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
Let us know if your paper writes a story about how this is a miscarriage of justice, how it’s a lie to convict a man of murdering someone who died from causes entirely unrelated to the accused actions.
Link em if you have em.
Because the standard wisdom is that defendants should not testify.
I understand the frustration of desiring wrong headed people to be exposed to the consequences of their choices, but the “black community” is not monolithic on this subject. Most of the MSM and BLM would prefer you as a consumer of news — though not necessarily a member of the black community — believe this fiction. But in surveys, 70% of people in the “black community” are opposed to defunding the police. This ought really be a closed subject since Minneapolis reversed themselves on this, including other cities like Seattle mitigating their earlier defunding demands, not to mention the visibility of widespread violence being unleashed in many cities where the police have stood down and gone ‘soft’ on crime and violence (notably I learned this evening on Tucker this does not include Detroit). Black people are people too. They don’t deserve to be abandoned. They have many of the same cares and concerns as non-black folks. We ought not be so agreeable to cave under the pressures of a toxic culture and toxic policies. And remember, these demands are not the end, these are only the means to an end. Marxist ends. We ought not be in such a rush to give them what they want.
If I had been on that jury, I would have made a public statement either during the trial or, if I were the foreman, before I read the verdict, that the public was attempting to intimidate me or was intimidating me throughout the trial, that publishing my name and address put me and my family at risk. I would have stood up for the right of the accused to a fair trial.
Of the people, by the people, and for the people. I’m the people.
I appreciate the sentiment, but you would have been immediately dismissed as a juror. Depending on the timing of any statement it could also lead to a mistrial. Jurors are sworn to follow the rules given them by the court and to weigh and consider the evidence before them. People tend to take that very seriously.
Like it or not, Chauvin received a fair trial and was convicted. The focus is on what happened in the court room.
He had absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I’m not a legal expert, but isn’t it almost universally accepted that a defendant should not take a stand? From what I understand, they will only ask the defendant yes or no questions. Any prosecutor of moderate skill level can easily set a trap and completely embarrass the defendant.
If Chauvin had taken the stand all of his past excessive force allegations would come in. Also, if memory serves, Chauvin had had a run in with George Floyd previously, and bore him animus.
The disaster has already happened. We are just living through the aftermath.
Yes it is. But this was clearly an exception to that rule.
To be fair we don’t know he received a fair trial. You have faith in the system and the old ways, so you believe he did. Some of us have become more cynical and see the way the new order is shaping up so we have doubts. We’ll see what happens on appeal. This was largely a show trial and was virtually set up to be appealed from the the start. Otherwise they would have changed venue immediately and/or the jury would have be sequestered throughout. In the new world order where people can be fired for having unpopular political decisions and harassed for giving trivial amounts of money to unpopular causes. It is not an unreasonable supposition to say that a jury under imminent threat of riot decided to make a prudential decision based on personal calculations rather than on the law or on justice. To be clear I am not saying that happened only that it is just as plausible as saying that he had a fair trial.
Why does this remind me of introducing the batchelors or batchelorettes on “The Dating Game”?
Deep-pocketed Democrats will ship several hundred over there.
Irrelevant. Chauvin was not charged with first degree.
I read through those. There were a couple of ’em who I thought had unique enough descriptors that they could be tracked down with minimal effort.
Threatened.
Au contraire. It’s basic Alinksy: make them live up to their own rules.
Or if you prefer, it’s basic Reagan: “Peace through mutually-assured destruction.”
To an extent this could have even been subconscious on the part of the jurors. The threats of riots and being doxed would affect any person. I have meet my peers, so finding a jury of my peers who would be completely neutral and bring no personal biases seems impossible. In the back of their mind their future safety and employment was likely a consideration.
I don’t think this started as a hanging jury who decided guilt before the trial started. I don’t think they would ignore clear and persuasive evidence just to get to a guilty verdict. This case came down to dueling experts on cause of death and the appropriate use of force. A “tie” should go to the defendant. In this case I think the jurors gave any ties to the prosecution.
I am not suggesting that they were incapable of being fair, or weren’t trying to be fair, just that the world outside the court room did affect how they approached the evidence.
The jury knew all about Maxine Waters’ special visit to “activise” and threaten. And about Biden’s prayers to give the “right verdict”. Anyone with a normal sense of self protection who got on the jury would be foolish not to act to keep himself and his family safe and to hell with the defendant or justice.
At least I would have made a loud and public statement. Intimidating jurors is against the law. There are excellent reasons for that.
I would not have participated under these circumstances.
No matter how anyone feels about Chauvin’s guilt or innocence, he had a right to a fair trial.
This was an impossible situation. Asking one juror to stand for justice in the face of the Media Industrial Complex is asking for near superhuman levels of courage and principal. Asking for that from twelve jurors is as close to impossible as you can get.
You know that if a not-guilty verdict had been reached, their names would already be released. They would already be in hiding.
Yes. That is correct.
Here’s what is striking to me.
A White officer in Minnesota gets convicted of the maximum charges, even considered overblown charges, for not being sensitive enough to recognize that a Black suspect is dying of a drug overdose, while following police procedures as prescribed by the manual. The trial fusses over whether or not the officer used excessive force or had intent to harm. He could get 40 years.
Meanwhile, in the same justice system;
A Black officer shoots a white woman in the face at point blank range with full intent to kill her, for the crime of trespassing through a window. Not only does this officer not get charged with anything, but his name is not even allowed to be released to the public.
The legal standard for police being involved in the death of a black man in any way during attempted or actual arrest is “Guilty until proven innocent beyond any doubt.” (prove there are no unicorns beyond any doubt, prior to a not guilty verdict)
The “Chauvin amendment to standard” : “If declared guilty a priori by public officials, large lawsuit awards, threats of rioting and looting, killing jurors, etc. Useless “deliberation” must be short.
Note: The standard for the killing of an unarmed white woman military veteran by police shall be, “no charges filed, identity of officer not to be released”. ( The Ashley Babbitt standard)
No. You may want to do that, but I will not. I will argue against the Left but I will not adopt their tactics. Those tactics only make things worse. I’m a conservative because the process matters as much, if not more, than the outcome.
Chauvin, from what I see, received a fair trial. His attorney was good and the judge was fair. Idiots in the press and on the Left (yes, I know, it’s redundant) threatened violence if the outcome was against their wishes. That is bad, very bad. But that doesn’t mean that the jury was wrong.
That is why conservatism does not advance. We think well-reasoned arguments will win the day.
The left knows that what matters is power and the willingness to use it.
I would love it if we could win through well-reasoned arguments, but reason has taken a vacation in the 21st century.
Before we can get back to that, we first need to win. If we are going to win, we need to harness power and not be afraid to use it. When the left wins, they do not sit back and and bask in victory, they demand more wins. They always advance. At worst, they hold territory, but they never retreat and they never rest on their victories.
I agree with your basic premise, but O.J. Simpson received a fair trial also. There is such a thing as a jury coming to a wrong verdict, and even purposeful jury nullification, no matter how fair the trail may be. The Federal Government has had a hell of a time getting mafia bosses like Al Capone and John Gotti convicted with overwhelming evidence because jurors were too scared to convict.
Chauvin received a trial. I’m not sure that he received a fair trial.
Without making any assertion about the guilt or innocence of the man – and I remain agnostic about that – I think it’s easy to make a case that the jury was under enormous public pressure, including a plausible fear for their own safety, to reach a particular conclusion.
I look forward to the retrial.