On this issue I truly believe Chauvin did not get a fair trial, and most here no doubt know why I would make that statement, since his guilt was determined by the state, press, and BLM, as guilty before his trial began. They didn't allow for a change of venue, nor was the jury sequestered, and both should have been implemented. I have…
On this issue I truly believe Chauvin did not get a fair trial, and most here no doubt know why I would make that statement, since his guilt was determined by the state, press, and BLM, as guilty before his trial began. They didn't allow for a change of venue, nor was the jury sequestered, and both should have been implemented. I have no doubt the jury was too afraid to find him anything other then guilty in the atmosphere that prevailed prior to his conviction. I find Mr. Greenwald's use of the term murdered, or referencing his death as a killing should have been tempered by these facts. Chauvin did not have his knee on his neck, but his back. It is extremely unfortunate as to what happened to Mr. Floyd, and I am willing to wait to see what happens in regard to the Chauvin case. I am fully aware of cases in the past in which undo force was applied and make no excuses for those behaviors, and I do believe the police need to have greater oversight of their officers, as well as additional personnel , such as social workers or mental heath workers in dealing with certain cases.
Totally agreed. Not changing the venue and not even sequestering the jury clearly shows this was a show trial to get mob justice.
I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But that doesn't make this absolute bullshit trial given to Chauvin fair. One of the alternate jury members herself admitted she was scared of the riots. She even clearly showed she was emotionally manipulated because she seemed to claim Floyd died because of a fake bill - something one can only believe if they paid no attention to the evidence presented during the trial and just believe the media lies. Then we have people like Maxine Waters threatening the jury, Governor of Minnesota, Biden all doing the same, the incompetent judge refusing to sequester the jury or even change the venue - all these clearly show Chauvin (someone we may hate) had his rights to a fair trial violated. If we don't speak up about this when it's happening to someone we may hate, then we ourselves will be on the receiving end very very soon. And when that day comes, there may not be anyone left to speak out against it.
The same old axiom by Democrats and the faction of RINO Republicans. They create a problem with their poor governance and then pretend to have the solution. The solution is always more of the same after you scratch the new paint job.
Thanks, and the last point you made is why I feel very strongly about this issue. The following was written by Alan Dershowitz in referencing the ACLU. "Unfortunately, however, over the last several years it has turned from being a neutral civil liberties organization to a left wing, agenda-driven group that protects its contributors and constituents while ignoring the civil liberties of Americans with whom it disagrees." I thought that's what Greenwald's article referenced as well.
Go watch "Berkeley in the 1960's" and watch what the police did to the hippies in the 60's for protesting in Berkeley. Where citizens got permanently blinded because the police used shotguns.
Everything you are saying is the same thing I am saying but you are getting bogged down in details and diluting the message.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Thats it. Thats the whole issue. Stop worrying about details and stay on message because we agree :)
The video clearly shows Chauvin's left knee placed firmly on Floyd's neck in the space below his right ear along the back jaw line and the top of his shoulders. The video also clearly shows Chauvin readjusting the position of his knee to penetrate even deeper into Floyd's neck. You couldn't possibly not see that unless you're being willfully blind.
Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
You have got to be kidding me. The prosecution's medical examiner themselves admitted that if they hadn't seen the video, they would have concluded he died from overdosing. If a medical examiner can't do their job using the evidence they are supposed to be given and need to watch a media clip to come to an alternate conclusion, then they are lying for political purposes.
SH, if you can say that where have you been this last year? I don't know the background of the defense's pathologist, but if I might ask did you look into the background of those who supported the prosecutor's case?
Yeah, I know, and that's why as I have already stated, I have contributed to the Innocent Project for years. You too? I am very well aware of how poorly our judicial system functions and that many innocents are serving long term sentences for crimes they did not commit. 96% of those accused of a felony never see a court room, since they plea bargain their case and are encouraged to do so with promises of a lighter sentence. Yeah, and that's what I've been saying, our judicial system sucks!
On this we are in 100% agreement. Its a sad state.
I do agree he didn't get a fair trial but who the hell does. The entire system is created and maintained to protect those in power and fuck those without.
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
That’s irrelevant. Point it there was no fair trial and the jury clearly was politicized and emotionally manipulated.
If I were on the jury, I would say guilty of manslaughter but definitely not all 3. Jury giving him guilty on all 3 is another reason this was a bullshit trial. Other charges don’t even make any sense in this case. And if I gave Chauvin guilty, I would give more guilty to his drug dealer in the car who asked him to swallow drugs and pass the fake bill, the crowd which was being hostile enough for EMS to not feel safe on operating on Floyd.
Huh lol it unambiguously does. You're grasping at straws. The number of exclamation marks in your comment and your many posts on this indicate that you actually do care very much, for whatever reason.
It is indeed, and this truth is that a jury of 12 who have had first hand access to the evidence and legal arguments have decided to convict this man of murder. Therefore referring to this man's actions as murder is appropriate. If we can't refer to one's crimes as crimes even after they've been convicted of that crime at the end of a trial as long as there are some skeptics out there, then we can never do it at all.
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter: the fact you don't think he's guilty or that the trial was fair does not make it inappropriate for others to speak of the case in terms that reflect its current state, which is that the man was found guilty in a court of law.
There was no fairness in the trail of Chauvin. The mob pushed the Guilty verdict disregarding the process. I can agree that he was not innocent but as long as there is pressure in convicting someone the system is flawed and, you must have a mistrial.
Did the mob render the verdict or did a jury of 12?
How do you determine that "there was no fairness in the trial"? If that were the case, it could be grounds for appeal or even for rejecting the whole verdict for mistrial. I'm pretty sure they did as much as they could to make sure the trial followed the law to the letter because the last thing they'd want is the guy walking free because of a technicality.
What makes no difference to me? Makes no difference Floyd died? His death was very disturbing to me, as were others who indeed suffered at the hands of the police. However it is important to me that those convicted of a crime receive a fair trial. It's important to me that so many, some 96 percent of those accused of a felony conviction plea bargain their case, and there is no trial, and many innocents sit behind bars for years. It matters enough to me that I have contributed to the Innocent Project for many, many years. How about you?
I'm not going to veer very far from my original response that Chauvin clearly had his knee in Floyd's neck, not his back, as you claim and that you couldn't possibly view the video and not see the knee on Floyd's back unless you were willfully blind. I think that point carries a lot of weight considering your mind was made up long before the trial ended that a guilty verdict was assured because the judge, jury and media had already decided it. In other words, it was a conspiracy to convict, based not on the video evidence and testimony but on cancel culture, wokeness and prejudice against cops. One of your erronous assumptions is that the juror who admitted to concern about public backlash in the event of aquittal couldn't possibly have those concerns and still have reached a genuine belief in Chauvin's guilt and voted accordingly, that she acted the way she did out of fear of a violent reaction or that she was itimidated. That simply isn't true and you have no special knowlege proving it so. You're reading into it what your pre-conceived opinion tells you to read into it. Your responses all along the various threads here show a bias against the system. That's fine, but don't charge that others are the only ones with their minds already made up and hatching a conspiracy to deny justice to the accused when you clearly - as clearly as the knee on Floyd's neck - harbor biases in advance yourself.
When a state allocates $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit from George Floyd’s family over his death as jury selection is in progress, yes the jury wasn't even chosen, what does that say to those who were to determine his guilt or innocence? When his death provoked riots and encounters with police in many cities across this nation and caused multiple deaths and destruction what message do you think that sent to a jury who would find him guilty? Stores boarded up their windows for fear that if the right verdict, a guilty verdict, did not materialize their stores would be looted and perhaps destroyed. You are avoiding the obvious. If you are familiar with the anatomical structure of the neck you would be aware that the carotid arteries and veins are located on the side of the neck, not the back, and from those pictures you cannot determine the degree of pressure imposed on that area, or do you get a clear perspective on the degree of pressure applied. You make a lot of assumptions which are totally baseless. The article posted today referenced the ACLU who were committed to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and political equality. Here's a quote from Dershowitz, "...one time the ACLU was an equal opportunity employer for Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers, all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call "the shoe on the other foot" test: Would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if the party labels were switched? Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot." In other words the ACLU has become highly biased, and in today's article Greenwald makes the same assertions. In my opinion you are equally biased in your position that he is guilty, and I'm not the one asserting his guilt or innocence, only the realization that he did not receive a fair trial. In other words you are the one who has a highly biased perspective on Chauvin. I don't want to discuss this any further with you.
It seems like a lot of people are not realizing that a person whom we may or may not like (Chauvin) still deserves a fair trial away from a lynching mob justice and without that, the whole "justice" is a joke.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
I was one of those who thought his hand was in his pocket. That it wasn't doesn't change the scenario for me much. He had Floyd under control to the point that he could still use a single hand. It could be argued that he was applying downward pressure with that hand, placed as it was on his leg.
Although what I posted substantiates what Glenn Greenwald said in this article about the ACLU you don't make the connection, but denounce by credibility. Okay, but just some advice, it's not healthy to see the world in such black and white terms.
I will copy paste one of the best comments from a Locals board about one of the jurors being easily manipulated and not being fair:
In the KARE11 interview, juror Christensen states that one of the things that stuck in her head was State's Exhibit 17, an image she described as this:
"The still picture from the video, where his (Chauvin's) hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, 'This is my job, don’t tell me what to do,' and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This is something that bothered Juror 97 enough that it was her response to a question about what she thought of Chauvin. The interviewer described the image as "the picture that resonated with Lisa Christensen." For Christensen, seeing Chauvin with his hand in his pocket so casually was something that she apparently couldn't shake, and one of the reasons she felt so "weird" when Chauvin would look at her and the Jury.
This was convincing enough "evidence" to Christensen that she mentioned it in an interview. The problem is, this literally never happened. Chauvin never had his hand is in pocket, and there is no image which shows what Christensen is claiming she sees.
Christensen's "Memento" -- which so strongly affected her and her perception of Chauvin -- is something that never even happened.
What actually happened is this: at the time of the arrest, Chauvin is wearing black gloves and black police uniform pants. His gloved hands are clearly seen in his own body cam before his body cam falls to the pavement during the struggle when Floyd manages to get out of Squad 320 through the rear passenger door.
Once Chauvin restrains Floyd on the pavement in the prone position, Chauvin's right hand holds Floyd's wrists at the handcuffs, which is clearly seen on the other body cams. Chauvin's left hand is free, but moves to different parts of his left upper leg (thigh) or to his belt (ie, he grabs his OC spray with his left hand).
The black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened.
But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
The video is very damning. No doubts about that. It was unnecessary force, for an unnecessarily long amount of time and it was ‘probably’ influenced by racism and the officer’s personal experiences. But George’s physical condition and violent record does play a role here as well. And I don’t think it was right to have the trial where and how they did. No one gained anything except for the establishment who now gets to militarize the police some more and weapons manufacturers. Oh, and the media off course. Lots of ratings! But you and I didn’t gain shit from all that injustice.
The current American criminal justice system is designed to assume guilt for everyone but politicians, the rich and those who work for the paramilitary branch like police, prosecutors and judges. Those are the only three groups that ever get a presumption of innocence under American Law.
I personally believe Derek Chauvin was guilty, but things must have really gotten out of control if he received the type of unfair justice that is routine for the unwashed masses. Prosecutors get 95% of convictions through plea bargains and for those who go to trial prosecutors win 90%. Conversely, of the 15,000 cops who have gone to trial over the past 20 years less than 5 have been convicted.
We have multiple examples of innocent people being sent to life in prison and even death row based on prosecutors and police knowingly hiding evidence that would have proved their innocence (a Brady violation) and they were never punished for hiding it. Not even disbarred for knowingly sending and innocent man to death.
It says so much about the people who think the criminal system treated Derek Chauvin unfairly that they waited until this moment to complain about behavior like not sequestering the jury and false information spread in the media that is standard practice for how police and prosecutors treat everyone else.
Privileged, meet the system. I'm sorry it's not as fun when it happens to you as it was when you did it to others.
Don't talk down to me. I am well aware of how our judicial system functions and it's many flaws that affect both races, and especially the poor. Let me ask, what have you done to bring about any changes in this very flawed system? Not recognizing the propaganda that preceded this trial, and how it influenced it's outcome is to support a system that is in dire need of change.
I've given my entire life to defending the Constitution and it has cost me everything. Trust me, I'm the one guy you don't want to challenge with the "what have you done" thing.
The system is not just designed to crush the poor, it is also designed to protect the privileged within the government. Derek Chauvin is the extremely rare exception.
My question, which was not race based or intended to be condescending is do you have a history of pointing out the failures in the criminal punishment system, or like many did you only become aware of its failures when Donald Trump was elected or Derek Chauvin went on trial. I ask because many in those two groups have been ignoring the criminality of the legal system until it effected their guy.
I'm glad to have them on board with how corrupt law enforcement, the judicial system and the federal intelligence agencies now that it's their guy, but I fear now that they don't have a president they approve of they will go back to blindly trusting them when the start attacking the people they don't like, which is what happened with the left and their blind faith in the police state once we elected someone they hated.
I started pointing out the failures of the criminal punishment system when I got beat up by police and sent to jail on bullshit charges and I am a nerdy white dude who was just walking down the street.
When the police then lied in court and there was nothing I could do about it, I firsthand saw the problem. It was authority and the inability to hold anyone in power accountable.
I dont have any illusions that the people in power will do the right thing and reform criminal justice. They get too much benefit yelling how broken it is to ever fix it.
You say "privileged" how did that work out for those Duke lacrosse players? Its not just about privilege or race or $. Its about the system being used unfairly based on who is wielding it.
Who is manipulating it is irrelevant if the root problem is that it is being manipulated period.
None of this is new. Look at Teddy Kennedy after Chappaquiddick. The American media and voters never chose to hold him accountable and neither did the police.
BLM is obsessed with anti-Capitalism. Race baiting is only a con, a cover, to fool the "white people too" crowd, who fear being called a racist by racist Blacks more than anything short of death itself.
At no point did I mention race, but she did in her response, which is a common pattern around here. I say something like "there is a problem with police unions" and the response inevitably includes something like "well it's not a black or white issue." I always think. "That's true, which is why I never mentioned it and why are you raising the topic at all?"
It leaves me to wonder who are the people really focused on race?
Yes, putting words in someone's mouth is always unfair (and a common pattern everywhere, not just here, in my experience).
However, a discussion by text is still much better than one by talk, where a proper response is seldom composed well.
I council your continued graciousness. Perhaps M. Fran made an honest error. (You'll notice she deleted in order to repost, I think.)
And to respond to your rhetorical, race is ever topical these days, n'est pas? M. Areslent, I could start teaching you advanced engineering mathematics (say Partial Differential Equations) in these forums, and someone would pipe in as if I was Chauvin on steroids. May I time travel to that "colors all bled into one" future?
In this case I don't even think she intended to put words in my mouth. Polarization and victim hood are symmetrical. For every person I hear talking about white supremacy and how all white people are guilty I hear someone else telling me that they are the real victims and black people are the real racists. I think we live in a time of racial grievance where people imagine they hear talk race even when it was never mentioned, so respond as if someone had mentioned it. I also see a lot of people who just assume when I say poor or marginalized I mean black, but if I meant black I would have said black.
A knee could move a considerable distance in the course of 540 seconds, give or take, but all it takes is 2 seconds of any of multiple home videos for all these posters to KNOW EXACTLY where that infamous knee was the WHOLE time.
I am simply pointing out that what we see / are told is not always the truth.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
Lets hear it in detail, see it in detail, one shot, how long, and what degree of pressure was applied to that area? Based on that picture I can't tell, can't determine the degree of pressure that was applied to the carotid arteries, or the veins, if any. I'm not saying he's innocent, but what I am saying is he was determined to be guilty before he went to trial, and that is not how any trial is to be conducted. How many black, and white men have been executed for crimes they didn't commit, or are sitting behind bars for decades, and innocent of the crimes they were accused of because we have a very inadequate judicial system, and few get a fair trial, or adequate representation. I wonder how interested you are in that, or what knowledge you have on that subject.
I don't disagree that he didn't get a fair trial but that mfer should be happy he wasn't murdered in the street or pulled out his home.
He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If that was your loved one regardless of what their action was you would know as well as anyone that Chauvin was guilty. THE END.
What I do not understand is why the city paid millions to Floyd's family. The city didn't do anything wrong, that police officer did. When police officers commit crimes they lose qualified immunity. Chauvin should have paid, not the voters and taxpayers.
"He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty." Yes he did, but the question is did he have a fair trial to determine his guilt or innocence? No, he did not. If it were a loved one I would feel the same way. I grew up in a home where my father was very authoritarian and lied repeatedly to his extended family so that he could be seen as the victim and not the abuser. I saw them buy his lies, because psychologically it was less disturbing then recognize their brother was mentally ill, which would then demand a response. This society also wants to sweep everything under the carpet, but when you do that things only get worse. The money the city gave to the family said Chauvin is guilty, and it spoke to the jury pool who would determine Chauvin's innocence or guilt, and it said, find him guilty.
I think that goes back to Glenn’s original point in the article (and Fran’s) — principles only defended when the victim is considered “sympathetic” aren’t built on solid ground and the ACLU used to have a reputation for defending unsympathetic parties as a matter of principle. They no longer do that for whatever reason (Glenn’s argument is pretty convincing but I think there’s more to it personally) and now there are no non-party-specific advocacy groups to stand up for unsympathetic people that can weather the heat of public outrage.
It goes beyond what you think of him, because when you judge a person guilty, as the state did, and intimidate the jury pool, you make the system worse then it already is.
OK so I should be outraged for his unfair trial because he is a sympathetic victim but the other millions of people who got shafted but never made it to the news?
Its almost like (GASP) the media is gaslighting people to care about this on both sides and reaping the $ while we argue nonstop and miss the bigger issue.
I like how you tied a conservative to something negative with your post despite the real rampant crime and incarceration numbers coming from deep in downtown dnc land.
Its really weird how you also ignore the fact that the democrats have had total control in states and cities for 60+ years and done nothing but bitch about conservatives and spend $
Joe Biden's direct crime bill put a lot of those people in jail.
Good grief. I tied a politician to something stupid because all politicians are sociopaths and liars who promote incarceration. I really don't care about your "wings."
If it makes you feel better you're welcome to bring up Joe Biden's horrendous crime bill and the fact that it's often democrat DA's in large cities that drive incarceration there.
Incarceration like war has bipartisan support and I'm not going to select a moron from each party every time I want to provide an example to political stupidity.
Matt Taibbi recently wrote an article talking about the misery of always having to bring up censorship in pairs to avoid the inevitable whataboutism victim hood. I'm not going to do that.
I've seen you passionately arguing for a ton of conservative things on here....yet you want me to believe if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world, you wouldn't be just as passionately claiming that cop was in the wrong?
This isn't about Chauvin being right or wrong - he's gonna rot in prison regardless of this case as he's got tax problems too.
This is about having a fair trial and until that happens, he's innocent. And if we are really talking about "if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world" and if this loved one was a history of breaking into pregnant women's houses with 5 other dudes and beating her up in front of her kid and then pushing the gun against her pregnant belly, then I wouldn't feel any remorse.
No. Its about accountability for government employees.
The same way conservatives for 10 years have been yelling for it from the Democrat FBI/Pelosi/etc the black community has been yelling about it for a hundred years from the police. And their citizens are being killed unlike conservatives who are just being silenced. The concept that their might be some reason to silence or kill is RIDICULOUS. At no point are those acceptable outcomes for a government employee to impose on any private citizen without full fair trial. The rule of law demands it.
They are identical issues (ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) framed completely differently by the uniparty fucking us and pretending they are enemies.
Most Conservatives I know distrust the government until it's a person with a gun, a blue clown suit and a police union with qualified immunity. Then suddenly that distrust turns into blind unquestioning trust for these vallorious truth telling Nights in White Satin.
I suspect Daddy issues, but the world may never know.
Not always - I am right leaning but as I have said several times before, I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But despite this, Chauvin did not get a fair trial and this was a lynching by the mob trial. We are not defending Chauvin here, we are trying to defend a tiny bit of integrity in the already politicized justice system.
I know several other conservatives who feel similarly.
I had a long conversation with a police chief recently. He was lamenting the focus on managing the numbers. It was an eye opener. After much back and forth, I suggested that managing to #of tickets written accomplishes nothing that furthers the department's real goal, safety for its community. He asked me what the alternative was and I told him to focus on two things:
1. What is the actual goal of the PD? To set ticket quotas or to achieve some level of safety / security for the community? I suggested agreeing with community leaders on what the PD's real objectives were.
2. Once you have the real objectives identified, discuss, amongst actual professionals, what is the PROCESS for achieving those objectives? Then identify and agree with patrol on what the process steps are to achieve those objectives (similar to an 8d used in engineering and statistical process control) and then coach the shit out of those techniques. Rinse / repeat and agree with patrol on up on what good process is. Then identify what those techniques are and identify what "numbers" within that process actually = success. Focus on continuously improving adherence to those techniques. Also, read some Deming or Juran.
Interestingly enough...he agreed. There is hope. One Chief at a time. I'll be talking to him some ore.
Maybe because unlike most conservatives sitting in the suburbs I've spent weeks in county locked up with real criminals. I've seen what crime and police and bullshit do on every side and every side is being full of shit about reality.
I dont trust the government period. I don't trust the police because I've seen them lie, steal, rob and kill for decades with no accountability. Just like EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT GROUP.
They are just a front facing one so its more in your face every day when they do it.
Not sure where your "daddy issues" comment comes from, but I suspect its because you don't know who yours is.
Looks like you and I share a similar experience in this area. This is not something that can be faked. You can tell when someone distrusts the government on a theoretical level and when someone has personal experience with unaccountable government corruption.
You're right, I never met my father. I did meet your mother a few times though.
Distrust of government without reasonable checks and balances is a healthy thing. I wish more Americans questioned the governments stance on everything, but especially foreign policy.
I take the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard pretty seriously. If Floyd said he couldn't breathe before the cops held him down, and then he died because of too little air, he may have died from what started earlier. That's a reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin killed him.
Anyway, we don't let people's loved ones serve on a jury in trials concerning them.
You say "who was presumed innocent until proven guilty". But then you don't give the same luxury to Chauvin himself despite you acknowledging that Chauvin didn't get a fair trial. Until he gets a fair trial, shouldn't he be presumed innocent until proven guilty too?
Floyd did not die because of Chauvin. Floyd died because of his drug dealer friend in the car asking him to swallow the drugs, the crowd being hostile which made the situation worse (EMS didn't feel safe either), Floyd himself swallowing the drugs. I would have all 3 of those put behind bars before Chauvin himself.
Btw this is not Chauvin's defence - he's going to prison regardless of this case - for tax purposes (magically discovered after this incident). Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
Chauvin got a trial by a jury of his peers. You can argue that isnt fair, but he at least got a trial.
George Floyd didnt even get an arraignment hearing. Yet here you are being a shitlord and pretending the cop got a worse outcome than the criminal.
FOH!
You would sing such a fucking different tune if this happened to your loved one. It is IRRELEVANT that George Floyd was a drugged out piece of shit criminal. They have the EXACT same civil rights you and I do thanks to the fucking constitution.
Its kind of shocking to me how quick you are to defend this officer.
I don't deny being a police officer is a hard job but I dont see how any reasonable voter can be think Chauvin's behavior was acceptable or at best legal.
That was a difficult situation but that officer gets an F for how he handled it. Why? Because the person he was sent to detain was dead before he was even truly detained or received a fair trail. That is acting as judge, jury and executioner.
Its odd to me you aren't making this same speech for Floyd. A drug using piece of shit criminal still deserves the same civil rights we all do. It seems a lot of posters forget that.
Again I dont think Chauvin got a fair trial. But he didn't give George Floyd the luxury of one either so its hard to truly feel sorry for him.
But again now the narrative has changed from "accountability for government employees" to "do I think Chauvin got a fair trial and/or did he deserve one". Thats a different argument.
The issue here is accountability for ALL government employees for the rest of us fucking peons who dont have elite connects.
I agree with the first part of your comment though. It’sa good thing they’re so loaded with weapons. Otherwise there may indeed be some street justice. Once or twice the People are allowed to fish out some consequences and I guarantee you this brutality shit would halt.
Well, you know, street justice is working so well in the inner cities, right? /sarcasm
I mean the media does such a great job discussing the rampant violence in the cities when it doesn't spill over into the suburbs, right?
Vigilantism is never the answer. No one should be acting as judge, jury and executioner, and certainly not someone who is emotionally charged on any subject.
I don’t believe you should go after the employees if they struggle to keep up with company demands/work requirements. Police officers are employees. And one must admit their job requirements and work stress levels are demanding. The officer can and should be prosecuted. Lose his job, benefits, etc like any other fired employee. And be prosecuted by law like any other citizen. But when it comes to paying compensation it is the company victims should go after. It’s the company who is responsible for vetting, hiring, training and arming a dangerous individual to then patrol our streets. And as we all know the companies aka police departments don’t put a whole lot of effort into any of those criteria. And I for one believe police departments may not be directly responsible for the officer’s actions. But they sure are responsible for putting the officer, cocked and loaded, in our communities. And they’re responsible for the lack of training and environment the officers work in as well.
Whether you choose to realize it or not, your choice, but your neck is not your back. The difference is significant in that the neck has significant arteries and veins which supply the brain with oxygenated blood as well as the organs of the head such as the eyes, and returning deoxygenated blood, through veins, back to the heart. Putting a knee to someone's back is not the same as placing a knee on someone's neck.
On this issue I truly believe Chauvin did not get a fair trial, and most here no doubt know why I would make that statement, since his guilt was determined by the state, press, and BLM, as guilty before his trial began. They didn't allow for a change of venue, nor was the jury sequestered, and both should have been implemented. I have no doubt the jury was too afraid to find him anything other then guilty in the atmosphere that prevailed prior to his conviction. I find Mr. Greenwald's use of the term murdered, or referencing his death as a killing should have been tempered by these facts. Chauvin did not have his knee on his neck, but his back. It is extremely unfortunate as to what happened to Mr. Floyd, and I am willing to wait to see what happens in regard to the Chauvin case. I am fully aware of cases in the past in which undo force was applied and make no excuses for those behaviors, and I do believe the police need to have greater oversight of their officers, as well as additional personnel , such as social workers or mental heath workers in dealing with certain cases.
Mob justice is mock justice.
Amen to that, and too bad so few see it.
Totally agreed. Not changing the venue and not even sequestering the jury clearly shows this was a show trial to get mob justice.
I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But that doesn't make this absolute bullshit trial given to Chauvin fair. One of the alternate jury members herself admitted she was scared of the riots. She even clearly showed she was emotionally manipulated because she seemed to claim Floyd died because of a fake bill - something one can only believe if they paid no attention to the evidence presented during the trial and just believe the media lies. Then we have people like Maxine Waters threatening the jury, Governor of Minnesota, Biden all doing the same, the incompetent judge refusing to sequester the jury or even change the venue - all these clearly show Chauvin (someone we may hate) had his rights to a fair trial violated. If we don't speak up about this when it's happening to someone we may hate, then we ourselves will be on the receiving end very very soon. And when that day comes, there may not be anyone left to speak out against it.
The same old axiom by Democrats and the faction of RINO Republicans. They create a problem with their poor governance and then pretend to have the solution. The solution is always more of the same after you scratch the new paint job.
Thanks, and the last point you made is why I feel very strongly about this issue. The following was written by Alan Dershowitz in referencing the ACLU. "Unfortunately, however, over the last several years it has turned from being a neutral civil liberties organization to a left wing, agenda-driven group that protects its contributors and constituents while ignoring the civil liberties of Americans with whom it disagrees." I thought that's what Greenwald's article referenced as well.
Go watch "Berkeley in the 1960's" and watch what the police did to the hippies in the 60's for protesting in Berkeley. Where citizens got permanently blinded because the police used shotguns.
Everything you are saying is the same thing I am saying but you are getting bogged down in details and diluting the message.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Thats it. Thats the whole issue. Stop worrying about details and stay on message because we agree :)
The video clearly shows Chauvin's left knee placed firmly on Floyd's neck in the space below his right ear along the back jaw line and the top of his shoulders. The video also clearly shows Chauvin readjusting the position of his knee to penetrate even deeper into Floyd's neck. You couldn't possibly not see that unless you're being willfully blind.
No it does not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Believe what ever you want, makes no difference to me.
Well apparently 12 folks on a jury, B&W, believed it and it was rather clear to me as well ...
Do you think Chauvin got a fair trial? That is what is most significant here. Do you think those jurors came to a guilty verdict that was free of pretrial prejudicial events, or do you think a guilty verdict was the only outcome based on what preceded that trial? When you come right down to it, that alone is the most significant issue. In my opinion I expected, no matter the evidence he would be found guilty. The pathologists dismissed the fentanyl, and methamphetamine in his system, as well as his underlying heart issues as playing a significant role in his death. Do I trust the prosecutor's pathology team? No, because I'm unsure of their bias in this case. I'm willing to wait to see what happens, because it's not over yet. I'm very uncomfortable with the move this country has made toward a very authoritarian stance where truth means nothing.
