Fair trial doesn't have any direct relationship with probability of acquittal.
Then you have no reason to be upset. We don't know the probability of acquittal here. I don't; you don't. Period.
I already explained why the trial in Minneapolis is unfair - you have a jury pool from a city that is a drum of nitroglycerin, poised to go off should they dare vote to acquit Chauvin.
Do you
honestly not see the preconceived bias you bring to this by using such a hysterical, well-poisoning hyperbole bomb to describe the jury pool? What if, instead, one were to see the jury pool as "an impartial group representative of (and pulled from) the very community in which the offense being tried occurred?" That's not as provocative, granted, but it's a lot more accurate.
You also kinda tell on yourself with your characterization of "should they dare vote to acquit Chauvin." You give the jury absolutely zero benefit of the doubt for carefully weighing the evidence presented to them and delivering a verdict based solely on that. In fact, they may very well "dare" to acquit Chauvin. They may very well "dare" to convict him. You act as if it's a foregone conclusion that Chauvin should be acquitted (and I think most of us get why that is) but that only by some miraculous extra-ordinary jury effort, in which they essentially "go against their instincts," could this result in acquittal. That simply isn't true.
What they are able to watch is irrelevant if it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that what they are watching, and not Floyd swallowing drugs, is what killed him.
Yeah, I kinda think a video of Chauvin kneeing him in the airway for eight minutes might help with that. Is it honestly your contention that if Floyd had been laying face down the exact amount of time he was, but with the sole difference of not being touched by Chauvin or any of the other officers, he'd have died anyway? Show your work.
More relevant to this trial being a show trial: what evidence is presented is irrelevant if the jurors are in fear of the consequences for their city should they vote to acquit.
It's not a show trial in any sense of that phrase. And I think your insinuations that Chauvin is innocent BUT the jury will knowingly and intentionally convict, but only because they don't want those pitchfork-wielding Negro hordes to burn the city down on acquittal, is a fantasy. (Which, coincidentally(?) neatly echoes Trump's insinuations for YEARS that voter fraud was rampant, and if he DID lose, it was only due to mail-in ballots and rigged machines and [insert other break from reality here.])
Maybe, if Officer Chauvin didn't want to be judged in Minneapolis by Minnesotans, he should have been more careful to take Mr. Floyd into custody in Minneapoiis without killing him in Minneapolis. I suspect that you'd be saying exactly that if the roles were reversed, and a black Minneapolis Antifa activist had ended up causing the death of a white Minneapolis Police officer in some protest scuffle or whatever. If some snowflake lefty here asked, "how can De'Vante hope to expect a fair trail in Minneapolis," it wouldn't surprise me to hear you say some variant of, "Sorry, juries are impaneled in the locality of the offense. Them's the rules, and they're well known. Don't shit in your own back yard if you don't want to be judged by your neighbors."
