George Floyd

Jurors Could Not Believe That a Reasonable Officer Would Have Done What Derek Chauvin Did

The guilty verdicts on all three counts reflect the logical force of the prosecution's case as well as the emotional impact of watching the assault on George Floyd.

|

"You can believe your own eyes," prosecutor Steve Schleicher told jurors during his closing argument in former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's murder trial yesterday. "This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video."

Schleicher was referring to the horrifying bystander video showing Chauvin pinning George Floyd facedown to the pavement for nine and a half minutes, an incident that provoked nationwide protests against police brutality. The jury's decision to convict Chauvin of all three murder and manslaughter charges against him after deliberating for 10 hours reflects not just the emotional impact of that video but also the logical force of the case the prosecution presented in two weeks of testimony.

While the defense repeatedly speculated about other factors that might have contributed to Floyd's death, including his heart disease and his drug use, there was never any real doubt that he would have survived this encounter if Chauvin had handled it differently. Defense attorney Eric Nelson implicitly conceded as much when he argued, in a pretrial motion, that Floyd "may have survived" if Officers J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane, who arrested Floyd for using a phony $20 bill to buy cigarettes, "had chosen to de-escalate instead of struggle." That suggestion implied that the ensuing use of force killed Floyd.

Nelson's lone medical witness, forensic pathologist David Fowler, rejected the prosecution's argument that Floyd died from asphyxia, describing the cause as a "sudden cardiac arrhythmia." Yet Fowler cited the "very stressful situation" created by the prolonged prone restraint as an important factor, which hardly let Chauvin off the hook.

The prosecution's medical witnesses, including Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Andrew Baker, all agreed that the use of force caused Floyd's death. Chicago pulmonologist Martin Tobin explained in detail how being pressed against the pavement by Chauvin's knees and the other officers' hands would have made it impossible for Floyd to breathe properly. Tobin was highly credible and unflappable, and his testimony reinforced the commonsensical inference that a man who complains 27 times that he can't breathe while being squeezed between three cops and the asphalt might actually be having trouble breathing.

Other expert witnesses explained why neither heart disease nor drug use were plausible explanations for Floyd's death. And although Baker did not mention asphyxia in his autopsy report, on the stand he did not rule out the possibility that impeded breathing contributed to Floyd's "cardiopulmonary arrest," saying, "I would defer to a pulmonologist."

To prove causation, the prosecution needed only to persuade the jury that Chauvin's actions were "a substantial causal factor" in Floyd's death. "The fact that other causes may have contributed to George Floyd's death does not relieve the defendant of any criminal liability," Schleicher noted. "He's criminally liable for all of the consequences of his actions that naturally occur, including those consequences brought about by intervening causes." The alternative to concluding that Chauvin killed Floyd was to believe that Floyd just happened to die from other, unrelated causes under Chauvin's knee.

As for whether Chauvin's use of force was justified, several supervisors (including the police chief) and use-of-force experts concluded that it was not. They said Chauvin's conduct violated his training, department policy, and the Fourth Amendment.

Against that judgment, Nelson offered only the testimony of Barry Brodd, a former police officer who preposterously claimed that pinning Floyd to the pavement for nine and a half minutes did not even qualify as a use of force. Brodd also averred that "drug-influenced" suspects "don't feel pain" and "may have superhuman strength"—an old canard with racist roots that police tend to drag out when they are accused of using excessive force.

While Brodd claimed that Floyd was "somewhat resisting" even after he was pinned to the ground, his definition of resistance was broad enough to encompass writhing in pain and struggling to breathe. And even by Brodd's account, the resistance lasted for "a couple of minutes," leaving unexplained the continued use of force during the next seven and a half minutes, when Floyd stopped talking and moving, became unresponsive, seemed to lose consciousness, and stopped breathing.

Even after Floyd no longer had a detectable pulse, Chauvin kept kneeling on him. "How can you justify the continued use of force against this man when he has no pulse?" Schleicher wondered.

Chauvin chose not to take the stand, which would have given him an opportunity to answer that question but also would have exposed him to a potentially brutal cross-examination. Without hearing from Chauvin, the jurors were left with Nelson's description of the factors that figured in Chauvin's thinking, which amounted to little more than fears about what Floyd might have done to pose a threat, as opposed to what he actually did.

"The standard is not what should the officer have done in these circumstances," Nelson said. "Officers are human beings capable of making mistakes in highly stressful situations." But when those "mistakes" go beyond what a "reasonable officer" would do in similar circumstances, the use of force is unlawful. Try as he might, Nelson was unable to persuade the jury that a reasonable officer would have done what Chauvin did.

Chauvin's actions easily fit the definition of second-degree manslaughter, which required showing that he caused Floyd's death "by his culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk and consciously [taking] the chances of causing great bodily harm." The maximum penalty for that count is 10 years in prison, but the presumptive sentence under Minnesota's sentencing guidelines is four years.

To prove the second-degree murder charge, prosecutors had to show that Chauvin unintentionally killed Floyd while committing a felony—in this case, third-degree assault. The assault charge, in turn, required proving that Chauvin "intentionally applied unlawful force" and thereby inflicted "substantial bodily harm."

The jurors could have rejected the assault charge, and therefore the felony murder charge, if they were not convinced that Chauvin knowingly used unlawful force. But they clearly thought his conduct went beyond negligence, a conclusion supported by all the testimony that the 19-year veteran failed to follow his training and blatantly flouted department policy. As Schleicher put it, "He knew better. He just didn't do better."

Minnesota law is unusual in not requiring that the underlying offense for felony murder be distinct from the conduct that caused the victim's death. That questionable quirk allows prosecutors to charge an unintentionally lethal assault as murder rather than manslaughter, which dramatically increases the potential penalty. The maximum penalty for felony murder is 40 years, and the presumptive sentence is 150 months, or 12.5 years.

The presumptive sentence for third-degree murder is the same, although the maximum (25 years) is shorter. That count required proving that Chauvin killed Floyd by "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." A "depraved mind" means Chauvin showed "reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference."

That seems like a pretty apt description, given the way Chauvin reacted to Floyd's distress, concerned bystanders' warnings that Floyd's life was in danger because he was not getting enough oxygen, Lane's suggestion that Floyd should be rolled onto his side, Lane's observation that "he's passing out," and Kueng's report that he could not find a pulse. None of that information persuaded Chauvin to lift his knee or to perform CPR. Instead he responded with callous indifference.

The third-degree murder charge is legally controversial. Some case law suggests it is appropriate only when a defendant's dangerous conduct did not target any particular individual, as when someone blindly fires a gun into a crowd.

Contrary to that view, former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor, who fatally shot Justine Damond in 2017 after she called 911 to report a possible assault in the alley behind her house, was convicted of third-degree murder (as well as second-degree manslaughter) in 2019. In February, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld Noor's conviction, and last month it cited that decision when it ordered Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill to reconsider his dismissal of the third-degree murder charge against Chauvin. While the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to review the appeals court's order in Chauvin's case, it has agreed to hear Noor's appeal.

Depending on the outcome of that case, Chauvin's third-degree murder conviction may not stand. But that probably would not affect the length of Chauvin's sentence, assuming the felony murder conviction holds up. Both offenses carry a presumptive 150-month sentence, which is what Noor received.

NEXT: Ayanna Pressley Wants To Cancel the Rent. She's Also Made at Least $15,000 As a Landlord.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But what about Maxine Waters, Jacob? Look at what she’s done.

    Fuck, man. These GOP fucking fucks are too fucking much.

    1. PIss off you pathetic shit.

      1. The guilty verdicts on all three counts reflect the logical force of the prosecution’s case as well as the emotional impact of watching the assault on George Floyd.

        Sounds like speculation. How do we know it doesn't reflect the logical force of Maxine Waters insinuating riots, arson, and looting? Or Biden praying for the "right" verdict, by suggesting the evidence is overwhelming. Had he mentioned the "lack of evidence" he would suggest Chauvin being acquitted as the "right" verdict. But he conveyed he was in support of the "right" verdict due to the evidence, thus he wanted a conviction and was "praying" for one. So you had both Biden and Waters pressuring the jurors, not to mention, hordes of racist, white hating, cop hating, irrational people who were raised in a household never even knowing the law and feeling resentful about current arrests and events and ready to burn cities to the ground. So... yeah - "logical force" sullum.

        While the defense repeatedly speculated about other factors that might have contributed to Floyd’s death, including his heart disease and his drug use, there was never any real doubt that he would have survived this encounter if Chauvin had handled it differently.

        So, total narrative spew misinformation. Borderline lying. As in "liar." We have no idea if Floyd would have survived, he had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system at the time of arrest. He had 90% narrowed arteries in his heart. He complained he couldn't breathe even before they put him in the squad car, or laid him down. He had pulmonary embolism, which you aren't going to get from a knee on the neck. He may have suffered his heart attack and died even if they put him in the squad car and drove to the precinct jail for 9 minutes. Maybe he would have survived, which is why Eric Nelson's statement is honest, and Sullum's is NOT.

        The prosecution’s medical witnesses, including Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Andrew Baker, all agreed that the use of force caused Floyd’s death.

        Well, yeah. It caused his death like arresting a 98 year old man could cause heart attack and death. Sure! But the extreme fragility of their body is not the officer's fault when trying to make an arrest.

        Tobin was highly credible and unflappable, and his testimony reinforced the commonsensical inference that a man who complains 27 times that he can’t breathe while being squeezed between three cops and the asphalt might actually be having trouble breathing.

        The problem with that argument, is it is used all the time by criminals getting arrested. Are you to not arrest them, simply because they claim they can't breathe? And I promise you - solemn promise - perpetrators of crimes will use "I can't breathe" to their full advantage going forward, from now on.

        To prove causation, the prosecution needed only to persuade the jury that Chauvin’s actions were “a substantial causal factor” in Floyd’s death. “The fact that other causes may have contributed to George Floyd’s death does not relieve the defendant of any criminal liability,” Schleicher noted.

