause for concern of his previous work.

Ah ok, I understand now. Then in this regard imo this particular medical examiner is just shit as his job.

Specifically, it was his claim that Carbon Monoxide poisoning from the tailpipe could have been the cause of death, coupled with stating he views the cause of death as undetermined. The former is bizarre speculation from a pure medical standpoint as the vehicle was off and they were outside, and there was no indication in the ME report that would even begin to suggest carbon monoxide poisoning. Granted, the state couldn't submit the actual Carbon Monoxide tests performed due to a failure on their part to provide this to the defense pre-trial, however from what I gathered the blood work and blood oxygen reports they had were inconsistent entirely with carbon monoxide poisoning. It was a bizarre, and frankly inconsequential, bit of speculation that contradicted what the state could submit.

The second bit is also irrelevant in Minnesota law, as Minnesota requires the ME to determine cause of death, along with almost every other state. Notably, Maryland doesnt, but that is wholly irrelevant to Minnesota law. Essentially, his claim that the death was undetermined is an impossibility under Minnesota law, meaning that his claim as such is useless, and even elsewhere it is against common professional practice to claim as such barring extreme circumstances where it is impossible to come to a conclusion.

[Kowani]

We finally got a poll on the verdict-the public broadly agrees it was the correct decision (with a caveat)

A CBS News poll released Sunday reveals stark differences in opinion along party lines about the conviction of Derek Chauvin as nearly half of the Republicans surveyed said they believe jurors reached the wrong verdict when they found the former Minneapolis Police officer guilty of murdering George Floyd. The jury’s assessment—which found Chauvin guilty of second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter—was broadly rated as the “right verdict” by the over 2,500 Americans surveyed for the poll.

Three-quarters of respondents said they agreed with the outcome, with just 25% diverging—a group composed of more men than women and that is disproportionately white and mostly conservative. Political affiliation emerged as the most divisive dictator of opinions on the trial’s outcome, with 90% of Democrats saying jurors reached the right verdict, while a slim majority (54%) of Republicans said the same.

Nearly half (46%) of the Republicans surveyed felt the jury had come to the wrong decision in convicting Chauvin of murder versus just 10% of Democrats and 25% of Independents who thought the verdict was wrong.

[North Washington Republic]

We finally got a poll on the verdict-the public broadly agrees it was the correct decision (with a caveat)

A CBS News poll released Sunday reveals stark differences in opinion along party lines about the conviction of Derek Chauvin as nearly half of the Republicans surveyed said they believe jurors reached the wrong verdict when they found the former Minneapolis Police officer guilty of murdering George Floyd. The jury’s assessment—which found Chauvin guilty of second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter—was broadly rated as the “right verdict” by the over 2,500 Americans surveyed for the poll.

Three-quarters of respondents said they agreed with the outcome, with just 25% diverging—a group composed of more men than women and that is disproportionately white and mostly conservative. Political affiliation emerged as the most divisive dictator of opinions on the trial’s outcome, with 90% of Democrats saying jurors reached the right verdict, while a slim majority (54%) of Republicans said the same.

Nearly half (46%) of the Republicans surveyed felt the jury had come to the wrong decision in convicting Chauvin of murder versus just 10% of Democrats and 25% of Independents who thought the verdict was wrong.

With right-wing media screeching like a banshee about the verdict, I think that in a couple of weeks, we will see a majority of Republicans disagreeing with the verdict.

[Kowani]

We finally got a poll on the verdict-the public broadly agrees it was the correct decision (with a caveat)

A CBS News poll released Sunday reveals stark differences in opinion along party lines about the conviction of Derek Chauvin as nearly half of the Republicans surveyed said they believe jurors reached the wrong verdict when they found the former Minneapolis Police officer guilty of murdering George Floyd. The jury’s assessment—which found Chauvin guilty of second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter—was broadly rated as the “right verdict” by the over 2,500 Americans surveyed for the poll.

