Derek Chauvin Trial

Author: coal

Posts

Total: 38
Topic's author
#1
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
By now many of us have opinions on the the Derek Chauvin trial, which is understandable. 

Much media attention has been devoted to its coverage.  It's probably the biggest trial since at least George Zimmerman.  Probably since OJ Simpson, given the changing political climate in the United States.

Will you accept the jury's verdict? 

Why or why not? 
#2
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,355
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
Saying if I accept the result is kinda a moot point if America will be a little bit worse for it.
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
I have to confess, before the trial, I was absolutely certain Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd.

After taking the time to read the autopsy report, I did a complete 180, and then saw a lot of things the media did not cover to further substantiate my view.
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
Will you accept the jury's verdict? 
Do you really believe there will not be riots regardless of the verdict? 
Topic's author
#5
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know.  I'd like to think that the decision to broadcast the trial may reduce the probability for violence, no matter the result.  I object to that on moral and procedural levels.  But at the same time, I recognize the utility.  

The verdict is going to be whatever it is.  My opinion hasn't changed.  I think murder 3 is the correct charge.  There's been a lot of talk about hypoxia and what it means.  Whether it's consistent with a drug overdose, or other stupid theories the defense seems to have been permitted to introduce.  

The tox report obviates the OD theory.  End of story.  But the jury has heard evidence that drugs in some way played a role.  The prosecution's medical examiner said it was "consistent" with  drug overdose (which is a stupid, misleading question that the prosecution should have and failed to clean up).  

I am not invested in the outcome of this trial, beyond my contempt for how bastardized the rule of law has become by a scientifically illiterate, alarmist media whose self-appointed role is to agitate social conflict in this country.  
#6
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@coal
I imagine I'll accept it.

The only way I can think of to 'not accept it, would be to either kidnap or jailbreak Derek Chauvin, depending on result of courts decision.
. . .
I suppose people could protest, either decision.

But I'm not filled with particular justice minded passion myself, nor is the man a loved one of mine.

State will have decided, and that's it I suppose.
I might still gripe about it online, but I'll have accepted that it occurred.
Topic's author
#7
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lemming
The only way I can think of to 'not accept it, would be to either kidnap or jailbreak Derek Chauvin, depending on result of courts decision.

I was thinking more on a personal level, whether you'll accept that the jury made the right decision based on having gone through the process. 

A lot of people think that if Floyd isn't convicted, justice will not have been done.

Many others think the opposite.  

The question I have is whether, at the end of this, people will accept that the jury did the right thing. 
#8
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@coal
Well if people think he's guilty or innocent,
Then the court finds the opposite,
Wouldn't they figure the court did the wrong thing by default?
Topic's author
#9
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lemming
Do you think it's reasonable for people whose familiarity with the facts is limited by what they have heard in the media is superior to the jury's?
#10
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@coal
That's a good point, but individuals have different values.
Depending on what people they use, they'd get different verdicts. I 'think.
Though I suppose jury selection is an attempt to get the people, that lawyers think can be objective.
. . .
If I had 12 clones of myself made, who served as jury members while I was not able to see what they saw, and they voted opposite of myself who did not serve and see what they did as jury members.
I'd be more inclined to accept the verdict I suppose.
Topic's author
#11
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lemming
Here's my issue.  I'm not sure I agree with many of the evidentiary rulings that have been made in this case.  

It's possible the case would have gone a different way, in an alternative world where the correct evidentiary rulings were made.

I'll accept the verdict, though I can also appreciate why some people might be skeptical of the process.  

Despite those rulings, though, I still see reasonable doubt. 

I do not envy the jury.  
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
I do not envy the jury.  
They will all get book deals.
Topic's author
#13
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Greyparrot
That would surprise me.
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
okay, maybe not all of them. I think only a few from OJ and Zimmerman did books.
#15
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,689
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@coal
By now many of us have opinions on the the Derek Chauvin trial, which is understandable. 

Much media attention has been devoted to its coverage.  It's probably the biggest trial since at least George Zimmerman.  Probably since OJ Simpson, given the changing political climate in the United States.

Will you accept the jury's verdict? 

Why or why not? 
We haven't heard the defense's case yet but I call the evidence quite damning and the prosecution's case devastating.  Assuming the defense does not change my mind, If Chauvin is exonerated of murder I will very likely attend some protest on the State Capitol lawn and probably little else beyond words.  To the extent that resignation implies acceptance, I guess the answer is yes, I will accept the jury's verdict.
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
If Chauvin is found innocent, I will not accept the verdict at all.

I am too knowledgable about corruption and how it works to even flinch before protesting that. I'm not some edgy right-wing 'ooh liberty wee woo' rebel, I am a true rebel who knows what my enemy is; oppression and tyranny in all its shades and forms.

I will not tolerate if he is found innocent, it is crystal fucking clear what happened. If you murder someone who overdosed on drugs, your defence cannot be that they overdosed on drugs; if the judge and jury have decent brains and hearts, the verdict is clear. I am happy that I was not put on this jury and also don't envy them as Coal has said he doesn't. I would find it impossible to find this murderous racist innocent of what he did. 

This being said, I am not someone who is stampeding to say firing all the other officers was a fair and just move to make. I also don't understand why all the other officers were held equally responsible for what went down, surely there should be a scaled system of punishment and offer to retrain some who clearly had the right idea but wrong actions. I do not support the idea for a single second that all the cops present were hellbent on a racist agenda to kill a black man that day, that's a huge leap of logic and involves severe confirmation bias. They were fired largely as a convenient PR scapegoat comment to make 'look at us, we fired them therefore we aren't responsible for the poor training'.

Chauvin, on the other hand, directly violated training protocol, has a history of being violent especially towards blacks when he was a bouncer and is by no means whatsoever innocent.
#17
triangle.128k
triangle.128k's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 483
2
2
6
triangle.128k's avatar
triangle.128k
2
2
6
I kind of want Chauvin to be declared guilty, less so because I care about the case but more so that this won't become ammunition for another wave of BLM screeching. 
#18
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,247
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
I plan on accepting the results of the jury.  I don't think Floyd's death should be national news anymore.  I don't think any murder should make national news at all.  Instead, I think Biden's policies should be what makes the news, and the bills presented by representatives and senators make the news of their district or state.  Then people will be more informed so they could vote out politicians who make bills they don't like.
#19
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@triangle.128k
I kind of want Chauvin to be declared guilty, less so because I care about the case but more so that this won't become ammunition for another wave of BLM screeching. 

I'm not particularly ready to have some guy lynched as a sacrificial lamb if he didn't do anything wrong.

And if the savages riot, they will only hurt their own party. It happened when riots helped Nixon get elected. Kenosha voted +.3% Trump in 2016 and +3.14% for Trump in 2020. 

Even in the Bronx, Hillary got  86% of the vote and Biden only got 78%.

If the buffoons riot again close to the midterms, now it is "Joe Biden's America" that they occur in. They would get steamrolled when their margins are already razor thin.
#20
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'm not particularly ready to have some guy lynched as a sacrificial lamb if he didn't do anything wrong.
there is no question of if he did anything wrong. His supervisors have already testified that he was using a restraint he wasn't allowed to use and he used it for far longer than anyone could possibly defend. Whether or not he did something wrong isn't really in question. The question is "did the shit he did wrong cause George's death?" and "what level of murder is that?"

#21
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
To 'you ,"there is no question of if he did anything wrong."

triangle.128k's comment also clearly stated that 'guilt was not so much his motivator, as fear of mobs.  I 'think.

bmdrocks21 merely stated he thought that preferring a man be guilty out of fear of the mob seems a terribly preference. I 'think.

A preference of comfort rather than justice, is bad to some of us.
Even if you think the man is guilty, you should think that triangle.128k's 'reason for preferring guilty is bad. 'I think.
It's like in 12 Angry Men (1997), where a juror says 'fine he's innocent, he just want to get this over with and go to his baseball game.
#22
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Unless it is determined that Chauvin's actions killed Floyd, then yes, it doesn't really matter if he did anything right or wrong according to protocol.

