Share this comment
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…
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