U S A Today poll. 85 - 71 - 55 !

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

USA Today, polled 1000 Adults in EVERY STATE, a few hours after the Chauvin Verdict.

The Crystal Clear, SPECIFIC question was, " Do you Think Chauvin was GUILTY " ???

The poll was asked of Democrats, Lib's and Retrumplicans.

The percentages came back as follows.

71%

55%

85%

Try to guess which percentage was from the Retrumplicans ??

Go ahead dell, you go FIRST.

 

[eolesen]

Go ahead and count your chickens now, Bears. OJ was found not guilty by a jury, but that doesn't mean he was innocent...

On appeal, this may wind up in a different result.

For the record, I do think he was guilty of manslaughter, and there's a good case on Murder 2, but not Murder 3 based on the actual MN statutes.

Legally, that's another case altogether.

Under MN law, regardless what the jury decided, the actual language for Murder 3 might be cause for the appeals court to reverse that charge. The state's Supreme Court was already reviewing another case where a black officer shot a white woman a few years back, and if Noor's conviction gets overturned, so would Chauvin's as they were similar circumstances (the statute is written and currently interpreted as requiring multiple people to be at risk of harm, not an individual).

Murder 2 may also be in question because the statute requires trying to cause intentional bodily harm. An appeals court might reverse that on the ground the exact style of restraint he used was part of the MPD's operating procedures at the time; if it was an approved restraint, presumably it wasn't intended to cause bodily harm...

And that doesn't even start to go into the potential appeals based on the lack of sequestration, or how the ongoing riots in MSP and fear of injury/reprisal might have influenced the jury.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Hi, I am your lawyer. How do you like my outhouse?

 

[delldude]

Go ahead and count your chickens now, Bears. OJ was found not guilty by a jury, but that doesn't mean he was innocent...

On appeal, this may wind up in a different result.

For the record, I do think he was guilty of manslaughter, and there's a good case on Murder 2, but not Murder 3 based on the actual MN statutes.

Legally, that's another case altogether.

Under MN law, regardless what the jury decided, the actual language for Murder 3 might be cause for the appeals court to reverse that charge. The state's Supreme Court was already reviewing another case where a black officer shot a white woman a few years back, and if Noor's conviction gets overturned, so would Chauvin's as they were similar circumstances (the statute is written and currently interpreted as requiring multiple people to be at risk of harm, not an individual).

Murder 2 may also be in question because the statute requires trying to cause intentional bodily harm. An appeals court might reverse that on the ground the exact style of restraint he used was part of the MPD's operating procedures at the time; if it was an approved restraint, presumably it wasn't intended to cause bodily harm...

And that doesn't even start to go into the potential appeals based on the lack of sequestration, or how the ongoing riots in MSP and fear of injury/reprisal might have influenced the jury.

I agree he did commit involuntary manslaughter. The other two I totally disagree on. I believe the murder 2 has to do with happening during a felony. If that's the case, he had to purposely commit felony assault and intentionally inflict bodily harm. Intentionally is a reach, in my book.

Good article by Alan Dershowitz I read:

Lawyer Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, slammed Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) during an interview following the guilty verdict against former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin on all counts.

“The irony of what Congresswoman Waters did. She borrowed the playbook of the Ku Klux Klan from the 1920s and 1930s. They would stand outside of courtrooms, and they would threaten violence,” Dershowitz told Newsmax. “This violates the separation of powers. It insults the integrity of the independent judiciary, and Congresswoman Waters ought to be ashamed of herself. What she did was disgraceful.”

“Every juror in that room knew about these threats. And when they sit and deliberate, they have to be saying to themselves, consciously or unconsciously, if I would render a verdict other than a murder verdict, what the consequences will be for me, my family, my friends, my business,” he concluded.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/ders...tm_content=042121-news&utm_campaign=position1

Question. Do you have any idea if each separate charge could be appealed one at time?

 

[robbedagain]

The other 3 officers involved will be tougher sell on similar charges.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

SO, then panel, why did Retumplicans 'come in at damm near a 50-50 split', when Libertarians came in at 71% ???????

Go Ahead, spin that one.

Better still, SPIN THIS !!!!!!!!!!

 

[eolesen]

Apparently you don't know what Libertarianism is. It's not just about legalizing drugs...

Real Libertarians believe government agencies and employees should be held fully accountable for their actions. Holding Chauvin accountable would be entirely consistent with that.

Most Republicans believe the same, but the question with them is more about intent, which is why we mostly agree that manslaughter was justified as a charge.

