Share this comment
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 tr…
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.