George Floyd murderer's trial

[Jarhyn]

You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.

How would we know?

Ask Zoidberg. He seems to have the straight dope.

But you can start with naming a case where the jury ruled in favor of the black victim and against the cop. Then we can see if these is even a shred of indication that they did so out of fear of mobs.

I could swear I heard of one not too long ago? Then, it's like we see black people dead on the ground at at least 100 times the rate*. It feels like it was specifically newsworthy because he didn't get off.

I wonder: what is the conviction rate on police officers... For, well, anything? I mean, I know about the statistics for domestic abuse...

*This number goes way up the further back you look.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I've critiqued it over and over. And my arguments are the same. The magnitude of the BLM riots means that the jury members know that if they don't bend to the will of the public, they are on trial. That's not having a bad feeling about it. That is reality. Expecting anything different is expecting that the members of the jury all are autists and/or incapable of acting for self preservation. There's nothing to be done other than bump this up to the supreme court ASAP. Until that point this trial will stay a farce. I find it amusing that you think there's any part of the legal procedure that can compensate for the surrounding hubub.

A mistrial doesn't mean he's not guilty. That's him getting off on a technicality. But even if it is, so what? It'll just get appealed. I somehow doubt the American society (as a whole) can afford to just let this one slide.

BTW, if this was just about a cop killing a junkie on the job, nobody would care. What makes this into something different is the context. Which is why nobody is really talking about Derek Chauvin when they're talking about Derek Chauvin. It's all loaded with politics. Race politics. That's what it really is about. This thread wouldn't have survived to page 2 without that context and the inflamed political situation of USA. Chauvin is a pawn in one of the largest political battles of American recent history. I find it a bit bizarre you can't see that?

You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.

Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.

So you think the French revolution was a bad outcome?

You think the US revolution was unnecessary?

Hell, almost every revolution ever was 'mob justice'.

Sometimes, the mob is the only real justice available.

 

[Patooka]

BTW, if this was just about a cop killing a junkie on the job, nobody would care.

Where you live, maybe. A cop killing a citizen should be a big fucking deal. The context shouldn't trivialize that very simple fact. I am so sorry that is a difficult concept for you.

 

[Gospel]

You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.

How would we know?

Interviews from Jury members anytime afterward. They have plenty of time to speak out and even write a book. Wow, what a waste of time typing that obvious answer out.

 

[untermensche]

All distraction.

All that matters is did this cop act reasonably or murderously?

Death while handcuffed by not being allowed to breathe is not a reasonable death.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The defense tries to make a Big Meaningful Point about handcuffed perps still being a threat -- but Chauvin is anything but threatened in the video. He is calm, assured, and firmly in control. He's like one of our local golden-tailed hawks when it's perched firmly on a squirrel, with its talons dug deep, and the squirrel has stopped twitching.

 

[southernhybrid]

I just want to say that I'm disgusted with people claiming the the BLM protests were violent or riots. The vast majority were peaceful. In fact, in my city, the local police marched with the protesters.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/blm-protests-peaceful-report-trnd/index.html

A protester holds a large Black Power fist in the middle of a crowd gathered in New York on June 14.
(CNN)About 93% of racial justice protests in the US since the death of George Floyd have been peaceful and nondestructive, according to a new report.

The findings, released Thursday, contradict assumptions and claims by some that protests associated with the Black Lives Matter movement are spawning violence and destruction of property.
The report was produced by the US Crisis Project, a joint effort by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) and the Bridging Divides Initiative (BDI) at Princeton University, which collects and analyzes real-time data on demonstrations and political violence in the US.

"These data reveal that the United States is in crisis," the report's authors wrote. "It faces a multitude of concurrent, overlapping risks -- from police abuse and racial injustice, to pandemic-related unrest and beyond -- all exacerbated by increasing polarization."

Militias and other nonstate actors also intervened in demonstrations, with the authors writing that such groups were "becoming more active and assertive."
Nonstate actors engaged in more than 100 demonstrations, mostly in response to Black Lives Matter protests, the report states. Those actors include militias and groups from the right and left, such as Antifa, the Proud Boys, the Boogaloo Bois and the Ku Klux Klan.

