Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[North Washington Republic]

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.

I think people forget about organizations such as the AP and Reuters. They are excellent sources for news, with little bias.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

The thing about the news is that it publishes, well, news, and interesting new papers with noteworthy findings don’t tend to be written in fields that already have a strong, uncontroversial scientific consensus clearly communicable to the public. Instead, they tend to be published in fields where there is yet much to discover, which means fields in which not much is yet known.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The cope is strong with Ben Shapiro. He's going on and on about cHaUvIn WaS rAiLrOaDeD.

[Adamede]

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).

Where can one redeem these Faith Points (FP)? Preferably for legal tender.

[Adamede]

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.

Most ammunition has price points in the cents per round.

[Seangoli]

The cope is strong with Ben Shapiro. He's going on and on about cHaUvIn WaS rAiLrOaDeD.

Anybody who watched a significant portion of the trial would not think that. The Prosecutors clearly articulated how Chauvin's action were unlawful and why they met the criteria for the charges levied, and the Defense was pretty shit over all. From offering alternate theories that actually provides evidence against Chauvin (the Carbon Monoxide argument was not only a pretty silly argument, it actually still leaves him culpable as he put Floyd in that position), to stating things as a matter of law that is not (,No, reasonable doubt does not mean fanciful or capricious, and no specific intent is not required under Murder 2 charges), to just coming off like a bit of a weasely defense (Since he wasn't on Floyd's neck the entire time, then it a-ok even though for a significant portion of the time he was on Floyd's neck - basically, it not illegal, because it's only a little bit of excessive force), to just downright stupid (since nobody could possible have seen Chauvin's foot off the ground, and it was brief, then it wasn't a problem). The Prosecutors made some big blunders, but the defense really didn't give an adequate argument to instill reasonable doubt.

There were probably better arguments that the defense could have gone for, that may have even gotten him off of Murder charges at the least, but the "well, he only committed a little bit assault and with only a little bit of depraved indifference" isn't a good look to an actually fair jury.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The cope is strong with Ben Shapiro. He's going on and on about cHaUvIn WaS rAiLrOaDeD.

Anybody who watched a significant portion of the trial would not think that. The Prosecutors clearly articulated how Chauvin's action were unlawful and why they met the criteria for the charges levied, and the Defense was pretty shit over all. From offering alternate theories that actually provides evidence against Chauvin (the Carbon Monoxide argument was not only a pretty silly argument, it actually still leaves him culpable as he put Floyd in that position), to stating things as a matter of law that is not (,No, reasonable doubt does not mean fanciful or capricious, and no specific intent is not required under Murder 2 charges), to just coming off like a bit of a weasely defense (Since he wasn't on Floyd's neck the entire time, then it a-ok even though for a significant portion of the time he was on Floyd's neck - basically, it not illegal, because it's only a little bit of excessive force), to just downright stupid (since nobody could possible have seen Chauvin's foot off the ground, and it was brief, then it wasn't a problem). The Prosecutors made some big blunders, but the defense really didn't give an adequate argument to instill reasonable doubt.

There were probably better arguments that the defense could have gone for, that may have even gotten him off of Murder charges at the least, but the "well, he only committed a little bit assault and with only a little bit of depraved indifference" isn't a good look to an actually fair jury.

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

[Diarcesia]

Anybody who watched a significant portion of the trial would not think that. The Prosecutors clearly articulated how Chauvin's action were unlawful and why they met the criteria for the charges levied, and the Defense was pretty shit over all. From offering alternate theories that actually provides evidence against Chauvin (the Carbon Monoxide argument was not only a pretty silly argument, it actually still leaves him culpable as he put Floyd in that position), to stating things as a matter of law that is not (,No, reasonable doubt does not mean fanciful or capricious, and no specific intent is not required under Murder 2 charges), to just coming off like a bit of a weasely defense (Since he wasn't on Floyd's neck the entire time, then it a-ok even though for a significant portion of the time he was on Floyd's neck - basically, it not illegal, because it's only a little bit of excessive force), to just downright stupid (since nobody could possible have seen Chauvin's foot off the ground, and it was brief, then it wasn't a problem). The Prosecutors made some big blunders, but the defense really didn't give an adequate argument to instill reasonable doubt.

There were probably better arguments that the defense could have gone for, that may have even gotten him off of Murder charges at the least, but the "well, he only committed a little bit assault and with only a little bit of depraved indifference" isn't a good look to an actually fair jury.

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

I wonder if Shapiro thinks Floyd deserves to be killed because in Shapiro's eyes, Floyd is a criminal.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

I wonder if Shapiro thinks Floyd deserves to be killed because in Shapiro's eyes, Floyd is a criminal.

To more than a few people unfortunately, Floyd's skin color was justification enough for his heinous execution.

