Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Can one of the forum lawyers explain to me how questioning if a witness called the defendant a mean name is relevant? Can you ask whatever you want during cross-examination?
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Can one of the forum lawyers explain to me how questioning if a witness called the defendant a mean name is relevant? Can you ask whatever you want during cross-examination?
I'm not following the trial super closely, but that sounds like they are establishing bias. And no, you can only ask questions in cross that are related to their testimony.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Derek Chauvin trial: police chief to testify against former officer in ‘remarkable move’
Chief Medaria Arradondo’s testimony over George Floyd’s death may be unprecedented, experts
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Imagine a world where it's not remarkable or unprecedented for a boss to testify against their employee when the employee murders a man in broad daylight.
i'll be happy if the testimony actually has any bite to it, especially if it leads to any kind of consequences for Chauvin at all, but it also seems like a pretty transparent ploy to throw one "loose cannon rogue officer" (guarantee this is how they'll try and cast him) under the bus in order to protect the underlying power structure that's actually responsible for what happened
expect a lot of "this wasn't part of his training, he didn't follow procedure, he had underlying issues we weren't aware of at the time" type of bullshit
i'll be happy if the testimony actually has any bite to it, especially if it leads to any kind of consequences for Chauvin at all, but it also seems like a pretty transparent ploy to throw one "loose cannon rogue officer" (guarantee this is how they'll try and cast him) under the bus in order to protect the underlying power structure that's actually responsible for what happened
expect a lot of "this wasn't part of his training, he didn't follow procedure, he had underlying issues we weren't aware of at the time" type of bullshit
Can one of the forum lawyers explain to me how questioning if a witness called the defendant a mean name is relevant? Can you ask whatever you want during cross-examination?
They’re trying to establish a narrative that the vicious mob yelling at the cops was distracting/threatening enough that Chauvin doing a murder was an oopsies accident. They’re fishing real hard for angry black man caricature framings to do this.
i'll be happy if the testimony actually has any bite to it, especially if it leads to any kind of consequences for Chauvin at all, but it also seems like a pretty transparent ploy to throw one "loose cannon rogue officer" (guarantee this is how they'll try and cast him) under the bus in order to protect the underlying power structure that's actually responsible for what happened
expect a lot of "this wasn't part of his training, he didn't follow procedure, he had underlying issues we weren't aware of at the time" type of bullshit
if it lands his ass in jail I’m ok with it.
yeah this is mostly where I'm at too, both in terms of getting justice in this specific case and for setting precedent to hopefully make police accountability more common
for now I'm choosing cautious optimism over my normal frustrated cynicism
i'll be happy if the testimony actually has any bite to it, especially if it leads to any kind of consequences for Chauvin at all, but it also seems like a pretty transparent ploy to throw one "loose cannon rogue officer" (guarantee this is how they'll try and cast him) under the bus in order to protect the underlying power structure that's actually responsible for what happened
expect a lot of "this wasn't part of his training, he didn't follow procedure, he had underlying issues we weren't aware of at the time" type of bullshit
if it lands his ass in jail I’m ok with it.
yeah this is mostly where I'm at too, both in terms of getting justice in this specific case and for setting precedent to hopefully make police accountability more common
for now I'm choosing cautious optimism over my normal frustrated cynicism
Yeah, while the institution of policing is completely broken, one of the reasons it got there is because police unions and leadership won’t reject officers like this. If this acts as even a slight deterrent to this shit in the future it’s a net positive, even if more drastic overhauls are still needed.
I think even throwing him under the bus to protect the police power structure is a sign of (incredibly slow) progress - having actual consequences even for the worst of them is usually utterly unthinkable
It violates the thin blue line concept so it's different from the status quo
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
For those not in the know, former williamson county sheriff chody (yes, chody) has been arrested on new charges related to the murder of a resident on "Live PD" (destruction of evidence, primarily)
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
i'll be happy if the testimony actually has any bite to it, especially if it leads to any kind of consequences for Chauvin at all, but it also seems like a pretty transparent ploy to throw one "loose cannon rogue officer" (guarantee this is how they'll try and cast him) under the bus in order to protect the underlying power structure that's actually responsible for what happened
expect a lot of "this wasn't part of his training, he didn't follow procedure, he had underlying issues we weren't aware of at the time" type of bullshit
a) He's being called by the prosecution so they must believe it helps their case
b) Your assumption would still directly undermine one of the defense's primary arguments.
Have they brought up the defendant's alleged tax faud? Or was it voter fraud?
They won't in this trial if the prosecution wants anything to potentially stick. It is information that could be argued as prejudicial and is not directly relevant to the case in any material way. Bringing it up just means it can be used in appeals to declare a mistrial and start the process all over again.
Can one of the forum lawyers explain to me how questioning if a witness called the defendant a mean name is relevant? Can you ask whatever you want during cross-examination?
Late, and also not a forum lawyer, but the analysis I've seen is saying that the defense's main argument is to try and paint the people filming the murder as a "mob" that was so scary and distracting that Chauvin did not notice that he was, you know, choking a man to death with a knee press.
So lot's of trying to establish that the surrounding crowd was growing increasingly angry and combative, all that usual bullshit.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Re: the chief testifying against: Given last summer's BLM protests were primarily caused by Floyd's murder, I wonder if they're hoping they act like fucking human beings for once in their lives, they'll be able to hide behind it for years.
"Look, see, bad guy went to jail, now stop calling for us to get defunded or have any form of accountability."
So if Chauvin is convicted, the other three officers that enabled him to do a murder are de facto also going to be charged, right? Since they ran interference for somebody committing a murder?
