Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[kickbacked]

Anarchy it seems to me. I can’t wrap my head around these “jury of your peers,” beliefs. Can some give me a hypothetical ? Let’s say a less affluent Black guy from the Southside of Chicago is accused of beating a White businessman he got into a fight with. What peers sit on his jury?

Theres quite a bit of debate between wanting a justice system thats from the 13th century all the way to wanting a justice system that plays to the hand of the accused. They are wildly different but i think it ultimately comes down to wanting whichever will give ingo the result they believe to be correct.

 

[jamil]

I want our justice system to have impartial jurors as stated in the 6th amendment. We do not have impartial jurors anymore. One of the reasons is because they are not a person's peer who is on trial. As it is now the prosecution fills the jury with a jury that is far from impartial. In that respect they are violating the 6th Amendment.

I dunno man. Have we ever had impartial jurors? It's up to both the prosecution AND the defense to seat the jury. They both get a veto. And while the courts have ruled that a person is not entitled to a jury made up in part or whole of his own race/gender, neither side can exclude jurors based on those things. I think a fair cross-section of the community is "peer" enough. But I do think that the makeup of this jury was not at all favorable to Chauvin. I'd still liked to have seen a cop or two on the jury. Maybe one with a bias for and one with a bias against to balance it out.

 

[jamil]

Theres quite a bit of debate between wanting a justice system thats from the 13th century all the way to wanting a justice system that plays to the hand of the accused. They are wildly different but i think it ultimately comes down to wanting whichever will give ingo the result they believe to be correct.

I think you guys got bogged down in all that. At any rate I don't think that DS was saying that he wanted juries to be all white male landowners. Can we agree that juries should be made up of a fair cross-section of the accused community? That includes people who might understand the accused better and some who might understand the alleged victim better.

 

[nonobaddog]

A lot of jury pools come from voter lists but more and more they also use driver license lists and tax lists. Only in Ohio and Wyoming are state court juries selected from voter lists exclusively.
Also police and firefighters are typically not in the jury pool.

 

[nonobaddog]

They really haven’t thought this “jury of you peers” thing (at least how they see it through). First time a Muslim guy walks because an all Muslim jury gets them off, they’ll be crying foul. First time an inner city “POC” has their case nullified, by the same “demographic,” they’re gonna talk about how corrupt the system is. They’ve been fine with stuff for decades, but when stuff goes the other way “Yeah, this needs to be changed.”

Now you are just being a drama queen.

 

[DadSmith]

I dunno man. Have we ever had impartial jurors? It's up to both the prosecution AND the defense to seat the jury. They both get a veto. And while the courts have ruled that a person is not entitled to a jury made up in part or whole of his own race/gender, neither side can exclude jurors based on those things. I think a fair cross-section of the community is "peer" enough. But I do think that the makeup of this jury was not at all favorable to Chauvin. I'd still liked to have seen a cop or two on the jury. Maybe one with a bias for and one with a bias against to balance it out.

So the leftist on here seen all white land owing conservatives males on all jurys when I was asking for a jury of a person's peers. Not sure how they seen that since a black man or Latino woman, or an transgender whatever race if on trial I ask for a jury of their peers and impartial jurors at that. So how could a bunch of White land owing conservative males be impartial jurors? Obviously they have read something into my posts that isn't there.

 

[kickbacked]

So the leftist on here seen all white land owing conservatives males on all jurys when I was asking for a jury of a person's peers. Not sure how they seen that since a black man or Latino woman, or an transgender whatever race if on trial I ask for a jury of their peers and impartial jurors at that. So how could a bunch of White land owing conservative males be impartial jurors? Obviously they have read something into my posts that isn't there.

You have spent the last hour debating that our justice system was better in the 13th century through the civil war up until the left changed it in the 60's. Who were the jurors during that time period? They werent black people, females, mexican, transgenders or whatever. This entire conversation has been about the jurors, and you picked all the years that didnt allow those people as what you want our justice system to replicate.

 

[DadSmith]

You have spent the last hour debating that our justice system was better in the 13th century through the civil war up until the left changed it in the 60's. Who were the jurors during that time period? They werent black people, females, mexican, transgenders or whatever. This entire conversation has been about the jurors, and you picked all the years that didnt allow those people as what you want our justice system to replicate.

Obviously I'm way over your head. Sorry you got so confused and race blinded. You obviously didn't read everything I posted and you have no clue yet about the Magna Carta and it's importance to our country.

I'm casting pearls right now and I'm done.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

From the Minneapolis Police policy manual page 235​

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/documents/MPD-Policy-and-Procedure-Manual.pdf

MedicalTreatmentandUseofForce
1. Any sworn MPD employee who uses force shall, as soon as reasonably practical, determine if anyone was injured and render medical aid consistent with training and request Emergency Medical Service (EMS) if necessary (in accordance with P&P 7-350). Some force control options involve or require additional medical attention. This includes subjects who have visible injuries, lose consciousness, complain of injury or request medical attention


now in regard to manslaughter charge. Chauvin got comfy on his neck/back, even put his hands in his pockets. Floyd went limp/unconscious. At that point he was required to render aid as soon as “reasonably practical”. He failed to do this, it’s plain to see from the videos that he spends several minutes comfortably resting on Floyd’s neck/ back after he goes limp/unconscious and stops fighting. His failure to provide aid as required per MPD policy resulted in death.

They requested EMS even before they got to the car, they even called in and requested they step it up iirc before they even got to the car but I could be wrong about that. Also as soon as reasonably practical, they had an angry crowd gathered around them. Not sure how practical it would have been.

Scott was overturned in less that 12 years. Smith has been around since 1940, so it’s been running strong for 80+ years. It’s an unique legal argument though, one that would get you laughed out of a courtroom, but unique.

Slight correction, Dred Scott was never overturned. It was nullified though by 13th Am. .

You obviously have a problem with the real meaning of peers as Webster described it. That is what our founders believed.

1. An equal; one of the same rank. A man may be familiar with his peers.
From the 1828 Webster's, aren't all US citizens the same rank?

It's really up to the lawyers on each side to decide what "peers" are. In this case, I'm sure that the prosecution wanted people who were as far from being like Chauvin as possible. The defense probably would rather they were much more like Chuavin. To be a peer, I don't think race matters that much, but culture does.

No it's up to the lawyers on each side to pick which of your peers would be favorable to their side.

I want our justice system to have impartial jurors as stated in the 6th amendment. We do not have impartial jurors anymore. One of the reasons is because they are not a person's peer who is on trial. As it is now the prosecution fills the jury with a jury that is far from impartial. In that respect they are violating the 6th Amendment.

In this you may have a point. Except you only list the prosecution, the defense has just as much chance to fill the box with jurors who are not impartial but in the defenses favor.

 

[DadSmith]

They requested EMS even before they got to the car, they even called in and requested they step it up iirc before they even got to the car but I could be wrong about that. Also as soon as reasonably practical, they had an angry crowd gathered around them. Not sure how practical it would have been.

Slight correction, Dred Scott was never overturned. It was nullified though by 13th Am. .

1. An equal; one of the same rank. A man may be familiar with his peers.
From the 1828 Webster's, aren't all US citizens the same rank?

No it's up to the lawyers on each side to pick which of your peers would be favorable to their side.

In this you may have a point. Except you only list the prosecution, the defense has just as much chance to fill the box with jurors who are not impartial but in the defenses favor.

That I agree with. If both the defense lawyers and prosecutors do not ensure an impartial jury then they both have violated the defendants 6th amendment right to an impartial jury.

Some here seem to think all juries until after the 1960s were bias and unfair. That is a total misconception. I wonder if these people think our founders were pure evil as well.

Ronnie Long, who was convicted of rape by all-white jury in 1976, will be released from prison, attorney says

A man convicted of raping a 54-year-old widow in 1976 will soon be free, one of his attorneys announced on Twitter Monday.

abc11.com

This proves that the jurors were not impartial and well after the 1960s.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That I agree with. If both the defense lawyers and prosecutors do not ensure an impartial jury then they both have violated the defendants 6th amendment right to an impartial jury.

Some here seem to think all juries until after the 1960s were bias and unfair. That is a total misconception. I wonder if these people think our founders were pure evil as well.

I don't think all juries were biased and unfair before that point, I'd say some were. And some people seem to think that all juries before the 1960s were unbiased and fair, again I'd say some were. I'd say pretty much the same for today, with perhaps the exception of some high profile cases.

 

[DadSmith]

I don't think all juries were biased and unfair before that point, I'd say some were. And some people seem to think that all juries before the 1960s were unbiased and fair, again I'd say some were. I'd say pretty much the same for today, with perhaps the exception of some high profile cases.

That's why we need to make sure all jurors are impartial and that they are indeed peers of the person they may covict.

Read about Ronnie Long its a travesty.

 

[kickbacked]

Obviously I'm way over your head. Sorry you got so confused and race blinded. You obviously didn't read everything I posted and you have no clue yet about the Magna Carta and it's importance to our country.

I'm casting pearls right now and I'm done.

Here’s some pearls for you to add to your vast knowledge. I’m a registered republican. I donated to trump in ‘16. I got the white hat because I thought the red looked obnoxious. I voted for trump. So I guess I’m a terrible leftist and a swine.

 

[DadSmith]

Here’s some pearls for you to add to your vast knowledge. I’m a registered republican. I donated to trump in ‘16. I got the white hat because I thought the red looked obnoxious. I voted for trump. So I guess I’m a terrible leftist and a swine.

That's none of my business and I never called you any names. You need to take a step back and a cup of tea would be helpful. Casting pearls is another term for wasting time.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ronnie Long, who was convicted of rape by all-white jury in 1976, will be released from prison, attorney says

A man convicted of raping a 54-year-old widow in 1976 will soon be free, one of his attorneys announced on Twitter Monday.

abc11.com

This proves that the jurors were not impartial and well after the 1960s.

I wouldn't say that proves jurors were not impartial. I'd say it does prove that getting Nifonged, happened long before it's namesake.

"What emerged was a treasure trove as far as Long was concerned: hair samples collected at the crime scene that didn't match Long; clothing fibers that didn't match Long's; and burned matches that didn't match Long's matchbooks.
Strikingly, none of that evidence was ever shared with the defense during the discovery phase of Long's 1976 trial."

"A final surprise came in 2015, when Long took part in the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission's Postconviction DNA Testing Assistance Program: 43 fingerprints taken from the crime scene, also never shared with Long's defense."

Along with the rape kit that was never disclosed and has disappeared. I'd say it shows less about the impartiality of the jury, and much much more about the crookedness of the prosecutor.

That's why we need to make sure all jurors are impartial and that they are indeed peers of the person they may covict.

Read about Ronnie Long its a travesty.

I posted the 1828 Webster's definition of peers above that I think fits. I'll post it again.

1. An equal; one of the same rank. A man may be familiar with his peers.

And I'll ask again. Aren't all US citizens equal under the law and the Constitution?

 

[DadSmith]

I wouldn't say that proves jurors were not impartial. I'd say it does prove that getting Nifonged, happened long before it's namesake.

"What emerged was a treasure trove as far as Long was concerned: hair samples collected at the crime scene that didn't match Long; clothing fibers that didn't match Long's; and burned matches that didn't match Long's matchbooks.
Strikingly, none of that evidence was ever shared with the defense during the discovery phase of Long's 1976 trial."

"A final surprise came in 2015, when Long took part in the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission's Postconviction DNA Testing Assistance Program: 43 fingerprints taken from the crime scene, also never shared with Long's defense."

Along with the rape kit that was never disclosed and has disappeared. I'd say it shows less about the impartiality of the jury, and much much more about the crookedness of the prosecutor.

I posted the 1828 Webster's definition of peers above that I think fits. I'll post it again.

1. An equal; one of the same rank. A man may be familiar with his peers.

And I'll ask again. Aren't all US citizens equal under the law and the Constitution?

No not all are equal. What we do with our lives after being born separate us. Are we equal in rights yes but that pretty much ends being equal. I'm equal with Trump when it comes to constitutional rights, however when it comes to education and income I am not his equal.

Wrongful Convictions | Equal Justice Initiative

EJI challenges wrongful convictions and exposes official indifference to innocence.

eji.org

Very interesting website. Wrongful convictions...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No not all are equal. What we do with our lives after being born separate us. Are we equal in rights yes but that pretty much ends being equal. I'm equal with Trump when it comes to constitutional rights, however when it comes to education and income I am not his equal.

Wrongful Convictions | Equal Justice Initiative

EJI challenges wrongful convictions and exposes official indifference to innocence.

eji.org

Very interesting website. Wrongful convictions...

Which is I believe the intent of a jury of your peers, someone equal under the Constitution and the law.

 

[DadSmith]

Which is I believe the intent of a jury of your peers, someone equal under the Constitution and the law.

Nowadays if you are a republican and have a Democrat jury I bet they would convict you just because of your political ideals.

Like in Ronnie Longs trial all white ? That definitely isn't impartial or his peers. Some might have been but the majority no. Also the 6th amendment says the jury is to be from your district. I wonder what the modern belief of the size of a person's district is.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Nowadays if you are a republican and have a Democrat jury I bet they would convict you just because of your political ideals.

Like in Ronnie Longs trial all white ? That definitely isn't impartial or his peers. Some might have been but the majority no. Also the 6th amendment says the jury is to be from your district. I wonder what the modern belief of the size of a person's district is.

Could be. But once again I think what happened to Long was a travesty, but the jury was not the cause. I think it was a corrupt prosecutor.

As to the size of the district? What has been ascertained by law? I'm guessing back then they used Congressional district, no idea of state or fed.

 

[rooster]

I know I’m gonna catch hell for this but in almost every story like Ronnie Longs there is one common theme, crooked cops and prosecutors . Cops doing things that would never fly now as a way to get confessions, cops ignoring the evidence in their search for suspects and prosecutors pulling shady tactics like hiding evidence that would exonerate someone.

Sure some people are finally getting a fair day in court but the people who intentionally stole decades of their lives won’t ever be held responsible. In fact they probably got promotions and further in life by creating a win record by whatever means necessary.