The Derek Chauvin Trial Thread (Guilty on all charges!!) 4/20

[Leasy]

When even your fellow Klansmen are throwing you under the bus you KNOW you fukked up

Hell yeah dude made it too obvious with this murder not even that people who probably was racist got affected watching that shyt.

 

[Dad]

I still don’t trust these cacs on the jury.

 

[Rekkapryde]

Man if they don’t convict

Minneapolis will burn

 

[Rekkapryde]

Too much video and witnesses.. All of them like

Gospel.

This shyt needs to be done more often, let the knucklehead cops hold their own nuts so it doesn't affect the rest of them. Caping for the clowns who make it bad for the entire department is dumb. Throw that fool to the wolves, esp when they blatantly caught doing fukkboi shyt.

 

[Tha_Mac]

Why haven't we gotten into Chauvin's past. He has like 19 complaints against him for excessive force and or discrimination if I'm not mistaking. I've heard way too much about the victims past but nothing about the killer of the victim's checkered past. That better be corrected before the end of this trial.

 

[mattw1313]

Why haven't we gotten into Chauvin's past. He has like 19 complaints against him for excessive force and or discrimination if I'm not mistaking. I've heard way too much about the victims past but nothing about the killer of the victim's checkered past. That better be corrected before the end of this trial.

that was ruled on in pre trial motions

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Memorandum03242021.pdf

there's generally a high bar when it comes to bringing up past acts; the suggestion that someone did something similar in the past and so that makes them more likely to be guilty in the present charge is problematic

edit: don't misconstrue this as me agreeing with the ruling. I'm just pointing out that it's normal to have past acts kept out of trial

 

[Tha_Mac]

that was ruled on in pre trial motions

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Memorandum03242021.pdf

there's generally a high bar when it comes to bringing up past acts; the suggestion that someone did something similar in the past and so that makes them more likely to be guilty in the present charge is problematic

edit: don't misconstrue this as me agreeing with the ruling. I'm just pointing out that it's normal to have past acts kept out of trial

That's like 54 pages....so does it say they can't bring up Chauvin's past? And if so why would the defendant's past be protected but the victim's past be cast during the trial for the world to see?

 

[Dreamchaser]

That's like 54 pages....so does it say they can't bring up Chauvin's past? And if so why would the defendant's past be protected but the victim's past be cast during the trial for the world to see?

GENERAL STANDARDS ON SPREIGL MOTIONS Under Rule 404(b)(1) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, "[e]vidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Taken from the link. Basically can't use old evidence to prove character of a person.

 

[Tha_Mac]

GENERAL STANDARDS ON SPREIGL MOTIONS Under Rule 404(b)(1) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, "[e]vidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith."

Taken from the link. Basically can't use old evidence to prove character of a person.

That's exactly what they've tried to do to George Floyd tho

 

[Dreamchaser]

That's exactly what they've tried to do to George Floyd tho

Its a little different because drugs were found in George Floyd's system so there's a direct link for the defense to make that case that drug addiction and his health preconditions killed him. Its the only argument the defense really has.

 

[mattw1313]

That's like 54 pages....so does it say they can't bring up Chauvin's past? And if so why would the defendant's past be protected but the victim's past be cast during the trial for the world to see?

it was a ruling on 8 separate incidents from Chauvin's past that the State sought to admit; also rulings on incidents from George Floyd's past, introduced by the defense [they wanted to mention his old robbery conviction in Texas], ALL denied except 2 of Chauvin's incidents [plus the judge later went back and allowed a portion of George Floyd's 2019 arrest to be shown]

so, the judge actually allowed information from two of Chauvin's past incidents to be introduced. you'll probably see that come out next week

the two past incidents:

1)Chauvin was involved in an arrest of an emotionally disturbed person, the entire team was later given life saving awards for getting him into the rescue position as soon as he was handcuffed, and getting medical help, and was told that the guy could have died if they didn't get him into the right position and get him medical attention. the state (if it first presents evidence that Chauvin heard those statements) is going to be allowed to show that Chauvin knew how to properly deal with someone who was freaking out, knew the possible consequences of keeping someone in a position like he kept George Floyd in, and that what he did to George Floyd was done in spite of knowing the right way to handle the situation.

2)an incident where Chauvin manhandled a woman then ordered her to be hogtied, after she stopped resisting. the state will be allowed to use this to show Chauvin has a tendency to go beyond what is required of a situation, and to leave people handcuffed in a prone position even after resistance has stopped. there is body camera footage.

 

[MBwithadream]

Negged

I'm so scared.

 

[Tha_Mac]

it was a ruling on 8 separate incidents from Chauvin's past that the State sought to admit; also rulings on incidents from George Floyd's past, introduced by the defense [they wanted to mention his old robbery conviction in Texas], ALL denied except 2 of Chauvin's incidents [plus the judge later went back and allowed a portion of George Floyd's 2019 arrest to be shown]

so, the judge actually allowed information from two of Chauvin's past incidents to be introduced. you'll probably see that come out next week

the two past incidents:

1)Chauvin was involved in an arrest of an emotionally disturbed person, the entire team was later given life saving awards for getting him into the rescue position as soon as he was handcuffed, and getting medical help, and was told that the guy could have died if they didn't get him into the right position and get him medical attention. the state (if it first presents evidence that Chauvin heard those statements) is going to be allowed to show that Chauvin knew how to properly deal with someone who was freaking out, knew the possible consequences of keeping someone in a position like he kept George Floyd in, and that what he did to George Floyd was done in spite of knowing the right way to handle the situation.

2)an incident where Chauvin manhandled a woman then ordered her to be hogtied, after she stopped resisting. the state will be allowed to use this to show Chauvin has a tendency to go beyond what is required of a situation, and to leave people handcuffed in a prone position even after resistance has stopped. there is body camera footage.

Appreciate this.

 

[Robo Squirrel]

Straggling him.

 

[Robo Squirrel]

I swear if he gets away with
this you white RACISTS are going to...