        Yeah but this is bullshit. If they arrested a fat jumbo 68 year old and pepper sprayed him in order to get him to get into a squad car due to him resisting arrest, and he then died of cardiac arrest in the squad car - their use of force to apprehend him would be a "substantial causal factor." In fact, the arrest itself could have "stressed out" a perp causing a heart attack and thus be a "substantial causal factor." So the law itself is inadequate in this case. Completely inadequate.

        As for whether Chauvin’s use of force was justified, several supervisors (including the police chief) and use-of-force experts concluded that it was not. They said Chauvin’s conduct violated his training, department policy, and the Fourth Amendment.

        Well yeah! They have to say that now! Or Maxine Waters will convince a crowd of BLM protestors that these people need to be shown that they are not welcome anywhere and to get more confrontational in the streets. And since they are already looting and burning buildings down, what does that mean they are going to do to the police chief's home? Maybe it did violate policy and training, or maybe they said the right thing to avoid getting fired and beaten in the street and their homes razed to the ground, which is completely plausible!

        That seems like a pretty apt description, given the way Chauvin reacted to Floyd’s distress, concerned bystanders’ warnings that Floyd’s life was in danger because he was not getting enough oxygen, Lane’s suggestion that Floyd should be rolled onto his side, Lane’s observation that “he’s passing out,” and Kueng’s report that he could not find a pulse. None of that information persuaded Chauvin to lift his knee or to perform CPR. Instead he responded with callous indifference.

        Well yeah - quite possibly, because Chauvin wasn't putting much pressure on him to believe he was responsible for his lack of pulse. From Officer lane's body cam, you can see Chauvin had his knee on his upper back spine, just below the neck. Didn't look like strangulation (trachea) or pinching blood loss from carotid artery in the neck. Floyd said he couldn't breathe and everything hurt. Sounds like angina and cardiac arrest to me (he had narrowed heart artery). I was really surprised at the "throw the entire book at him" verdict. Doesn't look like justice.

        My counter arguments:
        It is not a "felony" for a cop to put his knee on a perps back or back of neck. None of us - any of us, have any idea how much pressure Chauvin was putting on his spine/neck/back. It could have been very light. In the video Floyd could be seen turning his head and speaking. To simply claim Chauvin committed a felony without precisely knowing how much pressure he was applying, is NOT the presumption of innocence. An expert during the trail asserted he was breathing 22 breaths/minute and therefore didn't have repressed breathing as a result of fentanyl. But he said he couldn't breathe before he even went in the squad car. He said he "hurt all over." And that very much sounds like angina/cardiac arrest to me. During trial:

        Asked about his finding that police “subdual, restraint and neck compression” caused Floyd’s heart to stop, Baker said that Floyd had severe underlying heart disease and an enlarged heart that needed more oxygen than normal to function, as well as narrowing of two heart arteries.

        Baker said being involved in a scuffle raises adrenaline, which asks the heart to beat even faster and supply more oxygen.

        “And in my opinion, the law enforcement subdual, restraint and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of that, those heart conditions,” the medical examiner said.

        Right. So any cop that arrests a perp with heart disease is at risk of being "a substantial causal factor?" I'm sorry - that's not acceptable to allow the police to do their job.

        1. My counter arguments:
          It is not a “felony” for a cop to put his knee on a perps back or back of neck.

          I agree. However, it becomes a felony when you’re still kneeling on the suspect after they’ve stopped breathing and registering a pulse.

          None of us – any of us, have any idea how much pressure Chauvin was putting on his spine/neck/back. It could have been very light.

          We can estimate based on Chauvin’s weight, the weight of his gear, and his position on Floyd’s back. It could not have been ‘very light’.

          In the video Floyd could be seen turning his head and speaking.

          Not after he stopped breathing and registering a pulse. When Chauvin was still on his back and remained there for several minutes.

          To simply claim Chauvin committed a felony without precisely knowing how much pressure he was applying, is NOT the presumption of innocence.

          Applying more than zero pressure after Floyd had stopped breathing and registering a pulse was the point at which Chauvin went from a lawful use of force to an unlawful one.

          1. I agree. However, it becomes a felony when you’re still kneeling on the suspect after they’ve stopped breathing and registering a pulse.

            Can you point to the relevant statutes that indicate this? (No you can't).

            We can estimate based on Chauvin’s weight, the weight of his gear, and his position on Floyd’s back. It could not have been ‘very light’.

            No we can't estimate that. Suppose you are standing and put your weight on one leg. You may have little to no weight on your other leg, or you may have a lot and nobody can just look at you and be able to tell how much. Likewise with knees on the ground. Chauvin may have been applying very little force and we simply don't know how much force it is. For this reason alone, they are not affording Chauvin the presumption of innocence.

            Not after he stopped breathing and registering a pulse. When Chauvin was still on his back and remained there for several minutes.

            Well obviously. But it doesn't mean that his death was caused by the force applied to the back of his neck. This is why I mentioned he could turn his head while under Chauvin's knee.

            Applying more than zero pressure after Floyd had stopped breathing and registering a pulse was the point at which Chauvin went from a lawful use of force to an unlawful one.

            How so? That is not written law, and the issue in Chauvin's trial is if Chauvin killed him, as a "substantial causal factor" within the confines of "beyond a reasonable doubt" - NOT - if he applied pressure to his body after his death. Is Chauvin on trial for applying pressure to his dead body? No. He is on trial for the "death" of Floyd, as a "substantial causal factor" within the confines of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and with the "presumption of innocence."

            And I really don't see how that jury could come to the conclusions they did. Given we don't know how much Chauvin was a substantial causal factor (nobody does), a reasonable doubt exists. Officers all over the country hold suspects on the ground, with hands, knees, and elbows, and they don't die. How is he guilty of 2nd or 3rd degree? What felony was he committing at the time to merit them? This entire ordeal appears to be an emotional response, not a logical one. Was Chauvin an ass? Did he "need" to apply force to his neck? Maybe not. Did he need to have the optics of putting his hands in his pockets while he did so? No. Did he need to kneel on him the entire time, including after he was unconscious? Most definitely not. But that doesn't mean he was any kind of substantial causal factor in Floyd's death.

            1. Everything you said it correct. There was lots of reasonable doubt. Chauvin was convicted because he was an asshole, that showed very little concern for Floyd. Then showed no remorse. Its not fair and definitely not what he was charged with. But people hate police right now. I personally see an appeal making it to court.

              1. He was definitely guilty of manslaughter. The other charges are less obvious.

                1. How was that proven "beyond a reasonable doubt?" "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard here.

                  Floyd complained he couldn't breathe before they even put him in the car. He complained his "whole body hurt." After he fought his way out of the squad car, he asked the cops to put him on the ground. They laid him down on the ground, at his request. They probably wouldn't have leaned on him at all if he wasn't kicking and thrashing around. His mouth and knuckles were injured. Fentanyl is an incredible pain killer. Floyd had over three times the dosage for his body weight for a normal person who wasn't an addict. He could hurting himself and wouldn't be able to feel it. Regardless, the cops didn't know any of this.

            2. The jury’s conclusions & verdict were based on 1) intimidation by mad max waters & 2) fear of reprisals for themselves & their families. Period. Additionally, the jurors were already biased from all the publicity prior to the trial from May to March, so how could any of them come into this trial NEUTRAL? Couldn’t!!!!

              1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are SDS much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page…..VISIT HERE

        2. Cops should not be allowed to affect any arrest by using any means necessary. That’s too much power for a government employee to have. It’s better in many, if not most cases, to just let a fleeing suspect flee (which is always temporary) than to injure or kill them.

          1. Ok. So anyone who starts resisting arrest can expect to get away now?

            1. Exactly.

          2. Cops should not be allowed to affect any arrest by using any means necessary.

            They don't. They use the minimum force necessary.

            That’s too much power for a government employee to have. It’s better in many, if not most cases, to just let a fleeing suspect flee (which is always temporary) than to injure or kill them.

            I'm confused about what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting they should have let Floyd go? Cops are not going to know if a perp is going to have a heart attack when the perp decides to resist arrest or not. So - let them go? Elaborate.

            1. I can see an argument for not shooting a fleeing suspect. But allowing any suspect that actively resists to flee. This would be a perfect recipe for all but the weakest to avoid arrest forever.

              1. Lots of countries have that rule, and don’t generally arm their police. They don’t find its a problem.

                You know police aren’t supposed to be too fat to run after someone, right?

                1. We already have that rule.

        3. Jury nullification.

    2. Just out of curiosity is it possible for that stupid little head of yours to be able to conceive of the possibility that one can believe this verdict was absolutely 100% correct while also not believing the BLM/Antifa bullshit that America is systemically racist?

      1. Yep, why? Where did I say that it wasn’t? You should take your case up with your fellow commenters, who apparently believe that a thug that puts his knee into someone’s neck for 10 fucking minutes is just doing his job. That’s kinda what I’m talking about when I refer to the fucking fucks who infest this place

        1. Not so fast, Sozialistischer! Didn’t the throwdown medical report clearly state the guy was already dead from drugs when the cops found him? And hid DID buy cigarettes with that paper legal tender, right? Besides, where he’s headed there are sure to be lots of brothers eager to forgive The Chauvinist and let bygones be bygones while he turns the other cheek in Jesus. Voters wanted fascist prohibitionism? Voters chose initiation of force? Well…

          1. You’re a raving idiot. You and AmSoc should go fuck each other.

        2. I guess we’re talking about different cases. I saw a thug with a record a yard long set a Keith Richard lifetime record for drug consumption in five minutes attack three cops and get pinned to the ground, then die two hours later from his heart exploding.

          Followed by jury, judge, and officer intimidation by The Creature from the Black Lagoon, SeeBS news (biographing the jurors), Antifag terrorists, and Burn Loot Murder punks.

          Followed by rioting against people totally uninvolved in the case.