[Seangoli]

Anybody who watched a significant portion of the trial would not think that. The Prosecutors clearly articulated how Chauvin's action were unlawful and why they met the criteria for the charges levied, and the Defense was pretty shit over all. From offering alternate theories that actually provides evidence against Chauvin (the Carbon Monoxide argument was not only a pretty silly argument, it actually still leaves him culpable as he put Floyd in that position), to stating things as a matter of law that is not (,No, reasonable doubt does not mean fanciful or capricious, and no specific intent is not required under Murder 2 charges), to just coming off like a bit of a weasely defense (Since he wasn't on Floyd's neck the entire time, then it a-ok even though for a significant portion of the time he was on Floyd's neck - basically, it not illegal, because it's only a little bit of excessive force), to just downright stupid (since nobody could possible have seen Chauvin's foot off the ground, and it was brief, then it wasn't a problem). The Prosecutors made some big blunders, but the defense really didn't give an adequate argument to instill reasonable doubt.

There were probably better arguments that the defense could have gone for, that may have even gotten him off of Murder charges at the least, but the "well, he only committed a little bit assault and with only a little bit of depraved indifference" isn't a good look to an actually fair jury.

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

Where the defense really dropped the ball is arguing that since Floyd's fetanyl use and health conditions likely played a role in his death, then Chauvin is not culpable. The problem is that regardless of whether or not they were contributory is irrelevant under the law; so long as Chauvin's actions were a major contributory factor in Floyd's death, it really doesn't matter that there may have been other factors involved. Chauvin's actions didn't *need* to be the sole factor in Floyd's death, as causation only requires them to be a major factor not the sole. A better version of what they were arguing, that they didn't argue mind you, was that the *combination* of fentanyl and health conditions could reasonably be viewed as the major and sole causes of death, and in turn shed some level of doubt on the culpability of Chauvin's culpability. They touched on this, but went with the "they were contributor". That's actually doesn't help their case at all, as contributory factors don't remove culpability under the law, and does argue against the causal arguments set forth by the State. They should have argued that a reasonable alternate theory for Floyd's death wasn't just the fentanyl use or his health condition, but rather that both in conjunction with one another were the main causes of death. This still leaves a lot of other uncomfortable facts to try and explain away, but it could at least be argued that in that sense that Chauvins actions may not have been the direct cause of death in a reasonable light.

I also would not have used the notion that beyond a reason able doubt means the only other explanation is fanciful or capricious theories. Rather, a more useful argument would be one which argues that it means that no other reasonable theory could be levied to explain the evidence as presented. Basically, a version of what they were saying, but not the full ham. The fanciful or capricious, space aliens, argument comes off as insultingly talking down to people. They tried to narrow it down too far, and in the process likely harmed the argument more than helped as it was confusing and a bit convoluted. I would simply have argued that the existence of another plausible, reasonable theory for his death would cast reasonable doubt towards Chauvins culpability, namely that the combination of health issues and fentanyl use were the major causes of death, and that any use of force would likely have led to use death given his current state.

Finally, I also would have tried a bit more to argue that Chauvins actions didn't constitute assault, not try and argue around the concept of intent. The latter requires the jury to forget definitions and instructions, and go against common sense interpretations based on them. The former, while difficult given the arguments and evidence presented, at least puts the ball in your court and not hoping for the jury to be a bunch of idiots.

Now, none of that would have likely helped him get out of all charges, as the video really doesn't help Chauvin at all, but I think this could have been levied a bit better to cast reasonable doubt towards Murder 2. Not that it necessarily *would*, but the version laid out by the defense was at best inconsequentially irrelevant, at at worst may have actively harmed their case. Notably, the Defense doesn't need to *prove* their theories necessarily (however doing so would help significantly), only provide that their theories are a reasonable explanation for the cause of death that if assumed true would eliminate, or reduce significantly, Chauvins culpability. Rather, they went with the notion that the law requires Chauvins actions to be solely causal, which is not the case and the Prosecution made this clear.

[Ifreann]

Anybody who watched a significant portion of the trial would not think that. The Prosecutors clearly articulated how Chauvin's action were unlawful and why they met the criteria for the charges levied, and the Defense was pretty shit over all. From offering alternate theories that actually provides evidence against Chauvin (the Carbon Monoxide argument was not only a pretty silly argument, it actually still leaves him culpable as he put Floyd in that position), to stating things as a matter of law that is not (,No, reasonable doubt does not mean fanciful or capricious, and no specific intent is not required under Murder 2 charges), to just coming off like a bit of a weasely defense (Since he wasn't on Floyd's neck the entire time, then it a-ok even though for a significant portion of the time he was on Floyd's neck - basically, it not illegal, because it's only a little bit of excessive force), to just downright stupid (since nobody could possible have seen Chauvin's foot off the ground, and it was brief, then it wasn't a problem). The Prosecutors made some big blunders, but the defense really didn't give an adequate argument to instill reasonable doubt.

There were probably better arguments that the defense could have gone for, that may have even gotten him off of Murder charges at the least, but the "well, he only committed a little bit assault and with only a little bit of depraved indifference" isn't a good look to an actually fair jury.

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

Denying reality is their job.

[The Alma Mater]

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

Denying reality is their job.

But do they *believe* it themselves or is it just for the money and attention ?

[Diarcesia]

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

Denying reality is their job.

Turns out they want facts to care about their feelings.

[Seangoli]

And Shapiro thinks Chauvin was railroaded. Why do conservative media personalities come up with conspiracy theories when the reality is right in front of them? It's like how Shapiro started suggesting that Trump had the election stolen instead of facing the reality that he ran a shitty campaign and shit presidency and he lost. Chauvin wasn't railroaded. He committed a crime and his defense team sucked eggs, so the jury convicted him. Ben should ask the defense why they're so bad at their job or even better, ask Chauvin if he regrets killing George Floyd.

Denying reality is their job.

They have effectively taken the notion a Presumption of Innocence in trials to mean that Chauvin is actually innocent of the charges completely, and no level of evidence will convince them otherwise. It's a bit of a perverse take on the concept, where not only do they presume him innocent going into the trial, but this means he is *actually* innocent. As such, no level of evidence is sufficient to prove guilt, and the only possible explanation is railroading.

A Presumption of innocence means only that the Jury must enter the trial with the belief that the onus is on the state to prove guilt, and cannot assume guilt based solely on the notion that charges are levied. It doesn't mean you are actually innocent. However, they have perverted the concept to understand Chauvin is actually innocent, and when you approach it from that stand point there is no level of evidence or arguments that will convince them otherwise.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Denying reality is their job.

But do they *believe* it themselves or is it just for the money and attention ?

It’s a grift, they (usually) don’t believe any of it but spew it out anyway for the money.

[Saiwania]

Its more that Liberals in the US are more in favor of Chauvin being convicted because his victim was Black and because of that: the Right wants to automatically take the opposite position by default- that Chauvin isn't Guilty. The American far right doesn't mind police brutality all that much, unless or until it begins negatively effecting their side or groups they favor more.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Its more that Liberals in the US are more in favor of Chauvin being convicted because his victim was Black and because of that

No it isnt. The right wing just doesn't understand how the left wing feels at all. Left wing types were just as upset when Robert Delgado was killed in Portland and he wasn't black. We were pissed when Daniel Shaver and Adam Toledo were killed too and they weren't black.

[South Americanastan]

Its more that Liberals in the US are more in favor of Chauvin being convicted because his victim was Black and because of that

No it isnt. The right wing just doesn't understand how the left wing feels at all. Left wing types were just as upset when Robert Delgado was killed in Portland and he wasn't black. We were pissed when Daniel Shaver and Adam Toledo were killed too and they weren't black.

Then why was there no outrage from the Democrats?

[Saiwania]

No it isnt. The right wing just doesn't understand how the left wing feels at all. Left wing types were just as upset when Robert Delgado was killed in Portland and he wasn't black. We were pissed when Daniel Shaver and Adam Toledo were killed too and they weren't black.

It's all just politics in the end. If the Left is doing something, the Right is naturally going to do the opposite in a bid to be the opposing party or coalition.

[The Alma Mater]

No it isnt. The right wing just doesn't understand how the left wing feels at all. Left wing types were just as upset when Robert Delgado was killed in Portland and he wasn't black. We were pissed when Daniel Shaver and Adam Toledo were killed too and they weren't black.

Then why was there no outrage from the Democrats?

Wasn't there ? Seems there was.

More important question: why was there no outrage from the "All Lives Matter" crowd ?
In fact: has "All Lives Matter" done *anything* to, you know, promote the idea that all lives matter ?

[Labbos]

I wonder if Shapiro thinks Floyd deserves to be killed because in Shapiro's eyes, Floyd is a criminal.

Do you have any evidence to suggest he thinks that?

[San Lumen]

Its more that Liberals in the US are more in favor of Chauvin being convicted because his victim was Black and because of that: the Right wants to automatically take the opposite position by default- that Chauvin isn't Guilty. The American far right doesn't mind police brutality all that much, unless or until it begins negatively effecting their side or groups they favor more.

No its because he committed murder.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

No it isnt. The right wing just doesn't understand how the left wing feels at all. Left wing types were just as upset when Robert Delgado was killed in Portland and he wasn't black. We were pissed when Daniel Shaver and Adam Toledo were killed too and they weren't black.

Then why was there no outrage from the Democrats?

Probably cause they aren't the libleft. They aren't left and they sure as hell ain't libertarians.

[Fahran]

The American far right doesn't mind police brutality all that much, unless or until it begins negatively effecting their side or groups they favor more.

A lot of people begin supporting the criminal justice system when it means nasty things happening to personas non gratas. Dems wanted them to rough up the Proud Boys and arrest anti-mask protestors. Repubs wanted them to rough up Antifa and arrest BLM protestors. And it goes on and on.

[Austreylia]

Dems wanted them to rough up the Proud Boys and arrest anti-mask protestors. Repubs wanted them to rough up Antifa and arrest BLM protestors. And it goes on and on.

I've said this time and time again.

They love the sight of anti-mask protestors being thrown to the ground by cops in Australia, and then become absolutely apoplectic with rage when some violent rioter gets truncheoned in the face by police in the U.S.