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
This presumes that the people on our side are interested in changing anything. I think it’s pretty clear that except for a handful of young legislators, they have no interest in doing so.
In the Swamp, sure. Outside the swamp and among the citizens, there is a smoldering powderkeg about to blow.
Just say when.
What circumstances would constitute a fair trial for you? If this wasn’t–which many on here believe to be the case–what does that look like?
The standards by which we measure a fair trial are well-established and have to do with the conduct inside the court room. No one has pointed to error by the judge or the attorneys. So what does a fair trial mean here? One in which your preferred outcome occurs? Because that’s not our system and I fear that system a heck of a lot more.
Then they should quit. If they are not going to do the job they should not take the money.
I just want the self defense rules to be relaxed so the new world order where the police do not do their job.
Let’s also not forget that “the process is the punishment.” Even if Chauvin is eventually acquitted, the damage is already done. Who would take what will hopefully eventually happen to Chauvin – i.e., acquittal – as vindication? The message to cops on the street is already clear.
Then they need to clean up their own communities first, don’t expect it to be done from outside, at the cost of other peoples’ money and even lives, especially over the loud protest – and worse – of the vocal (and violent) minority.
We as a country have, during my lifetime, become more Pro-Life, more pro-gun, more pro-free speech (as a legal matter), and more protective of religious beliefs (again, as a legal matter). These are not small matters.
The problem with winning as the sole metric, is that pure power politics doesn’t make things stable. It makes things worse. It results in wild swings with each election. As a conservative, I want to preserve and secure liberty. To do that process matters. It’s the classic line from Man for All Seasons. “Yes, I’d give the devil the benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
If we tear down our institutions and become the thing we are supposed to be against, then what happens the next time the other side wins? We have rules and norms for a reason. Trash them and we lose the protection they provide.
One where activists don’t demand specific outcomes beforehand, backed by threats. One where radical politicians don’t weigh in with their own views beforehand, backed by the power of the state. One where the person being tried isn’t already declared guilty in the press. One where the jury isn’t made to feel threatened if they don’t rule the correct way.
The institutions are already torn down. We’re sitting in the rubble.
I don’t think they’re rubble yet, just graffiti stained and saturated with urine stench.
@jameslileks, what exactly was the point of the StarTribune providing the information in this form? If the purpose is to give readers an idea of the makeup of the jury, why not report that it includes X men, Y women, X white, Y black, Z multi-race, a manager, etc., etc. That way the newspaper would be less likely to be accused of interfering with the jury process.
Nonsense.
” Mr Chauvin, in your entire life have you ever used the “N word”, Yes or No?”
Naw. They should take the money. Quite Soviet and perfect for Progressive Government.
“We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.”
And they have the perfect excuses: “Why didn’t you stop that mob from burning down my house?” “They were black.” “Oh, of course. Right you are!”
I actually did point to a couple of obvious questions about the fairness of the trial but I’ll make them more evident here:
These are just my opinions as a lay person who has spent some amount of time following the case, doesn’t mean it isn’t a fair trial and if the system works correctly these will be answered on appeal. In a certain sense I think any high profile trial like this one is difficult to categorize as a fair trial because too much of the outside atmosphere bleeds into the court room. It is a weakness of our system which the current climate makes much worse. The only real hope is that the appeals process works correctly and if another trial comes out of this it is low enough profile so we can have a normal process.
I think well before we move to the appeals phase we get the sentencing. The judge has a few weeks to see which way the wind blows. And he may be able to compensate (in either direction) for his own impression of the trial.
I suspect some–but I’m sure not all–of you have seen the documentary, “Who Killed George Floyd” or read some of George Parry’s work on the topic. If you haven’t I commend all of them to you for a more complete view of the whole encounter between Floyd and the police involved in his arrest. That’s three articles and a 24 minute video. Well worth your time.
That could end up depending on the sentencing limitations that may have been imposed by the legislature. Most states seem to have those, to one degree or another.
I have read some of your colleagues’ stories, and have read the powerlineblog articles about the stories that your colleagues refuse to report on, so I’m not willing to assume their good intentions.
Well put.
Because it would have been a waste. When the governor, mayor, city, chief of police, media, etc, etc declare you guilty, why flog the dead horse?
In the American legal system the jury is supposed to make no inferences from the fact that the defendant does not take the stand. That is related to the presumption of innocence and that it is the prosecution’s job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did what he is accused of. The defendant has no obligation to defend himself.
There have, however, been studies indicating that not taking the stand works against a defendant. Much as we might question whether the jury was able to ignore the various remarks made by politicians, etc, it’s worth questioning whether this jury was really able to overlook not hearing from Chauvin.
Given the atmosphere and the relatively weak representation he received, I think it was incumbent on Chauvin to take the stand. Perhaps, he shouldn’t have had to, but that wasn’t the reality.
Well, no, not exactly. Yes, we require that the conduct inside the courtroom be fair and just. But we also require that the defendant be faced with a jury of his peers composed of individuals who are capable of being fair and objective. The conduct of the jury outside of the courtroom, and in particular during their deliberation as they reach a verdict, is part of what must be considered in a fair trial.
So it would be reasonable to doubt that the trial was fair if it is reasonable to assume that the jury was swayed unduly by considerations outside of the courtroom.
The judge in the Chauvin case refused either a delay of trial or a change of venue, making this statement:
“Unfortunately, I think the pretrial publicity in this case will continue no matter how long we continue it. And as far as change of venue, I do not think that would give the defendant any kind of a fair trial beyond what we are doing here today. I don’t think there is any place in the state of Minnesota that has not been subjected to extreme amounts of publicity on this case.”
One doesn’t have to think Chauvin innocent to read into the judge’s comment an implicit acknowledgement that securing a fair trial anywhere would be challenging. He wasn’t saying that a fair trial could be secured in Minneapolis. Rather, he was saying that, in his opinion, nothing more fair was likely to be achieved anywhere else in Minnesota, given the unfortunate amount of pretrial publicity the case had received. Whether or not he was correct in that belief, the fact that he said what he said itself suggests a potential problem.
I think it unlikely that the jury felt reasonably free to acquit — whether or not any of them might have been so persuaded. I expect a retrial.
I agree with this 100%. I hope the folks on the left read it and agree also, since they seem bent on dismantling our institutions.
I think we have to respect the outcome of the court in the Chauvin trial. But, of course, our judicial institutions allow for retrials when the situation seems to justify it. It wouldn’t be disrespecting the court to call for a retrial. (But perhaps that wasn’t your point.)
I’m not sure there is any more reason to respect the outcome of this trial, than there was in the OJ case.
For the exact same reasons as the jury in To Kill A Mockingbird: because their lives would be made terrible if they didn’t, losing jobs, friends, community belonging, and possibly their lives. And because they have been inundated with propaganda and societal pressure to an extent that they can superficially rationalize their decision as the morally correct, or at least not morally heinous, one.
It is not ‘acting like the Left’ to recognize and deal with a reality that is not only staring us in the face, but also yelling at and assaulting us.