          Frankly, the next incident should involve National Guard Infantrymen with fixed bayonets and a couple of M-240s.

      2. ANTIFA is bullshite; an acronym created as part of the Big Trump LIE. Who in America ISN’T anti- fascist? Does that make you a fascist???

        1. Antifa wasn’t created by Trump. It’s not a real, clearly defined group, but unquestionably people have been claiming to be Antifa members for a decade or two.

          Generally those people are insufferable pillocks. But they do exist, in fairly small numbers.

    3. Yes, what about her?

      If Trump’s tweets were impeachment worthy – are her actions not worth mentioning?

      1. Life’s not kindergarten dude.

        Don’t know if you knew that.

        1. Like you ever graduated.

        2. “Life’s not kindergarten dude.”

          Pretty sure shitstain here has yet to get to kindergarten-level logic abilities.

        3. “Life’s not kindergarten dude”

          That’s your defense against allegations of hypocrisy? You’re not even going to try and call ‘whataboutism’?

        4. If your life isn’t kindergarten, you’re fucking doing it wrong.

        5. So you’re saying what she did was ok.

        6. Tony, I know you have a raging hardon, but she’s not going to fuck you no matter how much you sweet talk.

          But following your chain of “thought”:

          “Peacefully let your voices be heard.” = “insurrection.”
          “If we don’t get a guilty verdict, get confrontational.” = totally unrelated to leftist shitstain violence.

      2. She’s long since past her usefulness. Doesn’t even THINK before spouting off things that make her look stupid.

    4. Yea, it’s war, some try to call it “culture war” so it sounds more acceptable. But I think people should be honest about it now. Like you. You should really be honest about it. Don’t be a pansy, American Socia1ist. Go all out. No reason to discuss anything anymore.

      1. It’s not a culture war – it’s incivility, a selfish need for attention, and criminal behavior.

        BTW: if you don’t pay police a decent wage for one of the most undesirable, loathed jobs on the planet, don’t hold them to a standard discipline, don’t train them, and negligently retain the bad apples because it’s already hard enough to get anyone to become police, you deserve whatever you get. AND you pay the price to clean up when it comes back on you.

        1. Police unions disagree. They are a major obstacle to police reform.

    5. “But what about Maxine Waters, Jacob? Look at what she’s done.”

      Easy to ignore commie-kid; he’s a parasitic steaming pile of lefty shit who would make his family proud by fucking off and dying.
      But what about Maxine Waters, Jacob? Look at what she’s done. Another kill everybody I don’t like troll

    6. Man, I remember way back in January when a politician “inciting” their followers to violence was a national emergency that required the impeachment of a private citizen.

      1. Who was left in the remainder of his one-term thievin’ pony administration by his circle of griftin’ good old boys in Congress, a cabinet full of criminals, and the private sector opportunists. The big American mistake enabled by those who owe him which the American voter had to take out because Congress didn’t have the spine to stand up to a man they KNEW is a sociopath.

          1. Without evidence. It was all an emotional response to uncivil tweets.

            Now do Sleepy Joe.

  2. The jury was convinced their lives would be better off. They were protecting themselves and their family.

    1. My opinion on Chauvin’s guilt or what he is/isn’t guilty of hasn’t and won’t be formed. My opinion is irrelevant and that I actually have a life. Chauvin and Floyd are just two of the people in this world who I don’t give a damn about either way.

      The ONE thing that pisses me off about this whole thing is the process or lack thereof when it comes to ensuring a fair trial. In most instances, the court bends over backwards to ensure that the person on trial has one and that there isn’t undue influence/pressure applied to participants in the trial or just doing their civic duty. That didn’t happen here.

      Chauvin may well be as guilty as hell. But only an idiot would suggest that the jury didn’t know what was at personal stake here and feel some measure of fear for safety or what they might unleash on their own community IF they voted ‘not guilty’ on any of the charges. Only an idiot judge would suggest that an “admonition to not watch the news” would protect juror neutrality. And even the judge [closely connected to Amy Klobuchar] recognized the danger of outside political pressure enough to comment on it and suggest it was grounds for appeal. Also, nothing would have been lost in granting a change of venue. There is no reasonable perception here that the court had any intention of letting a fair trial get in the way of the preordained conviction, guilty or not. And the biggest and perhaps most stupid risk by the court is in not ensuring a safe and fair trial, may have handed Chauvin a layup appeal.

      1. That’s a pretty good take. Alan Dershowitz agrees too.

        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/must-assume-jury-heard-maxine-waters-said-case-may-reversed-alan-dershowitz-weighs-chauvin-verdict-video/

        From the article:

        “We have to assume that the jury heard what Maxine Waters said, what Sharpton said, what Crump said, what others said. I think jurors knew that if they came out with a verdict, other than murder, the top charge there would be violence on the streets.”

      2. Where is the reversible error? Appellate courts do not lightly set aside jury verdicts.

        Jurors are presumed to follow the trial court´s instructions. Where is the evidence that jurors were exposed to prejudicial information. Never mind the speculation and conjecture.

        1. Appellate courts are loathe to reverse a jury verdict because of procedural errors. It’s pure insanity to think that a they wouldn’t consider overturning an obviously tainted jury just because that tainted jury rendered a verdict (a tainted one).

          They won’t even think about overturning this one though because any court that did would probably get lynched peacefully protested.

          It’s frustrating to watch a crooked cop get busted and the only thing people can talk about is how whitey is finally getting what’s coming to him.

        2. Read the Dershowitz link above.

      3. I agree with your concerns to some extent. Unfortunately, there was no practical way to fully sequester the jury for a month—they wouldn’t have been able to empanel a jury. And the entire jury pool was likely aware of the potential for chaos on the streets in the event of an acquittal, so I doubt what Waters or Sharpton or Crum said made any real difference. A change of venue wouldn’t really have helped either, given that virtually all potential jurors nationwide would have known something of the explosive nature of the case.

        And the problems in this case will exist in every ultra high-profile case that comes along nowadays.

        My bet: there will be no reversal on appeal on these grounds.

        1. A jury in a different venue would NOT have been subject to the same pressure – Minneapolis had been looted and burned before, other places much less. Erie PA would have been a good choice.

      4. The only reason there is any question about a fair trial is that it’s utterly insane to plead not guilty when your crime is caught on camera, so criminals don’t normally do that. The trial was fair, and it only had one possible outcome because the evidence was overwhelming.

        The simple inference here is that, given that he can’t have failed to realise what would happen, Chauvin is a white supremacist who willingly took a longer sentence in order to give his white supremacist buddies another fake reason for their hatred.

        With what we now know, it’s clear Chauvin was lucky to escape without a conviction for first degree murder, let alone second. It’s obvious he deliberately murdered a black man because he’s a racist murderer.

        1. Dave, you obviously want to suck BBC, but Floyd is dead. It’s all over.

          The rest of your nuttery can only come from a left winger so indoctrinated in racism he actually thinks blacks are incapable of committing crimes as often as whites.

          There is zero evidence that Chauvin had anything to do with a the death of a man with cancer, obstructed arteries, enlarged heart, who literally set a world record for amphetamine and fentanyl consumption, which level was sufficient to kill 100 healthy people.

          The only reason anyone is pretending otherwise is because your “tolerant” “liberal” buddies will burn their house down with their kids inside, in the name of peace, if they don’t.

          You need a therapy appointment with Dr Pinochet.

          1. Lovely. Guess we know what underpins your racism…

            Your hero Chauvin does not claim not to be racist. He claims he was justified in murder _because_ he’s racist.

        2. Only compete morons believe that race had anything to do with this. The prosecution didn’t mention it, the defense didn’t mention it, the judge didn’t mention it.
          In all of the video’s, that had sound, not a word was stated that indicated race was involved, as would have to be the case for a “hate crime”.
          The only ones who saw racism, here, are the type that ignore that the vast majority of interracial violent crime is perpetrated by black people on white, or Asian ones, but think only white people can be racists.

        3. Great Sarc, davedave. You win the award for today!

  3. TUCKER CARLSON DEFENDING THE WHITE MAN ON FOX NEWS RIGHT NOW!

    1. Yea, who cares, the black man is dead. Get over it now. White mans being sacrificed on the altar of BLM (“Burn Loot Murder”). Justice been served and stuff. Also, learn survival skills. Soon.

    2. You dems sure love your lynchings.

    3. “TUCKER CARLSON DEFENDING THE WHITE MAN ON FOX NEWS RIGHT NOW!”

      Our resident kiddie-porn supplier turd. joining the parasite commie-kid and shitstain to add their bullshit to the debate.
      Go fuck your underage cousin, asshole.

    4. Fuck off Kiddie Raper.

  4. By the way, does anyone remember when Sleepy Joe claimed during the campaign he was going to be a unifier?

    Holy shit, did that completely go right out the window. If he can’t bring himself to act presidential and promote a message of unity and reconciliation at a moment like this, just when the hell will he? Never obviously.

    1. He got the “right verdict “.

    2. If he can’t bring himself to act presidential and promote a message of unity and reconciliation at a moment like this, just when the hell will he?

      What does that even mean? This is a murder trial. Who and what is being ‘reconciled’ and ‘united’ here?

      1. Ideally he would just shut the hell up and not say anything at al, but the fact that he attacked America as being systemically racist despite the verdicts shows that he’s an even bigger asshole than you are.

        1. He got elected by appealing to the interests of black Americans who vote for Democrats to the tune of 90%.

          Both you and the far leftists need to understand that politicians aren’t going to do what you want when all you ever will promise to do in return is shit on them.

          1. Um, no, he got elected because no one wanted Trump to have a second term. They weren’t votes for Joe. No one really voted for Joe. Except for maybe Joe.

            1. True. So he’s doing the job he was elected to do, not be Trump.

              1. True. He restarted the war in Syria, fucked up gas prices, caused more riots, insulted Israel, has militarized more cops to murder more black men, stuffed more kids in cages, allowed COVID-infected illegals into the country, pissed off Canada.

