RE: Chauvin Murder Trial
April 25, 2021 at 11:13 pm
(This post was last modified: April 25, 2021 at 11:14 pm by Irreligious Atheist.)
(April 25, 2021 at 10:19 pm)Eleven Wrote:(April 25, 2021 at 5:26 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: 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.