Quick question for everyone. I have noticed a lot of firms reposting, over and over again, job postings. Are they not finding anyone? You can see on linked in that they get applications in. So, I'm wondering, are firms not happy with the quality of the applicants? Are they not happy with the interviews they've conducted? Can anyone explain why some of these positions are continually reposted over and over?
Hmm,could be the quality of employees. *Cough, cough.* Have to repost to refresh the listing. Read the book Good to Great by Jim Collins? Good employees won't make a great business. Unfortunately, talent is free, it's mediocrity that's expensive.
Our firm (full service) is usually looking for a lateral partner with a book to cover at least half of their time. When we are looking for associates we are usually looking for someone in a specific practice area with 3-5 years of experience. These are difficult to fill without overpaying. If you fit in one of these categories you should jump and get a nice bump in pay.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 4:39 pm
Voted for Marisa.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 5:02 pm
I hate to predict how high profile criminal trials will wind up, as I am often wrong.
But a basic overwhelming problem in Chauvin may be that public perspective was formed incessantly and repeatedly by the media prior to trial, and the jurors were by no means immune from it.
And this public perspective, and strong pre-conceived notions, can become so cemented that it can be difficult for anything that occurs at trial to chance the mind of too many jurors.
What we have seen over the last year in the media may be too deep, and too impactful, to unwind and rectify at trial.
For example,when there are media debates between BLM representatives and the more so-called Law And Order factions, the law and order factions, while defending many of these police incidents, also seem to concede something like "of course the Chauvin case is an outlier. He Killed that guy."–comments like that.
We've all seen talking head discussions on cable news(both the conservative leaning FOX and the liberal leaning CNN, etc.), where the Law And Order factions, when debating a BLM representative, say something to the effect that they concede that Chauvin was a really bad incident where the police are clearly culpable, and sometimes they also concede one from down South where they shot a suspect multiple times in the back.
I believe we have simply been inundated with too many of these discussions where the Law And Order side readily concedes something like "Okay. I give you Chauvin. I concede that one was horrible, but as far as these other two incidents we are discussing I don't believe it was excessive force, and here's why…"
These jurors, no matter how much they may insist they have an open mind, don't watch or read the news too much, have all heard these cable news debates multiple times while a t.v. is on in the lobby while that person waits for a medical appointment, for a car repair, you name it. And then they go to their job or office and they hear people debating or discussing it around the water cooler, and they hear the more pro-police faction conceding that the "the Chauvin matter was reprehensible, but as for these others…"
When both sides in the public and media tend to agree that the police were culpable, that can make matters very difficult for the defense at trial. Now yes, we have also all heard debates where the pro-police faction even attempt to defend the Chauvin matter. But far more often, Chauvin is conceded as an excessive force case.
I just think that dynamic is so strong, so deep-rooted over many months, that it would take one hell of a defense to change their minds. And I'm not certain we saw one hell of a defense case there in court(understatement alert).
It's interesting how no one will admit their viewpoints are largely created by what they see and hear in the media. They will bristle and act defensive as if such suggestion is a direct blow to their intelligence and independent thought process, and they will profess to be suspicious of and dismissive of media reports. But as soon as they let you know that, if you then ask them a question as to their view on something, it becomes clear that their opinion on such topic was almost completely formed by media talking points(whether it be a conservative outlets like FOX, more liberal leaning networks like CNN, or whatever).
All of us are guilty of this to some extent. The power of the media is simply so staggering(not that I'm offering a thought of even the slightest originality, but it is still important to always keep it in mind IMO).
So powerful in fact that nothing that happened at that trial is going to change too many minds, in my estimation.
It doesn't help that the network anchors frequently use the superlative form of an adjective. (bad, worse, worst – worst is the superlative form). If "race" is the current flavor of the month, then the networks look for and plays up every instance while ignoring other stories that might balance public perception. In this regard the network news anchors substantially contribute to the divisiveness of the country.