Mainly the argument that I care about and that should be at the forefront of the case is Floyd's terrible health and the drugs present in his system/their effect on his death. I'd say those mixed with the stress of getting caught using counterfeit money probably killed him and he likely would have died regardless of any restraint used. But, I suppose that we'll have to see what the supposedly objective jury has to say about it since they are more familiar with the evidence than we are.
#23
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@coal
Will you accept the jury's verdict? 

Why or why not? 
Ya I mean, I’ll disagree with it if he’s convicted but I’ll accept it cause that’s how the justice system works
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@coal
Apparently, the judge already questioned one juror about a book deal.
#25
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Unless it is determined that Chauvin's actions killed Floyd, then yes, it doesn't really matter if he did anything right or wrong according to protocol.
But basically every medical professional involved, including both autopsies, confirmed Chauvin killed him. What is left to determine?
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
To 'you ,"there is no question of if he did anything wrong."
to everyone there should be no question. His supervisor, the chief of police etc have testified he was breaching police procedure and using excessive force. Who is claiming he didn't do anything wrong?

triangle.128k's comment also clearly stated that 'guilt was not so much his motivator, as fear of mobs.  I 'think.
so if he murdered george out of fear of the people trying to stop him from murdering george, would that be a reasonable defense in your eyes? This would make it pretty easy for police to abuse whoever they want. They would just have to say they feared someone and poof, now they have a free pass to crush you to death. 

A preference of comfort rather than justice, is bad to some of us.
who is suggesting that we should be pursuing comfort rather than justice? We already know Chauvin was breaching procedure and using excessive force. We know that basically every medical professional involves agreed Chauvin killed george. Holding him accountable for that is justice. 
#27
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
If there is reasonable doubt that his enlarged heart/heart disease and consumption of multiple drugs killed him instead
#28
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
to everyone there should be no question. His supervisor, the chief of police etc have testified he was breaching police procedure and using excessive force. Who is claiming he didn't do anything wrong?
All I feel like saying currently, is that I think you're letting your emotions over the case overwhelm you and put words into other people's minds and mouths.
If you can 'only see your point of view, then you're going to be pretty blind to other people's points of view.
I might feel like arguing more as the trial goes on,

Hm, let me state my point regarding triangle.128k more clearly.
'Here is triangle.128k's post #17
I kind of want Chauvin to be declared guilty, less so because I care about the case but more so that this won't become ammunition for another wave of BLM screeching. 
Do you see how triangle.128k is not concerned with whether Chauvin is guilty, but is rather concerned about BLM rioting?

So I am talking about triangle.128k's post #17, as was bmdrocks21 in post #19, when bmdrocks21 stated
I'm not particularly ready to have some guy lynched as a sacrificial lamb if he didn't do anything wrong.
bmdrocks21's statement there, does 'not have to do whether Chauvin is guilty or not, but was directly stating disapproval of triangle.128k's post #17
#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
If there is reasonable doubt that his enlarged heart/heart disease and consumption of multiple drugs killed him instead
so your argument is that is was completely random chance? He happened to die at the moment a cop was crushing him? The crushing him had nothing to do with it? That is a very weak argument. 

#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Lemming
All I feel like saying currently, is that I think you're letting your emotions over the case overwhelm you and put words into other people's minds and mouths.
how so? Chauvin's supervisor and the chief of police have both testified he breached procedure and had no business kneeling on him like that. What words am I putting in other people's minds and mouths?

Do you see how triangle.128k is not concerned with whether Chauvin is guilty, but is rather concerned about BLM rioting?
I see you point. It isn't fair to string someone up as an example when they are innocent. However, the evidence says he is guilty. Therefore it is just to string him up for his crimes. 

bmdrocks21's statement there, does 'not have to do whether Chauvin is guilty or not, but was directly stating disapproval of triangle.128k's post #17
I understand. But I have shown over and over how the evidence says Chauvin is guilty. bmdrocks21 chooses to ignore it because he wants to. His opinion isn't rooted in facts, because the facts say the exact opposite of what he chooses to believe. He had the exact same opinion when police were attacking peaceful BLM protesters too. It says alot more about him, than about the case.