1. #18341
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    I don't follow Chauvin's "defense" team's new argument:

    Carbon Monoxide from the running cop car that Floyd was forcefully held next to caused his death.

    Uh. Ok. H-how is that any better? "No no your Honor, we didn't crush his neck until he stopped breathing, we held him close to a source of CO until he died haha"
    Seriously, positing new theories of death that were not substantiated through autopsy should be grounds for legal sanctions of the lawyer bringing that defense.

    By all means, if they're getting the coroners to testify to that, fine. If they want to exhume and do another autopsy, sure. But just making shit up? Fuck off and stop practicing law.


  2. #18342
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    20,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Seriously, positing new theories of death that were not substantiated through autopsy should be grounds for legal sanctions of the lawyer bringing that defense.

    By all means, if they're getting the coroners to testify to that, fine. If they want to exhume and do another autopsy, sure. But just making shit up? Fuck off and stop practicing law.
    Even then, Chauvin would still be responsible since he held him down next to a running car.

    It's such an asinine defense.

  3. #18343
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm fine with not enhancing the actual charge; that seems like it's potentially excessive, upgrading from manslaughter to murder "because cop" or something.

    That said, maximum sentences for convicted officers, that I can get behind. No special considerations when it comes to prison time, either.
    I have thought that cops should get worse sentences for the same crimes as regular people, because they are literally doing the opposite of what their job is supposed to be, but I doubt that would be legal.

  4. #18344
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,173
    Quote Originally Posted by ghotihook View Post
    I have thought that cops should get worse sentences for the same crimes as regular people, because they are literally doing the opposite of what their job is supposed to be, but I doubt that would be legal.
    Sentencing considers the context of the crime, and given that a police officer has training with regards to these things and special powers they are abusing to commit these crimes, it means a crime committed by an officer is more egregious than the same crime committed by a random citizen. It's a worse context, by virtue of the defendant being a police officer.

    That's plenty to warrant an increased sentence all by itself.

    I wasn't even suggesting treating it like a hate crime, where there's an additional charge that adds to the sentence. Just that officers automatically get the maximum standard sentence for the crime.


  5. #18345
    Higher duty leading to higher sentences can get tricky and snowball fast. I'm not a fan of that idea.

  6. #18346
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    31,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    Carbon Monoxide from the running cop car that Floyd was forcefully held next to caused his death.
    First of all, isn't holding someone's face in lethal fumes still murder?

    Second of all, he also blamed a bone spur. Sorry, "bone cyst" which suddenly killed him while his neck was being crushed directly in the path of car exhaust, apparently.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Higher duty leading to higher sentences can get tricky and snowball fast.
    I mean, it kind of exists, in that we have special crimes that only apply to certain official duty people. I mean, when's the last time someone got arrested for bribing a waiter?

  7. #18347
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    I don't follow Chauvin's "defense" team's new argument:

    Carbon Monoxide from the running cop car that Floyd was forcefully held next to caused his death.

    Uh. Ok. H-how is that any better? "No no your Honor, we didn't crush his neck until he stopped breathing, we held him close to a source of CO until he died haha"
    Well, seems like they'd be going for a "it's not murder, it's negligent homicide" kind of deal
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  8. #18348
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/u...te-wright.html

    The officer that shot and killed Wright will be charged with second degree manslaughter.

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

    Max 10 year sentence. IMO charges should always be enhanced for officers who are supposed to be trained not to make these kinds of mistakes in their job, but this seems to fit the situation.
    Trained, very funny.
    I don't understand why these idiots keep resisting arrests. I have the impression that cops in that shithole country are batshit/severely-undertrained, and I wouldn't dare do anything else than do exactly what they tell me (and even then pray I don't get killed).

  9. #18349
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,365
    Honestly... court always seems like a game to me...

    Judge saying he will declare a mistrial if the prosecution rebuttal witness mentions the existence of tests showing that Floyds carbon monoxide was normal due to short notice.

    Well... do we want to get to the truth or not? Was his carbon monoxide levels normal, are there tests to prove that? If so what is the purpose to say "no can't use because short notice"
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black people in america should be happy their ancestors where slaves so they could have a good live.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black women are racist. Im the one trying to make her[my wife] behave like white people and not say it out loud.
    Totally not racist

  10. #18350
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Honestly... court always seems like a game to me...

    Judge saying he will declare a mistrial if the prosecution rebuttal witness mentions the existence of tests showing that Floyds carbon monoxide was normal due to short notice.

    Well... do we want to get to the truth or not? Was his carbon monoxide levels normal, are there tests to prove that? If so what is the purpose to say "no can't use because short notice"
    It’s crazy they can’t introduce evidence as a rebuttal. They basically can’t even call a witness who would testify to as much as they’d still end up needing to introduce the test as evidence. Yet another example of the system not holding these assholes accountable.

  11. #18351
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Honestly... court always seems like a game to me...

    Judge saying he will declare a mistrial if the prosecution rebuttal witness mentions the existence of tests showing that Floyds carbon monoxide was normal due to short notice.

    Well... do we want to get to the truth or not? Was his carbon monoxide levels normal, are there tests to prove that? If so what is the purpose to say "no can't use because short notice"
    Wait, what?

    How is offering rebuttal evidence not allowed? If Floyd's autopsy results showed no trace of CO, how is that not already in the record from submitting said autopsies? Why would you even consider a CO claim by the defense team unless they had evidence to back up the possibility it contributed?

    Courts excluding evidence because it's "not your turn" is rank bullshit that seems directly intended to avoid the serving of justice.

    I also have to assume the prosecution didn't present that evidence because there was no CO evidence submitted by the defense team in discovery, so they had no way to know they'd even make up an imaginary baseless hypothesis and that their fantasy would constitute a legal defense.


  12. #18352
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Judge saying he will declare a mistrial if the prosecution rebuttal witness mentions the existence of tests showing that Floyds carbon monoxide was normal due to short notice.
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...raint-77084151

    In a tense exchange before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the judge rejected prosecutors’ request to introduce new evidence that carbon monoxide levels in Floyd’s blood were within the normal range.

    ...

    But the judge warned that if the prosecution's expert witness "even hints that there are test results that the jury has not heard about, it’s going to be a mistrial, pure and simple. This late disclosure is not the way we should be operating here.”
    That's a good thing. You don't introduce new evidence in the middle of a court proceeding, all evidence has to be introduced before proceedings in my understanding. It protects scumbags and innocent people all the same, as innocence is presumed.

    The court isn't there to make you feel good, even when it's working as intended as it is in this instance.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    How is offering rebuttal evidence not allowed? If Floyd's autopsy results showed no trace of CO, how is that not already in the record from submitting said autopsies?
    This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

    I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.

  13. #18353
    So the defense can claim anything they want "could" have happened, and the prosecution isn't allowed to say "but it didn't". How is the prosecution supposed to account for the defense making shit up before it's happened?

  14. #18354
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurasu View Post
    So the defense can claim anything they want "could" have happened, and the prosecution isn't allowed to say "but it didn't". How is the prosecution supposed to account for the defense making shit up before it's happened?
    It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.

  15. #18355
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurasu View Post
    So the defense can claim anything they want "could" have happened, and the prosecution isn't allowed to say "but it didn't". How is the prosecution supposed to account for the defense making shit up before it's happened?
    If this was evidence introduced by the defense earlier, and the prosecution failed to introduce opposing evidence, that's a mistake on the prosecution. Late evidence introduction causes other problems for a court where the deck is supposed to be fair for both lawyers when it comes to the evidence they're working with.

    Super secret evidence is like, the stuff of daytime soaps - https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...-disclose.html

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.
    There is no solid case at all, actually. Extensive testimony from prosecution experts including multiple medical professionals presented hard data backing up their view of the cause of death.

    The defense has yet to present hard evidence concluding a drug overdose, and their case of overall illness is sketchy at best when you simply consider, "Yeah, but would he have died of those 'overall illnesses' absent the pressure of Chauvin on the back of his neck for nearly 10 minutes?"

    This is a pretty predictable take, tho.

  16. #18356
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

    I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.
    I understand the rule, but it's supposed to be a "both sides provide their evidence and witness lists, and you can only introduce something new with a good reason".

    1> The defense team got to blindside the prosecution with this because they literally have no evidence that speaks to it. It's literally a fantasy what-if they invented, based on nothing.
    2> Being blind-sided by such a horseshit move is exactly what should justify allowing new evidence specifically to contradict it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost controller View Post
    It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.
    All "innocent until proven guilty" means is you get your trial before your conviction and sentencing, rather than being summarily convicted without a trial and having to sue for release (and in the course of that, prove your innocence).

    It does not extend one iota further than that in any way whatsoever.

    There is no evidence to support the idea that it was drugs (literally no overdose; you're lying there) or underlying illness that killed Floyd. Both autopsies confirm his death was homicide via asphyxiation. There's no exculpatory evidence to be had, at all. Even if we want to consider the CO argument, holding someone down in car exhaust until they die of CO poisoning is a cool theory, still murder.

    But I get it. You're gonna defend the white cop murdering the black man no matter the facts of the case.