Good points. I'd say I'm on the law and order side of the spectrum. I'm guilty of what you post. My predictions before this trial, and through trial (though, I only watched local news recaps each day) was a guilty verdict. That changed today after hearing closing arguments. I think the trial could go either way, but defense counsel did s fabulous job creating reasonable doubt.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 5:11 pm
10:02–perhaps, but keep in mind that some material came out at trial that was not emphasized too much in earlier media reports.
Most of the media coverage tape focused on the incident itself(knee to the neck, prolonged restraint while onlookers plead for the officer to stop, etc).
But at trial, there was also emphasis on the tape of occurrences leading up to the incident, as well as greater focus on Floyd's drug usage, medical condition, behavior leading up to the incident etc.
However, I don't think the fact that such additional details received more focus at trial, than they did in the pre-trial media coverage, will change too many minds. Looks like a conviction is still likely.
As for your comments of all the media debates and discussions where the law and order side conceded that Chauvin was an excessive force case, I have seen some of those, but I'm not certain it has the profound impact you suggest it does. I don't necessarily think that it creates such pre-conceived notions in multiple jurors to the extent that they will be unmoved, or unpersuaded, by anything that occurs at trial.
But bottom line is that even if the jurors focus on the trial, and not on heavy pre-trial media coverage, it still looks grim for thee defense, in my view.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 5:14 pm
10:11–you seem to have a mixed view of all this. I'm not quite clear where you stand on some of it.
But that said, I think both you and 10:02 have valid points.
10:02 points out that media has a huge effect on all this, and you point out that such media effect does not preclude occurrences at trial from being game changers.
But, that all said, I agree a conviction is likely.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 5:50 pm
The prosecution dream team did a great job, as I would expect from top notch PI attorneys. The defense attorney cross examinations were text book. Great job. The visual and visceral sale much, much better by the prosecution. For me, if I were on the jury, I would vote acquittal. NO evidence of the appropriate mens rea for any of the charges. Shockingly so.
When I heard the state admit this knee on back is standard practice across the world and never leads to death — until Floyd decided to consumer massive amounts of drugs, I realized Chauvin really was just holding the suspect for paramedics. He called them. Held Floyd. Gave him to the paramedics. For him, another day on the job. In my mind, the crowd should have been prosecuted for interfering with the arrest and intimidating the cops and paramedics.
The admission by the ME that if GF has dies at home, the cause of death would have been OD. Tough to ignore that.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 6:06 pm
When I first saw the video on tv, I shouted to a family member, "Hey, a cop just killed this guy in public. I can't believe this!" After looking at the facts and listening this morning to the Defense closing (he is still talking last I looked), I can't see Chauvin committed any crime. But juries being juries, my prediction is they will want to find something – so manslaughter. (PS I've never done a criminal case in my life)
It is like the OJ trial. Public sentiment will force a verdict contrary to the evidence. Of course it doesn't help that a juror was sleeping for part of the case.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 6:49 pm
11:06 again. I'm certainly not an expert but as one who has dabbled in grappling, wrestling in high school, etc.; I can say that although for an untrained person (e.g., an angry spouse) any neck attacks can be dangerous – but that for the trained there are MANY, MANY, MANY ways to hold or apply pressure to that area without implementing either a blood or air choke. In my admittedly low experience blood (artery) chokes work very quickly when locked in. Fighters will squirm and reposition for great amounts of time (see the early UFCs with Gracie) until they get the choke locked in. The video to me does not look like this is what Chauvin did. It looks like he was holding him down.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 7:08 pm
Chauvin's defense closing argument is brilliant. Thorough, professional, and it rings true. Prosecution closing was solid, but the problem is that the defense's closing essentially tells the jury (truthfully) that the Prosecution just spent the last hour lying to you.
Guest
anonymous
April 19, 2021 7:35 pm
Can he fire his attorney during closing?
Guest
anonymous
April 19, 2021 7:56 pm
Is this a filibuster?
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 8:10 pm
Goodness – he made his points – time to stop talking
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 8:24 pm
Too many people claiming they know the media definitely causes X, Y and Z.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 8:31 pm
Chauvin is gonna get acquitted. Riots coming.