Not really a factor here, but Real Libertarians also believe in fewer laws, which could greatly reduce the potential for police brutality or abuses of power by law enforcement.

I'd love to see a poll on how Democrats feel about government agencies and employees being held fully accountable for their actions.... we know they're all about bigger government, more laws, but no enforcement unless it fits their agenda...

 

[eolesen]

Knowing Bears will next focus on the 50/50 split with Republicans... there seems to be a difference in information on the case that's been discussed in conservative media vs. what the leftist media has presented....

Based on the levels of fentanyl and meth in his system, there's a strong possibility that had Floyd not been woken up and arrested, he would have been found dead at the wheel of his car. Toxic levels of fentanyl and meth also typically result in hypoxic death. You're so numb you simply stop breathing...

Had Floyd not been dangerously high on drugs, he would have probably lived thru the arrest. Then again, had he complied with the original request to simply get into the police car instead of fighting his arrest, he wouldn't have been restrained...

Those issues do present a case for reasonable doubt to me on murder, but trying to overcoming the affects of the videos being replayed dozens of times was probably impossible with the jury.

There's also a concept called cumulative testimony that may have been breached by repeating the video with each witness called by the prosecution, and even the judge finally called it out at the end of the prosecution's case. Remember the scene in "A Few Good Men" where the prosecution stated they planned to call every person in the platoon to testify and the judge disallowed it? That's cumulative testimony being correctly stopped...

Corroboration of facts is one thing, but when if it's the same response repeatedly, it becomes cumulative and is typically not allowed (yet another item for the appeal process).

 

[Dog Wonder]

Hi, I'm your Doctor. How do you like my Mother's basement.

 

[Miso Phat.....]

Hi, I'm your Doctor. How do you like my Mother's basement.

Not funny but still laughing at you.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Go see Dr. E. He has the cure.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Go see Dr. E. He has the cure.

Ya but (Dog'), DR E is "Stuck" in a political party (That as long as the ORANGE TURD is the most Influential MORON), That will NEVER see 1600' PA Ave., unless they take a tour.

And Dog', you know the BEST PART, Mr. Know-it-ALL, "KNOWS IT " !!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!!

 

[delldude]

Ya but (Dog'), DR E is "Stuck" in a political party (That as long as the ORANGE TURD is the most Influential MORON), That will NEVER see 1600' PA Ave., unless they take a tour.

And Dog', you know the BEST PART, Mr. Know-it-ALL, "KNOWS IT " !!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!!

Yet you blindly follow the Marxist progressives.Do yourself a favor and start reading the fine print on your political label.

 

[eolesen]

It's good to see Trump still lives rent-free in Bears' aging pudding head...

I'm fine not having the White House right now.

Given Biden's first four months, it's gonna be ugly for Democrats come 2022. Gas prices have jumped anywhere from $0.50 to $1.00 a gallon since Election Day, riots in Portland still haven't stopped, and some lower income people in Georgia are downright pissed about not getting those $2000 checks they were promised by Ralph Warnock....

Oh, and Trump won't be on the ballot.

Something else to look forward to -- redistricting based on the Census. TX gains two seats, while AZ, CO, FL, NC, and OR each gain a seat in the House. IL, MI, MN, NY, PA, RI and WV each lose a seat.

Republicans have a slight leg up on that process. 20 of the 28 states who let the legislature control redistricting are solid GOP states, while only seven of those are solid Democrat states. The remaining state has a split legislature, so that's going to be a draw. The other 32 states either use commissions independent of the legislature for their redistricting (usually less partisan than a legislative drawn map) or have a split between control of the legislature and the governor's mansion (e.g. KY and PA) where a totally partisan redraw can be kept in check.

Between the usual "party of the President taking a beating in the midterms" effect and redistricting, the GOP will only need to pick up six seats to take control back from the Democrats in the House. Most pundits are saying that's likely given the gains the GOP made in 2020 -- while everyone was predicting Pelosi getting 20 seats flipped, the GOP gained 13 seats (in other words, Democrats lost 33 races they thought they'd win).

In the Senate, GOP only needs to pick up one seat in the Senate. There are really only four races that I'd consider toss-ups -- Ralph Warnock in GA, and Mark Kelly in AZ. Both have been traditionally red states, yet currently have Democrats in the Senate. Then there's PA (Toomey isn't running) and WI, where it's still not clear if Ron Johnson will run for re-election. He's said before that he will only serve two terms.

Biden might still have the White House, but if one or both chambers flip, it won't be a very enjoyable last two years of his term.

 

[Dog Wonder]

Hi, I am your political advisor. How do you like my degree? I got it on the radio.