                You’ve gotten exactly what you voted for, and it reveals you to be a complete piece of racist shit.

            2. Fair enough. The blacks gave him the senate though.

          2. >politicians aren’t going to do what you want when all you ever will promise to do in return is shit on them.

            What a fucking retard you are, politicians are interested in power and theft, not helping others. You’re such a dumb faggot you think if people were nicer to politicians they’d stop lying to us and fucking us over? Fuck off slaver.

          3. Wow, black interests? Didn’t peg you for a racist.

          4. I’d love to shit on a few politicians, but that gets one jailed.

            Apparently you open your mouth when they shit on us.

        2. Zhou Bai-din could have told the truth; that this was a verdict on a single cop and that race had nothing to do with it.
          That the racist charge was being used to try to divide us, while the evidence showed that, at no time was the race of George Floyd a factor.
          That’s what an impartial leader of all the country would do.

      2. “What does that even mean? This is a murder trial. Who and what is being ‘reconciled’ and ‘united’ here?”

        As a cowardly piece of TDS-addled lefty shit, do you really need someone to connect the dots for you?
        If so, it is not in the least surprising.
        Fuck off and die, asshole.

        1. Stay mad racist. Wahhhhhhh, they’re not catering to my racism!!!!!!! Let me say the word shit or lefty, I’ll feel better. Eat shit Dumbass.

        2. TDS? What’s that? You must be one of those truly deranged people I see still flying their Trump 2020 flags.

  5. Good.

    I dont know why people here bother defending the officer, it doesn’t help your case, it is beyond obvious what happened if you look at the video.

    Now does that mean the anti-racist stuff isn’t bullcrap? Fuck no. That’s not the point. One can believe both that rioters are evil, BLM is dumb, and anti-racism is a ill-considered and racist philosophy … and also that the officer was evil and the fact that this was even in doubt IS evidence that we need some kind of police reform in this country!

    It does not help your cause to point out that the left believes in objectively wrong and stupid things … if you exhibit the same lack of reasoning and mindless confirmation bias your opponents do.

    And at the very least maybe most of you ought to stop pretending your libertarian and say you are a conservative. Hell I’ll say myself that I’m not a libertarian … but the number of, oh I’m libertarian but not immigration, drugs, police, trade, etc … really is kinda hilarious.

    1. Yea idk why people get so riled up about a random drug addict who got killed resisting law enforcement. Nobody cares for fucks sake get over it. Just like the officer, who cares if he gets a fair sentence “beyond reasonable doubt”? It’s (“culture”) war folks, there is no reason to talk anymore.

      1. BwAAAAAhhh haaaa haaah! What delicious tears bootlickers bawl!

        1. LMAO I just saw your picture on your website youre really a dilapidated poor little piece of rotten meat 😀 😀

          1. Thank you! I’ve been posting that shot here for a few weeks now. I’m glad other people are seeing it. He writes the same bizarrely phrased kook shit there too.

        2. OMG dude you’re giving me an excellent time now, that was really unexpected 😀

        3. You butthurt the druggo got stomped, huh? 😀

        4. Also as i said below, cuz youre so into tears, go pay a visit to the southern border, rio grande area, the families there will produce as many tears as you can carry home lol 😀

          1. fuck off tulpa

          2. I remember when the commentariat weren’t racist, or state/cop bootlickers. Funny how Balko is a bad name around here now.

            1. So quit coming here and we will be one commenter closer to getting rid of the racists

        5. I despise cops but after seeing the evidence, Chauvin got railroaded by leftist shitstains threating to shit their pants and riot if they didn’t get a good Twitter post.

          But the good news is Floyd is still dead.

    2. I agree with pretty much everything you said after your first sentence. That said, I don’t defend the guy [or declare his guilt], because unlike you, I do not presume any single piece of evidence is the one and only true piece of evidence and tells any entire story. I don’t know and neither do you, at least from that one thing.

      Now perhaps you don’t actually have a life and you’ve spent your days listening to every word uttered in court and have more to go on than just “the video”. But I learned a long time ago that no matter how sure you are after seeing/hearing one thing, your entire perspective can and usually does change with a larger context.

      Hell, your first sentence is a lot of why we are in the bullshit situation we are in. Everyone sees a snippet, becomes an expert, and decides they know every damn thing they need to know about stuff they will never really know anything about, and then declare their absolute authority over the subject and act on it.

      News flash…. everyone in jail is not innocent, every one of your friends romantic disasters are not 100% their ex’s fault, and people will show you exactly what they want you to know and nothing more…. every damn time. Wise up and learn to be skeptical about everything you’re told.

      1. I have a similar view. George Floyd was a piece of shit, and I’m pretty sure Chauvin is too in his own way. At least from what I’ve read about both of them. That said, this isn’t exactly open and shut when one actually looks at the facts. I’m pretty sure Chauvin did not act correctly.

        Did it equate to criminal homicide? Given the lethal amount of fentanyl in Floyd’s system and some of the testimony regarding Chauvin’s actions there is definitely room for reasonable doubt.

        If Chauvin really is guilty, it’s more likely manslaughter. This verdict is certainly no indication, since it’s beyond tainted.

        1. They convicted him of 2nd degree unintentional murder and 3rd degree murder (murder committed while being reckless etc. which does not include intent). So, none of the charges require intent.

          The defense testimony on Chauvin’s medical conditions obviously was not convincing. The prosecution’s medical testimony was. Chauvin’s actions don’t have to be the whole cause of death for these convictions, only the substantial cause of death. If his actions weren’t the substantial cause of death Floyd would have died just sitting in a police car. Nobody suspects that.

          The verdict is not tainted. It’s just obvious.

          1. Agreed, this is the way the law reads. The prosecution had to convince the jury that some actions of Chauvin were in some way partially responsible for Floyd’s death and that Chauvin was committing a felony at the time. I think this is one of those laws that is typically used against robberies gone wrong, etc. where the victim is killed, so that the accomplices of the robbery can be charged with murder. I wasn’t in the courtroom and didn’t see the evidence so I’m going to trust the jury on this one.

            All of that said, I think a few careless comments by high ranking federal employees may have just opened up the opportunity for an appeal. It seems like it will be fairly easy to prove that their comments created an environment where the defendant wasn’t afforded a fair trial(even if the verdict was correct).

          2. Had he sat in the police car he’d have still died.

            So it would still have a happy ending.

    3. The left is made up of hypocritical sausage munchers. Period.

  6. The jurors were all but identified in the press…had they given any other verdict, they likely would have had their live in danger. At least, they would face serious harassment (as people have for simply donating $10 to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund)

    The sad part is that eventually people realized that the Witch trials were wrong. We’re going to take the opposite from this, that intimidating the jury (and defense) is how “justice” works.

    1. Oh darn. Consequences for racism. Man up and explain your violence. You want to be violent against others pay the price.

      1. ohlookMarketthug’s

        Y’all don’t even know what racism means anymore.

        1. Oh look, some racist come lately. Just because you prefer not to hear it doesn’t make it invalid. There’s plenty of folks here who get salty when the topic is brought up. Sorry you can’t control your ignorance

          1. ohlookMarketthugs

            Do you just troll here?

          2. Sorry you can’t control your racism, stupidity, Marxism, delusions, bladder, bowels, glandular secretions, and general vexatiousness.

      2. ohlookAsshole shows up.

        1. Oh look Sevo the clown who can’t form a coherent sentence is here. Look up useful idiot in the dictionary it will say Sevo

      3. Why does it have to be racism? Chauvin and Floyd apparently already were acquainted. They didn’t like each other. Or can you not conceive of any issue between a honky and a negro in which it’s about anything other than race?

        1. Try history

          1. I did. There’s. I know you’re stupid, but did you not read what I wrote? They already didn’t get along.

        2. You people are truly nuts. Even the defence didn’t put that utterly nutterly argument forward, despite their very low bar.

          Chauvin is a white supremacist. That wasn’t part of the trial, but it’s been established beyond doubt. He’s a big fan of Adolph. We know he is a racist, so it’s absurd to argue he wasn’t being racist when he murdered a black man and desecrated the body.

          1. What evidence do you have he’s a big fan of Adolph?

            For that matter, FDR was a big fan of Adolph until the tables turned, and was anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-Indian, and anti-Asian until he died.

            Which is why bigoted liberal shitstains worship him.

            1. FDR was Roosevelt, it isn’t short for Ford. Gerald Ford was POTUS, later, but Henry Ford, of Model T fame, was the vicious racist and supporter of Hitler.

              You aren’t doing well here…

        3. You don’t need any proof when there’s a presumption of racism.

          The burden is on you to prove you’re NOT racist.

      4. Don’t forget the Russians are behind it.

        As far as Kyle Rittenhouse, a non-racist would be aware that he’s Hispanic and his three “Victims” are all white exploiters. One a convicted burglar, one a serial spouse abuser, and one a serial pedophile.

        But I understand how a Biden voter would support racism and pedophilia. After all, that’s what you voted for.

        1. Nice.

    2. In Mark Twain’s version, masked sockpuppet Klansmen ganged up at night and murdered the jurors that dared to convict one of the murdering Knights of Christendom or Grand Goblins of Whitehood. People who have never finished a book would, naturally, not know this sort of thing, and guess wrong.

      1. What the fuck are you talking about? You expend a lot of energy babbling, which you think is clever. It’s not, and neither are you.

        Go back to your infanticide snuff porn.

        1. Where can I get said porn? You seem to have connections.

          1. He’s into Kermit Gosnell’s home movies that show his post birth abortions of healthy infants. Hank LOVES infanticide. Apparently, only ‘mystical bigots’ don’t like to murder babies.

    3. This trial handed The State a giant are to wield against anyone they wish with impunity

      1. Time to flush out the state.

        No more democrats.

        1. From the perspective of a middle of the road libertarian, both the Ds and Rs in this country are on the fast path to tyranny and an authoritarian state.