If he is only convicted of manslaughter will there be riots?
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 8:48 pm
Just watched the defense closing. Agree it was brilliant. State rebuttal is awful and going to lose case. My .02. Other prosecutor much better. Second proseuctor is creating reasonable doubt.
1:48 Agree. Defense closing was quite effective. Don't necessarily agree it was "brilliant" but it was consistently very good, and at key points it was excellent. Very well-organized, knew where to place emphasis, avoided un-necessary repetition, did not get distracted by less important matters, etc.
Don't necessarily agree that State's rebuttal was "awful", but it was mediocre at its best level, poor at its lowest level, and was a true missed opportunity. He sort of got repetitive and droned on about some points which didn't matter that much, etc.
The point of a rebuttal is to succinctly and somewhat dramatically hammer home the few main points of your case, not to laboriously re-visit and repeat everything that was said in the opening, and the initial closing, about every conceivable point or issue. He seemed to be headed in the direction of revisiting just about everything, until he finally realized how ineffective that was and finally wrapped it up.
But on the other hand, when jurors are canvassed post-verdict, sometimes they don't hang their hat on one of the major points or themes that were developed. Sometimes they focus on secondary issues, or matters even further down the food chain in terms of importance. Sometimes they even focus on tangential points which were pretty much just made quickly in passing, and never returned to or developed. Or, worse yet, sometimes they concede they focused on points which were never even addressed, but which they thought were important and should have been focused on.
So, 1:48 would apparently give the defense closing an A. I would say close, but to be somewhat more conservative in grading, and more demanding as to expectations, I would say B+/A-.
1:48 would apparently give State's rebuttal an F. That may be slightly harsh. I would say D/D+ at best, or perhaps a straight D.
But that would not look a hell of a lot better on a transcript than the F, so perhaps I'm just splitting hairs.
Now, had the DA, in the rebuttal, droned on for even just another five minutes, he definitely would have made a good case for an F grade. That's how bad it was starting to get.
2:38, after all those closing arguments the Defense counsel made several points to preserve for the record, including that he had all along requested that the jury be fully sequestered.
Apparently, during trial, although not fully sequestered, they were "partially sequestered" or "closely supervised" during proceedings, but could go home at night. But during deliberations they are apparently fully sequestered.
I can understand that there are a whole myriad of reasons, and there are studies on this point, as to why full sequestering during the trial can be a drastic step. But if that is the case, the judge should at least own the issue–such as: No, I did not sequester the jury during trial, and here's the reasons I did not, and whatever you want to pursue post-trial on that issue is what it is.
But instead of fully acknowledging that he did not sequester the jury(again, which I am not necessarily taking a issue with) the judge seems to wish to protect the record and have it both ways. So, he falls back on this "closely supervised" or "partially sequestered" during trial.
But the problem with all that, as opposed to full sequestering, is that jurors return home at night, and some of them will discuss the case with family ad nauseum despite prohibitions otherwise, and watch news reports on the television, and read news reports and commentary, etc.
Now, this is not necessarily as damaging in cases where the case is not televised, as a juror's spouse will not have access to the televised trial, and thus will just continue to share the same general points they have all along. But when cases are televised, and jurors discuss it with their spouse, and their spouse was watching on t.v. the discussions are much more timely, relevant and focused, and the taint therefore can be that much more damaging.
Also, don't forget the fact the judge responded to Maxine Waters' public comments, which the judge described as interfering with the separate branches of government and, in effect, jury influence. Seems even a conviction is likely to be overturned. But, by that time, Chauvin will have served some time.
8:04–"Even a conviction" is likely to be overturned?
Actually, ONLY a conviction could be overturned.
If he's acquitted, that could of course not be overturned–unless the constitution was dramatically amended while I was away for the weekend.
That said, I think 8:04 was trying to make a different point from the way it came out.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 8:51 pm
1:31–that's really the question because if they convict him of second degree murder that would be the best possible outcome for the BLM movement, and many others, so it is presumed(hopefully) that matters would be relatively calm.