Not to mention that he had COVID and we all know how deadly that is. (sarcasm)
I May have heard that and forgotten, thanks for reminding me. Don't really get your response. Sorry.
My sense of humor is a bit warped.
Whatever was in his system wouldn't have killed him without that knee on his neck - Frankly I don't trust the defense coroner's testimony - look at his history ....
I think there have been more "pre-trial prejudicial events" in the cases of POs who were never even brought to trial ...
You have got to be kidding me. The prosecution's medical examiner themselves admitted that if they hadn't seen the video, they would have concluded he died from overdosing. If a medical examiner can't do their job using the evidence they are supposed to be given and need to watch a media clip to come to an alternate conclusion, then they are lying for political purposes.
SH, if you can say that where have you been this last year? I don't know the background of the defense's pathologist, but if I might ask did you look into the background of those who supported the prosecutor's case?
Where have i been - paying attention, not just this past year ...
Well, lets just say you fooled me, and leave it be.
What makes you think anyone gets fair trials? Ask Harry Aleman.
Yucky whataboutism
You are arguing the trial wasn't fair I'm pointing out it never has been.
Therefore the assumption that someone would get a fair trial is predicated on the same bullshit reason we are all here on this forum.
The media is full of shit.
Hyperbole is so easy. it makes EVERYTHING black and white.
What are you basing a belief that trials are fair on?
You are putting words in my mouth.
You don't actually believe trials are completely unfair?
Yeah, I know, and that's why as I have already stated, I have contributed to the Innocent Project for years. You too? I am very well aware of how poorly our judicial system functions and that many innocents are serving long term sentences for crimes they did not commit. 96% of those accused of a felony never see a court room, since they plea bargain their case and are encouraged to do so with promises of a lighter sentence. Yeah, and that's what I've been saying, our judicial system sucks!
On this we are in 100% agreement. Its a sad state.
I do agree he didn't get a fair trial but who the hell does. The entire system is created and maintained to protect those in power and fuck those without.
We have finally reached a point of agreement.
What you are describing can also be described as mob justice. History has shown several times that when masses agree with something, that's not always a good thing. Remember when 70% Americans agreed with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Do you think the media propaganda is worse or less now than 20 years ago? Do you think an unsequestered jury and not changing the venue gave a fair trial?
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting on why jury got easily manipulated. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
So you think the guy was innocent?
That’s irrelevant. Point it there was no fair trial and the jury clearly was politicized and emotionally manipulated.
If I were on the jury, I would say guilty of manslaughter but definitely not all 3. Jury giving him guilty on all 3 is another reason this was a bullshit trial. Other charges don’t even make any sense in this case. And if I gave Chauvin guilty, I would give more guilty to his drug dealer in the car who asked him to swallow drugs and pass the fake bill, the crowd which was being hostile enough for EMS to not feel safe on operating on Floyd.
Well why don't you contribute to his appeal ...
Looks like you are here to make snarky remarks instead of have a productive discussion. Remember- one day the pendulum will swing.
Well, why don't you?
Huh lol it unambiguously does. You're grasping at straws. The number of exclamation marks in your comment and your many posts on this indicate that you actually do care very much, for whatever reason.
I care because the truth is important to me, and a free society cannot function without it, and it is independent of what you want it to be.
It is indeed, and this truth is that a jury of 12 who have had first hand access to the evidence and legal arguments have decided to convict this man of murder. Therefore referring to this man's actions as murder is appropriate. If we can't refer to one's crimes as crimes even after they've been convicted of that crime at the end of a trial as long as there are some skeptics out there, then we can never do it at all.
In other words, your opinion doesn't matter: the fact you don't think he's guilty or that the trial was fair does not make it inappropriate for others to speak of the case in terms that reflect its current state, which is that the man was found guilty in a court of law.
There was no fairness in the trail of Chauvin. The mob pushed the Guilty verdict disregarding the process. I can agree that he was not innocent but as long as there is pressure in convicting someone the system is flawed and, you must have a mistrial.
Did the mob render the verdict or did a jury of 12?
How do you determine that "there was no fairness in the trial"? If that were the case, it could be grounds for appeal or even for rejecting the whole verdict for mistrial. I'm pretty sure they did as much as they could to make sure the trial followed the law to the letter because the last thing they'd want is the guy walking free because of a technicality.
What about the biased juror?
What about it.
If the trial ought to be invalidated, then let the process follow its course.
Until that happens the man has been convicted of murder and thus referring to him as such is accurate.
Convicted, yes you are correct. He was convicted in a kangaroo court.
We'll just have to agree to agree that it makes no difference to you.
What makes no difference to me? Makes no difference Floyd died? His death was very disturbing to me, as were others who indeed suffered at the hands of the police. However it is important to me that those convicted of a crime receive a fair trial. It's important to me that so many, some 96 percent of those accused of a felony conviction plea bargain their case, and there is no trial, and many innocents sit behind bars for years. It matters enough to me that I have contributed to the Innocent Project for many, many years. How about you?
I'm not going to veer very far from my original response that Chauvin clearly had his knee in Floyd's neck, not his back, as you claim and that you couldn't possibly view the video and not see the knee on Floyd's back unless you were willfully blind. I think that point carries a lot of weight considering your mind was made up long before the trial ended that a guilty verdict was assured because the judge, jury and media had already decided it. In other words, it was a conspiracy to convict, based not on the video evidence and testimony but on cancel culture, wokeness and prejudice against cops. One of your erronous assumptions is that the juror who admitted to concern about public backlash in the event of aquittal couldn't possibly have those concerns and still have reached a genuine belief in Chauvin's guilt and voted accordingly, that she acted the way she did out of fear of a violent reaction or that she was itimidated. That simply isn't true and you have no special knowlege proving it so. You're reading into it what your pre-conceived opinion tells you to read into it. Your responses all along the various threads here show a bias against the system. That's fine, but don't charge that others are the only ones with their minds already made up and hatching a conspiracy to deny justice to the accused when you clearly - as clearly as the knee on Floyd's neck - harbor biases in advance yourself.
When a state allocates $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit from George Floyd’s family over his death as jury selection is in progress, yes the jury wasn't even chosen, what does that say to those who were to determine his guilt or innocence? When his death provoked riots and encounters with police in many cities across this nation and caused multiple deaths and destruction what message do you think that sent to a jury who would find him guilty? Stores boarded up their windows for fear that if the right verdict, a guilty verdict, did not materialize their stores would be looted and perhaps destroyed. You are avoiding the obvious. If you are familiar with the anatomical structure of the neck you would be aware that the carotid arteries and veins are located on the side of the neck, not the back, and from those pictures you cannot determine the degree of pressure imposed on that area, or do you get a clear perspective on the degree of pressure applied. You make a lot of assumptions which are totally baseless. The article posted today referenced the ACLU who were committed to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and political equality. Here's a quote from Dershowitz, "...one time the ACLU was an equal opportunity employer for Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers, all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call "the shoe on the other foot" test: Would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if the party labels were switched? Today, the ACLU wears only one shoe, and it is on its left foot." In other words the ACLU has become highly biased, and in today's article Greenwald makes the same assertions. In my opinion you are equally biased in your position that he is guilty, and I'm not the one asserting his guilt or innocence, only the realization that he did not receive a fair trial. In other words you are the one who has a highly biased perspective on Chauvin. I don't want to discuss this any further with you.
It seems like a lot of people are not realizing that a person whom we may or may not like (Chauvin) still deserves a fair trial away from a lynching mob justice and without that, the whole "justice" is a joke.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
I was one of those who thought his hand was in his pocket. That it wasn't doesn't change the scenario for me much. He had Floyd under control to the point that he could still use a single hand. It could be argued that he was applying downward pressure with that hand, placed as it was on his leg.
That you quote Alan Dershowitz says everything I need to know about your credibility.
Although what I posted substantiates what Glenn Greenwald said in this article about the ACLU you don't make the connection, but denounce by credibility. Okay, but just some advice, it's not healthy to see the world in such black and white terms.
I will copy paste one of the best comments from a Locals board about one of the jurors being easily manipulated and not being fair:
In the KARE11 interview, juror Christensen states that one of the things that stuck in her head was State's Exhibit 17, an image she described as this:
"The still picture from the video, where his (Chauvin's) hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, 'This is my job, don’t tell me what to do,' and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This is something that bothered Juror 97 enough that it was her response to a question about what she thought of Chauvin. The interviewer described the image as "the picture that resonated with Lisa Christensen." For Christensen, seeing Chauvin with his hand in his pocket so casually was something that she apparently couldn't shake, and one of the reasons she felt so "weird" when Chauvin would look at her and the Jury.
This was convincing enough "evidence" to Christensen that she mentioned it in an interview. The problem is, this literally never happened. Chauvin never had his hand is in pocket, and there is no image which shows what Christensen is claiming she sees.
Christensen's "Memento" -- which so strongly affected her and her perception of Chauvin -- is something that never even happened.
What actually happened is this: at the time of the arrest, Chauvin is wearing black gloves and black police uniform pants. His gloved hands are clearly seen in his own body cam before his body cam falls to the pavement during the struggle when Floyd manages to get out of Squad 320 through the rear passenger door.
Once Chauvin restrains Floyd on the pavement in the prone position, Chauvin's right hand holds Floyd's wrists at the handcuffs, which is clearly seen on the other body cams. Chauvin's left hand is free, but moves to different parts of his left upper leg (thigh) or to his belt (ie, he grabs his OC spray with his left hand).
The black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened.
But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
Source of her interview:
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
To this date I still get sick remembering OJ Simpson and, his not guilty verdict.
During the trial, they showed other angles which showed the knee was on his shoulder blade and not neck.
A knee on the neck does NOT kill you. I have had it done to me many times.
A grown man maintained most of his body weight resting on a single knee sitting on your neck for 9 minutes straight many times?
It killed George Floyd.
I have way more questions than answers lol. Like, how on earth do you get knees to the neck so often? Do you wrestle?
The video is very damning. No doubts about that. It was unnecessary force, for an unnecessarily long amount of time and it was ‘probably’ influenced by racism and the officer’s personal experiences. But George’s physical condition and violent record does play a role here as well. And I don’t think it was right to have the trial where and how they did. No one gained anything except for the establishment who now gets to militarize the police some more and weapons manufacturers. Oh, and the media off course. Lots of ratings! But you and I didn’t gain shit from all that injustice.
Well, SOME exposure.
The current American criminal justice system is designed to assume guilt for everyone but politicians, the rich and those who work for the paramilitary branch like police, prosecutors and judges. Those are the only three groups that ever get a presumption of innocence under American Law.
I personally believe Derek Chauvin was guilty, but things must have really gotten out of control if he received the type of unfair justice that is routine for the unwashed masses. Prosecutors get 95% of convictions through plea bargains and for those who go to trial prosecutors win 90%. Conversely, of the 15,000 cops who have gone to trial over the past 20 years less than 5 have been convicted.
We have multiple examples of innocent people being sent to life in prison and even death row based on prosecutors and police knowingly hiding evidence that would have proved their innocence (a Brady violation) and they were never punished for hiding it. Not even disbarred for knowingly sending and innocent man to death.
It says so much about the people who think the criminal system treated Derek Chauvin unfairly that they waited until this moment to complain about behavior like not sequestering the jury and false information spread in the media that is standard practice for how police and prosecutors treat everyone else.
Privileged, meet the system. I'm sorry it's not as fun when it happens to you as it was when you did it to others.
Don't talk down to me. I am well aware of how our judicial system functions and it's many flaws that affect both races, and especially the poor. Let me ask, what have you done to bring about any changes in this very flawed system? Not recognizing the propaganda that preceded this trial, and how it influenced it's outcome is to support a system that is in dire need of change.
I've given my entire life to defending the Constitution and it has cost me everything. Trust me, I'm the one guy you don't want to challenge with the "what have you done" thing.
The system is not just designed to crush the poor, it is also designed to protect the privileged within the government. Derek Chauvin is the extremely rare exception.
My question, which was not race based or intended to be condescending is do you have a history of pointing out the failures in the criminal punishment system, or like many did you only become aware of its failures when Donald Trump was elected or Derek Chauvin went on trial. I ask because many in those two groups have been ignoring the criminality of the legal system until it effected their guy.
I'm glad to have them on board with how corrupt law enforcement, the judicial system and the federal intelligence agencies now that it's their guy, but I fear now that they don't have a president they approve of they will go back to blindly trusting them when the start attacking the people they don't like, which is what happened with the left and their blind faith in the police state once we elected someone they hated.
I started pointing out the failures of the criminal punishment system when I got beat up by police and sent to jail on bullshit charges and I am a nerdy white dude who was just walking down the street.
When the police then lied in court and there was nothing I could do about it, I firsthand saw the problem. It was authority and the inability to hold anyone in power accountable.
I dont have any illusions that the people in power will do the right thing and reform criminal justice. They get too much benefit yelling how broken it is to ever fix it.
You have personal experience so I am least worried about you understanding what I can talking about here.
its not just about race.
Ask Jussie Smollett who made up a fake hate crime and still hasnt gone to trial
You say "privileged" how did that work out for those Duke lacrosse players? Its not just about privilege or race or $. Its about the system being used unfairly based on who is wielding it.
Who is manipulating it is irrelevant if the root problem is that it is being manipulated period.
None of this is new. Look at Teddy Kennedy after Chappaquiddick. The American media and voters never chose to hold him accountable and neither did the police.
I didn't mention race, but you did in your response.
I never know who is more obsessed with race, BLM, or the "white people too" crowd.
BLM is obsessed with anti-Capitalism. Race baiting is only a con, a cover, to fool the "white people too" crowd, who fear being called a racist by racist Blacks more than anything short of death itself.
Unless you're shopping for real estate.
Looks like Fran deleted her post I responded to.
At no point did I mention race, but she did in her response, which is a common pattern around here. I say something like "there is a problem with police unions" and the response inevitably includes something like "well it's not a black or white issue." I always think. "That's true, which is why I never mentioned it and why are you raising the topic at all?"
It leaves me to wonder who are the people really focused on race?
Yes, putting words in someone's mouth is always unfair (and a common pattern everywhere, not just here, in my experience).
However, a discussion by text is still much better than one by talk, where a proper response is seldom composed well.
I council your continued graciousness. Perhaps M. Fran made an honest error. (You'll notice she deleted in order to repost, I think.)
And to respond to your rhetorical, race is ever topical these days, n'est pas? M. Areslent, I could start teaching you advanced engineering mathematics (say Partial Differential Equations) in these forums, and someone would pipe in as if I was Chauvin on steroids. May I time travel to that "colors all bled into one" future?
In this case I don't even think she intended to put words in my mouth. Polarization and victim hood are symmetrical. For every person I hear talking about white supremacy and how all white people are guilty I hear someone else telling me that they are the real victims and black people are the real racists. I think we live in a time of racial grievance where people imagine they hear talk race even when it was never mentioned, so respond as if someone had mentioned it. I also see a lot of people who just assume when I say poor or marginalized I mean black, but if I meant black I would have said black.
O my, back to wrong body parts, again?
Neck, not back.
https://s.abcnews.com/images/Business/minneapolis-police-involved-death-03-ht-jc-200526_hpMain_16x9_992.jpg
During the trial, they showed other angles which showed the knee was on his shoulder blade and not neck.
Man, his knee was all over the place, wasn't it - it's amazing it stayed attached to his leg!
A knee could move a considerable distance in the course of 540 seconds, give or take, but all it takes is 2 seconds of any of multiple home videos for all these posters to KNOW EXACTLY where that infamous knee was the WHOLE time.
I have noticed so often that folks seem to have little or no appreciation of sarcasm - sometimes that's all that is appropriate ....
I am simply pointing out that what we see / are told is not always the truth.
Here's another proof I found on a Locals board you might find interesting. One of the jurors in this interview mentions "Christensen: The still picture from the video, where his hand is in his pocket, kind of got to me. Almost like he was thinking, "This is my job, don’t tell me what to do," and he was not going to listen to what anybody had to say because he was in charge. That bothered me a little bit."
This actually NEVER even happened. Exhibit 17:
https://cdn.locals.com/images/posts/originals/393864/393864_btiq3vjs1x6fk4x.jpeg
His hand is NOT in his pocket. He's wearing gloves and therefore the black gloves on the black pants gave the appearance that Chauvin's hand was in his pocket to someone who didn't look closely. But his hand was never in his pocket.
So, why am I pointing this out? Because this "event" that never happened affected this Juror so significantly that she was able to construct in her own mind all kinds of judgments about what Chauvin was supposedly thinking, what was his attitude, and even a short dialogue of what he might have wanted to say, ("Don't tell me what to do..." ). And this Juror based this on something that not only never happened, but something that even a very cursory review of the video makes clear that it never happened. But she never even noticed, and apparently, no one ever corrected her.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-alternate-juror-lisa-christensen/89-97b74eb1-c875-4ed5-93ad-5c72620b9f18
Lets hear it in detail, see it in detail, one shot, how long, and what degree of pressure was applied to that area? Based on that picture I can't tell, can't determine the degree of pressure that was applied to the carotid arteries, or the veins, if any. I'm not saying he's innocent, but what I am saying is he was determined to be guilty before he went to trial, and that is not how any trial is to be conducted. How many black, and white men have been executed for crimes they didn't commit, or are sitting behind bars for decades, and innocent of the crimes they were accused of because we have a very inadequate judicial system, and few get a fair trial, or adequate representation. I wonder how interested you are in that, or what knowledge you have on that subject.
Well he WAS guilty before he went to trial - so the only way to have had a fair trial is if "the degreet of pressure" had been exactly measured ....
The amazing part of this case is that he even WENT to trial ....
I don't disagree that he didn't get a fair trial but that mfer should be happy he wasn't murdered in the street or pulled out his home.
He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty.
If that was your loved one regardless of what their action was you would know as well as anyone that Chauvin was guilty. THE END.
What I do not understand is why the city paid millions to Floyd's family. The city didn't do anything wrong, that police officer did. When police officers commit crimes they lose qualified immunity. Chauvin should have paid, not the voters and taxpayers.
"He had a duty to protect and serve and someone died in his custody who was presumed innocent until proven guilty." Yes he did, but the question is did he have a fair trial to determine his guilt or innocence? No, he did not. If it were a loved one I would feel the same way. I grew up in a home where my father was very authoritarian and lied repeatedly to his extended family so that he could be seen as the victim and not the abuser. I saw them buy his lies, because psychologically it was less disturbing then recognize their brother was mentally ill, which would then demand a response. This society also wants to sweep everything under the carpet, but when you do that things only get worse. The money the city gave to the family said Chauvin is guilty, and it spoke to the jury pool who would determine Chauvin's innocence or guilt, and it said, find him guilty.
'
They can also both be true. He can also both be guilty and did not get a fair trial. They are not mutually exclusive.
Don't disagree, but he didn't get a fair trial and that should disturb people.
It does but he can get in a fucking ridiculously long line with a lot more sympathetic victims and wait his turn to be forgiven imo.
I think that goes back to Glenn’s original point in the article (and Fran’s) — principles only defended when the victim is considered “sympathetic” aren’t built on solid ground and the ACLU used to have a reputation for defending unsympathetic parties as a matter of principle. They no longer do that for whatever reason (Glenn’s argument is pretty convincing but I think there’s more to it personally) and now there are no non-party-specific advocacy groups to stand up for unsympathetic people that can weather the heat of public outrage.
It goes beyond what you think of him, because when you judge a person guilty, as the state did, and intimidate the jury pool, you make the system worse then it already is.
OK so I should be outraged for his unfair trial because he is a sympathetic victim but the other millions of people who got shafted but never made it to the news?
Its almost like (GASP) the media is gaslighting people to care about this on both sides and reaping the $ while we argue nonstop and miss the bigger issue.
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Which explains why with 2.5 million people currently arrested in some way we have by far the largest prison population in the world.
Something many believed was good (Tom Cotton said we have an under incarceration problem) until a police officer was on trial.
I like how you tied a conservative to something negative with your post despite the real rampant crime and incarceration numbers coming from deep in downtown dnc land.
Its really weird how you also ignore the fact that the democrats have had total control in states and cities for 60+ years and done nothing but bitch about conservatives and spend $
Joe Biden's direct crime bill put a lot of those people in jail.
But here the fuck you are mentioning Tom Cotton.
Good grief. I tied a politician to something stupid because all politicians are sociopaths and liars who promote incarceration. I really don't care about your "wings."
If it makes you feel better you're welcome to bring up Joe Biden's horrendous crime bill and the fact that it's often democrat DA's in large cities that drive incarceration there.
Incarceration like war has bipartisan support and I'm not going to select a moron from each party every time I want to provide an example to political stupidity.
Matt Taibbi recently wrote an article talking about the misery of always having to bring up censorship in pairs to avoid the inevitable whataboutism victim hood. I'm not going to do that.
I agree but it seems disingenuous for you to be angry I called you out for something you did that you acknowledge doing.
Why did you choose Tom Cotton there and not any other politician?
You mean like how Chauvin did to Floyd?
That’s what I’ve been saying.
I've seen you passionately arguing for a ton of conservative things on here....yet you want me to believe if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world, you wouldn't be just as passionately claiming that cop was in the wrong?
Riiiiiiiight
This isn't about Chauvin being right or wrong - he's gonna rot in prison regardless of this case as he's got tax problems too.
This is about having a fair trial and until that happens, he's innocent. And if we are really talking about "if a hood police officer killed someone you loved dearly and you watched it on video with the rest of the world" and if this loved one was a history of breaking into pregnant women's houses with 5 other dudes and beating her up in front of her kid and then pushing the gun against her pregnant belly, then I wouldn't feel any remorse.
No. Its about accountability for government employees.
The same way conservatives for 10 years have been yelling for it from the Democrat FBI/Pelosi/etc the black community has been yelling about it for a hundred years from the police. And their citizens are being killed unlike conservatives who are just being silenced. The concept that their might be some reason to silence or kill is RIDICULOUS. At no point are those acceptable outcomes for a government employee to impose on any private citizen without full fair trial. The rule of law demands it.
They are identical issues (ACCOUNTABILITY FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) framed completely differently by the uniparty fucking us and pretending they are enemies.
You're an unusual Conservative Iconoclast.
Most Conservatives I know distrust the government until it's a person with a gun, a blue clown suit and a police union with qualified immunity. Then suddenly that distrust turns into blind unquestioning trust for these vallorious truth telling Nights in White Satin.
I suspect Daddy issues, but the world may never know.
Not always - I am right leaning but as I have said several times before, I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it.
But despite this, Chauvin did not get a fair trial and this was a lynching by the mob trial. We are not defending Chauvin here, we are trying to defend a tiny bit of integrity in the already politicized justice system.
I know several other conservatives who feel similarly.
So whats different about this than simi valley in the early 1990s?
The first trial for Stacy Koon and company was rigged for the police. The second was rigged against them.
What about the OJ trial? How about Jeffrey Epstein? How about Louis Greco?
Where does this perception of fair trials come from? Oh right the same media we all agree has been lying to us forever. LOL.
I had a long conversation with a police chief recently. He was lamenting the focus on managing the numbers. It was an eye opener. After much back and forth, I suggested that managing to #of tickets written accomplishes nothing that furthers the department's real goal, safety for its community. He asked me what the alternative was and I told him to focus on two things:
1. What is the actual goal of the PD? To set ticket quotas or to achieve some level of safety / security for the community? I suggested agreeing with community leaders on what the PD's real objectives were.
2. Once you have the real objectives identified, discuss, amongst actual professionals, what is the PROCESS for achieving those objectives? Then identify and agree with patrol on what the process steps are to achieve those objectives (similar to an 8d used in engineering and statistical process control) and then coach the shit out of those techniques. Rinse / repeat and agree with patrol on up on what good process is. Then identify what those techniques are and identify what "numbers" within that process actually = success. Focus on continuously improving adherence to those techniques. Also, read some Deming or Juran.
Interestingly enough...he agreed. There is hope. One Chief at a time. I'll be talking to him some ore.
Maybe because unlike most conservatives sitting in the suburbs I've spent weeks in county locked up with real criminals. I've seen what crime and police and bullshit do on every side and every side is being full of shit about reality.
I dont trust the government period. I don't trust the police because I've seen them lie, steal, rob and kill for decades with no accountability. Just like EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT GROUP.
They are just a front facing one so its more in your face every day when they do it.
Not sure where your "daddy issues" comment comes from, but I suspect its because you don't know who yours is.
Looks like you and I share a similar experience in this area. This is not something that can be faked. You can tell when someone distrusts the government on a theoretical level and when someone has personal experience with unaccountable government corruption.
You're right, I never met my father. I did meet your mother a few times though.
I do see some common ground.
Unfortunately I don't have a mother. My father and I do share yours though.
Distrust of government without reasonable checks and balances is a healthy thing. I wish more Americans questioned the governments stance on everything, but especially foreign policy.
I take the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard pretty seriously. If Floyd said he couldn't breathe before the cops held him down, and then he died because of too little air, he may have died from what started earlier. That's a reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin killed him.
Anyway, we don't let people's loved ones serve on a jury in trials concerning them.
You say "who was presumed innocent until proven guilty". But then you don't give the same luxury to Chauvin himself despite you acknowledging that Chauvin didn't get a fair trial. Until he gets a fair trial, shouldn't he be presumed innocent until proven guilty too?
Floyd did not die because of Chauvin. Floyd died because of his drug dealer friend in the car asking him to swallow the drugs, the crowd being hostile which made the situation worse (EMS didn't feel safe either), Floyd himself swallowing the drugs. I would have all 3 of those put behind bars before Chauvin himself.
Btw this is not Chauvin's defence - he's going to prison regardless of this case - for tax purposes (magically discovered after this incident). Chauvin did not get a fair trial.
Chauvin got a trial by a jury of his peers. You can argue that isnt fair, but he at least got a trial.
George Floyd didnt even get an arraignment hearing. Yet here you are being a shitlord and pretending the cop got a worse outcome than the criminal.
FOH!
You would sing such a fucking different tune if this happened to your loved one. It is IRRELEVANT that George Floyd was a drugged out piece of shit criminal. They have the EXACT same civil rights you and I do thanks to the fucking constitution.
Its kind of shocking to me how quick you are to defend this officer.
I don't deny being a police officer is a hard job but I dont see how any reasonable voter can be think Chauvin's behavior was acceptable or at best legal.
That was a difficult situation but that officer gets an F for how he handled it. Why? Because the person he was sent to detain was dead before he was even truly detained or received a fair trail. That is acting as judge, jury and executioner.
Its odd to me you aren't making this same speech for Floyd. A drug using piece of shit criminal still deserves the same civil rights we all do. It seems a lot of posters forget that.
Again I dont think Chauvin got a fair trial. But he didn't give George Floyd the luxury of one either so its hard to truly feel sorry for him.
But again now the narrative has changed from "accountability for government employees" to "do I think Chauvin got a fair trial and/or did he deserve one". Thats a different argument.
The issue here is accountability for ALL government employees for the rest of us fucking peons who dont have elite connects.
I agree with the first part of your comment though. It’sa good thing they’re so loaded with weapons. Otherwise there may indeed be some street justice. Once or twice the People are allowed to fish out some consequences and I guarantee you this brutality shit would halt.
Well, you know, street justice is working so well in the inner cities, right? /sarcasm
I mean the media does such a great job discussing the rampant violence in the cities when it doesn't spill over into the suburbs, right?
Vigilantism is never the answer. No one should be acting as judge, jury and executioner, and certainly not someone who is emotionally charged on any subject.
I don’t believe you should go after the employees if they struggle to keep up with company demands/work requirements. Police officers are employees. And one must admit their job requirements and work stress levels are demanding. The officer can and should be prosecuted. Lose his job, benefits, etc like any other fired employee. And be prosecuted by law like any other citizen. But when it comes to paying compensation it is the company victims should go after. It’s the company who is responsible for vetting, hiring, training and arming a dangerous individual to then patrol our streets. And as we all know the companies aka police departments don’t put a whole lot of effort into any of those criteria. And I for one believe police departments may not be directly responsible for the officer’s actions. But they sure are responsible for putting the officer, cocked and loaded, in our communities. And they’re responsible for the lack of training and environment the officers work in as well.
Perhaps you should educate yourself about "qualified immunity".
We have become the millions lawsuit society.
Man - apparently Floyd had no neck, eh? - his head was directly attached to his back ...
Whether you choose to realize it or not, your choice, but your neck is not your back. The difference is significant in that the neck has significant arteries and veins which supply the brain with oxygenated blood as well as the organs of the head such as the eyes, and returning deoxygenated blood, through veins, back to the heart. Putting a knee to someone's back is not the same as placing a knee on someone's neck.
Good grief!