          1. Do you really consider those groups to be equivalent authoritarians?

  7. No love or sympathy here for Chauvin, but how is this not double jeopardy? JS refers to this as a “quirk of Minnesota law”, but it sounds like three tries to get a conviction at one time.

    Enlighten me????

    1. They are different charges. Prosecutors are allowed to stack charges like this so long as they are technically different but sound pretty much the same. Now, I agree with you, that is stupid, but 3 is on the low end … for financial crimes prosecutors often stack 20 different charges that are almost the same.

      Double jeopardy means I can’t put you on trial, you are found not guilty, then I put you on trial again. Which sort of happened to OJ but … yeah again, I agree, all of this is dumb. But it certainly isn’t unusual.

      1. No, it didn’t happen to OJ in any way, shape or form. One was a criminal prosecution, the other was a civil suit.

        1. Yeah, and that is bullshit! It was a civil suit for the exact same crime as the murder trail, and the conclusion of the civil suit was wrongful death. How exactly is OJ supposed to have committed wrongful death when he didn’t kill them?

          The obvious answer is that he did kill them and got away with it the first case. Which we all know, but like, the whole point of double jeopardy is that the conclusion from the first trial holds, if the person is declared not guilty.

          I understand it is not technically a violation of double jeopardy if the person is committed under a different crime, even if his not guilty decision would have made the committing of that crime impossible. It is just stupid, that’s all.

          Now I don’t have any sympathy for murderers, so I don’t really care in this case (but this entire regime imo is seriously problematic in a lot of other cases) but like, the constitution doesn’t say anything about civil or criminal cases.

          And I think Gorsuch even pointed this out in an opinion … the government can take away or license, destroy your livelihood, make a mockery of due process, even effectively imprision you by prescribing both impossible to follow and retroactive binding regulations … and then hide behind, oh, well, it was a civil proceeded! You don’t get constitutional rights! Because it is a civil case and isn’t important! We just destroyed your business and family, but hey your still not in jail right!

          For example, the government can literally issue a lifetime ban from trading for virtually no reason, under the grounds that that isn’t really punishment, even though for a broker it totally is, and use that to deny due process.

          Which, again, is really really dumb. Again OJ can rot for all I care (I guess he is out now but screw it) but using the civil criminal distinction to override double jeopardy and all the other constitutional protections is a dumb state of affairs. As an original matter its probably kosher, but it is stupid nonetheless.

          1. Civil suits are very different. Most importantly, the standard of evidence is much lower.

          2. You clearly don’t know the difference between civil and criminal court.

        2. Or, to give a stronger example, the government can take away someone’s kids with … there is more oversight there, but still not a whole lot, under the “its a civil case” … or someone’s guns, or someone’s business … long rant I know but this is what I mean. I understand there was a civil criminal distinction there. But honestly it is a distinction without a difference in so many cases. It is a little bit more fair in OJ because the family brought the civil suit, not the government, but still. You can’t find a person not guilty and then turn around and say, you are liable for killing them, even though you didn’t kill them. Honestly it would be more reasonable to just have a new trial.

      2. ‘dumb … but not unusual’

        OK, I guess I’m getting the distinction between “stacking” and “double jeopardy” – It’s about the timing …. all at once and in a cascade vs. didn’t work the first time so the prosecutor gets to try again later.

        Still sort of sucks either way. Maybe we need an Amendment 5A to the Federal Constitution.

  8. Sullum can go suck a dick. Fucking hack.

    1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

      So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

      Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

      Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

      Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

      At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

      Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

      Thank You! -Reason Staff

      1. And live only in NYC or DC…you forgot that one

      2. Don’t talk with your mouth full.

      3. You need a bullet to the back of your head. Give it time, fuck face. You’ll get it.

    2. That was an insightful rebuttal of Sullum’s article.

    3. Hwaaaah hah hah! I get it. It’s all that mean old Jake Sullum’s fault! Sullum fell down on the job of bootlicking God’s Own First Responders… again! The first time was when he reneged on currish fawning in Orange Coathanger Man’s lap, thereby making those 19th-Amendment Jezebels defeat their male Fuehrer by casting votes in America’s first rigged election! Bad bad Sullum. Kick sand in poor redneck faces. Bad!

      1. But he knelt down on the job of slurping liberal cock.

    4. Sullum’s analysis is correct. If you have a problem then post your criticism on your blog. Or let me post it on mine. Fine if you refuse, but then you have no excuse to advocate resorting to violence, insurrection, or intimidation of judges or journalists.

      1. Someone please click my link!!!!!!!!!!

        1. You don’t have to click the link. You don’t have to post your opinion. But then it’s hypocrisy to demand that Reason flog your propaganda, and you cede any right to resort to violence, insurrection or intimidation.

          Of course you will deny doing any of these things. To which I respond in advance: Good.

      2. “you have no excuse to advocate resorting to violence, insurrection, or intimidation of judges or journalists.”

        No, only Congresswhores get to do that.

  9. I can fully understand why a juror could be persuaded that what Chauvin did was unreasonable. I am not sure what Chauvin did could be called “murder”, though I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the phrase “unintentional murder” instead of manslaughter. “Murder” to me has connotations of intent.

    1. I know what you mean, but in the end “murder” means whatever the statutes say it means.

      Regarding the second-degree murder verdict and the third-degree assault charge, from my reading of the second-degree murder statute it seems like it would require a second-degree assault charge:

      https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

      “(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or…”

    2. I can’t get past the fact that 1) the ME couldn’t find any physical evidence of damage inflicted to Floyd, and 2) the state changed their proposed mechanism for what caused Floyd’s death 3 times

      1. How often are you called an uncle Tom or House n?
        Do you have any black friends? If yes are they stupid fascist traitors like you?

        Will you not respond because I’m right? You do get called that and only have fascist traitor friends or no black friends?

        1. Asshole flag 2 (I think)

        2. You’re not worth responding to. However, I occasionally enjoy some petty torments. So I slap you down.

          Which is generous, as you should be executed for your treason.

  10. If you have a family, that’s your problem, specially if you have kids. Cuz America is gonna get a little messy for everyone. I’m pretty sure about that.

    1. OOOOooo! Scary ku-klux sockpuppet with mask, just like in adventures of Huck Finn. Threaten kids, real he-man.

      1. LOL who threatens kids? I don’t have any, I could care less about yours. 😉 Nice picture, daddy. You butthurt that the kangaroo courts are getting exposed?

        Eh, check out this alcoholic wreck, it’s straight from his website: https://libertariantranslator.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/libertariantranslator14.png

        1. Hank doesn’t like children. With the exception of Gosnell’s home movies. Where Gosnell murders healthy newborn infants.

          Hank loves seeing babies brutally murdered.

      2. This is the kinda tough guys that talk big on this website here, mind you. That’s exactly what I imagined them to look like, insufficient defeated crater faces 😀 Eh I don’t care. Like, if you want tears, I suggest you probably gotta check the border or visit the rio grande the separated families produce more tears for you if youre into them LMAO

        1. It ain’t that hard to find people.

  11. When you are in custody of any govt official they have a obligation to protect your life unless you are trying to kill or hurt them. This was obviously not the case of the officer charged. Not a hard decision. Now can we start to talk about the killing of Lucia Bremer, John Weed, the German American in Rochester who was doused in gas and burned to death..all in hate crimes. Its time to look at the narrative and reality of facts no matter how much the wokes protest. Time to march for Lucia Bremer and ask for justice…now

    1. I take it Lucia Bremer was not allowed to keep and bear arms before she was attacked… right?

  12. “You can believe your eyes ” is an appeal to convict on the basis of feelings and emotions as opposed to the evidence/facts as presented applied to the law as set out in the jury instruction. Civil litigation is a complete quagmire of emotions, feelings, it won’t cost the company much money, look at the victim and make someone pay. Criminal law should not be degraded to the incivility and emotional brinkmanship of Civil litigation.

    I don’t think the actions of the officer were appropriate but that doesn’t mean I would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every element of all 3 counts. There are appeallable issues. Failure to sequester the jury. The judges acknowledged issue of Congresswoman Waters public statements and demands over the weekend. Does anyone believe that anyone living in Minnesota not hear from some source of the rioting and Congresswoman Waters demand for a guilty verdict? The intimidation/ vandalism/ intimidation attempt of a Defense expert witness after Congresswoman Waters demands and statements. A pigs head and blood were thrown on the house where a Defense expert USED TO live. Brady issues. The prosecution was delivering evidence to Defense every day during the trial. Up to 500 pages at a time. When did the prosecution obtain the evidence and what efforts did they take to expeditiously supply to Defense. The judge denied a report and test results of carbon monoxide last week. Judge stated/ warned of mistrial.

    I do believe that the officer’s actions were not appropriate and he was guilty of something. Reportedly, the last minute efforts by prosecution to get 3rd degree murder added just before trial is because the defense was willing to take a 3rd degree murder as a plea but the prosecution said no.

    Facts and laws should be the touchstone for Criminal law not feelings.

    1. That will all be sorted out on appeal. Hell, the Boston Bomber successfully appealed his case for very similar reasons, it is in the supreme court now.

      I don’t deny those are issues that ought to be sorted out … but like, the Boston Bomber did it. When the dust settles the police officer will have his day in court to challenge all of this, and if someone as universally reviled as the boston bomber got his day in court, this man will to. It does not change what happened.

    2. While I agree that “facts and laws should be the touchstone for Criminal Law[,] not feelings”, one could plausibly argue that “you can believe your eyes” is an appeal to the jury to look at the evidence and to discount the emotional appeals and distractions offered by the defense. I see no reason to believe that the jury failed in their duty here.

      I do agree, however, that there are several appealable issues. The question will be whether those are enough to overcome the defense witnesses’ credibility problems.

    3. “I don’t think the actions of the officer were appropriate but that doesn’t mean I would have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every element of all 3 counts…”

      AFAIC, they were beyond inappropriate; while the info I get is the same as anyone else, it appears the cop killed the guy, even if he would have died soon afterward from an OD.
      As regards the verdict on all counts, I was not instructed as to what they meant; have no comment.
      Regardless, the cop killed the suspect and I hope the verdict reflects that in a reasonable fashion.
      Waters ought to be brought up on charges, Biden ought to be banned from FB.

      1. There is a reasonable question regarding the ingestion of speedball/fentanyl and whether that had SOME contribution to his death. Evidence presented in trial that in 2019, in a similar situation where Floyd was arrested, he took the speedball and ended up in the hospital for the drugs. To say that the drugs and enlarged heart had NO connection/contribution / potential causation to the death is debatable by reasonable people. I don’t disagree that the officer was excessive. I just don’t think the drugs and heart issues were irrelevant. Similar drug ingestion resulted in hospitalization which is evidence that drugs had some impact and effect on him physically.

        1. Of course they did – the drugs aren’t irrelevant but they weren’t sufficient to cause Floyd’s demise. Once [as an LEO] you cuff someone, you own them. Their safety, well being, and protection is in your control. Drugs didn’t kill Floyd, Chauvin did. Plain and simple. Toxicology backs that up, the medical examiner’s findings back that up, the agency police policy violation for use of force backs that up, and most of all Chauvin’s arrogance backed that up.

          Jurors aren’t immune to the arrogance of Chauvin’s demeanor. He was arrogant about Floyd, and arrogant in the courtroom. He was defiant and without remorse. Plays badly for him in the end…

  13. Repubs/conservatives are trying to divide this country by race. If they can peel off 1-2% more of the white vote they will win future elections.

    1. Yeah! Only non-whites are allowed to divide this country by race! /s

    2. Collectivists are collectivists. The details, racial collectivists, girl-bullying collectivists, national socialists, communist socialists… collectivism and the initiation of force just felt that unequal but apposite reaction force. They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

    3. All of those riots and looting of stores. The violence caused because a white officer was being charged for contributing to the death of a black suspect. Err. Never mind.

      1. Them niggas are stealing!

        Seriously, I am talking about the political gain right-wingers are posturing for. They like to scare them whiat-folks with scary minorities moving into their neigherborhood.

        1. It is reasonable to not want mostly peaceful protesters rioting and looting in one’s neighborhood. And stop using racial epithets.

        2. “Them niggas are stealing!”

          Them kiddie rapers are raping!
          Fuck off and die.

        3. Kill yourself.

    4. Fuck off and die, turd. Make the world a better place, your family proud and kiddies anywhere close to where you are relieved.
      Seriously, jam a running chainsaw up your ass.

    5. It’s the Dems and progressives that have used identity politics as the way to divide the country. Identity politics, as used, looks at a room and divides/classifies everyone by some characteristic (race, sex, age, immigration….) and then pits one classification against the other. Politics used to have wedge issues. dem’s have made identity a wedge.

    6. This is how you stupid post. Take note from the master all you wannabe trolls.

    7. The Republican party is circling the drain. People are leaving the party in droves. Even the radical right is rethinking the wisdom of following the suggestions of a madman and then getting themselves arrested for federal crimes, outing them as Proud Boys & Oathkeepers, losing their jobs and their reputations, and being overall being made a patsy by a loser.

  14. The jurors that were doxxed by the NYT, that werent sequestered during the Daunte Wright riots, that sat thru evidence improperly submitted, that heard Auntie Maxine’s threats….
    Those jurors believe what now?

    1. They believe the video and that Chauvin killed Floyd. It’s that simple.

  15. I wonder where the real libertarians hang out. The ones who used to reflexively hate cops and copping, like decent people. Did they go somewhere else, or did their inner cousinfucking sheet-wearing human grime Hulk his way out the moment their little peepees went hard for Donald Trump? Is that what you guys and Ayn Rand thought was the goal of civilization all along, the pinnacle of the businessman? A cheesy tabloid figure who played a billionaire on TV? Did you all find yourselves unable to decide whether to grab for Rolex or the swastika armband on your way out the door, by then end? Were you a little confused?

    Fuck cops. And fuck libertarians for dropping a potential fruitful allyship the moment they realized that the response to losing at democracy and life was to ditch liberty and embrace the cops by the dick.

    1. If I think someone is guilty of something I still want them to have a fair trial.

      Having a member of congress call for violence against the jury if the “wrong” verdict is reached calls into question the impartiality of the jury.

      A fruitful allyship would be one against government coercion.

      1. Maxine Waters’ stupidity is not important in the trial/verdict. Why keep bringing it up?

        1. “If I convict this guy on all charges, I go home. If I don’t, me and my family may be killed.” is absolutely germane. Why keep ignoring this?

          1. Maxine Waters is the Louis Gohmert of the Democratic Party. They both say stupid shit no one listens to.

            1. Are you serious? A member of congress advocating for violence to a nation that carried out violence multiple times in multiple places over this very situation is a “nothing to see here” moment?

              1. All you care about is your sportsball team getting a point on the board.

                All the better if you can exploit the kneejerk racist emotional response Ms. Waters conjures for your media guys every six months or so.

                1. You did catch me defending a member of “my team” advocating for violence against a jury if they don’t rule the way our team wants. Oh wait. That is you. And BP2.

                  1. I caught you having exactly the same hot take on this as every other FOX News addict.

                    1. They call you out on your bullshit too?

                      I believe Floyd’s rights were violated. And Chauvin should have gone to trial. A fair trial. I think only one of us supports all three sentences there.

                    2. Nobody gets a fair trial in this country.

                      The threat of ruination is not part of any fair system.

                    3. T, it’s a shame that you can’t focus on the same topic for more than two consecutive comments.

              2. Look man, if we had to declare a mistrial every time congressmen say stupid shit, the trial would last our lifetimes. As the judge stated, that will be sorted out on appeal.

                1. Nice strawman. A member of congress called for violence against the jury if they didn’t rule in favor of the mob. And that mob had already committed violence.

                  1. Not relevant. As I said, that will be sorted out on appeal. It always is.

                    This isn’t a unique moment in our history … jury’s have been under so much more pressure at so many other points, see the Rosenburgs, any case with a Russian spy, Boston Bomber, etc …

                    If you can prove there was undue pressure, the decision can be appealed. But you have to show the person wouldn’t have been convicted anyway. The victim did drugs isn’t a good enough argument for that …

                    Who cares if Maxine Waters is stupid? Do you take her seriously?

                    1. It doesn’t matter whether I take her seriously, clearly enough do to elect her.

                      The issue isn’t whether Floyd did drugs. The issue is whether the specific drugs and the concentrations contributed to his death.

              3. “A member of congress”

                Also, where have you been for the past few years? That term confers absolutely no authority or respect so I don’t see why it matters that the person who was stupid was a member of congress. That … is roughly in line with expectations.

                1. You expect your congressional delegation to publicly advocate for violence against juries in an effort to coerce the jury into a verdict?

                  1. No! But I expected to live in a country where people are halfway sane and here we are! Whose setting up the strawman again?

                    Again, literally everyone, including the leftists here (of which I am most assuredly not) thinks what Maxine did was stupid and wrong. Maxine does stupid things! The republican congressmen on January 6th were stupid. Congressmen are stupid. You are not revealing new information. Our government is dumb. Court decisions are not thrown out on the basis of our government being smart. Because it is not.

                    But this kind of pressure is exerted all the time in our history. It is not enough for a mistrial. It just isn’t. Every extremely high profile case leads to someone, somewhere, wanting to apply this sort of pressure. Either a celebrity or a member of congress. And the response has always been, ignore it and sort that out on appeal. Which will be done here! I don’t think the officer should be denied his right to appeal!

                    If a celebrity says something dumb about a case, that does not require the throwing out of that case. Members of congress aren’t conferred any more respect, they got there by knowing the right people. I don’t understand what your argument is.

                    1. Saying something dumb and a member of congress advocating for violence against a jury are far from the same thing.

                    2. Chumby isn’t interested in actually arguing in favor of the position that what Maxine Waters said is enough to justify a mistrial, from the point of view of the facts and the law. He is just pushing a right-wing narrative and expressing outrage. That’s all.

                    3. Jeffy, you’re too stupid to participate in an adult discussion. Now run along. I’m sure you have a case of Haagen Das to tear into.

              4. The Dotard said he would pay the legal fees of his supporters who attacked his opponents.

                (Dotard = Trump since I am not sure you know)

                1. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

                  1. He won’t.

        2. The jury was not sequestered and the judge knew her statements would be grounds for appeal. He stated such in open court.
          Leadership is demanding that there be a fair trial with the jury taking their oaths seriously and following the facts and the law as presented in court. Vigilantes vandalized the FORMER home of a defense expert witness in California with pigs head and pig blood. The current residence had been living in the house for over 5 years. What if the current residents had been assaulted instead of vandalized? Nobody in a civil society should condone mob actions against the jury, expert witnesses, attorneys, and judge. Businesses should not be burned and looted as a pretext for protest.

        3. Maxine Waters’ stupidity is not important in the trial/verdict.

          You should tell Judge Cahill:

          I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned

        4. re: “Maxine Waters’ stupidity is not important in the trial/verdict.”

          Actually it is. She created one of the more credible grounds for an appeal. It was an entirely unnecessary provocation.

          It was also exactly the sort of thing that she and her political allies spent 4 years accusing Trump of doing. They impeached him twice over it. Yet we’re supposed to write her behavior off as inconsequential?

        5. Because it will be the basis of the appeal.

      2. A member of the presidency called for the overturning of the presidential election by an army of neo-Nazis.

        1. Strawman and whataboutism. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

          1. The Topic is Representative Maxine Waters, I take it?

            1. The article pertains to the jury verdict for the Chauvin case. Which would also be the topic. The same jury that Representative Waters advocated violence against if they didn’t find Chauvin guilty.

            2. If the topic is politicians “inciting” their followers to violence, it seems fair to consider the impact of Maxine Waters’ statement. Particularly since you accuse Trump’s call to “go home in peace” of unleashing an “army” of 200 unarmed “neo-Nazis” to somehow overturn an election by breaking a window in the capitol building. It nicely demonstrates your pathetic mendacity.

        2. No faggot. That was disproven.

        3. Fair hottake: a member of congress called on a communist mob to destroy Minnesota if the court doesn’t obey her dictates.

          And I thought racism was bad.

          1. Okay so Democrats have one inciter. The Republicans had one too, and he had about 10 million times the following.

            1. That the court caved in to her threats is the only reason the communist democrats didn’t kill everyone in Minnesota.

              Am I doing this right? Or do I need to make more demands?

              I know: clearly democracy is broken when our congressmen try to destroy one of the branches of government. Therefore, we need to create three new houses of the legislature. QED.

              That’s the way adults do government.

              1. Even the cops abandoned one of their own because the case was too hard for them to ratfuck, because of the video. In the end, whining on Chauvin’s behalf isn’t a good look.

                1. Why do you bother responding in threads when you’re just responding to the voices inside your head?

      3. Where is the evidence that the jury were exposed to Rep. Waters´ comments? Jurors are presumed to follow the trial court´s instructions, and evidence — not speculation and conjecture — is required to rebut that presumption.

      4. Progs don’t believe in due process. They believe in using the state to manifest their feelz. Tony is the poster fag for that.

    2. You know that the Trump Trash that have infested this board are not real libertarians.

      Not that many exist in reality though.

      1. Like you are, Kiddie Raper. You’re a pedophile who should be brutally killed by one of your victims or their families.

      2. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2
        April.20.2021 at 10:08 pm
        “You know that the Trump Trash that have infested this board are not real libertarians.
        Not that many exist in reality though.”

        Certainly not a lefty shit, kiddie-porn and coke lover, asshole like turd.

    3. Totally agreed.

      And if people bring up due process concerns, that is one thing and somewhat reasonable. The racists here who bring up drugs … like what the fuck kind of libertarian are you who blames people for injesting drugs. Like I have no idea if they understand the magazine they are reading …

      1. The drug aspect is also germane to how much of Chauvin’s actions led to Floyd’s death, if any, and how much were the drugs that Floyd took led to his death. There were 3 charges and the drug aspect could have affected being on convicted on one ir two charges but not all.

        1. The George Floyd would still be alive if he didn’t take the drugs does not mean that he wasn’t killed. The defense even argued the officer knew that he seemed intoxicated, and proceeded to use an excessive amount of force anyway.

          1. The drug use is a component to what occurred. I’m not exonerating Chauvin. I’m arguing for his right to have all the facts presented.

      2. For sure, and I’m big on due process. I don’t actually think even a cop who murders a black man should go to an American prison. I don’t think prison should exist as we know it. But I’m a libertarian dreamer too uncool for the current fascism craze.

        1. You claim to be a libertarian?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

          Holy shit, that was funny.

        2. You’ve actually argued for political internment camps and corporatism here. Forget about ‘uncool’, you’re riding the crest of the ‘fascism craze’.

          1. I don’t see a contradiction. In fact, a society that treated its criminals well would be all the more worth preserving from the angry violent Nazi mobs.

            The right of self-defense is absolute, as I’m sure you agree.

        3. “For sure, and I’m big on due process.”

          Shitstain here claims to be big on free speech, ‘except’…
          Shitstain is a steaming pile of lefty shit.

        4. I’m big on due process

          Like when you spent 5 years arguing for Trump to be tried for non-crimes, and then to be removed from office despite being exonerated during Nancy Pelosi’s sham impeachment? Or maybe when you cheered the summary execution of an unarmed white woman by a black cop for the crime of trespass?

          1. He should have been removed on day 1 for being an obvious mistake. You can impeach and remove a president for whatever reason you want, if you’re Congress. Did any of you go to school?

      3. It’s not racist to point out he took an ass load of drugs, or that he was allegedly covid positive. Those are just facts. You may not think they’re germane to the case, but a halfway decent defense attorney would point those out in court to introduce reasonable doubt as to Chauvin being guilty of murder.

        1. No, a reasonable attorney would withdraw from the case if his client insisted on a not-guilty plea.

          Neither of those assertions have any bearing on the trial, so raising them just increases the eventual sentence (because it shows lack of acknowledgement and remorse).

          Look up the ‘eggshell skull’ principle. If Floyd was less than usually fit, then the idiot cops had an even stronger responsibility to avoid unreasonable force. It’s a compounding factor, not a mitigation.

    4. “I wonder where the real libertarians hang out.”

      As a steaming pile of lefty shit, why would shitstain care?

    5. You kiss your Mama with that mouth? How abjectly filthy and ignorant.

  16. Nothing like ignoring the fentanyl Chauvin forced down Floyd’s throat. You know that Floyd took himself.

    1. Who gives a shit? This is a libertarian magazine. There are articles here about legalizing all drugs. All. I wouldn’t go that far … but this is the place you land on! No, they aren’t gonna bring up an argument that people who ingest drugs ought to be killed or blamed for their death because that’s stupid … man wtf happened to this place.

      1. I support decriminalizing drugs for adults. Regardless of the legality, supporting that position doesn’t eliminate the potential effect of the drugs Floyd had consumed on his death.

      2. Take as many drugs as you want. When you get high off your ass, try to defraud a merchant with fake money, resist arrest, swallow the rest of your stash and accidentally overdose and kill yourself, that’s your problem. Legalizing drugs doesn’t mean you’re free from the consequences of your actions while you’re on drugs you stupid fucking retard.

  17. Yep. Prosecution had a powerful case loaded with expert testimony and evidence.

    1. No, a 17 year old teenager had the most incriminating video tape the world has ever seen of police brutality.

      People should remember what took down Chauvin when they decide to do illegal things, act out like KARENS, party with criminals, or otherwise do unadvisable things like having sex with underaged teenage girls.

  18. Chauvin is a piece of shit and Floyd was a piece of shit. I have no sympathy for either one.

    1. One unjustly murdered the other though. And did so empowered as a representative of the state.

      They are not the same at all.

      1. Manslaughter. The murder change is ridiculous political theatre.

        1. Your engaging a lefty shit with a kiddie porn and a coke habit, and expecting a response beyond a 3rd grade level?

          1. Sevo, Sevo, you’re being too generous. He thinks on the low end of a preschool level. As I’ve were severely retarded.

            We can only hope he dies an agonizing death.

        2. You’re imposing the usual distinction between murder and manslaughter onto this case. You can’t do that. Crimes have specific elements and specific definitions that are sometimes unique to each jurisdiction even though the carry the same name. While what Chauvin did probably couldn’t be called “murder” in most other jurisdictions, it met the legal elements under their (somewhat idiosyncratic) law.

      2. What’s a just murder?

        1. According to shreek, it’s when a black cop shoots an unarmed white woman in the face for trespassing despite a 4-man SWAT team with M4 rifles standing less than 10 feet behind her.

      3. Reprehensible for different reasons, but both paid the price of their deviant behavior.

    2. Nor do I, but show trials dictated by Party fervor are a really bad road to go down

  19. “The guilty verdicts on all three counts reflect the logical force of the prosecution’s case as well as the emotional impact of watching the assault on George Floyd.”

    Now do Ashli Babbitt.

    1. A real victim of circumstance that Ashli.

      1. Murder is a circumstance I guess.

        1. I can’t think of a circumstance in which shooting unarmed protesters is justified, and it certainly isn’t justified for trespassing on public property. But this isn’t the only way progressives show themselves to be morally bankrupt–and not even the worst. Claiming that shooting unarmed protesters is justified if they’re trespassing on public property is just one more reason, on a long list of reasons, why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

          1. “I can’t think of a circumstance in which shooting unarmed protesters is justified,..”

            Shitstain can! Trump.

          2. They’re not going to give you a job in the high command, Ken. They’ll find some reason to put you in a camp too.

            The thing about Nazis is they like killing large numbers of people and they aren’t too concerned with the intellectual justification, what with being stupid.

            Not too many people emphasize the stupidity of fascists. But it is why they all lose eventually.

            1. So since you know you’re going to lose, could you shut the duck up already?

          3. Progressives didn’t storm the WH on Jan 6. They didn’t trample one of their own to death, break windows at the WH to gain illegal entry while carrying an assortment of weaponry and restraint devices (that’s armed BURGLARY which is a felony), did not place pipe bombs at the Dem and GOP headquarter buildings, did not call for the capture of Speaker Pelosi, didn’t build a gallows, cause the demise of police officers performing in the line of duty that day or incite rabble to riot.

            Whose tribe is that?

    2. Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.

      1. Because an unarmed woman trespassing is just like men flying passenger jets full of screaming people into skyscrapers?

        SPB2 apparently took the short bus in high school.

        1. Their goal was the same. Destroy liberal democracy.

          1. You’re a fucking moron.

            1. I am precisely correct and you cannot rebut my statement.

              All right-wingers like yourself and your Muslim/Christo-fascist Aborto-Freak slime brothers want to control others with your authoritarianism.

              Like Ayn Rand said “Conservatism (Ronald Reagan) is an enemy of freedom”.

              Conservatives suck ass.

              1. “Aborto-Freak”

                Pretty sure Ken isn’t as hot for baby abattoirs as you.

                OT: How much do you make a day for posting here, Buttplug?

                1. Why do you hate Ayn Rand?

                  1. Why does turd hate intelligence?

                  2. Because Ayn Rand hated libertarians?

              2. “Conservatives suck ass.”

                Lefties seem attracted to kiddie porn, coke and idiocy.

              3. You are in no way correct.

          2. So it doesn’t matter to you whether they hurt or killed anyone. Just what you imagine their political goals to be.

            That’s so fucked.

            1. Ashli Babbitt may not have personally killed anyone but she was part of the hijacking team that wanted to overthrow the USA.

              1. “Ashli Babbitt may not have personally killed anyone but she was part of the hijacking team that wanted to overthrow the USA.”