If convicted of the voluntary manslaughter charge, expect some unrest. If it's the involuntary manslaughter charge, expect a moderate to borderline major degree of unrest.
But if there is an acquittal…
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 9:39 pm
I remember the "Rodney King Riots" in Vegas. Saw what happened on the West Side down by Main Street. Thus, I'm staying inside if he is acquitted.
Smart move, its already been reported that Antifa and BLM "activists" are staged here in town and ready to go wild. Better to leave town and hole up someplace rural.
Reported by who? The Proud Boys Gazette? The Daily Stormer? The dumbest Trump? I just want to be clear where the information is coming from.
Guest
Anonymous
April 19, 2021 11:58 pm
I've been in Santa Monica for most of pandemic with spouse's parents a few blocks from the beach. Choice location.
Watched most of the Chauvin trial and too much of the commentary from TV experts. Politicians and Media stoke the fire and clear to me they want race riots.
I'm taking family to St. George in the morning because social outrage explodes no matter the result. We live in McNeil – 89102. I will be stopping in Las Vegas long enough to remove a gun safe, guns, ammunition and other valuables. Good luck everyone.
I have question for insurance lawyers. Is there generally coverage if our house is looted or burned.
So long as you did not do the looting or burning. However read your policy for exclusions.
Guest
anonymous
April 20, 2021 2:37 am
If Floyd had put his knee on Chauvin’s neck for nine minutes, the other pigs would have shot him, and he’d have been charged with first degree murder if he survived. Same should happen to Chauvin.
But, 7:37, kind of like comparing apples and oranges isn't it?
Chauvin, in my view, deserves to be convicted, but you are comparing an officer retraining a suspect(admittedly, quite wrongfully and excessively) pending arrest vs. someone attacking police–in which case of course, as you suggest, the police would have taken very immediate and very aggressive action.
But again, you are comparing two things that don't logically, or proportionately, lend themselves to comparison.
Guest
Anonymous
April 20, 2021 4:02 pm
I'm late to the party here – likely because instead of working I watched closing too and I thought the defense sucked. I thought the prosecution sucked too. I'm certain he'll be convicted, but I'm not sure if it will be 2nd or 3rd degree. Either way – I'm staying home. No riots for me.
Quick question for everyone. I have noticed a lot of firms reposting, over and over again, job postings. Are they not finding anyone? You can see on linked in that they get applications in. So, I'm wondering, are firms not happy with the quality of the applicants? Are they not happy with the interviews they've conducted? Can anyone explain why some of these positions are continually reposted over and over?
*cough* *cough* Van Law Firm *cough* *cough*
Hmm,could be the quality of employees. *Cough, cough.* Have to repost to refresh the listing. Read the book Good to Great by Jim Collins? Good employees won't make a great business. Unfortunately, talent is free, it's mediocrity that's expensive.
Our firm (full service) is usually looking for a lateral partner with a book to cover at least half of their time. When we are looking for associates we are usually looking for someone in a specific practice area with 3-5 years of experience. These are difficult to fill without overpaying. If you fit in one of these categories you should jump and get a nice bump in pay.
Voted for Marisa.
I hate to predict how high profile criminal trials will wind up, as I am often wrong.
But a basic overwhelming problem in Chauvin may be that public perspective was formed incessantly and repeatedly by the media prior to trial, and the jurors were by no means immune from it.
And this public perspective, and strong pre-conceived notions, can become so cemented that it can be difficult for anything that occurs at trial to chance the mind of too many jurors.
What we have seen over the last year in the media may be too deep, and too impactful, to unwind and rectify at trial.
For example,when there are media debates between BLM representatives and the more so-called Law And Order factions, the law and order factions, while defending many of these police incidents, also seem to concede something like "of course the Chauvin case is an outlier. He Killed that guy."–comments like that.
We've all seen talking head discussions on cable news(both the conservative leaning FOX and the liberal leaning CNN, etc.), where the Law And Order factions, when debating a BLM representative, say something to the effect that they concede that Chauvin was a really bad incident where the police are clearly culpable, and sometimes they also concede one from down South where they shot a suspect multiple times in the back.