If you care to read the entire linked article, it gives evidence that when the police intervened, the protests sometimes became violent, at least partly due to the actions of the police, who sometimes used tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray, often at peaceful protests. So, can we stop claiming the mostly peaceful protests that had wide support among a diverse group of people, were the problem, when in reality it was mostly groups associated with white supremacy that caused most of the riots and violence. And, sadly, police intervention was more common among the BLM protests compared to the protests from the far right.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, that's a picture they can't make us un-see. Chauvin with his hands in his pockets, smirking.

 

[Rhea]

You keep saying this same unsubstantiated shit about the threat of violence influencing the Jury. Out of all the injustices against black people in America can you at minimum FUCKING CITE ONE CASE WHERE A JURY RULED IN FAVOR OF BLACK PEOPLE UNDER THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE? If not, kindly STFU about this already.

Well, to have this conversation, you really only need to ask exactly 12 people. The only people who have ever convicted a police officer of the murder of a Black man in the last 15 years...

Q: Not following the George Floyd trial as closely as a friend of mine, I wrote him and said, "It is impossible for a white policeman to be convicted of killing a black man in America."

I would love to be proven wrong. Especially by the outcome of this trial. But my favorite website may already have the answer: Has a white cop ever been convicted of murdering a black man in the United States? B.C., Walpole, ME

A: There is something to be said for the racial dimension to your question; juries have historically been more willing to trust white people in a courtroom (whether as witnesses, plaintiffs, or defendants) and less willing to trust people of color. However, the main dynamic here is that it is nearly impossible for a policeman of any sort to be convicted of killing anyone in America.

There are several major reasons why a murder/manslaughter case against a police officer is difficult to make. Here are three of the biggies:

• Benefit of the Doubt: Juries tend to begin with the presumption that police officers are trustworthy public servants who put themselves in harm's way for the greater good of the American public. So, jurors are generally loath to submit their judgment for that of the officer(s).
• Lack of Evidence: Since most officer-involved killings take place in the line of duty, the question is not whether they did the deed, but whether their reaction was justified. This gets into questions about the extent of the provocation and the officer's state of mind. The only folks who can speak to these issues, generally, are fellow officers. And fellow officers are reluctant to testify against one of their own.
• Available Defenses: There are also some pretty effective defenses available, in most cases. If the victim had a weapon, an argument of self-defense almost always works. If the victim did not have a weapon, an officer can still save themselves by arguing that what they did was consistent with the training they received and with department policy. The latter issue has been a major focal point of the Floyd trial.

For these reasons, officer-involved shootings are rarely charged, much less punished. In the 15 years prior to the Floyd trial, it only happened 110 times, for an average of about seven a year. Of those, only five resulted in a murder conviction. However, one of those five did involve a white officer killing a black victim: Jason Van Dyke's murder of Laquan McDonald. So, your statement to your friend, while substantially correct, is not entirely accurate.

15 years of police shootings
Approximate 1000 people per year die at their hands.
15,000 people killed by police
Only 110 ever charged at all
Onl;y 5 resulted in murder conviction
1. Only 1. Was a conviction for the murder of a Black person.


We can assume that ALL of the other 109 juries did NOT fear for the rioting crowds.

 

[DrZoidberg]

DrZoidberg is a riot (pun intended). He claims BLM riots have the jury under threat. I ask for historical evidence where the Jury having been under the threat of violence from black people ruled in black people's favor. He has 2 centuries of injustice against black people available to choose from. Instead, he says the current BLM riots are his proof. Guess we'd have to wait until after the verdict is in for his proof. Until then, I still think he should STFU about it.

I have never said the BLM riots threaten the jury. The fact that they took place and the magnitude of them will of course influence the jury. That's what I've said. They haven't been sequestered for a year. The members of the jury must be aware of the forces at play. It will of course influence the jury.

Are people here claiming this is a fair trial willfully ignorant of the situation, or what?

And I'd appreciate it if I'm criticised for what I am saying, to read what I'm actually saying.

Ok, I misspoke I'll give you that. But can you at least explain how my request for you to provide proof supporting your claim that the possibility of mass riots are influencing the Jury, is an invalid request? I'm genuinely curious & won't laugh (at least not post it) this time. I'm saying that Riots are not new and there have been plenty of cases where riots occurred as a result and those Juries clearly did not rule to avoid the riots based on the previous ones.

Back in the day American jurys would often make racist judgements. Some argue this is still a problem. The context the trial finds itself in matters.

The Zeitgeist influences jurys. Its unavoidable. This time around the riots triggered by this case was more extreme than ever before. So of course whatever judgement they make is highly questionable.

