Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[The Alma Mater]

Alternatively they could just lower the salary of cops. Give them some incentive to stop Chauvins in the future.

Pay cuts don't result in better behavior, especially among people trained to commit violence.

Not even conditional pay cuts ? " If one of you does wrong, all of you suffer" kinda thing.

[Odreria]

I feel like comparing journos to the absolute dumpster fires that both QAnon and Infowars are to make them seem reasonable and good really demonstrates how far the bar has fallen on journalistic integrity and excellence. "You can trust me because I'm not a stark raving lunatic" is not a statement that inspires confidence. And let's not mince words. Alex Jones is a stark raving lunatic.

Yet lots of people believe QAnon and Infowars precisely because of the mainstream news is fake narrative. We need to criticise the worst of where people get their news from, not throw out all news sources.

Maybe they would believe the news if it told the truth

[The Holy Therns]

Do you have similar apprehensions when corporations have to pay millions in damages because a product of theirs killed someone's family members?

Yes, because my understanding is that a big settlement is to pay for someone's medical costs, losses physical or intangible, or to give some compensation, but not necessarily just to enable someone or any group of people to become fabulously rich overnight. Its not intended to be like a sweepstakes or grand prize.

Somehow I get the feeling you'd push as hard as you could to get it yourself if the option was open to you.

[Kowani]

So this is testimony from the one of the alternate jurorsin the trial, about what affected her, and while this obviously isn’t the jury itself, it’s still illustrative, IMO

Lisa Christensen sat through every minute of the trial of Derek Chauvin as prosecutors and the defense each made their case in the killing of George Floyd.

She was an alternate juror, so she did not have a role in the verdict, but in an exclusive interview for "CBS This Morning," she said she was happy with the jury's decision to convict Chauvin after weeks of hard testimony. Christensen said she was reluctant to be on the jury when she was first called up. "I was worried about, you know, whatever the verdict may be if some people felt strongly on one side, other people felt strongly on the other side. So no matter what, I felt like somebody wasn't going to be happy," Christensen told CBS News' Jamie Yuccas.
She was known to the court as juror number 96, and even though she wasn't part of the deliberations, she came to a decision.
"I felt he was guilty. They read the jury instructions to us in the courtroom briefly, but I didn't know it was going to be guilty on all counts but I would have said guilty," Christensen said.
"Why did you think he was guilty? What led you to that belief?" Yuccas asked.
"I just felt like the prosecution made a really good, strong argument. Dr. Tobin was the one that really did it for me. He explained everything. I understood it down to where he said this is the moment that he lost his life, really got to me," she replied.
During the 13 days of sometimes tense and emotional testimony and cross-examination, both the prosecution and defense promised the jury that they were going to prove their case, but Christensen said only one side did.
"So who made an impact with the defense? Good or bad?" Yuccas asked. "I don't think they had a good impact," Christensen said in reference to Chauvin's defense team.
"I think he over-promised in the beginning and didn't live up to what he said he was going to do," Christensen said.
The prosecution did have a witness that made an impact on Christensen - Darnella Frazier, the teen who filmed the video showing Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes.
"I really felt that she felt guilty for not doing more and she feels responsible in a way, and I feel really bad for her. But I commend her on taking the video because, without her, I don't think this would have been possible," Christensen said.
The nine-and-a-half minute video has been seen worldwide by millions of people, but up until the trial, Christensen hadn't watched it in its entirety. She went from watching pieces of it two or three times on the news to watching the full video several times.
"It was emotional. I think my eyes teared up a couple of times, so especially seeing it from different angles and things," she said.
Christensen said she locked eyes several times with Chauvin during the trial due to seating arrangements. She said she was "pretty uncomfortable" and got another impression of him as she watched the video.
"I felt like he was the leader, and the other officers were following his lead. I kind of felt like he wasn't taking the warnings seriously, obviously, kind of like I know what I'm doing," Christensen said.
Christensen and another alternate juror were excused after Judge Peter Cahill sent the jurors to deliberate. Two days later, and after more than 10 hours of deliberation, Chauvin was found guilty of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in George Floyd's death. He faces decades in prison and will be sentenced by Judge Cahill in about eight weeks.
While the trial may be over, Christensen said it will have an impact on her a while.
"I just don't understand how it got from a counterfeit 20 dollar bill to a death. It kind of shocks me," she said.