I believe we have simply been inundated with too many of these discussions where the Law And Order side readily concedes something like "Okay. I give you Chauvin. I concede that one was horrible, but as far as these other two incidents we are discussing I don't believe it was excessive force, and here's why…"
These jurors, no matter how much they may insist they have an open mind, don't watch or read the news too much, have all heard these cable news debates multiple times while a t.v. is on in the lobby while that person waits for a medical appointment, for a car repair, you name it. And then they go to their job or office and they hear people debating or discussing it around the water cooler, and they hear the more pro-police faction conceding that the "the Chauvin matter was reprehensible, but as for these others…"
When both sides in the public and media tend to agree that the police were culpable, that can make matters very difficult for the defense at trial. Now yes, we have also all heard debates where the pro-police faction even attempt to defend the Chauvin matter. But far more often, Chauvin is conceded as an excessive force case.
I just think that dynamic is so strong, so deep-rooted over many months, that it would take one hell of a defense to change their minds. And I'm not certain we saw one hell of a defense case there in court(understatement alert).
It's interesting how no one will admit their viewpoints are largely created by what they see and hear in the media. They will bristle and act defensive as if such suggestion is a direct blow to their intelligence and independent thought process, and they will profess to be suspicious of and dismissive of media reports. But as soon as they let you know that, if you then ask them a question as to their view on something, it becomes clear that their opinion on such topic was almost completely formed by media talking points(whether it be a conservative outlets like FOX, more liberal leaning networks like CNN, or whatever).
All of us are guilty of this to some extent. The power of the media is simply so staggering(not that I'm offering a thought of even the slightest originality, but it is still important to always keep it in mind IMO).
So powerful in fact that nothing that happened at that trial is going to change too many minds, in my estimation.
It doesn't help that the network anchors frequently use the superlative form of an adjective. (bad, worse, worst – worst is the superlative form). If "race" is the current flavor of the month, then the networks look for and plays up every instance while ignoring other stories that might balance public perception. In this regard the network news anchors substantially contribute to the divisiveness of the country.
Good points. I'd say I'm on the law and order side of the spectrum. I'm guilty of what you post. My predictions before this trial, and through trial (though, I only watched local news recaps each day) was a guilty verdict. That changed today after hearing closing arguments. I think the trial could go either way, but defense counsel did s fabulous job creating reasonable doubt.
10:02–perhaps, but keep in mind that some material came out at trial that was not emphasized too much in earlier media reports.
Most of the media coverage tape focused on the incident itself(knee to the neck, prolonged restraint while onlookers plead for the officer to stop, etc).
But at trial, there was also emphasis on the tape of occurrences leading up to the incident, as well as greater focus on Floyd's drug usage, medical condition, behavior leading up to the incident etc.
However, I don't think the fact that such additional details received more focus at trial, than they did in the pre-trial media coverage, will change too many minds. Looks like a conviction is still likely.
As for your comments of all the media debates and discussions where the law and order side conceded that Chauvin was an excessive force case, I have seen some of those, but I'm not certain it has the profound impact you suggest it does. I don't necessarily think that it creates such pre-conceived notions in multiple jurors to the extent that they will be unmoved, or unpersuaded, by anything that occurs at trial.
But bottom line is that even if the jurors focus on the trial, and not on heavy pre-trial media coverage, it still looks grim for thee defense, in my view.
10:11–you seem to have a mixed view of all this. I'm not quite clear where you stand on some of it.
But that said, I think both you and 10:02 have valid points.
10:02 points out that media has a huge effect on all this, and you point out that such media effect does not preclude occurrences at trial from being game changers.
But, that all said, I agree a conviction is likely.
The prosecution dream team did a great job, as I would expect from top notch PI attorneys. The defense attorney cross examinations were text book. Great job. The visual and visceral sale much, much better by the prosecution. For me, if I were on the jury, I would vote acquittal. NO evidence of the appropriate mens rea for any of the charges. Shockingly so.
