By “different” I meant that I had assumed that jurors weren’t as scared of making the “wrong” decision as they are now. I don’t expect anyone to ever be cool with cops brutally assaulting people. I honestly typically am not a fan of cops, and have personally never had an encounter with one that made me feel good about them being in positions of power.
I can very easily see the homes of Chauvin’s jurors being destroyed if they’d said not guilty. I didn’t think that that was the case in the 90s, but again, I have no clue. I was born in ‘99.
I’ve practiced law for 24 years, and I can say this is an utterly new phenomenon. Jurors having concerns about their safety and the safety of their entire communities from mob violence for voting the wrong way was just not a thing before this trial (except in perhaps some isolated incidents here and there farther back in the nation’s history).
A mistrial is in part dependent upon a judge’s opinion of what would constitute it. They have been known to be reversed from time to time by higher courts.
I do agree with you that Chauvin had due process (at least as I, a non-lawyer, understand the term) - meaning that the form of legal action was seen through. But come on, you can’t say none of those factors 2jar listed is concerning. Even Obama’s “he could be my son” moment didn’t outright declare the man guilty of murder.
See the judge’s comments on the case. Cahill wasn’t going to call a mistrial because he has always been happy to make the trial ‘fair enough’ rather than fair and then let the appeals court decide if that was good enough or not. I don’t blame him, you risk career, relationships and possibly your and your loved ones health and possibly lives.
Ultimately politicians need to shut the fuck up about trials. Biden on this, Trump on Scot Peterson, etc. we don’t need their opinions on ongoing trials and the media shouldn’t be asking them either.
I’ve been browsing reddit a bit today. I have seen a lot of strawman / ad hominem arguments. It seems most that have issues with the case are concerned with due process. That isn’t what is being said about those who have concerns. They are being called racist, or only caring about their side winning by many. That just isn’t a fair classification.
Why would you voluntarily browse reddit on this? That’s worse than reading YouTube video comments. I make it a habit to avoid reddit for everything even slightly political lol
Public officials commenting as they did in the US would be open and shut grounds for a mistrial in the U.K.
Edit: I don’t carry any water for Chauvin, but the venue and the commentary from public officials was jaw dropping from my perspective. Our media figures have to be much more careful about what they say about ongoing/pending trials too.
Chauvin was convicted of unintentional murder. So there’s no inconsistency in terms of that. Intent to murder wasn’t a requirement on any of the charges. I’ve posted the elements below and highlighted the intent portions.
Second-degree murder: According to the Minnesota statute, whoever causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting” is guilty of murder in the second degree.
Third-degree murder: According to the Minnesota statute, whoever causes the death of a person “by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree.”
Someone found guilty faces a prison sentence of no more than 25 years or a fine of no more than $40,000, or both.
Second-degree manslaughter: According to the Minnesota statute, when someone “creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another” is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.
Someone found guilty may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 10 years or required to pay a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.
Edit: I must say, the downstream effects of the finding of unintentional murder in the second degree are potentially much more vast than a single case. I’d suspect a lot more reticence to police following it.
One would think, and logically they are. But let me ask you this hypothetical, should it be a defence against a manslaughter charge that you absolutely intended to kill them?
Sorry if this goes over old ground. But I have a genuine question.
Does anyone fell the Derek Chauvin is not guilty?
And if so - why.
Obviously (from the way the questions worded) I feel he is guilty of some crime. How the legalities of it sit in the USA I do now know. But in the UK I would assume Man Slaughter.
But I’m interested in people who feel he is guilty of no crime what so ever. And why.
Not so I can start an argument. I’d just like to know why you feel like that.
I don’t remember hearing about the jurors being threatened during the trials for the cops who beat up Rodney King. At the time, there had not been a really high profile case like that for a long time. What was different about the King event was that it was caught on video which was unusual in the pre cell phone era. Somebody actually had one of those big ass vhs tape recorders handy and they shot it.
Despite that prominence of the Floyd story and others with some similarities, I wouldn’t be surprised if these types of events are on the decline. There’s a very small number of LEO’s who would hurt someone unnecessarily in the line of duty and with cell phones, dash cams, body cams and other surveillance videos I bet a lot of them already know they’d be more likely to be held accountable if they went above and beyond what’s necessary to subdue a suspect.
