Alan Dershowitz: "Derek Chauvin Conviction Should Be Reversed on Appeal"

Does your research explain Police Training.That in order to be a cop
on the beat they must pass a course on proper CPR application.

 

The problem in this situation is if you're performing CPR, you're not looking over your shoulder. There was a mob forming around them, yelling obscenities and threats. You can't trust that he wouldn't have been cracked over the back of the head if it wasn't on a swivel.

 

Oh, there are all sorts of requirements to become a cop. For example, they need to know methods to keep a home invader from murdering you. Did you know you can call 911, tell the police there is an intruder in your home shouting that he will find and murder you, and that you need immediate assistance, and that 911 receptionist has every legal right to say, "I am sorry, we have decided we are not stopping criminals today. Best of luck. Buh bye." That is the law. Because if it wasn't, every single crime victim would have a cause of action in negligence against the police whenever they fail, which is often. They are OK when following procedures after you've been victimized... not so good at protecting you before the fact.

 

That's trying to put the Genie back in to the bottle.

 

I'm interested in serious debate, that's why not.

 

Are you kidding me? You think that argument would sway a jury? If that were an option, why didn't the defense counsel raise it?

I'll tell you why, because it would have garnered even more contempt for Chauvin.

 

Chauvin's intent was to kill Floyd, he is a murderer. If a 9 year old girl in the audience could see they were killing Floyd, for Chauvin and his fellow officers not to have known, they would have to be some of the dumbest people on the face of the earth.

 

One of the members said she felt intimidation before going back. For a remember to even hint at that would be taken serious and be grounds for it. Plus getting doxed before and during the trail and the statements from BLM........ Even the Judge said there grounds for an appeal. There is no way hell that appeal division doesn't take this and set aide the verdict or or go for a re-trial.

 

I just find it funny that members of the general public and members of the Democratic Party have intervened in this trial of the court far more than Trump ever has. Crickets.

 

Yeah, and trump was a democrat before turning repub because he said they were easier to fool.
Dershowitz is a devoted trump toadie now and has been polishing his turds for years.

 

Indeed, because truth still matters to most people.
Chauvin is a racist thug who wilfully murdered a man in front of the world. No amount of bullshit spin can refute the visual evidence.

 

LMAO...that’s because trump doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anyone but himself.
If he was still potus, he would have derailed the whole trial with his diarrhea of tweets and then given the cop a pardon if he was still found guilty.

 

So it's okay to interfere with a court of law as long as the interests appear remotely separate from yourself(even though they have a bias'd interest in the case in the example of for example Waters). I gotcha lol, what nonsense. Interference is interference.

 

Heck, I do not know why the Defense did not ask for a directed verdict of not guilty. Again, to my knowledge, Chauvin had no affirmative duty to use CPR on Floyd, especially in light of the hostile crowd. Maybe that ineffectiveness of council will be one of the grounds for appeal.

 

That was the judge's decision. I'm still curious as to why he didn't sequester them from the beginning. The case was open and shut, so I doubt it matters.

 

?? What would that possibly have to do with whether or not he provided CPR? He had backup there to keep the slavering crowd at bay...

/s

It's also possible the crowd might have been less hostile had he provided CPR...

 

Maybe not, but the trial judge himself implied it was very possible.

 

From a legal standpoint it is. The judge was mostly expressing his disapproval of politicians and the media, which I think most of us agree with. He stated the legal risks of their behavior, and I hope they listened. Practically speaking though, I don't see such an appeal succeeding. There's nothing to indicate the jury was tainted by anything. They deliberated for only 10 hours and the evidence was overwhelming. It all looks kosher.

 

To my knowledge, the police have no duty to protect you at all. They typically will but they legally do not have to do so. There are times they have not, like during the Crown Heights riot in the 1990s. I think morally, he should have done so. Under the law, I don't think he was any more obliged to provide such aid than the Crown Heights cops had a duty to protect people like Yankel Rosenbaum. I could be wrong as "good Samaritan" laws have been passed in the 2000s, but the only one I know of requires that you call for aid. Which Chauvin et. al. did.

 

The decision on whether or not to testify on his own behalf was Chauvin's. His attorney's ADVISED him not to, but would not have had the power to prevent him from doing so had he chosen.

 

You still might have grounds under ineffectiveness of counsel to use as grounds for an appeal. I think Chauvin needed to testify. Especially to slam that "expert" MFA guy that was saying Chauvin's moves were MMA moves meant to cause damage and pain. He needed to get on that stand and say, "I was kneeling for several minutes and it was killing my legs. I was just shifting my body weight around." Problem is, he may be a sociopath that would have done a very poor job acquitting himself.

 

On YouTube this morning, a K9 cop dog being used to force a belligerent
driver from his car.That's tricky bidness.The Driver was stopped by
a Black State Trooper { The hat is a giveaway } who politely tried
to Identify the driver.Since he had no plates on his car besides a
temporary tag that must have expired.The guy kept challenging his stop
with the Trooper.Using stuff like he cannot be stopped unless he broke some
law.It's a constitutional right.But he also was refusing to Identify himself.
Wouldn't even give his name.Let alone a Drivers License.Kept that up for
a good 10 minutes.Until a couple cop cars drove up and then a Police
Van with a K 9 dog unit.Each cop tried to talk sense with this Guy who
barely cracked his window open.He refused to give his name,his Social Security
and age.That went on for a good 5 minutes.Then out came the K9 dog
with an officer.That officer meant business.He repeated his order to open
the door or else the Dog { some kind of Belgian Sheppard } would be
allowed in the car.I thought ... That means they would have to Bust out a window.
Which shatters glass that could injure the dog.So they busted out a passenger
side window and got the drivers door open and Immediately released the K9
who was leashed.Man oh Boy.That doggie went to town.Got a hold of the
driver forearm and wouldn't let go.The Driver was going berserk.
They got him out on the pavement with the dog refusing to release it's
iron grip.But the K9 Unit Officer kept repeating to stop resisting and the
dog will quiet down.The driver for some reason couldn't stop screaming
and fighting back.He was hysterical.The cops managed just one of the
cuffs on his one wrist.
Eventually things cooled down.The guy was bleeding from his forearm.
I couldn't tell how badly.

 

Have you seen that video of a cop trying to be nice to a cartel drug runner? Cop is being oh so nice to the guy. Who then steps out of his truck and riddles the cop with bullets, walks over to him and shoots him in the head for good measure. It is not easy to be a cop.

 

Will this make a difference:

 

The plot thickens: