The Dereck Chauvin trial (33 Viewers)

Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
1,460
Reaction score
2,655
Age
57
Location
Carriere Ms
Offline
Sticky Post
I don’t have much to say about this but if you heard the testimony of some of the prosecutions witnesses today and didn’t have a tear in your eye you aren’t human. Yes the man had a criminal record, yes the man had drugs in his body but he didn’t deserve to die like that. Could the drugs have killed him???? Maybe. Did he have other health conditions that could’ve killed him???? Maybe. But that cop took those decisions into his on hands and brought about an outrage in this country that’s been at the surface for a long time. God it’s time we turn to you.
 

Poppy

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Apr 19, 2003
Messages
1,880
Reaction score
815
Offline
Who is "their" side? Who is the "they" to whom you refer?
The media's side, however they/reporters choose to "provide information" to us. Or whatever side gets the most people riled up.
 

efil4stnias

Play at your own risk
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
34,171
Reaction score
34,079
Location
Covington
Online
Seventeen complaints filed with Minneapolis police about Derek Chauvin. Six times in which prosecutors say Chauvin used force against arrestees. George Floyd's 2007 arrest for aggravated robbery.

The jury considering murder and manslaughter charges against Chauvin won't hear about any of them. And their verdict may be influenced as much by what they don't know as what they do.

In the run-up to the trial, both sides sought to introduce evidence about Chauvin and Floyd's past actions. Prosecutors wanted to introduce eight incidents for Chauvin. Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill allowed two of them.

The defense wanted to bring up two arrests of Floyd, including one in Harris County, Texas in 2007 that resulted in a conviction for aggravated robbery. Cahill allowed only a portion of Floyd's 2019 drug-related arrest in Minneapolis..............

Prosecutors argued these incidents showed Chauvin regularly resorted to force, even when it wasn't necessary.

"In the State's view," they wrote, "Chauvin operates in disregard for the particular circumstances of a given situation in determining appropriate reasonable force and simply fully restrains the suspect with no regard for their well-being until he can turn them over to someone else."

Cahill disagreed.

"The real purpose for which the State seeks to introduce evidence of eight prior incidents ... is simply to depict Chauvin to the jury as a 'thumper,' an officer who knowingly and willingly relishes 'mixing it up' with suspects and routinely escalates situations and engages in the use of unreasonable force," the judge wrote.

Cahill ruled that any value of introducing those six incidents to prove Chauvin's guilt in Floyd's death would be outweighed by the potential to unfairly prejudice the jury..............



Derek Chauvin used force against suspects before George Floyd. The jury won't hear about 6 of them. (msn.com)


can a resident attorney explain why a judge would not allow evidence at a criminal trial as to the mindset of the defendant and any prior history that would show a pattern of behavior that is ON TRIAL?

Im so confused.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
37,749
Reaction score
21,614
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Online
can a resident attorney explain why a judge would not allow evidence at a criminal trial as to the mindset of the defendant and any prior history that would show a pattern of behavior that is ON TRIAL?

Im so confused.
So, it likely comes down to this rule of evidence. And the general rule is that prior bad acts are not admissible to show that the current alleged act is consistent with prior bad acts. The law in Minnesota might not be exactly the same, but it is likely very similar:

"Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
Primary tabs
(a) Character Evidence.
(1)
Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses.
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;
(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and
(C) do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice."

So, the basic rule is that evidence of prior wrong acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. But, it is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, or that it wasn't by accident. Likely in this case it came down to whether or not the Judge thought that the particular evidence of prior wrong doing could be used to show intent rather than being used to show that he had bad character and acted in accordance with his bad character. Ultimately it's a Judgement call that will depend on very specific facts and the very specific wording of this rule of evidence in Minnesota.
 

efil4stnias

Play at your own risk
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
34,171
Reaction score
34,079
Location
Covington
Online
So, it likely comes down to this rule of evidence. And the general rule is that prior bad acts are not admissible to show that the current alleged act is consistent with prior bad acts. The law in Minnesota might not be exactly the same, but it is likely very similar:

"Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
Primary tabs
(a) Character Evidence.
(1)
Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:
(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;
(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:
(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and
(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and
(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.
(1) Prohibited Uses.
Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;
(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and
(C) do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice."

