I have listened to quite a bit of the post game on this and no one has articulated why he was found guilty of anything other than Murder 3.
The People of the State of Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
The angle I am playing is that our justice system should not be based on fear of the mob. FWIW, I think he was guilty on at least 1 of the 3 accounts and I thought that to be true from the start. He acted excessively IMO.
The comment was to the idea of everybody hoping he is found guilty because that is a sacrifice we want to be made in order to maintain peace in the streets. That is not justice. I want the guilty to be found guilty and the innocent to walk based on the case and the (unbiased as much as possible) determination of the jury. I would think we would all want that. What the original post mentioned was a kangaroo court.
I agree, but I think it’s okay for us to think that way. If we were on the jury, though, that would be different. I’m sure people here will speculate on the motives of the jury members, and declare their opinions as facts...in my opinion.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Lots of people showing their asses tonight. That’s what Americans do best. Thanks Social Media!
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I can see that but it wouldn’t have mattered in this point. The prosecution presented a nearly airtight case and Chauvin’s Death Cab for Cutie attorney has nothing but paper turning and exhaust pipe theories.
Let’s be glad that the mob didn’t matter in this case and hopefully it doesn’t happen again this way.
Pelosi...a legacy unlike any other
Every once in a while I imagine different folks in different time periods having social media accounts. Cleopatra with Instagram. Socrates with a blue check mark. The puritans on Facebook.
Just imagine our founding fathers with access to Twitter.
Charlie Chaplin would have killed on TikTok.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Socrates would’ve had his Twitter account blocked for countering the emotional false choices presented by liberal blue checks.
This twat is one of the worst mayors in US history.
the issue will be argued before the Minnesota supremes later in the Noor case. That outcome could affect the Chauvin verdict.
It could, but only on the one count. The guilty verdict on the other two counts are not in any way contingent upon the verdict in count #2.
C’mon Ranger. The whole world made this trial about something other than a crime committed by a cop. This is all about A black decedent at the hands of a white cop. Compare George Floyd to a white Ashli Babbitt‘s killer who was exonerated without a modicum of public scrutiny. We don’t even know the name or race of officer who opened fire on her but we do know she did not pose a threat at the moment she was the subject of deadly force.
The Chauvin video unleashed a highly charged political diatribe that, according to many who commented today, promises to be with us for a long while. i won’t accuse the jury of bad faith, but I would say the highly charged political and racial atmosphere took a toll.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
We’re not living on the same planet. My thoughts on race relations are well published here and I clearly despise the liberal narrative on race.
But this guy knelt on a no-longer resisting guy’s neck (over $20) for 9+ minutes, with most of that occurring after he stopped resisting and 2.5+ of it occurring after there was no pulse. In public on video, for nothing. Nothing. Chauvin made the worse decision of his life on a lifelong piece of shit petty criminal.
Ashli Babbitt 100% deserved to be shot. She was attempting to break into a fortified hallway and she paid the price.
There is zero comparison here. Stop reading the talking points. They stink.
Of course not. Nobody has said otherwise. It’s also in the jury instructions.
I guess we are living on a different planets. I’ve heard and read a plethora of Democrats take the Floyd case waaayyyy beyond Chauvin’s crime. Pelosi named an Act of Congress after Floyd before there was any trial for Pete’s sake. Babbitt deserved to die? Since when is deadly force justified by a law enforcement officer on an individual who poses no threat? Is your argument that she might have posed a threat? That’s not consistent with any training I know of. Fortified position has nothing tondo with this.
Last edited:
I agree the judge did a good job of ensuring fairness. But he only controlled the space in the courtroom. The jurors lived with many extraordinary reminders of the highly charged racial and political overtones of this trial every day.
Comparing Floyd to Babbitt? That's a pretty bad look. You should probably take a step back and start over.
Floyd was worthless and a career loser. That being said, Chauvin had a terrible history that was restricted from being brought up. He seems like a POS, excluding the kneeling episode.
sacrifice this clown, drastically reduce police presence and let these shitty areas reap the consequences
The jury decided that a policeman cannot go rogue and murder a guy on tape, in broad daylight, with a crowd begging him to stop. Bad faith? What planet do you live on?
Both can be true. Politicians and others attempting to influence a judicial outcome is a slippery slope. That doesn’t mean Chauvin shouldn’t have been convicted.
Deadly force is deadly force. Same standards apply anywhere. No need to take a step back.
The prosecution had a powerful case and presented it well.
The defense was inexplicably weak in many different ways.
The jury went to court every day under heavy armed guard, through concrete barriers, and in the building rimmed with razor wire and barriers.
The governor, the mayor, various members of congress, and the media declared Chauvin guilty within hours of the video being released.
All these factors influenced the outcome.
The nice thing about association lawyers is their fees are covered. The shitty thing is you don’t get to choose your lawyer
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
How is the officer to know she doesn’t pose a threat? She was raiding the ****ing Capitol, counselor. Did you forget that?
**** the Floyd politics. If you’re disappointed by the headline grabbing sound bites of our elected officials well that’s on you. I know them all to be worthless dumbasses.
My point is simple: there could’ve been a lynch mob outside every juror’s home for a not guilty vote or there could’ve been a lambo outside every juror’s home for a not guilty vote. The case was as airtight as the Shaver case was and at least this time the cop was held accountable. End of story.
One person was subdued and in custody. The other was actively breaching a secured area during a riot. Don't pretend to be an idiot. I know for a fact you are not one.
So you think there would have been no protest if Babbitt had been black?
Are there not other trials with very enhanced security? https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2000/a-75-99-opn.html
They put in a lot of security for Sacco and Vanzetti.
I am sure you have read of the tremendous pressure the Sons of Liberty applied during the Boston Massacre Trial. Yet 6 of the 8 soldiers and their commander were found not guilty.
There are always going to be high profile trials. Big time gang members, terrorists, stars like OJ, and police in cases like Rodney King and George Floyd. These trials will have tremendous publicity and high security. We have to trust the system and the people. Yet you are saying the prosecution did well, the defense did poor, AND sewing seeds of distrust in the same argument.
"Fair Trial" is not relevant when it is an open and shut case as this one was. "Mob Rule" was standing down and standing by just in case it was not an open and shut case.
The most important distinction is one was black and one was white. Even president Joe Biden weighed in on this point with his “imagine if the Capitol mob were black people” comments.
Last I checked, breaching a secured area is not grounds for the cops to use deadly force from a concealed position with no warning.
Yup that's the only difference in the situations
He did not say it was the only difference. Not to be a dick but I think certain topics cause some people to get a type of tunnel vision where they just cannot see what the actual argument is. All reading comprehension goes out the window.
How concealed of a position? According to news stories I looked at this morning, some people in the crowd were yelling that the police on the other side had their guns drawn.
Concealed enough that according to the video he or she wasn’t visible to Babbitt. Nobody in the crowd saw the shooter at least in a way to make an identification. Moreover the shooter also enhanced his or her anonymity after the shot. Not a good look if we really are serious about law enforcement accountability.
So the shooter was not seen, but other police were seen with their guns drawn. We sometimes disagree about people being shot going away from police, but heading toward a cop with their gun drawn?
He's either gone totally off the rails or is actively trolling. With COH it's oftentimes hard to tell which.
Meh, these are national figureheads though. Many of us know how intellectually inferior some of these lifetime politicians are, but our public is too stupid to know any better.
Similar threads