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
So if Chauvin is convicted, the other three officers that enabled him to do a murder are de facto also going to be charged, right? Since they ran interference for somebody committing a murder?
i believe they have already been charged with aiding and abetting, but i imagine whether they go to trial will depend on the outcome of this cause
I honestly was not super aware of them except in the sense of knowing they exist and that farrakhan is always called a democrat by the right despite the Dems consistently being fairly up front in rejecting him.
But reading up (just basics of wiki; I know that will miss a lot) it sounds a lot like what I was exposed to growing up in a jehovah's witnesses church + the nationalism part. So I was already thinking it sounded pretty much like most high control cults and then I got to the part about farrakhan embracing dianetics.
A Confederate monument valued at $500,000 was stolen in March from a Selma cemetery, officials confirmed today.
This morning, a group that claims to have taken the monument, the Jefferson Davis Memorial Chair, sent emails to AL.com saying they will give the chair to the United Daughters of the Confederacy if that organization agrees to hang a banner outside its Richmond, Va. headquarters.
In those emails, a group calling itself White Lies Matter say they stole the chair from the Old Live Oak Cemetery and are demanding that the UDC hang a large banner at 1 p.m. on Friday -- the anniversary of the Confederacy’s surrender in the Civil War -- and leave it there for 24 hours.
The banner bears a quote from Assata Shakur, a Black Liberation Army activist wanted by the FBI for the 1973 murder of a New Jersey state trooper: “The rulers of this country have always considered their property more important than our lives.”
White Lies Matter said it had already delivered the banner to the UCD.
“Failure to do so will result in the monument, an ornate stone chair, immediately being turned into a toilet,” the email states. “If they do display the banner, not only will we return the chair intact, but we will clean it to boot.”
A woman who answered the phone at the Virginia offices of the UCD said she had heard the reports of the theft and ransom demand were “fake news” and there was no immediate response to an email to the organization seeking further comment.
On January 27, the Mason County Sheriff’s Office, which led an investigation into officers’ use of force in the shooting, notified the public that Arlo had been shot by friendly fire. But it wasn’t until weeks later that local outlets like The Olympian, a paper based in Olympia, reported on what had actually happened.
By that point, Arlo’s story had taken on a life of its own. The Thurston County Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation organized a GoFundMe page and raised more than $73,000 for Arlo’s medical bills. Arlo grew his social media following on TikTok to 2.5 million, and on Instagram to 130,000. Arlo’s handler, a deputy with the sheriff’s office, together with another K-9 handler and ex-cop started a website called “VARLO Nation,” a business for law enforcement officers and others to “buy affordable quality equipment.”
Posts
This is flat out not true.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-death-day-4-2021-04-01/
I'm not following the trial super closely, but that sounds like they are establishing bias. And no, you can only ask questions in cross that are related to their testimony.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/02/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-trial-police-chief-testimony
Derek Chauvin trial: police chief to testify against former officer in ‘remarkable move’
Chief Medaria Arradondo’s testimony over George Floyd’s death may be unprecedented, experts
expect a lot of "this wasn't part of his training, he didn't follow procedure, he had underlying issues we weren't aware of at the time" type of bullshit
if it lands his ass in jail I’m ok with it.
They’re trying to establish a narrative that the vicious mob yelling at the cops was distracting/threatening enough that Chauvin doing a murder was an oopsies accident. They’re fishing real hard for angry black man caricature framings to do this.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
yeah this is mostly where I'm at too, both in terms of getting justice in this specific case and for setting precedent to hopefully make police accountability more common
for now I'm choosing cautious optimism over my normal frustrated cynicism
Yeah, while the institution of policing is completely broken, one of the reasons it got there is because police unions and leadership won’t reject officers like this. If this acts as even a slight deterrent to this shit in the future it’s a net positive, even if more drastic overhauls are still needed.
I hope someone demands the chief explain why this loose cannon who didn't reflect the values of the force was on the force for years
If Chauvin goes to jail, that's good
If this leads to more police chiefs having to answer questions in court, that's a move in the right ish direction
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
a) He's being called by the prosecution so they must believe it helps their case
b) Your assumption would still directly undermine one of the defense's primary arguments.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Of course.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
it'd be easier to believe if there hadn't been so many other officers present and watching without saying anything
That's a federal charge and likely a slam dunk if they decide to prosecute it.
They won't in this trial if the prosecution wants anything to potentially stick. It is information that could be argued as prejudicial and is not directly relevant to the case in any material way. Bringing it up just means it can be used in appeals to declare a mistrial and start the process all over again.
Late, and also not a forum lawyer, but the analysis I've seen is saying that the defense's main argument is to try and paint the people filming the murder as a "mob" that was so scary and distracting that Chauvin did not notice that he was, you know, choking a man to death with a knee press.
So lot's of trying to establish that the surrounding crowd was growing increasingly angry and combative, all that usual bullshit.
I guess I could just be remembering ANOTHER time this happened and was captured on video
Sounds like they are making the argument for duress, which is a reach.
Especially since the other officers were providing a perimeter and not letting the "mob" get within 10 feet of Floyd and Chauvin.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
"Look, see, bad guy went to jail, now stop calling for us to get defunded or have any form of accountability."
i believe they have already been charged with aiding and abetting, but i imagine whether they go to trial will depend on the outcome of this cause
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
But reading up (just basics of wiki; I know that will miss a lot) it sounds a lot like what I was exposed to growing up in a jehovah's witnesses church + the nationalism part. So I was already thinking it sounded pretty much like most high control cults and then I got to the part about farrakhan embracing dianetics.
Also was the main planner of the Assassination of Malcom X.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534