There’s a full video of it in the link

[The Black Forrest]

He's baaaack. Well not yet. The JD is weighing in on trying him over a 2017 incident were he smacked a black teen in the head so hard he needed stictches and he used the knee for 17 minutes and allegedly ignored comments about not being able to breath.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/chauvins-conv ... d=77254006

[Neutraligon]

He's baaaack. Well not yet. The JD is weighing in on trying him over a 2017 incident were he smacked a black teen in the head so hard he needed stictches and he used the knee for 17 minutes and allegedly ignored comments about not being able to breath.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/chauvins-conv ... d=77254006

That ... explains a lot, he has gotten away with it before. Now here is the question, why in the world was he allowed to train new officers?

[Washington Resistance Army]

He's baaaack. Well not yet. The JD is weighing in on trying him over a 2017 incident were he smacked a black teen in the head so hard he needed stictches and he used the knee for 17 minutes and allegedly ignored comments about not being able to breath.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/chauvins-conv ... d=77254006

That ... explains a lot, he has gotten away with it before. Now here is the question, why in the world was he allowed to train new officers?

Because the problem isn't with individuals or bad apples. It's systemic.

[Neutraligon]

That ... explains a lot, he has gotten away with it before. Now here is the question, why in the world was he allowed to train new officers?

Because the problem isn't with individuals or bad apples. It's systemic.

With people like this training the next generation of cops, it would be.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

They already do in a way. That's why their trigger fingers are itchy. But they should be terrrified of a united armed populace saying no to police brutality.

“united”

Good luck with that, what with 40% of the US population being red. And I don’t mean the kind of red that results in mass armed insurrections.

If civil government in the US breaks down and power shifts to whoever can call up the most rifles, I’m not confident at all about that whoever being someone that particularly cares about the urban impoverished.

No... for all that American police are a bunch of undisciplined thugs, they have to at least pretend like they’re acting in accordance with law laid down by an elected legislature.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... ed-june-16

Derek Chauvin to be sentenced June 16

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... harassment

Judge orders Chauvin juror names sealed, citing risk of harassment

[Necroghastia]

That ... explains a lot, he has gotten away with it before. Now here is the question, why in the world was he allowed to train new officers?

Because the problem isn't with individuals or bad apples. It's systemic.

In a way it proves the "bad apples" thing right. If only the crowd that drags out that tired, tired line would remember the part about how the whole bunch getting spoiled.

[Galloism]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/550015-derek-chauvin-to-be-sentenced-june-16

Derek Chauvin to be sentenced June 16

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... harassment

Judge orders Chauvin juror names sealed, citing risk of harassment

This is good, hopefully they keep their own anonymity and don’t do something stupid like write a book or something.

[Fahran]

Yet lots of people believe QAnon and Infowars precisely because of the mainstream news is fake narrative. We need to criticise the worst of where people get their news from, not throw out all news sources.

You should absolutely exercise healthy skepticism of a media establishment that is often misleading at best and deliberately mendacious at worst. You're propping up a false dichotomy between hackish journos and unhinged lunatics as a reason for why we should listen to hackish journalists. Ideally, we shouldn't listen to either unless we can corroborrate what they're saying with more respectable sources. That FOX, QAnon, or Alex Jones are worse than CNN, the Guardian, or MSN is not a good reason to uncritically accept what the latter three have to say. I disagree with Ko a bit on the NYT since they aren't quite as bad as the other rags, but I digress.

[Galloism]

Yet lots of people believe QAnon and Infowars precisely because of the mainstream news is fake narrative. We need to criticise the worst of where people get their news from, not throw out all news sources.

You should absolutely exercise healthy skepticism of a media establishment that is often misleading at best and deliberately mendacious at worst. You're propping up a false dichotomy between hackish journos and unhinged lunatics as a reason for why we should listen to hackish journalists. Ideally, we shouldn't listen to either unless we can corroborrate what they're saying with more respectable sources. That FOX, QAnon, or Alex Jones are worse than CNN, the Guardian, or MSN is not a good reason to uncritically accept what the latter three have to say. I disagree with Ko a bit on the NYT since they aren't quite as bad as the other rags, but I digress.

Tbh, NYT regained some faith with me of late, at least for their non-opinion news pieces. They were surprisingly even-handed on a very divisive issue I’ve been studying (that which shall not be named) and they gained some Faith Points (FP).

[Fahran]

Not even conditional pay cuts ? " If one of you does wrong, all of you suffer" kinda thing.

It's a good way to encourage corruption in the ranks of the police. Too little pay tends to make it a lot easier for organized crime to offer supplemental income to LEOs in exchange for turning a blind eye to... operations. It also creates an even bigger incentive for LEOs to not talk about abuses openly since it makes them less able to feed their families or keep a roof over their heads if they try to be part of the solution.

[Fahran]

Somehow I get the feeling you'd push as hard as you could to get it yourself if the option was open to you.

Sai is broadly consistent in the application of his deeply illogical worldview from what I've seen. To the point that it's often upsetting.

[Galloism]

Somehow I get the feeling you'd push as hard as you could to get it yourself if the option was open to you.

Sai is broadly consistent in the application of his deeply illogical worldview from what I've seen. To the point that it's often upsetting.

You should discuss climate change with him sometime.

[Kowani]

Yet lots of people believe QAnon and Infowars precisely because of the mainstream news is fake narrative. We need to criticise the worst of where people get their news from, not throw out all news sources.

You should absolutely exercise healthy skepticism of a media establishment that is often misleading at best and deliberately mendacious at worst. You're propping up a false dichotomy between hackish journos and unhinged lunatics as a reason for why we should listen to hackish journalists. Ideally, we shouldn't listen to either unless we can corroborrate what they're saying with more respectable sources. That FOX, QAnon, or Alex Jones are worse than CNN, the Guardian, or MSN is not a good reason to uncritically accept what the latter three have to say. I disagree with Ko a bit on the NYT since they aren't quite as bad as the other rags, but I digress.

NYT's investigative journalists are really good
but the paper as a whole
no
my issue with them is one that i think is broadly applicable to a lot of mainstream (particularly political) journalism (and my usual complaint about how journalists should never touch anything to do with science ever)
addiction to horse-race coverage of issues, both-sidesism, and emphasis

[Fahran]

my issue with them is one that i think is broadly applicable to a lot of mainstream (particularly political) journalism (and my usual complaint about how journalists should never touch anything to do with science ever)

I tend to agree with this, excepting a small number of more specialized media outlets and publications. Most of Nature for instance, especially when the studies are linked.

[Kowani]

my issue with them is one that i think is broadly applicable to a lot of mainstream (particularly political) journalism (and my usual complaint about how journalists should never touch anything to do with science ever)

I tend to agree with this, excepting a small number of more specialized media outlets and publications. Most of Nature for instance, especially when the studies are linked.

this is fair, yeah
i do keep a list of publications that I think are relatively good on science things, particularly since they tend to...actually link the studies themselves, which means I don't have to hunt it down and corroborate every claim made

Phys
Science Daily
National Geographic
Scientific American
Nature

political journalists, though...
tend to be very bad, at least in tone and stress
there's a lot of "Party X does bad thing (with no basis in reality) and Party Y claims that Bad Thing is a bad idea" and no further elaboration
the current area I've been seeing this a lot is GOP voter suppression efforts
journalists should not be partisan activists, but they should also not end up being useful idiots for bad-faith efforts to entrench one political party in power

[Fahran]

Improving the quality of layman's coverage should be the priority. Simply rejecting it and setting the bar at "read Nature or you're too dumb to get science at all".

I never said we shouldn't improve the quality of journalism or even that we shouldn't read the Guardian. I said that we should take what they report with a grain of salt until we can corroborrate it with a more trustworthy source. Mainstream political journos absolutely should have the opportunity to redeem themselves, but, given they have responded to criticism in the same way that a defensive child might, I don't have an abundance of hope that they'll strive to do better. A substantial portion of the problem is institutional and cultural.

Learning some things which are incorrect, as part of reading which is mostly correct, isn't actually that harmful ... unless it's a critical detail the author has deliberately fabricated.

It's very often a critical detail when it comes to mainstream publications. You can deceive audiences by omission or by misrepresentation almost as well as you can through outright lies, and a lot of media outlets do this deliberately while attempting to retain plausible deniability. I don't think anyone here is going to argue that the Guardian is a quality journal or much better than the Daily Mail, but I suppose someone might take up that task.

"I wish they didn't publish at all" is entirely contrary to adult continuing education, and elitist.

Elitism is good. Cultures of excellence are good. The public deserves to read good quality journalism that is informative and not broadly misleading. Because the public is not filled with idiots incapable of challenging and improving themselves. I have no idea why this is a controversial position.

If scientists can't indulge the curiosity of the public without dumbing it down too far or making it difficult/boring, then journalists have to do it.

Nature, Scientific American, etc. do this all the time. Their articles are remarkably easy even for laypeople to comprehend. And I would rather have scientific discoveries and research reported on accurately with the goal of informing the public than inaccurately with the goal of pushing an agenda or getting clicks.

Media outlets should require a PhD at least in their science correspondent, AND pool correspondents so articles are always written by someone near their own field. This would fit perfectly with the old media's only real asset, which is reputation.

I mean... you don't even need a PhD a lot of the time. Someone who studied the subject in undergrad and has maintained a sustained interest or level of expertise in it would likely suffice. Really, even a lay journalist with a willingness to actually do research would suffice.

[Diarcesia]

You should absolutely exercise healthy skepticism of a media establishment that is often misleading at best and deliberately mendacious at worst. You're propping up a false dichotomy between hackish journos and unhinged lunatics as a reason for why we should listen to hackish journalists. Ideally, we shouldn't listen to either unless we can corroborrate what they're saying with more respectable sources. That FOX, QAnon, or Alex Jones are worse than CNN, the Guardian, or MSN is not a good reason to uncritically accept what the latter three have to say. I disagree with Ko a bit on the NYT since they aren't quite as bad as the other rags, but I digress.

Tbh, NYT regained some faith with me of late, at least for their non-opinion news pieces. They were surprisingly even-handed on a very divisive issue I’ve been studying (that which shall not be named) and they gained some Faith Points (FP).

idk if it's a hot take, but it's entirely because Trump is out of the office. It will likely take years for me to regain what confidence or respect I used to have with NYT and WaPo

[The Alma Mater]

Not even conditional pay cuts ? " If one of you does wrong, all of you suffer" kinda thing.

It's a good way to encourage corruption in the ranks of the police. Too little pay tends to make it a lot easier for organized crime to offer supplemental income to LEOs in exchange for turning a blind eye to... operations. It also creates an even bigger incentive for LEOs to not talk about abuses openly since it makes them less able to feed their families or keep a roof over their heads if they try to be part of the solution.

Then perhaps we could insist cops pay their own bullets ? May prevent one or two "tasertasertaser" incidents.

I mean, the USA thinks paying for essential supplies is perfectly fine where teachers are concerned, so the precedent is there.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I never realized how much scientific research SHOULD be available to the public, but isn't, because it's locked behind absurdly expensive paywalls like Elsevier.

Sounds like you need some SciHub in your life.

[Picairn]

I never realized how much scientific research SHOULD be available to the public, but isn't, because it's locked behind absurdly expensive paywalls like Elsevier.

Sci-Hub, Unpaywall extension, and Open Access journals, my guy.