Derek Chauvin

[theleader82]

Is it likely that Derek chauvin will get a fair trial? If he’s found. Not guilty there will be riots again

[delboy1983]

Just as OJ was found not guilty this guy will be found guilty.
All race related to avoid riots.

[Zambo]

tbf he looked as guilty as fuck from the newsreel.

[birdie]

Already contradictory evidence presented in the opening statements, the prosecution has said that the autopsy showed that the heart was normal with no heart disease and was unremarkable to the extent that no photographic evidence was taken and the defence has said that there was extensive heart disease and damage, so which one is right.

[shabbado]

tbf he looked as guilty as fuck from the newsreel.

The one with him murdering George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for 9+ minutes?

Yeah, he does look a tad sus in that particular footage.

[Zambo]

Kneeling on someone's neck for 9 1/2 mins when they are choking isn't restraint though irrespective of underlying health issues.

[shabbado]

The job of the defence council here is to 'flood the zone with shit'

See Birdie post.

This is pretty much as open and a shut case as you're going to get. He was video taped murdering someone.

There's zero grey areas here.

[JimmyDee]

Both sides have declared what should be a "fair" verdict before the trial has even started.

Fuck me, and we've got weeks of this.

[kancutlawns]

The job of the defence council here is to 'flood the zone with shit'

See Birdie post.

This is pretty much as open and a shut case as you're going to get. He was video taped murdering someone.

There's zero grey areas here.

Why is any defence lawyer defending this piece of filth? How can they sleep at night knowing he’s banged to rights? Anyone?

[Hillman avenger]

Already contradictory evidence presented in the opening statements, the prosecution has said that the autopsy showed that the heart was normal with no heart disease and was unremarkable to the extent that no photographic evidence was taken and the defence has said that there was extensive heart disease and damage, so which one is right.

Do you mean the other way around?

[Hillman avenger]

Like here everyone deserves a defence.
The law and the courts are so complex you can't defend yourself.
My questions are..there were four of them
1. Why didn't the other three help to restrain him?
2. Why did none of them stop what Chauvin was doing?
3. Why aren't they on trial?

[Zambo]

The job of the defence council here is to 'flood the zone with shit'

See Birdie post.

This is pretty much as open and a shut case as you're going to get. He was video taped murdering someone.

There's zero grey areas here.

Why is any defence lawyer defending this piece of filth? How can they sleep at night knowing he’s banged to rights? Anyone?

The last time I mentioned that defence lawyers who knew their clients were guilty, are a bunch of corrupt cunts, I was shouted down. I would say to those people, here is a prime example of what I was talking about.

[birdie]

Already contradictory evidence presented in the opening statements, the prosecution has said that the autopsy showed that the heart was normal with no heart disease and was unremarkable to the extent that no photographic evidence was taken and the defence has said that there was extensive heart disease and damage, so which one is right.

Do you mean the other way around?

I'm assuming that the first bloke who spoke showing the video clips of the event and the bystanders asking Chauvin to get Floyd into the car and saying he couldn't breath was for the prosecution? It was he who said that the autopsy report showed no heart disease and the heart was normal and no photo was taken, and I'm assuming that the bloke sitting next to Chauvin and who spoke second and said the heart was very damaged was for the defence?

Mebbe I've got that arse end around and Floyd had 2 hearts.

[subsub]

The job of the defence council here is to 'flood the zone with shit'

See Birdie post.

This is pretty much as open and a shut case as you're going to get. He was video taped murdering someone.

There's zero grey areas here.

Why is any defence lawyer defending this piece of filth? How can they sleep at night knowing he’s banged to rights? Anyone?

Not the point.
Everyone is entitled to legal representation and a fair hearing, regardless of how guilty they are.

When I was a court reporter, I had a chat with the lawyer defending some lads who were charged with assaulting some coppers after a Euro 96 game.
He asked me my opinion, and when I replied I asked him the same question (ie did he think they were guilty).

He said he'd been a lawyer for 20 years, and these were among the first people he'd represented who he thought were innocent.

It's not for lawyers to choose their clients based on guilt; it's just to ensure they get their side heard in court.

[Holden Mcgroyne]

A job's a job, but how you can defend someone of a serious crime you know they're guilty of takes some set aside of conscience

Throw a bit of chaff in the air. sew a bit of pretend confusion and a murderer can walk free