We can turn the question around. How do you propose we make sure the BLM riots doesn't influence the jury? What proof do you have of that?

A lot of irrelevancies have been projected onto me in this thread. I'd say that is strong evidence for my case.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.

You have been making no sense in this thread. None at all.
How the fuck would you know what the jurors are thinking and what motivates them? Human beings are all different.
Who are you accusing of trying to ignore due process? Is this is a conspiracy of the jurors or are there other people involved as well?
A jury trial is the opposite of mob justice. It is an exercise of the rule of law.
If you "don't like it" the way things are being done, what remedy would you suggest that might provide a more fair outcome? How would you guarantee that your preferred remedy rectifies the alleged shortcomings of the jury trial process?

I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP. That's the first instance the trial will be truly interesting.

I think very few people in this thread have actually bothered with reading what I have written. All manner of nonsense and positions have been projected onto me. I'm sorry if I can't be bothered in defending positions I have never held.

I don't want anything different to happen. I just don't find it particularly interesting what expert witnesses are saying or to speculate on how Chauvin should have acted or his motivations.

Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

But what I reacted to above all is how this forum seems to be a part of the mob. Too many for comfort on this forum just want to see Chauvin suffer and are willing to accept the dumbest accusations and flimiest speculations on his character.

Its been said many times that of late the liberals have become the intolerant and the conservatives have become the defenders of liberal values. Which is so backward. This trial demonstrates it so well.

We live in a time when liberals are the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is way beyond party politics. It's not confined to any single nation. Its a global poison

 

[southernhybrid]

Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.

You have been making no sense in this thread. None at all.
How the fuck would you know what the jurors are thinking and what motivates them? Human beings are all different.
Who are you accusing of trying to ignore due process? Is this is a conspiracy of the jurors or are there other people involved as well?
A jury trial is the opposite of mob justice. It is an exercise of the rule of law.
If you "don't like it" the way things are being done, what remedy would you suggest that might provide a more fair outcome? How would you guarantee that your preferred remedy rectifies the alleged shortcomings of the jury trial process?

I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP. That's the first instance the trial will be truly interesting.

I think very few people in this thread have actually bothered with reading what I have written. All manner of nonsense and positions have been projected onto me. I'm sorry if I can't be bothered in defending positions I have never held.

I don't want anything different to happen. I just don't find it particularly interesting what expert witnesses are saying or to speculate on how Chauvin should have acted or his motivations.

Chauvin isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial until it goes to the sepreme court. That's the first legal body where the jurors cannot be swayed by social pressure.

But what I reacted to above all is how this forum seems to be a part of the mob. Too many for comfort on this forum just want to see Chauvin suffer and are willing to accept the dumbest accusations and flimiest speculations on his character.

Its been said many times that of late the liberals have become the intolerant and the conservatives have become the defenders of liberal values. Which is so backward. This trial demonstrates it so well.

We live in a time when liberals are the power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is way beyond party politics. It's not confined to any single nation. Its a global poison

You obviously don't even understand how SCOTUS operates. This case isn't going to SCOTUS. At best, if Chauvin is found guilty, his attorneys can appeal and ask for a retrial, but they would have to provide very good evidence that there were things in the current trial that weren't fair.

I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.

 

[Elixir]

It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP.

WTF???
That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.



If you can cite a specific law that can be credibly argued to have violated the Constitution and was determinative in this case, you might have grounds for a SCOTUS review.

 

[Swammerdami]

So presenting the evidence is declaring the verdict before the trial.

No. Calling the defendant a murderer is declaring the verdict before the trial.

Yeah, we saw the act on video, but it might be a deep fake so we best defer to the people who were there.
Oh wait - no, we best believe the autopsy results were all wrong and he died of a fentanyl overdose, and would have died even if cops weren't speaking roughly to him.
That's the ticket... he was dying before the cops even got there!

Sorry Derec.
The guy is OBVIOUSLY a murderer. There is no question about that.
The question is whether or not he will be convicted.

IANAL but it sure seems to be 99%+ that Derek is guilty of murder or manslaughter. But if the jury fails to convict, that will NOT prove Derek is innocent: one stupid juror will not alter facts even if creates "innocence in the eyes of the law."

I am finding it fascinating at the moment just how many police have given expert testimony on why Chauvin was wrong. It seems like the defense's opening argument is debunked. Yet, there are still people trying to defend Chauvin over this.

Is it faith?