So, the basic rule is that evidence of prior wrong acts is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. But, it is admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, or that it wasn't by accident. Likely in this case it came down to whether or not the Judge thought that the particular evidence of prior wrong doing could be used to show intent rather than being used to show that he had bad character and acted in accordance with his bad character. Ultimately it's a Judgement call that will depend on very specific facts and the very specific wording of this rule of evidence in Minnesota.

thank you - because when i apply this to what i do ( insurance) i have been ( early in my career ) ROUTINELY hammered by E & O counsel about "patterns"( documenting/notes etc ) - but then again, and suit against me would be civil vs criminal....so does that make a difference?

i think thats what was confusing me because i remember our attorney post Katrina laying down EXACTLY what we need to do, how to do etc to avoid ANY appearance of mistake. ( if that make sense )
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
37,749
Reaction score
21,614
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Online
thank you - because when i apply this to what i do ( insurance) i have been ( early in my career ) ROUTINELY hammered by E & O counsel about "patterns"( documenting/notes etc ) - but then again, and suit against me would be civil vs criminal....so does that make a difference?

i think thats what was confusing me because i remember our attorney post Katrina laying down EXACTLY what we need to do, how to do etc to avoid ANY appearance of mistake. ( if that make sense )
It would be different in criminal and civil, but only in that the exceptions only apply in criminal cases.

I'm no E & O expert and I'm not sure exactly what that attorney meant, but I think that probably has more to do with creating a defense that you follow a specific pattern for every client doing the same things over and over to protect their interests. That way if things go sideways, it's evidence that you weren't negligent because you followed a policy that was designed to make sure that mistakes aren't made. Basically, you would need to show that you were following a system that is accepted by the people in your field to show that you were not negligent. Kind of like the rule for Med Mal where a defense is that the doctor was following the best practices of a doctor in their region in their field.

So while evidence of a pattern of prior bad acts would not be admissible to show that you did something wrong in a later particular instance, you might have a defense to negligence by showing that you had a system designed to stop mistakes from happening and that you followed that system. I know that there are laws in place for businesses for slip and falls where if you can show that you had a policy to clean and inspect the floors and you followed that policy you are not negligent if someone slips and falls on water, a piece of merch, etc.
 

CapitalCitySaint

99% Practice; 1% Theory
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
5,842
Reaction score
13,581
Location
The Whale’s Box
Online
Yep



Also yep, it's like some haven't been paying attention recently and fail to realize that trying to physically intervene with cops with bad intentions may not turn out to be a disaster for all involved....had that happened the murderous cop and those complicit would have likely been martyred....
You're delusional if you think the crowd intervening physically would have had a higher probability of a peaceful ending than not.

In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to live in reality.
 

efil4stnias

Play at your own risk
Joined
Jul 9, 2001
Messages
34,171
Reaction score
34,079
Location
Covington
Online
It would be different in criminal and civil, but only in that the exceptions only apply in criminal cases.

I'm no E & O expert and I'm not sure exactly what that attorney meant, but I think that probably has more to do with creating a defense that you follow a specific pattern for every client doing the same things over and over to protect their interests. That way if things go sideways, it's evidence that you weren't negligent because you followed a policy that was designed to make sure that mistakes aren't made. Basically, you would need to show that you were following a system that is accepted by the people in your field to show that you were not negligent. Kind of like the rule for Med Mal where a defense is that the doctor was following the best practices of a doctor in their region in their field.

So while evidence of a pattern of prior bad acts would not be admissible to show that you did something wrong in a later particular instance, you might have a defense to negligence by showing that you had a system designed to stop mistakes from happening and that you followed that system. I know that there are laws in place for businesses for slip and falls where if you can show that you had a policy to clean and inspect the floors and you followed that policy you are not negligent if someone slips and falls on water, a piece of merch, etc.
precisely right regarding what he meant.


ok so it would be for mounting a defense - as opposed to the plaintiff using to mount an offensive against you .

i think i understand now. I was applying from a "defendant" mindset vs a "plaintiff" one and they arent interchangeable in regards to how that is used.
 

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,333
Reaction score
6,222
Age
45
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
how do you imagine they are separate discussions?
modern policing has roots in slave patrols and jim crow enforcement
the FBI has demonstrated for decades that white nationalists have infiltrated polices forces of all sizes across the country
how do you imagine police reform is a separate conversation from race relations?
Easily

The problem is the government has agents who violate people's rights through violence and are not held accountable. They have been shown that they violate right of people of any race.

Why would you want to focus on race? If racism in the police was magically gone, they would still be violating people's rights, nothing is solved.
The only answer I could see you having is that you are ok with police violating people but you want it in the exact same ratio to match demographics.
I am not ok with them doing it at all. That should be the focus.

If someone with no power is a racist, sure it sucks but they don't have power to do much about it.

