Chauvin Murder Trial

[Irreligious Atheist]

That’s interesting. A majority of each group agreed with the verdict. It would be even more interesting to know what percentage of those who disagreed still thought he was guilty, but of a lesser charge.

Boru

I wonder overall,  how many of these who thought the verdict was wrong actually think Chavin did not kill a man in circumstances where had the man been white, the killing would have been intolerable, and how many thinks  chavin’s act met an unwritten necessity to kill black men from time to time to keep the black community cowered in order to establish or maintain a notional social order they think to be right.

Some probing questions I’ve asked of the not guilty partisan reveals a good percentage actually believe the latter.   When challenged, they do not focus on defending the proposition that what chavin did was illegal killing,  instead jump right to how affirmative actions in their opinion have already embedded too many unqualified blacks in places where they are regarded as unqualified or they do not belong, and how crime rates amongst the black community is high, etc

To them, whether chavin is guilty or not is irrelevant.   He should not be found guilty because that would lessen an appropriate sense of vulnerability to police that would keep blacks in their place.

What do you mean keep blacks cowered? Going by the statistics, they are actually the least afraid of police. https://www.wnyc.org/story/resisting-arr...ack-white/

That means a black defendant in a misdemeanor drug possession case is 85.4 % more likely to get charged with resisting arrest than a white defendant. (In New York City)

If you are truly afraid, you don't do the thing that's going to almost guarantee that the police use force against you. If you are afraid, you comply. The ones resisting are afraid of that jail cell, not the police.

You do know that it's not like all the legal experts agree that it should have been 2nd degree murder, right?

I saw room for doubt in the case. There's probably not a more famous lawyer than Mark Geragos and he shared that sentiment, even though the work he's doing now is about suing cops. The question is whether that doubt was reasonable. And you could actually argue that this position is the most pro-minority position you could have. Having such a high standard and an almost religious like belief in innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is a position that benefits minorites more than anyone else. Now, of course I've read youtube comments, and there are plenty of idiots on the right who are sure with no evidence, that he died of a drug overdose, and that's probably because they don't like him because he was a meth head pornstar who robbed people at gunpoint, but to be fair to them, I doubt they would be defending a white meth head pornstar who robbed people at gun point either.

[Abaddon_ire]

To be fair, I don't think any of the details are technically wrong, per se. Sure seems to be leaving a Hell of a lot out, though...

They left the biggest thing out, the fact that Floyd's death was caused by the murderer Chauvin kneeling on his neck for nine minutes.  Everything written in that propoganda piece was designed to obscure that fact.

There are quite a few germain facts left out. One can see in the video evidence exactly when Floyd dies and it ain't at the nine minute mark. 6 or 7 maybe. How could I know that? Because I have seen end of life on the street. Floyd was long dead before Chauvin took his knee off. Elsewhere on the intertubes, I got annoyed enough by the KKK crew to actually capture the whole video. I refuse to post it. It's just right wing racist porn. Those wingnuts would just get off on it. Suffice it to say that one can see a man die for no reason. Slowly.


The cranks defending the convicted murderer Chauvin either have not seen it or just do not care at all. Either way, getting ones jollies that way is disgusting.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No this is what's bullshit.

Your predictably knee-jerk five word response? They can both be. 
I'm sorry if I offended your new religion.

---

What do you mean ‘there is going to be a re-trial’? There CAN’T be a re-trial - it simply isn’t possible. No mistrial was declared and there wasn’t a hung jury, so no re-trial.

Dafuq are you talking about?

Boru

The decision can be appealed based on the circumstances the verdict was reached in. 
Judge even said as much during the trial, go back and watch the part the defense brings up the lobbying.

Your predictably worthless knee-jerk counter-response.

Nah I don't have a religion let alone one someone like you could offer any effective offense to. All you can offer is nonsensical babbling and logic-free rambling which only requires 5 words to accurately describe and reject as the description warrants.

[Bucky Ball]

I think Donald Trump weighed-in during his presidency in a number of trials, with his opinion of the evidence and the outcome he thought should happen.
None of those people have been given "new trials".

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think Donald Trump weighed-in during his presidency in a number of trials, with his opinion of the evidence and the outcome he thought should happen.
None of those people have been given "new trials".

Not to mention. At no point did Waters even remotely imply violence despite what right-wing lunatics will insist.

[Silver]

I saw room for doubt in the case.

People often see things where there's nothing. We are fallible beings who often seek alternate meaning where there is none.

[Irreligious Atheist]

I saw room for doubt in the case.

People often see things where there's nothing. We are fallible beings who often seek alternate meaning where there is none.

