The Derek Chauvin trial {Mod Edit: Guilty on all charges} (1 Viewer)

So whats the point of debating something when its "overwhelmingly obvious"?

Im not following the logic here. Challenge what beliefs? what our own eyes and hearts see in the evidence?

Can you expand on what this challenge/question ourselves does for a person?
That's like asking why it's good to have an open mind. If I'm on trial, I don't want someone judging my fate just from what they immediately see. I want them to be open to different perspectives. I may think the evidence is obvious, but that doesn't mean that I will immediately side or believe every single thing the prosecution says.
 
That's like asking why it's good to have an open mind. If I'm on trial, I don't want someone judging my fate just from what they immediately see. I want them to be open to different perspectives. I may think the evidence is obvious, but that doesn't mean that I will immediately side or believe every single thing the prosecution says.

having an open mind and questioning that which is obvious is not the same.

If you are on trial and the evidence is overwhelmingly obvious, what would you want the juror to question exactly?
 
Well, I thought OJ was obviously guilty and we all know how that turned out. I think Chauvin is guilty, even more so than OJ. But juries are weird sometimes. I expect a guilty verdict tho. I'd be shocked if it isn't. What we see of the trial on TV isn't the same as sitting in that jury box. So I'm not holding my breath just yet.
 
A lot of responses so instead of replying to one I will just make a post.

Let's be real. No one posting here is an actual juror in this case. No one here has taken an oath to impartially review the evidence at hand. We all are free to be as partial as we want to be discussing this. Sometimes, some things just ARE.

And when something just IS, it helps that everyone just says so. In a country where "OJ is a murderer" is not only widely stated but accepted, it feels disingenuous that the "right verdict" is what the jury decides and if someone means the "right verdict" is guilty that they are being divisive or incendiary.

That isn't an effort by myself to quell legal analysis, discussion over charges and how the law applies or even debate on key points of the case. Even societal repercussions. But, there is a whole lot of "devil's advocate" commentary that doesn't feel very innocent.
 
Throwing the OJ case into this context is comparing apples and elephants. Of course OJ did it. But the police completely botched chain of custody on critical evidence and the racist background of one of the main handling officers raised legitimate issues of reasonable doubt.

I'd expect that most people, with a gun held to their heads, would say that OJ did it. But it's totally understandable to me that the jury, in adhering to their oath, didn't convict him. No such issues in the Chauvin case.
 
A lot of responses so instead of replying to one I will just make a post.

Let's be real. No one posting here is an actual juror in this case. No one here has taken an oath to impartially review the evidence at hand. We all are free to be as partial as we want to be discussing this. Sometimes, some things just ARE.

And when something just IS, it helps that everyone just says so. In a country where "OJ is a murderer" is not only widely stated but accepted, it feels disingenuous that the "right verdict" is what the jury decides and if someone means the "right verdict" is guilty that they are being divisive or incendiary.

That isn't an effort by myself to quell legal analysis, discussion over charges and how the law applies or even debate on key points of the case. Even societal repercussions. But, there is a whole lot of "devil's advocate" commentary that doesn't feel very innocent.
If it's you and I speaking, I absolutely agree with you. But people with much more influence and a much louder voice like the President, no, I think it's wholly improper.

Anyway, I'm glad they found him guilty & I hope that he gets the sentence that he deserves. But my biggest hope is that this finally brings some peace in all this turmoil the country has been facing. I think we all can agree on that.
 
Not surprising at all, particularly given how relatively short their deliberations were.
Yes, I thought it was a short deliberation as well. We tend to expect everything to happen instantly these days--but with having to sift through all that evidence and with three charges in question, the deliberation was bound to take some time.
 
Throwing the OJ case into this context is comparing apples and elephants. Of course OJ did it. But the police completely botched chain of custody on critical evidence and the racist background of one of the main handling officers raised legitimate issues of reasonable doubt.

I'd expect that most people, with a gun held to their heads, would say that OJ did it. But it's totally understandable to me that the jury, in adhering to their oath, didn't convict him. No such issues in the Chauvin case.

Yeah, to be sure, I wasn't comparing the cases, but the outcome. They were night and day different. The pressure juries face is what I was more getting at. It's a heavy responsibility to bear. I don't envy the position they're in.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom