Trial of Derek Chauvin: A Juror Supported What?!

[Eahland]

So, it's good that Chauvin was convicted. Second-degree? Less than I had hoped, but more than I had feared. I'm not unhappy about that.

If you were hoping for more than second degree murder, you need to reset your expectations. Chauvin was convicted of everything he was charged with, and not only was he not charged with first degree murder, I don't think there's a reasonable case that he's guilty of it. First degree murder requires premeditation, and I don't think Chauvin went there that day planning to kill George Floyd.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and my Civics class was a long time ago and not in Minnesota.)

Anyone want to update me on the cases of the other three officers?

August. They're charged with aiding and abetting second degree murder. Going to be the same prosecutors, apparently.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

It is not necessary, for a system to be evil, for any particular individual person in that system to be evil.

I have no doubt that most soldiers who fought for the Axis were perfectly nice young men, but I’m still glad that history worked out such that the Allies succeeded in shooting and bombing them in large numbers.

Why is this difficult to understand?

Well, i don’t compare the average police officer to nazis and fascists, but this is where I disagree with the ACAB crowd. As I said before, and will say again, i support making sensible reforms to policing but not at the expense of public safety and law and order.

Its easy to feel that way when you don't have a history of bad interactions with the police. It isnt a few bad apples, but instead is a bad bush.

[Page]

It is not necessary, for a system to be evil, for any particular individual person in that system to be evil.

I have no doubt that most soldiers who fought for the Axis were perfectly nice young men, but I’m still glad that history worked out such that the Allies succeeded in shooting and bombing them in large numbers.

Why is this difficult to understand?

Well, i don’t compare the average police officer to nazis and fascists, but this is where I disagree with the ACAB crowd. As I said before, and will say again, i support making sensible reforms to policing but not at the expense of public safety and law and order.

The ACAB crowd is not a monolith but I will say that I think the vast majority of us do not take the acronym so literally, it's not that being a cop automatically makes you a bad person, but it is bad work regardless of one's personal attributes. My view of cops is no different than my view of employees of private health insurance companies who look for reasons to deny claims, or employees of exploitative payday lenders, or drone pilots. I'm not judging your own humanity, I don't even want you to feel guilty about what you do, I just wish that you would recognize your work is inherently harmful. And many jobs come with some degree of inevitable harm. By working at a call center for a major department store, I became part of the network that creates sweatshop slave labor out of America's demand for cheap clothes. As they say "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism." To some extent, you must pick your poison, but in the case of police officers, I really think doing almost anything else would be preferable.

[Austreylia]

Apparently, Feds planned to arrest Officer Chauvin in court if he was cleared of the charges.

And people still think he was given a fair trial.

[Juristonia]

Apparently, Feds planned to arrest Officer Chauvin in court if he was cleared of the charges.

Source?

And people still think he was given a fair trial.

Reasoning?

[Austreylia]

Apparently, Feds planned to arrest Officer Chauvin in court if he was cleared of the charges.

Source?

MailOnline, Sun, MSN. It probably won't take you any more than ten seconds to find it.

And people still think he was given a fair trial.

Reasoning?

-Jury wasn't sequestered
-Multiple influential idiots weighed in on the case
-Defence witness was the subject of intimidation
-Jurors saw about a years worth of riots over the events and probably thought it better to convict him on all charges than see their cities hit by rioting.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Source?

MailOnline, Sun, MSN. It probably won't take you any more than ten seconds to find it.

Reasoning?

-Jury wasn't sequestered
-Multiple influential idiots weighed in on the case
-Defence witness was the subject of intimidation
-Jurors saw about a years worth of riots over the events and probably thought it better to convict him on all charges than see their cities hit by rioting.

The reasoning being “A wrong decision, based on police immunity, would probably make people angry; a fair decision based on the law would not; let’s go with the latter”

This conviction was completely in line with the law as it’s on the books. Can you explain why this was not murder in the second degree?

[Gravlen]

Source?

MailOnline, Sun, MSN. It probably won't take you any more than ten seconds to find it.

Reasoning?

-Jury wasn't sequestered
-Multiple influential idiots weighed in on the case
-Defence witness was the subject of intimidation
-Jurors saw about a years worth of riots over the events and probably thought it better to convict him on all charges than see their cities hit by rioting.

