The Derek Chauvin trial {Mod Edit: Guilty on all charges} (2 Viewers)

I know there are some extremists, but I believe there are very few people who are on Chauvin's side. The vast majority of people know he's guilty.

I honestly haven't met anyone who is on Chauvin's side. And I've talked to more than a few people about it over the last several months.
 
OJ Simpson says hello.

I think Simpson was a different animal, in a much different time, and without video. But just among the quick hits:
  1. Frankly the glove thing was a mistake. The glove hadn't been worn in some time, had a liner inside it, and what is there to gain? Of course it wasn't going to fit. And if it had fit, all Johnny Cochran would have said is, well a glove of size whatever fits 91% of the population, so why do we even care? It proves nothing, etc, etc. Whether it should have meant much, the glove not fitting was a "defining moment" a jury will certainly remember.
  2. DNA was still relatively new, and the prosecution didn't necessarily present it well. (And they didn't even mention it in their closing argument perhaps for the reason that they realized the jury didn't take to it.)
  3. They put a cop on the stands they knew had racist statements in the past.
I don't think the comparisons are there 25+ years later, though I know the point you were getting at.
 
I think Simpson was a different animal, in a much different time, and without video. But just among the quick hits:
  1. Frankly the glove thing was a mistake. The glove hadn't been worn in some time, had a liner inside it, and what is there to gain? Of course it wasn't going to fit. And if it had fit, all Johnny Cochran would have said is, well a glove of size whatever fits 91% of the population, so why do we even care? It proves nothing, etc, etc. Whether it should have meant much, the glove not fitting was a "defining moment" a jury will certainly remember.
  2. DNA was still relatively new, and the prosecution didn't necessarily present it well. (And they didn't even mention it in their closing argument perhaps for the reason that they realized the jury didn't take to it.)
  3. They put a cop on the stands they knew had racist statements in the past.
I don't think the comparisons are there 25+ years later, though I know the point you were getting at.

The prosecution completely botched that trial imo. It should have been an open shut case, but they didn't do their due diligence and the outcome wasn't all that surprising.
 
I think Simpson was a different animal, in a much different time, and without video. But just among the quick hits:
.....
I don't think the comparisons are there 25+ years later, though I know the point you were getting at.
All of that, plus I think Judge Ito at some point COMPLETELY lost control of his courtroom.
Testimony of a DREAM? Come on.

My understanding of this judge is to allow a little latitude with "how did that make you feel" type questions but not to lose complete control of the type of testimony that would normally not be allowed.
 
Last edited:
I have not watched any coverage of the trial, and my view on the awful militarized unaccountable police is no secret.
The question I have heard asked is, if he was following the training and protocol given to him by the government, is he still guilty of murder?
Has this been addressed in the trial, or has it all been "OMG racism!"

Police murdered Duncan Lemp and there was not even a trial, and of course and they tried to make him out to be a terrorist.
 
I have not watched any coverage of the trial, and my view on the awful militarized unaccountable police is no secret.
The question I have heard asked is, if he was following the training and protocol given to him by the government, is he still guilty of murder?
Has this been addressed in the trial, or has it all been "OMG racism!"

Police murdered Duncan Lemp and there was not even a trial, and of course and they tried to make him out to be a terrorist.

I haven't heard anything related to racism at all so far in the courtroom.

I doubt Chauvin was trained to keep the knee on someone for almost 10 minutes about half of which the person wasn't not resisting at all.
 
the training is a broad stroke that requires some level of competence. I doubt you'll find any training that says to use that technique for over nine minutes. maybe i'm wrong.
 
the training is a broad stroke that requires some level of competence. I doubt you'll find any training that says to use that technique for over nine minutes. maybe i'm wrong.

Almost certainly nothing like that today. I don't know how often they do training refreshers, but Chauvin had been on the force for quite a while. Maybe the protocols were different at that time? Certainly, I would think the training would state some limited length of time if applying a knee to the head/neck area to restrain someone. But I have no clue what it looked like then or now.
 
I think Simpson was a different animal, in a much different time, and without video. But just among the quick hits:
  1. Frankly the glove thing was a mistake. The glove hadn't been worn in some time, had a liner inside it, and what is there to gain? Of course it wasn't going to fit. And if it had fit, all Johnny Cochran would have said is, well a glove of size whatever fits 91% of the population, so why do we even care? It proves nothing, etc, etc. Whether it should have meant much, the glove not fitting was a "defining moment" a jury will certainly remember.
  2. DNA was still relatively new, and the prosecution didn't necessarily present it well. (And they didn't even mention it in their closing argument perhaps for the reason that they realized the jury didn't take to it.)
  3. They put a cop on the stands they knew had racist statements in the past.
I don't think the comparisons are there 25+ years later, though I know the point you were getting at.
IMO, they tried to frame a guilty person. It cost them the trial.
 
That's why trials aren't carried out by our news media. You've only seen their side. We've never heard the other side yet. Doesn't seem to matter though. He's done one way or the other.
Who is "their" side? Who is the "they" to whom you refer?
 
I have not watched any coverage of the trial, and my view on the awful militarized unaccountable police is no secret.
The question I have heard asked is, if he was following the training and protocol given to him by the government, is he still guilty of murder?
Has this been addressed in the trial, or has it all been "OMG racism!"

Police murdered Duncan Lemp and there was not even a trial, and of course and they tried to make him out to be a terrorist.
It isnt what they teach though

99D9A513-DA15-49E7-8977-BA2F319E6A0C.pngC0658F97-CBDC-4CB0-A826-748A62066D99.png
 

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