Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking: Chauvin Found Guilty on All 3 Counts
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has been found guilty on all three charges in the death of George Floyd.
The jury declared Chauvin guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Although the first charge is punishable by up to 40 years in prison, Minnesota sentencing guidelines begin at 12 1/2 years for a defendant with no criminal history.
Downtown Minneapolis is mostly boarded up and being patrolled by a large contingent of National Guard. Many were uneasy about the verdict, fearing riots worse than those experienced after Floyd’s death, not only in Minnesota but across the country.
Chauvin’s lawyers are expected to appeal, especially with concerns about comments from Rep. Maxine Waters, who seemed to be encouraging violence if the verdict was not guilty. President Joe Biden and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey both prejudged the case and made public statements that there was only one right verdict. Local press published extensive information about each juror before the decision was reached.
Published in General
All the information was released by the courts, broadcast, and put on the internet during jury selection.
As for being extensive information, here are some sample descriptions:
“A multi-race woman in her 20s. She is originally from northern Minnesota.”
“A white man in his 20s.He’s from Minneapolis and works as a chemist.”
“A Black man in his 30s. He works in banking and coaches youth sports.”
“A Black man in his 40s. He works as a manager.”
Believe me, a “white woman in her 50s who lives in Edina and works as a nurse” does not narrow it down much.
But if they have that much information, couldn’t they release more if pressed to? Seems to me that they released just enough info as a warning.
Weren’t his problems with the Canadian system?
We don’t warn jurors that we want them to vote a certain way.
Well, you say that….
But, on occasion, we even warn Supreme Court Justices that we want them to vote a certain way.
Some of our Senators do, anyway.
BLM/Antifa do that all the time, by burning things, and beating things, sometimes killing things… You think they don’t get the message?
To be clear, by “we” I meant the newspaper. We don’t send messages to jurors to intimidate them into voting a certain way.
I would believe that YOU don’t.
Anyway, even if it came to publishing their full names/addresses, that could still be argued that the paper isn’t the one intimidating them. They’re just telling BLM/Antifa where to go.
No, that’s not what happened. The jury is asked whether the facts presented proved the elements of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury’s task is to answer that question for each crime charged. That is common in many states and not at all abnormal.
Let’s not do this. Yes, Waters and Biden made incredibly dumb and irresponsible comments. The coverage of the trial has largely been garbage. But until there is evidence to the contrary we should not assume that the jury ignored its duty. Most people do take their role seriously on a jury and follow the judge’s instructions.
If we start to second-guess juries because of political disagreements, then we are going down a bad path. Like it or not, trial by jury works. Just because some people behave recklessly, doesn’t mean the jury caved or got it wrong.
I’m pretty sure that’s what an appeal is supposed to find out.
To be honest I am for giving BLM and the black community what it wants. Pull the cops, let those communities handle their own stuff. Release all blacks from jail. No more black arrests. Let them have it all.
I’m all for this as long as the sane states secede first.
And/or build some walls.
If there is any evidence of jury misconduct or intimidation, yes that is the purpose. But we should not assume that to be the case. Nor should we rush to judgment. That is a large part of why our current situation is so toxic.
This sounds like the same argument heard from the “nothing to see here, move along” crowd following the “election.”
“No investigation (appeal) unless you have evidence.”
“There needs to be an investigation (appeal) to find evidence.”
“Shut up.”
Self-preservation kicks in at some point. These jurors wanted to survive, keep their jobs, not have their house burned down, etc.
They knew what they had to do. That’s why it was so fast.
I appreciate that, but extend to my co-workers the same courtesy.
If so, then the courts are also complicit, when they live-streamed the entire jury selection process and put it up on YouTube in the interests of transparency.
Did anyone actually look at the article? Aside from the cursory descriptions, it’s mostly a collection of quotes from the jurors – 70 hours of interviews boiled down into paragraphs that described the jurors’ views and opinions.
As for the Maxine Waters and Biden comments, they didn’t matter. Everyone on that jury remembered last summer.
Gee, maybe its because we’re dealing with a truly toxic totalitarian movement, and are doing so under the same kind of circumstances as was explored in To Kill A Mockingbird.
Nonsense. Chauvin was provided a full and fair trial. The jury returned its verdict. There will be an appeal given idiotic statements by Maxine Waters. The appeal process will run its course and function as it should under well-established rules. No one is telling you to shut up. We don’t know anything about the juror’s mindset right now. Until we do, why jump to the conclusion that they violated their oath and convicted him because of external pressure? That is reckless and irresponsible. If facts change, then I’m happy to reconsider.
Here’s a question: why didn’t Chauvin take the stand?
We have a massive problem with the race to be wrong first. We don’t wait for facts to come in, we just rush to our partisan/tribal corners. That’s nuts and dangerous. The problem has always been more pronounced on the Left, but it is increasingly a problem on our side too. We need to stop this binary response of cops good or cops bad. Sometimes the police officer is right, and sometimes he/she is wrong. We need to look at the facts and what actually happened.
We don’t fix the problem by acting more like the Left.
I guess you didn’t notice that people have been pointing out the facts, including facts like the autopsy report, which barely – if at all – support any theory of police misconduct. Lots of George Floyd misconduct, yes. But that shouldn’t get anyone else convicted of anything.
Because he doesn’t need to. Testifying would lead to potential questions about previous alleged misconduct and his training related to use of force. He doesn’t need to prove innocence, just reasonable doubt. There is a lot of risk taking the stand.
I have heard those facts and there are plenty to cut the other way. But I’m not on the jury. I didn’t sit and listen to each second of testimony or assess the credibility of each witness.
Are you assuming the jury ignored the evidence you found exculpatory? Why?
Maybe by then our guns will have been taken away too…
Had he been white, would he have been treated any different? Yet who would have cared?
Whatever happened to the 911 style investigation Nancy wanted?
It may not seem so specific, but how would you feel if you were the juror described?