A juror disagrees with your assessment.

Once the trial was underway, Mitchell said he wasn’t sure about how the other jurors felt until they began deliberations. He said outside chatter about the case — including a public comment from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) about the trial that prompted Cahill to publicly admonish the congresswoman — didn’t reach their ears.

“It wasn’t pressure to come to a guilty verdict,” said Mitchell, who is Black. “We stressed about the simple fact that every day we had to come in and watch a Black man die. That alone was stressful enough.”

“Anything outside of that was secondary,” he added. “As a human, it’s natural to feel some kind of way as you’re watching someone in agony.”

It took jurors 10 hours over two days to convict Chauvin of murder and manslaughter. Mitchell, a 31-year-old high school basketball coach in Minneapolis, said deliberations could have moved even faster.

“I felt like it should have been 20 minutes,” Mitchell said Wednesday during an interview with “Good Morning America.”

The votes to find Chauvin guilty on all charges — a decision that could put the 45-year-old in prison for up to 40 years — was one the jurors were at peace with, Mitchell said.

“Everyone was okay with it,” he said told CBS News. “Everyone was on the same page for sure, no question.”

When deliberations started on April 19, the jury held two low-stakes votes to break the ice — one about removing masks in the deliberation room and one to elect their foreperson — before starting with the manslaughter charge, Mitchell recalled to CBS News. On the preliminary vote, 11 jurors were in favor of conviction and one was unsure. Mitchell said the initial holdout involved individual understanding of the legal terminology in the judge’s instructions to the jury.

“We went over it as a team, a group,” he told CBS News. “Forty minutes later, and everyone was on the same page for the manslaughter.”

The two murder charges followed a similar pattern of a preliminary vote followed by a discussion until they reached a unanimous decision.

Mitchell said the knockout blow against the defense came when Martin Tobin, the Chicago-based pulmonologist and breathing expert, took the witness stand for the prosecution during expert testimony. He said jurors were convinced by Tobin’s scientific rigor and his ability to translate it for laypeople.

“I thought he just broke it down in a manner that was easy for all the jurors to understand,” Mitchell said on CBS News. “To me the case was done, almost.”

First Chauvin juror to speak publicly recounts stress of coming to court to ‘watch a Black man die’

Juror speaks on CBS This Morning

Juror In Derek Chauvin Trial Speaks Out

[Juristonia]

MailOnline, Sun, MSN. It probably won't take you any more than ten seconds to find it.

And it would've taken you even less to post it.
But then people would see the context and realise it doesn't make the point you claim it makes, and that would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?

The feds were investigating the case for months, but held back because they didn't want to the public frenzy it would cause to get in the way of the state trial.
This is neither new or unusual at all and pretty much the polar opposite of what you're implying.

https://www.startribune.com/feds-plan-t ... 600051374/

-Jury wasn't sequestered
-Multiple influential idiots weighed in on the case
-Defence witness was the subject of intimidation
-Jurors saw about a years worth of riots over the events and probably thought it better to convict him on all charges than see their cities hit by rioting.

The two posters above me did a good job at debunking this mess already.

[Vassenor]

Clutching at straws to square the decision that murder is illegal even if you carry a badge with your worldview that it shouldn't be again?

[Austreylia]

The two posters above me did a good job at debunking this mess already.

No they didn't.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

[Page]

Apparently, Feds planned to arrest Officer Chauvin in court if he was cleared of the charges.

And people still think he was given a fair trial.

One could just as easily make the case that all the cops who get acquitted are acquitted because jurors are afraid of police reprisals.

[Gravlen]

The two posters above me did a good job at debunking this mess already.

No they didn't.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

There is no credible evidence suggesting that the jury reached an improper verdict.

[Andsed]

The two posters above me did a good job at debunking this mess already.

No they didn't.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

Gravien posted an article about a juror saying in no uncertain terms, they were not intimidated into convicting. Your entire position is just “well there is nothing supporting this and in fact a juror has come out saying that intimidation did not force them, but I am going to continue to insist that their just lying.”