When I heard the state admit this knee on back is standard practice across the world and never leads to death — until Floyd decided to consumer massive amounts of drugs, I realized Chauvin really was just holding the suspect for paramedics. He called them. Held Floyd. Gave him to the paramedics. For him, another day on the job. In my mind, the crowd should have been prosecuted for interfering with the arrest and intimidating the cops and paramedics.
The admission by the ME that if GF has dies at home, the cause of death would have been OD. Tough to ignore that.
When I first saw the video on tv, I shouted to a family member, "Hey, a cop just killed this guy in public. I can't believe this!" After looking at the facts and listening this morning to the Defense closing (he is still talking last I looked), I can't see Chauvin committed any crime. But juries being juries, my prediction is they will want to find something – so manslaughter. (PS I've never done a criminal case in my life)
It is like the OJ trial. Public sentiment will force a verdict contrary to the evidence. Of course it doesn't help that a juror was sleeping for part of the case.
11:06 again. I'm certainly not an expert but as one who has dabbled in grappling, wrestling in high school, etc.; I can say that although for an untrained person (e.g., an angry spouse) any neck attacks can be dangerous – but that for the trained there are MANY, MANY, MANY ways to hold or apply pressure to that area without implementing either a blood or air choke. In my admittedly low experience blood (artery) chokes work very quickly when locked in. Fighters will squirm and reposition for great amounts of time (see the early UFCs with Gracie) until they get the choke locked in. The video to me does not look like this is what Chauvin did. It looks like he was holding him down.
Chauvin's defense closing argument is brilliant. Thorough, professional, and it rings true. Prosecution closing was solid, but the problem is that the defense's closing essentially tells the jury (truthfully) that the Prosecution just spent the last hour lying to you.
Can he fire his attorney during closing?
Is this a filibuster?
Goodness – he made his points – time to stop talking
Too many people claiming they know the media definitely causes X, Y and Z.
Chauvin is gonna get acquitted. Riots coming.
If he is only convicted of manslaughter will there be riots?
Just watched the defense closing. Agree it was brilliant. State rebuttal is awful and going to lose case. My .02. Other prosecutor much better. Second proseuctor is creating reasonable doubt.
1:48 Agree. Defense closing was quite effective. Don't necessarily agree it was "brilliant" but it was consistently very good, and at key points it was excellent. Very well-organized, knew where to place emphasis, avoided un-necessary repetition, did not get distracted by less important matters, etc.
Don't necessarily agree that State's rebuttal was "awful", but it was mediocre at its best level, poor at its lowest level, and was a true missed opportunity. He sort of got repetitive and droned on about some points which didn't matter that much, etc.
The point of a rebuttal is to succinctly and somewhat dramatically hammer home the few main points of your case, not to laboriously re-visit and repeat everything that was said in the opening, and the initial closing, about every conceivable point or issue. He seemed to be headed in the direction of revisiting just about everything, until he finally realized how ineffective that was and finally wrapped it up.
But on the other hand, when jurors are canvassed post-verdict, sometimes they don't hang their hat on one of the major points or themes that were developed. Sometimes they focus on secondary issues, or matters even further down the food chain in terms of importance. Sometimes they even focus on tangential points which were pretty much just made quickly in passing, and never returned to or developed. Or, worse yet, sometimes they concede they focused on points which were never even addressed, but which they thought were important and should have been focused on.
So, 1:48 would apparently give the defense closing an A. I would say close, but to be somewhat more conservative in grading, and more demanding as to expectations, I would say B+/A-.
1:48 would apparently give State's rebuttal an F. That may be slightly harsh. I would say D/D+ at best, or perhaps a straight D.
But that would not look a hell of a lot better on a transcript than the F, so perhaps I'm just splitting hairs.
Now, had the DA, in the rebuttal, droned on for even just another five minutes, he definitely would have made a good case for an F grade. That's how bad it was starting to get.
2:38, after all those closing arguments the Defense counsel made several points to preserve for the record, including that he had all along requested that the jury be fully sequestered.
