Another Black man killed by cops ... this time by accident?

[Lighthouse 84]

So, you don't really mean it when you say that whatever the jury decides is the "right" verdict. You're just mad that Biden gave his opinion.
Got it.

Can the jury get it "wrong"?  It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.

[mu_hilltopper]

For the sake of clarity, this isn't true.
Having gunshot residue on you is not conclusive evidence you fired a gun.

Fair enough.  Let's wait and see what the particle count on his hands ends up being, as your link suggests.

[Pakuni]

Guilty on all charges.

[TedBaxter]

Guilty on all charges.

Good.

[Jockey]

Can the jury get it "wrong"?  It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.

You’re calling THIS president reckless? OK then.

[MuggsyB]

Guilty on all charges.

Bam.

Hopefully this will make this evening pretty tame.

[Pakuni]

Can the jury get it "wrong"?  It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.

It would be better if he had kept his opinion to himself.
But it's not like he leveled personal attacks on numerous judges - going so far as to question the citizenship and loyalty to America of one - when they issue a ruling he doesn't like. That would really be repulsive and reckless, don't you think?

[Babybluejeans]

The judge revoking his bail and then getting to see him cuffed and led away...that was satisfying.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Can the jury get it "wrong"?  It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.

LOL, calm down dude.  This was clearly the right verdict.  The President can express his opinion just like anyone else.

[naginiF]

Bam.

Hopefully this will make this evening pretty tame.

Hopefully this is a turning of the page where individuals are held responsible for their actions and the scales of justice don't have a thumb on them. Maintain that over a long period of time and most evenings should be tame. But one verdict does not resolve the issue.

[The Lens]

Can the jury get it "wrong"?  It may not be the decision you or I or the president would arrive at from the periphery, but I find it repulsive to the legal system that the sitting president knows what the "right" verdict is without having been on the jury and seeing/hearing all of the evidence, and he feels he should voice that before the jury announces their decision, which is reckless.

With the endless coverage of the trial and the blow by blow detail of defense expert witnesses not looking strong in cross examination, it is pretty reasonable that any citizen, especially POTUS could realize the correct verdict.  We were able to hear / read everything the jury was given.  And I would imagine POTUS has a few lawyers around him who can interpret testimony and give counsel.

We don't need to take sides on everything.  Can we just agree every once in awhile?  This one seemed cut and dry.

[MuggsyB]

Hopefully this is a turning of the page where individuals are held responsible for their actions and the scales of justice don't have a thumb on them. Maintain that over a long period of time and most evenings should be tame. But one verdict does not resolve the issue.

It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race.  Nor was Kenosha, Louisville, Ferguson, the Toledo shooting in Chicago, and countless others.  It was about Chauvin's criminal behavior which led to him committing assault and killing a man.  Race wasn't invoked once by the prosecutor, and nor was systemic police racism to his credit. 

[Lighthouse 84]

You’re calling THIS president reckless? OK then.

Two things can be true at once. 

The first is that a president, other than Biden, could have made reckless comments about something in the past.  Not sure why that matters because I was only commenting on Biden. The second is that Biden made some reckless comments about this verdict before it was announced. 

Reading's a skill, hey?

[Hards Alumni]

It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race.  Nor was Kenosha, Louisville, Ferguson, the Toledo shooting in Chicago, and countless others.  It was about Chauvin's criminal behavior which led to him committing assault and killing a man.  Race wasn't invoked once by the prosecutor nor systemic police racism to his credit.

Oof.

[MuggsyB]

Two things can be true at once. 

The first is that a president, other than Biden, could have made reckless comments about something in the past.  Not sure why that matters because I was only commenting on Biden. The second is that Biden made some reckless comments about this verdict before it was announced. 

Reading's a skill, hey?

What Biden said was imbecilic.  Isn't he a lawyer?  Trump's dumb comments in the past doesn't have anything to do with how stupid Biden has always been. 

[CountryRoads]

It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else. I hope people feel closure and that justice was served in this case. Excited for a peaceful night (except in Portland which is a given) as Antifa/BLM would have been out in full force for days on end with anything less than this verdict. That wouldn’t have been good for anyone, so hopefully we can now look forward as a country.

[Lighthouse 84]

We don't need to take sides on everything.  Can we just agree every once in awhile?  This one seemed cut and dry.

Actually Lens, I couldn't agree more with your comment.  And based on what I've seen and read, I agree with the verdict. But I don't agree that a sitting president or US representative should chime in before the verdict, especially when the climate is so hostile.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race. 

Holy sh*t. 

[Pakuni]

Never forget what Minneapolis police wanted everyone to believe.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzcrJJcWQAAW9jj?format=jpg&name=medium

[Lighthouse 84]

It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else. I hope people feel closure and that justice was served in this case. Excited for a peaceful night (except in Portland which is a given) as Antifa/BLM would have been out in full force for days on end with anything less than this verdict. That wouldn’t have been good for anyone, so hopefully we can now look forward as a country.

+1

[MuggsyB]

Oof.

So if you tried this case you would have done it completely differently I imagine?  If this case was about race or systemic racism within police depts.why didn't the prosecutor mention this a single time?  That doesn't mean there are not racist cops, or that  Chauvin isn't a racist, but that has absolutely zero to do with this case or verdict. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So if you tried this case you would have done it completely differently I imagine?  If this case was about race or systemic racism within police depts.why didn't the prosecutor mention this a single time?  That doesn't mean there are not racist cops, or that  Chauvin isn't a racist, but that has absolutely zero ro do with this case or verdict. 

Because "systemic racism" isn't a legal issue.  It is a moral and ethical one.  But to claim that it wasn't about race is....something.

[naginiF]

It won't resolve "the issue" which you are talking about because this case was never about race.  Nor was Kenosha, Louisville, Ferguson, the Toledo shooting in Chicago, and countless others.  It was about Chauvin's criminal behavior which led to him committing assault and killing a man.  Race wasn't invoked once by the prosecutor, and nor was systemic police racism to his credit.

we have a thread that gets bumped every time a cop kills an unarmed black man because it happens ALL THE TIME.

You're right, it was smart for the prosecution not to bring up race. In any specific situation, unless the person is hurling racial insults, it's easy to point to other motivations other than race and the defense team would've focused on that. That isn't because the system isn't pitted against the Black community, it clearly is and has been for decades/centuries, it's because the legal team is smart.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else.

Yes it would have.  Good lord, some of you people twist yourselves into knots because God forbid the cops do something wrong. 

[Pakuni]

It was the correct verdict because that is what the jury concluded. It also would not have been the wrong verdict if they had concluded anything else.

No. There is such a thing as a wrong verdict.