Three-quarters of respondents said they agreed with the outcome, with just 25% diverging—a group composed of more men than women and that is disproportionately white and mostly conservative. Political affiliation emerged as the most divisive dictator of opinions on the trial’s outcome, with 90% of Democrats saying jurors reached the right verdict, while a slim majority (54%) of Republicans said the same.

Nearly half (46%) of the Republicans surveyed felt the jury had come to the wrong decision in convicting Chauvin of murder versus just 10% of Democrats and 25% of Independents who thought the verdict was wrong.

With right-wing media screeching like a banshee about the verdict, I think that in a couple of weeks, we will see a majority of Republicans disagreeing with the verdict.

that is my belief as well, yes

[Seangoli]

We finally got a poll on the verdict-the public broadly agrees it was the correct decision (with a caveat)

A CBS News poll released Sunday reveals stark differences in opinion along party lines about the conviction of Derek Chauvin as nearly half of the Republicans surveyed said they believe jurors reached the wrong verdict when they found the former Minneapolis Police officer guilty of murdering George Floyd. The jury’s assessment—which found Chauvin guilty of second degree murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter—was broadly rated as the “right verdict” by the over 2,500 Americans surveyed for the poll.

Three-quarters of respondents said they agreed with the outcome, with just 25% diverging—a group composed of more men than women and that is disproportionately white and mostly conservative. Political affiliation emerged as the most divisive dictator of opinions on the trial’s outcome, with 90% of Democrats saying jurors reached the right verdict, while a slim majority (54%) of Republicans said the same.

Nearly half (46%) of the Republicans surveyed felt the jury had come to the wrong decision in convicting Chauvin of murder versus just 10% of Democrats and 25% of Independents who thought the verdict was wrong.

Anybody who watched a good portion of the closing statements, let alone the case, would not be surprised by the verdict. You would only be surprised if you went in with preconceived notions about the evidence that was counter factual to what was presented.

I won't say the Jury made the 'right decision' in the sense that I presuppose the outcome of trials without sitting through it. I will say, given the arguments and evidence presented, that it is no surprise the jury convicted him, and I see no reason to believe they convicted a person whom had little or no evidence presented against them. Given what the state presented and what the defense argued, the verdict was perfectly justified.

[Esthe]

No it isnt. The right wing just doesn't understand how the left wing feels at all. Left wing types were just as upset when Robert Delgado was killed in Portland and he wasn't black. We were pissed when Daniel Shaver and Adam Toledo were killed too and they weren't black.

It's all just politics in the end. If the Left is doing something, the Right is naturally going to do the opposite in a bid to be the opposing party or coalition.

It’s gotten especially bad after the election saga.

[Necroghastia]

The cope is strong with this one. But then I'm not surprised you have a problem with reality catching up with someone with a history of covering up police murders.

It doesn't mean much from you. You do everything you can to avoid condemning violent rioters.

what the fuck do "violent rioters" have to do with what you replied to tho

[Vassenor]

It doesn't mean much from you. You do everything you can to avoid condemning violent rioters.

what the fuck do "violent rioters" have to do with what you replied to tho

It's a basic tu quoque that they're trying to use as a thought termination cliche.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So Mr. AOC feet pics used his fracking funded YouTube channel to post the video "The jury got it wrong".

I'm not going to watch it, as it would just feed the youtube algorithm and give him ad money, but let it be known that the short man with the fracking money has unleased his garbage hot take to the world.

(I don't know why youtube keeps showring me Ben Shaperio ads, I tried telling youtube that I don't want to be advertised by his garbage but it keeps coming. I do hope that he is losing some money by advertising to someone who doesn't watch his dog shit)

[Fahran]

With right-wing media screeching like a banshee about the verdict, I think that in a couple of weeks, we will see a majority of Republicans disagreeing with the verdict.

Yeah, no. I'm not budging on this one regardless of what Ben Shapiro has to say on the matter.