People want facts to fit their prejudged narrative. One cop-loving black-hating fanatic — there are many millions in America — on the jury can deliver a hung trial or even acquittal. Were reporters present when the jury was selected? What do we know about the jury?


Historical note: The cops who beat Rodney King were tried TWICE. (Not double jeopardy supposedly, because the 2nd trial was in federal court with a "different" charge.) Getting convictions in the second trial was considered very important: authorities did NOT want another round of riots.

Apparently one reason the 1st jury acquitted is that the videos of the beating were unclear. A Professor in the art/craft of Image Enhancement was called upon to improve the images for the 2nd trial. IIRC, he used (one of the alternatives to?) Wiener filtering and histogram equalization to improve the images. I attended a seminar by that Professor where he spent some time detailing his work for that King trial.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.

So you think the French revolution was a bad outcome?

You think the US revolution was unnecessary?

Hell, almost every revolution ever was 'mob justice'.

Sometimes, the mob is the only real justice available.

That's a disturbing post.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your comment is not relevant. It's unnecessary to cite such a case. The BLM riots on their own is all the evidence needed. Injustices made against black people in America is not a free pass to ignore due process.

I don't like mob justice. You're trying to defend mob justice with technicalities. I don't like it.

So you think the French revolution was a bad outcome?

You think the US revolution was unnecessary?

Hell, almost every revolution ever was 'mob justice'.

Sometimes, the mob is the only real justice available.

That's a disturbing post.

Be disturbed. You are over there in a country where people seem to give a shit about each other fairly universally.

We are over here, across the ocean in a cesspit wherein the only means that seems left to a society tired of justice denied is to take a fresh knife to once again blind the eyes of justice.

What, you don't think Justice was born blind, do you?

 

[Rhea]

I think it should go as it is. Due process is important. But the result is questionable. Because of the high profile of it. It should be apppealled and bumped up to the supreme court ASAP.

What? Why would the supreme court hear this one?
That's not what they do...

 

[Rhea]

I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.

Wanting to amplify this. The evidence is being shown to us. We can watch. The evidence is all being presented fairly.

It seems that the only argument against it is that a Jury Trial can never be fair. Which means they argue that the entire basis of the USA system of justice, the elevation of the trial by jury as the best possible way of being fair, is what's actually being argued against.


Zoidberg, you appear to be arguing that trial by jury should be abolished in teh US.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.

Wanting to amplify this. The evidence is being shown to us. We can watch. The evidence is all being presented fairly.

It seems that the only argument against it is that a Jury Trial can never be fair. Which means they argue that the entire basis of the USA system of justice, the elevation of the trial by jury as the best possible way of being fair, is what's actually being argued against.


Zoidberg, you appear to be arguing that trial by jury should be abolished in teh US.

Or we could have professional jurors who live their lives sequestered, learning only the information about cases when they hear it in trial, with no stake in the outcomes.

 

[Jarhyn]

I've watched about 30% of the trial. There is nothing, nada, not a thing about this trial that hasn't been fair. The problem for Chauvin is that he committed what certainly appears to be a crime right in front of many witnesses. He used techniques that aren't permitted by his police department. Several of the witnesses in this case are or were police officers. They all agreed under oath that what Chauvin did violated police policies. Do you have any idea how rare it is in my country, for the police to be honest when it comes to the actions of one of their peers?

There have been numerous medical experts who swore under oath that Floyd died from asphyxiation, not from drugs or underlying medical conditions. So, I honestly don't understand those making the absurd claim that Chauvin isn't getting a fair trial. It's Floyd who was never given a fair trial for the minor crime of using a fake 20 dollar bill. For all we know, Floyd may not have even been aware that his money was fake. We will never know because he was never given his day in court.

So your claim that this is mob justice is ridiculous.

Wanting to amplify this. The evidence is being shown to us. We can watch. The evidence is all being presented fairly.

It seems that the only argument against it is that a Jury Trial can never be fair. Which means they argue that the entire basis of the USA system of justice, the elevation of the trial by jury as the best possible way of being fair, is what's actually being argued against.


Zoidberg, you appear to be arguing that trial by jury should be abolished in teh US.

Or we could have professional jurors who live their lives sequestered, learning only the information about cases when they hear it in trial, with no stake in the outcomes.

But also lacking the perspective of a normal life, by which one could be considered a peer in the first place.

Maybe doing a jury selection draft like a 6 month deployment of sequestration prior to the expected trial date? Shit would suck tho.