That is true, but there can be reasonable doubt and still be nothing there. A defendant doesn't have to prove their innocence. Just cast some type of reasonable doubt. Seeking alternative meaning whether there is any or not is exactly what the jurors job is. They have to eliminate any reasonable doubt. Yes, Chauvin's actions most probably played a significant role in Floyd's death. I'd agree with those that said it was manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder though. The point that I saw Mark Geragos make for doubt was that Floyd died of hypoxia, and fentanyl can cause hypoxia. People have said that wouldn't have happened at the level of fentanyl he had in him, but all the expert witnesses also testified that there is no safe level of fentanyl. The autopsy also stated that the drugs contributed to his death, as did his heart disease.

The emotion around the case and wanting Chauvin to pay was totally understandable, and I know if he wasn't found guilty of 2nd degree murder, it would have been seen as unacceptable and this would have been the last straw and people would have been more outraged than ever and feel like they could never get justice if they couldn't get justice this time, but when I look at a case, I can't look at it like that. The idea of innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is always going to trump one particular family getting justice. I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man locked up, whether that's a cop, a gang member, or anyone else.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There no serious room for doubt and the trial or the case ....Period

[Bucky Ball]

People often see things where there's nothing. We are fallible beings who often seek alternate meaning where there is none.

That is true, but there can be reasonable doubt and still be nothing there. A defendant doesn't have to prove their innocence. Just cast some type of reasonable doubt. Seeking alternative meaning whether there is any or not is exactly what the jurors job is. They have to eliminate any reasonable doubt. Yes, Chauvin's actions most probably played a significant role in Floyd's death. I'd agree with those that said it was manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder though. The point that I saw Mark Geragos make for doubt was that Floyd died of hypoxia, and fentanyl can cause hypoxia. People have said that wouldn't have happened at the level of fentanyl he had in him, but all the expert witnesses also testified that there is no safe level of fentanyl. The autopsy also stated that the drugs contributed to his death, as did his heart disease.

The emotion around the case and wanting Chauvin to pay was totally understandable, and I know if he wasn't found guilty of 2nd degree murder, it would have been seen as unacceptable and this would have been the last straw and people would have been more outraged than ever and feel like they could never get justice if they couldn't get justice this time, but when I look at a case, I can't look at it like that. The idea of innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is always going to trump one particular family getting justice. I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man locked up, whether that's a cop, a gang member, or anyone else.

Well aren't we just all noble and shit. The job of the jurors is to evaluate the EVIDENCE, not "seek some alternative meaning" whatever the fuck that even is. 
They don't have to "eliminate" anything. It's the lawyers and the the process that does what it does, and the jurors decide if there is reasonable doubt. 
You seem to know very little about the justice system, despite this bullshit of "but when I look at a case" ... *as if* you are some sort of legal professional here. LOL.
Floyd had pre-existing conditions, including the drugs he had on-board, but he was fine until Chaivin got his hands on him. All the pre-existing conditions did, was make it easier for Chauvin to kill him. He would be alive, except for Chauvin. There was no reasonable doubt in this case. NO ONE, no matter whether they had Floyd's pre-existing conditions, or not, could survive 10 minutes of a 200 pound dude on their neck.

Edit: Somewhere I've seen this grim shit before, recently somewhere. Hmmm. 

[Rev. Rye]

The point that I saw Mark Geragos make for doubt was that Floyd died of hypoxia, and fentanyl can cause hypoxia. People have said that wouldn't have happened at the level of fentanyl he had in him, but all the expert witnesses also testified that there is no safe level of fentanyl. The autopsy also stated that the drugs contributed to his death, as did his heart disease.

Yeah, fentanyl and heart disease helped contribute to his death. So did that knee that pressed on his neck for nine and a half minutes. And when the man who conducted the official autopsy for Hennepin County was called to the stand, he pointed out that the catalyst that sealed his fate was almost certainly that knee. The fentanyl and heart disease just helped it along.

And, as for how culpable Chauvin was, I’ve mentioned before that eight current and former cops testified that Chauvin went well beyond the bounds of any reasonable use of force. At least one pointed out that once he was handcuffed, there would be no need to keep him in that chokehold. (Unless maybe, I dunno, Floyd had laser eyes and keeping him in that exact position was somehow the only thing keeping him from laser blasting some civilians?) And beyond that, he didn’t budge for nine minutes, long after Floyd lost consciousness and was probably dead. Even as a crowd started assembling, filming the event, and yelling at him to move his knee, he just kneeled there with his hand in his pocket. If there was just some reckless motion or he was a bit too slow to get up, I’d understand a manslaughter verdict. Hell, even if it happened the same way but we didn’t have multiple videos publicly available of the event, I’d understand it. But we do have multiple videos, we know exactly what happened, and we know exactly what he was doing and how he was responding to it. It’s legitimately baffling how someone can look at all that and not think that Chauvin had little to no regard for George Floyd’s life.