Indeed, friend.

I'm genuinely curious what compels people who see a thread named " Derek Chauvin Trial Live" to come in and fill it with comments that aren't about the trial. It almost seems like the words Chauvin/Floyd are like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and people are forced to come continue the same general societal conversation that has been happening since June.

This isn't limited to JSP of course. I was watching the livestream of a Youtube lawyer trying to analyze the testimonies with open live chat. He was constantly having to delete comments from people yelling about race issues. He had to repeatedly ask the chat to talk about the trial.

The court system is designed to address issues in a slow, thoughtful manner. The process is drawn out so as to be methodical rather than sensationalist. I kinda thought that once the trial began, it would open up a new way to have conversations about the incident. But it seems that the cultural tensions are so heavy that they drown out any attempt to let the trial work through the facts.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Apr 4 2021 03:11am

Nah if we can just make stuff up with zero basis in reality then you are a transgender woman and a proud feminist.

Your purple dinosaur told me that you're a disgusting person, judging people because of their gender and such.

Settle down.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 4 2021 04:37am

New day in court, new issues.

The judge is telling the prosecution that they can't methodically call up a bunch of cops and ask them all to state that their opinion is that the use of force was unreasonable. The judge says that would be problematic because it is "cumulative".

This exchange strengthens the belief I stated earlier: The state wants to use the trial as a stage to rehabilitate the image of the MPD. Hearing a slew of cops come up and chastise Chauvin's behavior would be an attempt to do that. It is basically the "few bad apples" argument.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Apr 5 2021 08:48am

I agree with this assessment. Oddly, Chauvin used State-based training, but did not complete the state-based training material's instructions. Instead of focusing just on that, the State, which is the prosecutor, (It's literally The State of Minnesota vs Derek Chauvin) is trying to draw a case that the portion of the training he used was against what they trained him for.

The State and it's training may well have issues. But, if it WAS an overdose, and the "friend" of Floyd who promised to be a "Voice of Floyd" who has now refused to testify, stating he'd claim the fifth was the dealer... Well then. If the death is really an overdose, and dealing lethal amounts of drugs to a person who dies in their use can get you Murder 3, then what?

The Prosecution can give Floyd's friend immunity, I'm shocked they aren't and haven't. I think the State plans on pressing charges against him.

I'd say that the reason the prosecution doesn't give him immunity is because they think that involving him in the story hurts their case. The defense is just going to ask him to describe Floyd's drug history. This makes it easy for them to paint Floyd as an addict. The prosecution wants to downplay the drug angle as much as possible. Putting Hall on the stand would just highlight it in the jury's minds.

So, its become a fucking Soviet Show Trial

The defense gains everything if he's on the stand. Floyd's overdose a month prior to Floyd's overdose on the day of his death points to the dealer as the end result of his death.

This is not a "defense pointing the finger". This is a question of why the prosecution that has the power to provide complete immunity to the witness is not doing so. I think the State wishes to press charges, when it's less public.