  17. #18357
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...raint-77084151



    That's a good thing. You don't introduce new evidence in the middle of a court proceeding, all evidence has to be introduced before proceedings in my understanding. It protects scumbags and innocent people all the same, as innocence is presumed.

    The court isn't there to make you feel good, even when it's working as intended as it is in this instance.

    - - - Updated - - -



    This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

    I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.
    Doesn't this issue hinge on them finding this particular thing late after listening to the testimony? The judge doesn't think they were being malicious over it. Also perhaps the reason it was late is just that it was an afterthought since it's kind of bogus...

    This is part of what annoys me about court systems, the disregard to evidence because of technicalities about it or just procedure. Like not allowing video evidence of an act to be admissible. The end worry here as it pertains to justice (if say someone was like 'well it seems plausible and we don't exactly know what Floyd's levels were") meanwhile the evidence of his levels can't be included... doesn't seem right at all.

    Also, the fuck are you talking about the court isn't there to make you feel good? Have you not seen a single post of mine on the topics of revenge and justice and what the court system should be?
    Last edited by Themius; 2021-04-15 at 04:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black people in america should be happy their ancestors where slaves so they could have a good live.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black women are racist. Im the one trying to make her[my wife] behave like white people and not say it out loud.
    Totally not racist

  18. #18358
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I understand the rule, but it's supposed to be a "both sides provide their evidence and witness lists, and you can only introduce something new with a good reason".

    1> The defense team got to blindside the prosecution with this because they literally have no evidence that speaks to it. It's literally a fantasy what-if they invented, based on nothing.
    2> Being blind-sided by such a horseshit move is exactly what should justify allowing new evidence specifically to contradict it.
    I'm not finding anything about this not being already introduced evidence/testimony, honestly. No objections from the prosecution in the same way the defense objected to having the CO tests introduced as evidence, which leads me to believe they may have screwed up. I'm not defending the CO argument, it's garbage, but this seems to be above board.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Doesn't this issue hinge on them finding this particular thing late after listening to the testimony? The judge doesn't think they were being malicious over it. Also perhaps the reason it was late is just that it was an afterthought since it's kind of bogus...
    I imagine if this was not already introduced in discovery then the prosecution could have similarly objected. That they didn't leads me to believe they screwed up in presenting their evidence at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    This is part of what annoys me about court systems, the disregard to evidence because of technicalities about it or just procedure.
    Procedure is kinda super important in court, and necessary for any attempt at fairness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    The end worry here as it pertains to justice (if say someone was like 'well it seems plausible and we don't exactly know what Floyd's levels were") meanwhile the evidence of his levels can't be included... doesn't seem right at all.
    It has to be a fair process to all involved, including the defense, even if you don't like the defendant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Also, the fuck are you talking about the court isn't there to make you feel good? Have you not seen a single post of mine on the topics of revenge and justice and what the court system should be?
    The court is in the pursuit of "blind justice", not "justice" as one subjectively determines it. It's not here to make us feel good.

  19. #18359
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    I'm not finding anything about this not being already introduced evidence/testimony, honestly. No objections from the prosecution in the same way the defense objected to having the CO tests introduced as evidence, which leads me to believe they may have screwed up. I'm not defending the CO argument, it's garbage, but this seems to be above board.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I imagine if this was not already introduced in discovery then the prosecution could have similarly objected. That they didn't leads me to believe they screwed up in presenting their evidence at the same time.



    Procedure is kinda super important in court, and necessary for any attempt at fairness.



    It has to be a fair process to all involved, including the defense, even if you don't like the defendant.



    The court is in the pursuit of "blind justice", not "justice" as one subjectively determines it. It's not here to make us feel good.
    This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit... perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating

    “You had your shot you can’t now show objective fact to disprove the fantasy the defence created”
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black people in america should be happy their ancestors where slaves so they could have a good live.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodonius View Post
    Black women are racist. Im the one trying to make her[my wife] behave like white people and not say it out loud.
    Totally not racist

  20. #18360
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit...
    Again, it may be, but there's a reason for it.

    Allowing "surprise evidence" late into the trial, without going through another round of discovery or whatever method of introducing it is necessary, has the possibility to throw countless trials into disarray. I'm not gonna argue courts are fair, we know they're not, even if they're supposed to be. But rules like this are put in place with the goal of that fairness for the prosecution and defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating
    Mass incarceration is an entirely unrelated problem to rules around discovery and introducing evidence.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not remotely happy with this situation. And I'd love to know if the prosecution simply fucked up and we can get mad at them for such an oversight, because right now there's nothing indicating that the defense witness said anything that wasn't a part of the discovery process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •