How can Derek Chauvin expect a fair trial in Minneapolis?

[Toni]

The trial is now in recess until Monday, but the last witness seemed to agree that what Chavin did to Floyd was well beyond necessary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/02/derek-chauvin-trial-live/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/ketamine-minneapolis-police.amp.html

FWIW, Minneapolis police use Ketamine to subdue suspects. It can induce hallucinations and should only be used in a medical setting. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/302663

Two things: nobody should be ever given ketamine against their will. But you are also blowing it's use out of proportion.

As drugs go, it's pretty safe on all fronts.

I don't see how I am blowing its use out of proportion. I know that ketamine is often used as a party drug. But it should hardly be used to subdue someone precisely because, as you put it:

Ketamine is not a vaccine. It is a mind altering dissociative drug that can make people feel as if their current experience is infinite and timeless, and when that experience experience is demonstrably awful, it makes it infinitely and timelessly worse.

Yes, it has sedating properties but it also has hallucinogenic ones as well. This makes it far from a safe sedative to administer in order to subdue a suspect. In fact, it appears to me to have the potential for doing the opposite and for reinforcing the notion that a particular suspect is dangerous and out of control--as some people are when they are hallucinating.

I am strongly opposed to non-medically trained personnel administering such drugs to suspects.

 

[Derec]

No, I am not. I have not said any such thing.

You very strongly implied it.

You have not shown your argument holds water.

I have shown my reasoning. You have failed to show how that reasoning is wrong.
Also, do you admit you were wrong about the alleged juror from Wright County?

It is not a fact that #BLM caused a lot of destruction in Minneapolis last year

It is very much a fact.
There was widespread #BLM rioting and looting. Many businesses including a Target store and some taqueria Jarhyn liked were vandalized. At least one police station was burned as was at least one courthouse. In a separate incident (after a murder suspect killed himself) #BLMers vandalized the Nicolet Mall and the Target headquarters.

And that's just few of the #BLM acts of violence in Minneapolis last year.

And your opinion about likihoods is based on fear and bigotry.

You are the one who is bigoted about non-Twin Cities Minnesotans.

I do not think #BLM is necessarily a political statement.

The phrase refers to the political movement that first came to national attention during the Michael Brown riots in 2014 when they "burned [that] bitch down" ...

And I think an experienced jurist is a much better arbiter of what a jwitness should or should not wear. Can you point to any laws or dress codes for witnesses in Mn? I could not find any.

Not familiar with MN law on that, but it strikes me as something that a judge should not allow as it obviously going to unduly affect the jury.

 

[Derec]

Man, so, last night when me and my friends were out we saw some very angry (and very justifiably angry) people chanting about George Floyd and blocking traffic.

None of it was violent, nor did it approach violence.

It is, at the very least, coercive as it infringes on the freedom of movement of people. A civilized society should not allow political groups to block traffic whenever they feel like.
Should MAGAs or pro-lifers also be allowed to block traffic with impunity?

Just a lot of simmering anger over a murderer and a reminder that if justice is miscarried, that consequences WILL happen.

In other words, a threat of violence should the verdict not go their way. Vote the way we want, or else! This is not real justice, this is mob "justice".
Might as well have this guy preside if we are going to allow extremist mobs to threaten juries into convicting defendants.

As to whether rural minnesota is "too red", that's a dog whistle. They aren't too "red", they are too racist in that they would say George Floyd's life didn't matter.

I guess everybody who disagrees with Jahryn is "racist".

I don't think that people who are neither peers to Chauvin nor Floyd, those who live far and away, should get any leverage on it anyway.

On the contrary, I think people from outside the metro area would be more likely to view evidence dispassionately than a group of people who lived through the unrest last year.

 

[laughing dog]

You very strongly implied it.

No, I did not.

I have shown my reasoning. You have failed to show how that reasoning is wrong.

You have failed to show your reasoning is correct.

It is very much a fact.
There was widespread #BLM rioting and looting......

FIFY
And that's just few of the #BLM acts of violence in Minneapolis last year.

You are the one who is bigoted about non-Twin Cities Minnesotans.

I am out stater. Your claim is ridiculous.

The phrase refers to the political movement that first came to national attention during the Michael Brown riots in 2014 when they "burned [that] bitch down" ...

It is as much a social movement as a political movement.

Not familiar with MN law on that, but it strikes me as something that a judge should not allow as it obviously going to unduly affect the jury.

In other words, you have nothing but your opinion. Why anyone would think one witness wearing a clothing with #BLM would unduly affect the jury is truly fascinating.

 

[Derec]

It's very disturbing to me that some of the posters here seem so concerned about a man, who obviously served as both jury and executioner right before the eyes of multiple witnesses who begged him to back off, isn't getting a fair trial.

Everybody is entitled to a fair trial, no matter how you feel about that person.
When an extremist mob threatens violent consequences if the trial doesn't go their way (as Jarhyn admitted #BLMers are doing) then that is not a fair trial.

I've been watching the trial on and off, and it's quite obvious that Chauvin is getting a fair trial.

Not in Minneapolis he is not. The trial should have been moved.

Passing a fake 20 and using illegal drugs shouldn't result in a death sentence.

Using illegal drugs wasn't a "death sentence" except in the sense that it wreaked havoc on his pulmonary system as well as probably also his cardiovascular system and thus made it much easier for him to die.

It is very possible that Chauvin should be convicted of something based on evidence, and if so, then, probably manslaughter rather than murder.
But the trial is taking place before a backdrop of #BLM blocking traffic and occupying a city block as "Free State of George Floyd" and threatening further violence if Chauvin is not convicted. It really should have been moved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We still have to hear evidence as to what other contributing factors there are to Floyd's death.

The law basically doesn't care--at most it means the difference between murder and manslaughter. We had a local case--one punch, the guy went down, landed bad, died. Manslaughter.

 

[Derec]

should't Black Lives Matter be the default position?

Only lower case. Upper case it is an extremist anti-police movement started by two trained Marxists.

 

[Toni]

Everybody is entitled to a fair trial, no matter how you feel about that person.
When an extremist mob threatens violent consequences if the trial doesn't go their way (as Jarhyn admitted #BLMers are doing) then that is not a fair trial.

This is false. An 'extremist mob' is not on the jury nor part of the trial or courtroom proceedings.

Not in Minneapolis he is not. The trial should have been moved.

Trust me: Minneapolis is plenty racist enough to offer Chauvin what you consider a 'fair trial.'

It is very possible that Chauvin should be convicted of something based on evidence, and if so, then, probably manslaughter rather than murder.
But the trial is taking place before a backdrop of #BLM blocking traffic and occupying a city block as "Free State of George Floyd" and threatening further violence if Chauvin is not convicted. It really should have been moved.

Indeed, it is possible that Chauvin should be convicted 'of something.' What he should be convicted of will depend upon the wording of the various statutes defining the charges against him as well as how each side presents its case.

The judge elected not to move the trial. I think the judge is better placed than you or I to know whether or not a fair and impartial verdict can be delivered in Hennepin County.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I mean, if you murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped, it's not an "unfair trial" which guarantees your conviction. It's that you chose to murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped.

Yeah I've been struggling to express this cleanly: just because the verdict is already known does not make it an unfair trial. The question is "does the evidence show you did it?" And the answer to that CAN be an absolute "YES".

You're entitled to "a fair trial" not "a trial you can win".

Lots of black people had the problem with the U.S. justice system. The verdict was already known before anyone bothered with a trial.
So The People just didn't bother wasting effort on the trial.
It's called "lynching". If you already know what the outcome of a trial should be, why go to the trouble?
Tom

What? Nobody is "not wasting effort on a trial" or whatever the hell that was. Some trials are just easy because of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, but you still have the trial and the trial is still fair, despite the outcome not actually being in doubt.

 

[LoAmmo]

Derec, just for perspective, I'd be interested in your genuine response to this.

Did O.J. Simpson get a fair trial?

(*the 1995 murder trial, not the later civil suit on the stolen sports memorabilia)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Derec, just for perspective, I'd be interested in your genuine response to this.

Did O.J. Simpson get a fair trial?

(*the 1995 murder trial, not the later civil suit on the stolen sports memorabilia)

Yes. Both sides got to present their evidence and a jury weighed in on the evidence. The fact that myself and many others think that they came to the wrong verdict is irrelevant to the question of whether the trial was fair.

 

[Elixir]

Everybody is entitled to a fair trial, no matter how you feel about that person.

You seem to think that "fair" means flipping a coin so the perp has equal chances of conviction and acquittal.
Sorry dude - everyone saw the psychopath cop murder a civilian for no reason except that he enjoyed murdering.
If you have a hard time finding someone who doesn't think that happened, it doesn't mean his trial wasn't fair.
But don't worry - the jury is 50% white. The statistical chances are very good that one of them will be sufficiently racist that no amount of evidence will result in a murder 1 conviction. The best that the prosecuation can reasonably hope for is murder 3. And that, if it happens, will only be to mitigate the backlash.

 

[Jarhyn]

Everybody is entitled to a fair trial, no matter how you feel about that person.

You seem to think that "fair" means flipping a coin so the perp has equal chances of conviction and acquittal.
Sorry dude - everyone saw the psychopath cop murder a civilian for no reason except that he enjoyed murdering.
If you have a hard time finding someone who doesn't think that happened, it doesn't mean his trial wasn't fair.
But don't worry - the jury is 50% white. The statistical chances are very good that one of them will be sufficiently racist that no amount of evidence will result in a murder 1 conviction. The best that the prosecuation can reasonably hope for is murder 3. And that, if it happens, will only be to mitigate the backlash.

Yah, like, when you murder someone on fifth avenue in broad daylight on camera, a "fair trial" is not one in which you will be aquitted, a fair trial will be one where they are deciding whether you get "life" or "death".

Sometimes a fair trial is about being fair about how much, rather than whether, you will be subjected to "corrections".

 

[Gospel]

Come on Jarhyn & Elixir at least Derec is consistent. To Derec a black person showing an inch of aggression deserves a mile of death so he's just concerned that someone who looks like him might get the same treatment. At least he's aware that guerrilla courts are a thing and can happen to white people too. Whether that court is on the streets or an actual courtroom is mere semantics.

 

[Elixir]

Come on Jarhyn & Elixir at least Derec is consistent. To Derec a black person showing an inch of aggression deserves a mile of death so he's just concerned that someone who looks like him might get the same treatment. At least he's aware that guerrilla courts are a thing and can happen to white people too. Whether that court is on the streets or an actual courtroom is mere semantics.

That's a pretty cynical outlook. For one thing, I don't believe Derec is even slightly afraid of it happening to him. I'm not even afraid of it happening to me, and I don't consider my conduct to be beyond reproach as I suspect Derec does. I only have my lily white ass as an insurance policy, and a (mostly) trust that that would be sufficient to save my life even if I got drunk, stoned, high on opioids and tried passing a counterfeit $20 bill. In any event, a component of the first step toward the realization of a fair justice system would be to get the "courts" off the streets.

 

[Gun Nut]

I would be defending my use of deadly force against the cop today, had I been there, now that I have seen more footage of the event that included the audio of MANY people crowded around, all yelling at the cop to get off the guy's neck ("he's not moving", "he's not breathing", "you're killing him"... all yelled over and over).
The Asian cop that was controlling the crowd would have been disabled, and the pig on the guys neck would be dead right now. and I would be in jail trying to get out on the justification of deadly force to prevent a murder.
What I probably would not have thought to do at the moment, but what anyone there should have done, is call 911 and scream into the phone, "MULTPLE COPS DOWN / NONRESPONSIVE / AMBULANCE NEEDED at xxxx IMMEDIATELY - CODE 3" and just hang up the phone. That would have put paramedics on scene possible soon enough to stop the murder.

 

[LoAmmo]

Derec, just for perspective, I'd be interested in your genuine response to this.

Did O.J. Simpson get a fair trial?

(*the 1995 murder trial, not the later civil suit on the stolen sports memorabilia)

Yes. Both sides got to present their evidence and a jury weighed in on the evidence. The fact that myself and many others think that they came to the wrong verdict is irrelevant to the question of whether the trial was fair.

Yahbut
...they didn't move the trial out of Los Angeles County--they tried him right there where the crime occurred. Where all the locals (and beyond) had had ample time to hear and see many details related to the case. um, How could Mr. Simpson expect a fair trial under those circumstances?

Playing devil's advocate here, mind you.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yahbut
...they didn't move the trial out of Los Angeles County--they tried him right there where the crime occurred. Where all the locals (and beyond) had had ample time to hear and see many details related to the case. um, How could Mr. Simpson expect a fair trial under those circumstances?.

The trial court was moved from Santa Monica to Downtown where the defense team could load up the jury in their favor.

 

[Gospel]

Come on Jarhyn & Elixir at least Derec is consistent. To Derec a black person showing an inch of aggression deserves a mile of death so he's just concerned that someone who looks like him might get the same treatment. At least he's aware that guerrilla courts are a thing and can happen to white people too. Whether that court is on the streets or an actual courtroom is mere semantics.

That's a pretty cynical outlook. For one thing, I don't believe Derec is even slightly afraid of it happening to him. I'm not even afraid of it happening to me, and I don't consider my conduct to be beyond reproach as I suspect Derec does. I only have my lily white ass as an insurance policy, and a (mostly) trust that that would be sufficient to save my life even if I got drunk, stoned, high on opioids and tried passing a counterfeit $20 bill. In any event, a component of the first step toward the realization of a fair justice system would be to get the "courts" off the streets.

I was aiming for satire and irony. Clearly, I didn't hit it out of the park, did I at least make third base?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Derec, just for perspective, I'd be interested in your genuine response to this.

Did O.J. Simpson get a fair trial?

(*the 1995 murder trial, not the later civil suit on the stolen sports memorabilia)

Yes. Both sides got to present their evidence and a jury weighed in on the evidence. The fact that myself and many others think that they came to the wrong verdict is irrelevant to the question of whether the trial was fair.

Yahbut
...they didn't move the trial out of Los Angeles County--they tried him right there where the crime occurred. Where all the locals (and beyond) had had ample time to hear and see many details related to the case. um, How could Mr. Simpson expect a fair trial under those circumstances?

Playing devil's advocate here, mind you.

Are you suggesting that non-locals would have heard LESS details regarding the case? That's not how TV works and the trial didn't take place in the 1700s, so people didn't get their information about it by chatting with the Sheriff's cousin Frank over at the saloon or something - they watched the coverage on television. He was acquitted because his lawyers were able to introduce sufficient reasonable doubt and the prosecutors were unable to overcome that reasonable doubt. I don't see how a change of venue would have impacted anything.