What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
The stats I've seen say CC permit holders commit crimes (misdemeanor or felony) at 1/6 to 1/7 the rate of law enforcement. (Kepler disclaimer here.)

Folks who get CC permits are rule-followers by their nature (they get the permit) and want to keep it.
 
I see the defense rested in the Chauvin trial, without Chauvin testifying. I'm a little surprised by this. Yeah, he doesn't have the burden of proof. Yeah, lots of times bad things will happen when the defendant gets on the stand.

On the other hand, Chauvin and his attorney can't think that things have gone perfectly, or even beneficially for them in this case, can they (I've only seen news highlights)? Put him on the stand and see if you can't get at least one juror to see him in a somewhat sympathetic light. It's not like he is going to say something that will reveal more about the crime other than what we've seen on the videos and pictures, unless he's got some really bad stuff in his past.
 
SJHovey said:
I see the defense rested in the Chauvin trial, without Chauvin testifying. I'm a little surprised by this. Yeah, he doesn't have the burden of proof. Yeah, lots of times bad things will happen when the defendant gets on the stand.

On the other hand, Chauvin and his attorney can't think that things have gone perfectly, or even beneficially for them in this case, can they (I've only seen news highlights)? Put him on the stand and see if you can't get at least one juror to see him in a somewhat sympathetic light. It's not like he is going to say something that will reveal more about the crime other than what we've seen on the videos and pictures, unless he's got some really bad stuff in his past.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine thinks this is going to end in a mistrial. I don't disagree.
 
SJHovey said:
I see the defense rested in the Chauvin trial, without Chauvin testifying. I'm a little surprised by this. Yeah, he doesn't have the burden of proof. Yeah, lots of times bad things will happen when the defendant gets on the stand.

On the other hand, Chauvin and his attorney can't think that things have gone perfectly, or even beneficially for them in this case, can they (I've only seen news highlights)? Put him on the stand and see if you can't get at least one juror to see him in a somewhat sympathetic light. It's not like he is going to say something that will reveal more about the crime other than what we've seen on the videos and pictures, unless he's got some really bad stuff in his past.
Click to expand...

Criminal defendents rarely testify in their trials. Perhaps UNOFAN can provide statistics that bear this out but unless it is truly necessary for some very specific reason, defense attorneys really do not like to have their clients on the stand.

As an advocate in many a labor arbitrations I wish the same presumption of innocence applied to the clients I work with because even in the less stressful or formal environment of an arbitration it is easy for the other side to really trip up someone. But if I don't put my member who got fired on the stand in his or her own defense, the arbitrator will very likely take a dim view of our side of the case and he or she is not required to apply the same standard of the 5th Amendment to a labor arbitration as a judge or jury is in a criminal trial, nor are advocates for the other side beholden to the same standards of cross-examination that attorneys are in a criminal proceeding.
 
Last edited:
Scarlet said:
A friend of mine thinks this is going to end in a mistrial. I don't disagree.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I assume by that your friend is referring to a jury that can't reach a verdict, rather than a mistrial ordered due to some event or misconduct? I only ask because there was a discussion this morning, apparently, about a possible mistrial depending upon what the prosecution's witness testified regarding carbon monoxide. Don't think they had any problems, however.
 
WeAreNDHockey said:
Criminal defendents rarely testify in their trials. Perhaps UNOFAN can provide statistics that bear this out but unless it is truly necessary for some very specific reason, defense attorneys really do not like to have their clients on the stand.

As an advocate in many a labor arbitrations I wish the same presumption of innocence applied to the clients I work with because even in the less stressful or formal environment of an arbitration it is easy for the other side to really trip up someone. But if I don't put my member who got fired on the stand in his or her own defense, the arbitrator will very likely take a dim view of our side of the case and he or she is not required to apply the same standard of the 5th Amendment to a labor arbitration as a judge or jury is in a criminal trial, nor are advocates for the other side beholden to the same standards of cross-examination that attorneys are in a criminal proceeding.
Click to expand...

Yeah, obviously, you're always worried about the defendant tripping up.

But in this case everyone knows the facts. We know exactly what happened. If I'm on the jury, I want to know why? Why did he kneel on him for 9 minutes? Why did he do what he did, or did not do? Only Chauvin can answer that.
 
Scarlet said:
A friend of mine thinks this is going to end in a mistrial. I don't disagree.
Click to expand...

I'm in the Twin Cities area until tomorrow afternoon. I am glad the jury won't begin deliberations until I am long gone. If they acquit or fail to reach a verdict, the unrest last year will seem like a minor inconvenience compared to what will happen this time around.
 
SJHovey said:
Yeah, obviously, you're always worried about the defendant tripping up.

But in this case everyone knows the facts. We know exactly what happened. If I'm on the jury, I want to know why? Why did he kneel on him for 9 minutes? Why did he do what he did, or did not do? Only Chauvin can answer that.
Click to expand...

I think that will get him convicted. That's what I hope anyway.
 
SJHovey said:
I see the defense rested in the Chauvin trial, without Chauvin testifying. I'm a little surprised by this. Yeah, he doesn't have the burden of proof. Yeah, lots of times bad things will happen when the defendant gets on the stand.

On the other hand, Chauvin and his attorney can't think that things have gone perfectly, or even beneficially for them in this case, can they (I've only seen news highlights)? Put him on the stand and see if you can't get at least one juror to see him in a somewhat sympathetic light. It's not like he is going to say something that will reveal more about the crime other than what we've seen on the videos and pictures, unless he's got some really bad stuff in his past.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine putting Chauvin on the stand does anything but risk disaster for the defense.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
I think that will get him convicted. That's what I hope anyway.
Click to expand...

Never can tell with a jury.

I think this comes down to whether there is a juror who would not have convicted no matter what for whatever personal reasons. I'm convinced that's what saved OJ.
 
People liked OJ though...

I doubt any lawyer would have put Chauvin on the stand because he probably always comes off as a doosh.

BTW if you are in Chicago get ready: https://twitter.com/BlockClubCHI/sta...80795388108807

(I guess it is graphic)

edit to add: This video I guess proves the victim did not have a gun (his hands are up as well I guess) when the cops killed him.
 
Last edited:
Policing in this country is so ineffective that even when I consider the sytemic racism that blinds so many people I wonder why more are not up in arms over the behavior of the police.

The average person seems more concerned with how well or poorly the coach of their favorite team is doing. Well newsflash America, the average police department is the 2021 Buffalo Sabres or the 2004-05 Notre Dame hockey team. They don't prevent crime and the don't solve most of the crimes they failed to prevent. Yet we shovel more and more money into law enforcement. What do we do with poorly performing public schools? We threaten to turn off the spigots. Or we actually turn off the spigots.

Even without the senseless (and seemingly never ending) murders of unarmed people of color, cops suck at the jobs we expect them to do. Maybe it isn't their fault. But suck they do, and yet we keep doing, mostly, the same things over and over. We are idiots I guess.
 
Why would most White People care? They aren't getting killed even when they attack cops with a weapon while flying high on drugs. Meanwhile POC better have never been in the vicinity of drugs at any point in their life or it is justifiable homicide.

Only cops are allowed to make mistakes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top