Police have unchecked power, so if they are racists then it has a big consequence. The fix is to check the power, but it seems to get lost and bogged down with the race issue. Its to a degree that "anti-racists" attack a senator who is actually proposing bills to check police power. So you can't say its not getting bogged down by the race issue, because it clearly is.
 

First Time Poster

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
939
Reaction score
4,107
Online
Do I think this should be about racism? No, I don't. But am I going to convince anyone? No. I mean, I think this is about police procedures and dumb cops possibly drunk with the power of a badge. Do I have an answer for it? No, because that's exactly what attracts the kind of person who will use that like a weapon. This gives me a headache thinking about.
James Baldwin said that white Americans are "in effect still trapped in a history which they do not understand and until they understand it, they cannot be released from it."

As a man, it would be audacious to tell women there is no correlation between rape and misogyny. Females are undeniably and overwhelmingly disproportionately victims of rape and the misogynistic culture they live in is a direct cause of why. I can't begin to fix rape without addressing misogyny.

Empathy is needed. Police reform can't happen without addressing racism. Saying they are separate issues is willingly remaining trapped in our country's history that white America continously seems to want to remain trapped in. This situation, this trial, isn't isolated. Let's not treat it as such.
 

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,333
Reaction score
6,222
Age
45
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
James Baldwin said that white Americans are "in effect still trapped in a history which they do not understand and until they understand it, they cannot be released from it."

As a man, it would be audacious to tell women there is no correlation between rape and misogyny. Females are undeniably and overwhelmingly disproportionately victims of rape and the misogynistic culture they live in is a direct cause of why. I can't begin to fix rape without addressing misogyny.

Empathy is needed. Police reform can't happen without addressing racism. Saying they are separate issues is willingly remaining trapped in our country's history that white America continously seems to want to remain trapped in. This situation, this trial, isn't isolated. Let's not treat it as such.
It absolutely can.
 

brandon8283

Probably a drive-by
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
8,951
Age
37
Offline
The thread is about a trial of a cop who murdered someone.
It's about a white cop who killed an unarmed black man, framed in the context of a pattern of white cops killing unarmed black men.
From what I am hearing race was not mentioned in the trial.
Irrelevant.
We also KNOW that police have and will kill people of any color.
No disagreements, but we also know that police consistently kill black people at a rate higher than whites.
The issue is police accountability.
Certainly. Police accountability and systemic racism are not mutually exclusive.
If Floyd had been low income, redneck trailer park guy with Floyd's same record and history with Chauvin, it likely would have gone the same way.
I imagine Chauvin has interacted with plenty of redneck trailer park guys with similar records to Floyd, and yet none of them are dead at his hands.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
35,677
Reaction score
23,751
Age
50
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
It absolutely can.
I'm not so sure. If you don't address the problem of racism in police departments, you can dress up the police in all kinds of nice reforms, but when the rubber meets the road, the disconnect will inevitably happen when racist individual cops interact with the public. Both have to be addressed. Otherwise, years into the reforms you want, we'll still be talking about tragedies like what we saw in the Floyd killing.
 

First Time Poster

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
939
Reaction score
4,107
Online
It absolutely can.
So, why hasn't it been solved yet Tom? That's like attempting to solve rape without addressing misogyny with the basis being well men are sexually assaulted and raped too. We are ALL victims. Not equally my friend. Law enforcement has an abuse of power and subverting rights issue but one demographic disproportionately experiences those issues more than others. Undeniably. How can possibly have police reform without resolving their white supremacy problem and how can you possibly address white supremacy without addressing race?

Lost in a history you don't understand.
 

tomwaits

Frontier Psychiatrist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
16,333
Reaction score
6,222
Age
45
Location
Pflugerville, TX
Offline
Certainly. Police accountability and systemic racism are not mutually exclusive.
Yes they are.

I imagine Chauvin has interacted with plenty of redneck trailer park guys with similar records to Floyd, and yet none of them are dead at his hands.
My point, which I thought was clear, was that if Floyd had been a low class white dude in the same exact situation, he would still be dead.
 

brandon8283

Probably a drive-by
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
8,951
Age
37
Offline
It absolutely can.
Let me see if I follow.

You're saying that police reform CAN happen without addressing racism. Let's break that down a minute. Which of these is the implication of your statement?

A) There are no racist police officers, therefore racism does not need to be addressed for police reform to occur.
B) There are racist police officers, but we can reform the racism out of them without ever actually addressing racism.
C) There are racist police officers, but we can reform in such a manner (without addressing racism) that will allow them to remain racist but will not allow their racism to affect their work.
D) Something else?
 

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 (Users: 12, Guests: 16)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom