Judge warns of possible move of trial in George Floyd death


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Cahill set a March 8 trial date for the former officers if they are tried together

Why does it take nine months to bring these thugs to trial?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They were arrested because their actions were recorded

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's going to be extremely difficult to pick an impartial and unbiased jury and have a fair trial for these four police officers.

Buy why have a trial? They're guilty and their actions recorded on camera. Imprison them immediately and save the taxpayers money.

Even though liberals and the ACLU doesn't like admitting it, Policemen are citizens and have constitutional rights and under the law deserves a fair trial where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Even career criminals are accorded these rights.

Maybe ALL constitutional rights, particularly the 6th Ammendment and the principle of "Presumption of Innocence" should be changed to EXCLUDE all Law Enforcement people?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Buy why have a trial? They're guilty and their actions recorded on camera. Imprison them immediately and save the taxpayers money.


Your post is apparently attempting to be sarcastic, but no one here has claimed they shouldn't get a trial or due process, so the sarcasm is lost, and you just sound like you're pushing something ridiculous.

What makes it particularly ridiculous however is that it ignores the fact that until now, police have essentially been exempt from taking responsibility for their crimes, through various laws that make it almost impossible to convict them.

The people want the police to be forced to take responsibility for the crimes they commit. Your post seems to be dishonestly representing this idea as meaning the people want the police to not have due process and be imprisoned without a trial. Sure, there will be some extremists who think that way, but outliers - while the noisiest on the internet - are not the norm.

So why not debate the actual issue of whether police should be exempted for responsibility for crimes they commit or not, rather than arguing some extremist rhetoric?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Cahill also rejected a defense request to reconsider his earlier decision to allow cameras in the courtroom during pretrial proceedings. Defense attorneys asked to allow such coverage, but prosecutors objected. The judge has not ruled on whether to allow cameras for the trial itself, which in Minnesota usually requires the consent of all parties.

Kueng’s attorney, Tom Plunkett, was the attorney asking Cahill to reconsider his ruling on cameras. He asserted that prosecutors and other officials forfeited their right to object to cameras in the courtroom by making public comments that went as far as “saying the defendants are guilty of murder.” He said allowing electronic coverage of pretrial proceedings would actually make it easier to impanel a fair jury by helping to “educate the public that there may be more to the cases than what has been told to them by the state.”

The defense wants cameras in the courtroom to undo the prejudices created by the prosecution, the lame media reporting, and the only black lives matter crowd. The prosecution has only themselves to blame if the trial has to be moved to a non-prejudiced location. That's what happens when the District Attorney's office chooses to play politics, instead of attempting to seek justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites