Chauvin sure looked impassive
Whenever someone wants to understand how social justice differs from justice, I’ll just point to this trial as an example.
I expect more of this new style of American jurisprudence to take hold. We can expect more “trials” with angry mobs parked outside the courthouse and Presidents and Congressmen throwing meat to that same mob.
Deliver the right verdict, or else.
#resistance
#BLM
#NoJusticeNoPeace
10 Likes
I don’t know how one could possibly not have reasonable doubt in regards to “intent” here.
2 Likes
It must be obvious to the jurors that Chauvin wanted to use his last moments of freedom to snuff out George Floyd’s life while being filmed.
They clearly were considering something I was not when weighing the facts as I understood them.
3 Likes
They were selected for their abilities to deliver guilty verdicts.
Doesn’t the defense get a say?
On two, I believe. That’s two that were dumb/eager enough to get to that stage.
Defence likely to appeal right away so this probably has a few years to play out but it will be interesting to see how this impacts policing. I think they just won’t enforce much.
1 Like
I went to the statute to look. I think Subd. 2 is more applicable.
1 Like
Beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean beyond a shred of doubt. I have no doubt chauvin mean to rough/fuck him up, and I think that led to GFs death. Seems unlikely the intent was to kill him though, agreed. It would be interesting to know know what the jury instructions were and what their understanding of each charge was.
1 Like
I can’t believe that defense guy thought he would be able to out-talk the video.
How did he not make some kind of deal pre-trial?
Turns out I was responding to an error (wrong clause was posted). Intent wasn’t required for the applicable clause.
What was the felony that Chauvin was committing during Mr. Floyd’s arrest?
2 Likes
They tried, it was rejected I think:
2 Likes
Well, the Subd. initially quoted was for drive by shootings, so that one for sure didn’t apply (it was just an error).
I am not sure to your question. I am guessing felony assault is what the jury was convinced of, but that is just a guess.
I think the superficial message as you call would be out and listened to by a percentage of rioters regardless of whether we were in the pre or post clickbait era, which is why I think she needs censure. Words have power and impact. I personally find it hard to believe she was doing anything more than damage control in the media rounds, but that’s because she has a history of crazy.
I agree with the rest of your post. Particularly the “we go high” part.
Come on mate, that mental image is just cruel… 
1 Like
You’re probably right.
Unfortunately, policing in America as we’ve known it is now over, or at least the decay will set in even more rapidly unless the course is somehow corrected. We are entering a new era where hashtag activism get the likes and social approval, backed by your favorite actors, athletes and musicians. That helps drive the narratives that everyone loves to love, and those narratives and the emotions behind them are more powerful than any set of facts or contextual understanding can match.
This era will not have improved outcomes by any measure. The policy changes and LEO behavioral changes that will follow this verdict will be a disaster for the people who have to live with the biggest assholes and criminals in America.
3 Likes
Well the hyperbole machine coming out of this was bound to be in full force no matter what the verdict was.
Damn I wasn’t aware of that. Willing to do a dime for a deal.
1 Like
I’ve kinda been thinking the same thing. Viewed in isolation the story is completely compelling, but I feel bad for everyone about to have their life turned upside down by the fallout…
I am worried about this for sure. I don’t think it’s going to affect the majority of cases, but each case is a real person regardless.
2 Likes
Even the deal defense lawyer offered was full of self confidence! Facing 75 years, dude offered 10 years?