Apparently, during trial, although not fully sequestered, they were "partially sequestered" or "closely supervised" during proceedings, but could go home at night. But during deliberations they are apparently fully sequestered.
I can understand that there are a whole myriad of reasons, and there are studies on this point, as to why full sequestering during the trial can be a drastic step. But if that is the case, the judge should at least own the issue–such as: No, I did not sequester the jury during trial, and here's the reasons I did not, and whatever you want to pursue post-trial on that issue is what it is.
But instead of fully acknowledging that he did not sequester the jury(again, which I am not necessarily taking a issue with) the judge seems to wish to protect the record and have it both ways. So, he falls back on this "closely supervised" or "partially sequestered" during trial.
But the problem with all that, as opposed to full sequestering, is that jurors return home at night, and some of them will discuss the case with family ad nauseum despite prohibitions otherwise, and watch news reports on the television, and read news reports and commentary, etc.
Now, this is not necessarily as damaging in cases where the case is not televised, as a juror's spouse will not have access to the televised trial, and thus will just continue to share the same general points they have all along. But when cases are televised, and jurors discuss it with their spouse, and their spouse was watching on t.v. the discussions are much more timely, relevant and focused, and the taint therefore can be that much more damaging.
Also, don't forget the fact the judge responded to Maxine Waters' public comments, which the judge described as interfering with the separate branches of government and, in effect, jury influence. Seems even a conviction is likely to be overturned. But, by that time, Chauvin will have served some time.
8:04–"Even a conviction" is likely to be overturned?
Actually, ONLY a conviction could be overturned.
If he's acquitted, that could of course not be overturned–unless the constitution was dramatically amended while I was away for the weekend.
That said, I think 8:04 was trying to make a different point from the way it came out.
1:31–that's really the question because if they convict him of second degree murder that would be the best possible outcome for the BLM movement, and many others, so it is presumed(hopefully) that matters would be relatively calm.
If convicted of the voluntary manslaughter charge, expect some unrest. If it's the involuntary manslaughter charge, expect a moderate to borderline major degree of unrest.
But if there is an acquittal…
I remember the "Rodney King Riots" in Vegas. Saw what happened on the West Side down by Main Street. Thus, I'm staying inside if he is acquitted.
Smart move, its already been reported that Antifa and BLM "activists" are staged here in town and ready to go wild. Better to leave town and hole up someplace rural.
Reported by who? The Proud Boys Gazette? The Daily Stormer? The dumbest Trump? I just want to be clear where the information is coming from.
I've been in Santa Monica for most of pandemic with spouse's parents a few blocks from the beach. Choice location.
Watched most of the Chauvin trial and too much of the commentary from TV experts. Politicians and Media stoke the fire and clear to me they want race riots.
I'm taking family to St. George in the morning because social outrage explodes no matter the result. We live in McNeil – 89102. I will be stopping in Las Vegas long enough to remove a gun safe, guns, ammunition and other valuables. Good luck everyone.
I have question for insurance lawyers. Is there generally coverage if our house is looted or burned.
Stay safe.
Isn't 89102 in the Metro Safe Zone? Anyways, your plan is solid. I'd leave too if I could.
So long as you did not do the looting or burning. However read your policy for exclusions.
If Floyd had put his knee on Chauvin’s neck for nine minutes, the other pigs would have shot him, and he’d have been charged with first degree murder if he survived. Same should happen to Chauvin.
Yes, because the criminals run the world now, right? How stupid are you?
Very
But, 7:37, kind of like comparing apples and oranges isn't it?
Chauvin, in my view, deserves to be convicted, but you are comparing an officer retraining a suspect(admittedly, quite wrongfully and excessively) pending arrest vs. someone attacking police–in which case of course, as you suggest, the police would have taken very immediate and very aggressive action.
But again, you are comparing two things that don't logically, or proportionately, lend themselves to comparison.
I'm late to the party here – likely because instead of working I watched closing too and I thought the defense sucked. I thought the prosecution sucked too. I'm certain he'll be convicted, but I'm not sure if it will be 2nd or 3rd degree. Either way – I'm staying home. No riots for me.