[Great Algerstonia]

No they didn't.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

Gravien posted an article about a juror saying in no uncertain terms, they were not intimidated into convicting. Your entire position is just “well there is nothing supporting this and in fact a juror has come out saying that intimidation did not force them, but I am going to continue to insist that their just lying.”

I mean, how would we know they're not lying? I'm fairly sure if I were to be in the juror's position I'd be walking in serious eggshells to avoid pissing off the radical violent protestor leftists too much

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The two posters above me did a good job at debunking this mess already.

No they didn't.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

Explain your legal reasoning then. A right decision can be reached using the wrong method. While I don't think the process was in any way hampered, you will have to explain why the decision was legally unsound.

[Andsed]

Gravien posted an article about a juror saying in no uncertain terms, they were not intimidated into convicting. Your entire position is just “well there is nothing supporting this and in fact a juror has come out saying that intimidation did not force them, but I am going to continue to insist that their just lying.”

I mean, how would we know they're not lying? I'm fairly sure if I were to be in the juror's position I'd be walking in serious eggshells to avoid pissing off the radical violent protestor leftists too much

For the same reason one cannot just say the world is controlled by the Illuminati and be taken seriously. Technically that could be true, but with no actual evidence and in fact evidence against it it’s just baseless speculation.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

It's just the racists still claiming it wasn't a fair trial.

[Great Algerstonia]

I mean, how would we know they're not lying? I'm fairly sure if I were to be in the juror's position I'd be walking in serious eggshells to avoid pissing off the radical violent protestor leftists too much

For the same reason I can confidently say the world is not controlled by the Illuminati. Technically that could be true, but with no actual evidence and in fact evidence against it it’s just baseless speculation.

I suppose that's fair.

[Great Algerstonia]

It's just the racists still claiming it wasn't a fair trial.

ok

[Gravlen]

For the same reason I can confidently say the world is not controlled by the Illuminati. Technically that could be true, but with no actual evidence and in fact evidence against it it’s just baseless speculation.

I suppose that's fair.

Also, consider Page's argument on the previous page.

Who should the black man who've just voted to convict a police officer for murder be most afraid of now? If this guy was intimidated by... what, exactly? The nebulous fear that "radical violent protestor leftists" might try to track him down and throw a severed pig's head at his former home or something?

So if this guy is so easily intimidated that he would vote to convict someone he thought was innocent, why would he now discard his anonymity and come out publicly, telling potentially vengeful law enforcement officers who he is and what he did? That does not strike me as the actions of a man easily intimidated.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Gravien posted an article about a juror saying in no uncertain terms, they were not intimidated into convicting. Your entire position is just “well there is nothing supporting this and in fact a juror has come out saying that intimidation did not force them, but I am going to continue to insist that their just lying.”

I mean, how would we know they're not lying? I'm fairly sure if I were to be in the juror's position I'd be walking in serious eggshells to avoid pissing off the radical violent protestor leftists too much

That's just you. Some people are just more dutiful than you give them credit for.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

If you have problems processing and understanding somebody else's empathy that problem is not on us I believe.

[Great Algerstonia]

I suppose that's fair.

Also, consider Page's argument on the previous page.

Who should the black man who've just voted to convict a police officer for murder be most afraid of now? If this guy was intimidated by... what, exactly? The nebulous fear that "radical violent protestor leftists" might try to track him down and throw a severed pig's head at his former home or something?

So if this guy is so easily intimidated that he would vote to convict someone he thought was innocent, why would he now discard his anonymity and come out publicly, telling potentially vengeful law enforcement officers who he is and what he did? That does not strike me as the actions of a man easily intimidated.

I understand now. I did not consider that part. you have changed my viewpoint on that juror.

[Juristonia]

The two posters above me did a good job at debunking this mess already.

No they didn't.

They mentioned a juror crying about a black man dying and defending their decision to reach a guilty verdict. The juror won't just admit reaching an improper verdict, which is exactly what they all did.

It's so cool that you're a mind reader and still have time to bless us with your presence rather than doing something useful with your time.
Imagine what good you could achieve with such an amazing power.

[Ifreann]

Poster who openly admitted to wanting Chauvin acquitted to spite BLM supporters continues to insist that Chauvin should have been acquitted.