                Turd here fantasizes an un-armed protester could possibly “overthrow the USA”!
                Imagine a republic so fragile that an un-armed protester could possibly do so.
                Imagine turd with an IQ above two digits.
                Now, we’re getting somewhere..

                1. Of course the 1/6 insurrection would be proven futile. But likewise so did the 9/11 attack.

                  Conservatives are lightweights in opposition to modernity.

                  1. “Of course the 1/6 insurrection would be proven futile. But likewise so did the 9/11 attack.”

                    Well, the slimy pile of lefty shit attempts to conflate a foreign attack which killed nearly 3,000 to a local protest which resulted in an unarmed protester shot in the face and a cop who died of a stroke. Is anyone surprised that a steaming pile of lefty shit would attempt such a comparison? Especially a steaming pile of lefty shit with kiddie-porn and coke habits?

                    “Conservatives are lightweights in opposition to modernity.”
                    Yep, kiddie porn and coke are the future according to the steaming pile of lefty shit with kiddie porn and coke habits!
                    How would we have known if turd had not advised us?

                    1. The cop died of a stroke that occurred after the protest.

                  2. I know that, but turd seems to have missed it. Or, more likely, is too stupid to understand it.
                    Turds are not credited with much intelligence, and properly so.

                  3. How was 9/11 futile? We gave up a shit ton of freedom because some assholes hijacked some planes and murdered a bunch of people.

                    And you and Tony are here everyday arguing for more government power and authority.

          3. Ah, gotta love propaganda.

            1. From Brian Sicknick’s death being ruled a stroke (unrelated to any injuries he experienced), to some of the worst charges against Capitol rioters being dismissed at arraignment for lack of evidence, the whole media narrative about the Capitol riot is completely falling apart.

              Not a single one of the more than 400 people arrested because of the Capitol riot has been charged with sedition, but Shrike knows it’s all about overthrowing democracy. That’s almost certainly because he’s incapable of critical thinking. He’s a fucking idiot that way, and he’s been that way for years.

              And that’s without even getting started on the moral bankruptcy of defending the shooting of unarmed protesters for trespassing on public property.

              1. I can’t imagine the hours you must spend feeling empathy for dispossessed brown people given the sheer magnitude of your concern for dead traitors to America.

                I don’t even want to think about what a state you must have been in during the Bush administration. Or was that all cool with you because they invaded the wrong country and missed all the real enemies?

                I bet you did grouse all over the place when Obama killed bin Laden, though, so at least that’s consistent.

                1. Ken has been a vocal critic of all of our adventurism overseas.

                  Unlike you, who sucked Obama’s dick for 8 years while turning a blind eye to all of the shit he did overseas.

                  1. I have my problems with Obama, but I see politics as what it is: a choice between Democrats and Republicans. We’ll never know how President McCain would have handled the forever wars, but we know that he joked about bombing Iran, and Obama’s VP ended one of the forever wars. I’m sure you’re beside yourself with agitation wanting to give him credit.

                    1. Biden didn’t end shit you stupid faggot. Trump did. Biden is taking credit for going along with what his predecessor already had set up.

                      You really are a worthless idiot.

      2. “Ashli Babbitt attacked the USA much like the 9/11 hijackers did.”

        Kiddie porn addict lefty shit turd here seems to fantasize that ‘trespassing’ on public land = flying an airliner full of passengers into a skyscraper.
        There are few more obvious examples of turd’s imbecility than this.

        1. If he had any sense at all, he’d be ashamed of himself for the stupid shit he says, but I guess he reads it elsewhere and thinks it’s smart for that reason. Like a cult victim, he’s completely locked into who to believe rather than what to believe and why. And he’s been saying the same stupid shit and having it rubbed all over his face for how many years now?

          Of all the times I’ve bothered to look, I’ve never seen Shrike be right about anything. I’ve been persuaded by people who disagree with me. I’ve done 180s on various issues, when people have shown me I was wrong. I’ve never once seen Shrike get anything right.

          Not once.

          You’d think he’d get something right sometimes by accident, but I’ve never seen it happen

          1. He is jealous of a stopped clock.

      3. BTW, turd, I’m saving that to throw back at you every time you make a similar comment.
        You are worthy of nothing other than having your shit smeared in your face at every opportunity.
        Does your family do so? If not, why not? Do you lie to them about your kiddie-porn or coke habits?

        1. Please do.

          1. You can be sure, kiddie-porn and coke lefty asshole.

    3. Poor Ken, he doesn’t feel the smell for other innocent people. Come on fat boy try again!

    4. The traitor who attacked the Capitol? She got what she had coming.

      There you go.

      1. You attacked the capitol?

    5. Man attacked by police gets killed, outcry. Woman attacking police gets killed, no outcry.

      Nope, can’t see any difference between the two…

  20. https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1384686290436726788?s=19

    This level of protest organization in Columbus, Ohio a few hours after the shooting, shows just how non spontaneous this all really is

    There are resources in place before the said event even occurs [video]

    1. Soros may be the right-wing’s bogeyman, but he’s also really financing this shit.

      People need to be aware of all the pies that Open Society Foundations has its fingers in. Some are innocent and worthy, but many others are overtly fascist and authoritarian.

      1. I am Open Society. I am a big fan of Hayek and Popper.

        Karl Popper defined the open society as one “in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions” as opposed to a “magical or tribal or collectivist society.”

        Agree in full.

        1. Turd’s more than happy to agree to issues he’s totally incapable of understanding!
          It makes turd proud to do so!

        2. You’re a Soros guy. Figures, he loves Nazis and pedophiles too.

        3. Shrike is so stupid.

          How stupid is he?

          Shrike is so stupid, he doesn’t know that the Open Society Foundation is George Soros’ political arm–not even after Mother’s Lament points it out by name.

  21. What is Derek Chauvin’s favorite color?

    A) Neon

  22. Extended use of restraint + huge level of constricting fear + Drugs in system + chronic cardiovascular disease = Death

    One equation, four unknowns, no exact solution, i.e. we will never know which variables contributed the most to his demise, and which contributed the least.

    Defining testimony was from those who said he was held too long, especially the medic who was begging to get in there and save his life.

    1. Given the level of fentanyl in his system I would wager the drugs were the lethal factor. At least enough for reasonable doubt. And just so we’re clear here, I really don’t like Chauvin at all. So I’m not inclined to do that asshole any favors. I’m far more concerned about guilty verdicts based on prog politics and prog duress.

      1. The jury, who had access to all that information and more, believed the testimony that drugs were not the lethal factor. Remember, by the way, that the legal standard is not whether a healthy person would have survived that abuse but a) whether it was abuse and b) if so, whether the abuse was a contributing factor to his death.

        1. How do you know they actually believed it? The verdict was just as easily the product of political and violent social pressure from democrats and their domestic terror cells (antifa, BLM, etc.).

    2. He also had COVID. was this a COVID death?

  23. While Derek Chauvin did indeed deserve punishment for what he did, I cannot help but wonder if this will take the wind out of Antifa/BLM sails or will this embolden further rioting, looting, burning, and murder? Which will it be? Has any new trouble started yet? Time will tell…

    1. Well one thing is for sure, the number of individuals looking for a career in law enforcement dropped dramatically today and that is a very very good thing!

    2. Give people houses and businesses, and they stop rioting and looting.

      It’s really pretty simple.

      1. Maybe not “give” but definitely give the opportunity to.

        1. No, he wants handouts for everyone he considers to be part of the darling class of the progs. Paid for by mean conservatives.

          That’s the Tony way. Right out of the progtard playbook.

          1. So you don’t want to give them houses and businesses, and you also want them to stop rioting and looting. Sounds to me like what you want out of the universe is a unicorn that farts money. That or genocide. Probably genocide, right?

            1. I don’t want to ‘give’ them anything. Let them get jobs and start businesses on their own. Just like everyone else. Which would be much easier if prog trash like you quit supporting ,associate taxes and regulations that suppress entrepreneurial activities in blue communities.

      2. Man, you probably shouldn’t have begged the authoritarians to assrape the economy last year then…

      3. Until they decide they want a nicer house and business. If you appease rioters, you will get more riots.

  24. This is another dishonest article. There was real doubt about whether Mr. Floyd would survive regardless of officer actions. He had lethal amounts of opiates and amphetamines in his blood. That was the documented opinion of the medical examiner. And Mr.Floyd complained of shortness of breath multiple times BEFORE he was restrained not just while he was being “squeezed.” How does Sullum explain that? Mere coincidence?

    It’s possible that a guilty verdict on one or more counts (especially manslaughter due to a failure to render aid while restraining an unresponsive, pulseless individual) was legitimate but it’s debatable. At the same time, it’s clear this was not a fair or just trial. It was a hostile venue without any attempt at an impartial jury. And there was massive juror intimidation by the mob, the media and Democratic politicians. A mistrial should be declared.

    1. That’s why we have appeals.

    2. Sullum doesn’t need to explain it. The expert testimony at the trial addressed all that directly. The jury, who had access to all that evidence in detail plus information that you and I don’t have access to, came to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that disagrees with your conclusion.

      You do have some points about whether this was a fair trial and there are certainly multiple grounds for an appeal. But I’m not sure how much that will matter. Even granting the defense the benefit of doubt on all those points, the defense witnesses just had credibility problems.

      1. The State changed their story 3 times.
        This was a Soviet show trial

        1. More lies and idiocy coming from Nardz. What else is new?

          1. Your idiocy? Which is a million times more idiotic.

      2. As I pointed out, the “expert” testimony is contradicted by the medical examiner notes. An unbiased medical perspective can not conclude with certainty the cause of Mr. Floyd’s death. It could have been due to restraint, a drug overdose or an unrelated medical event – or a combination of all three.

        1. The medical examiner was one of the experts who testified in the trial. Presumably, he had full access to his own notes. Notably, Baker was brought in as a prosecution witness. His testimony did not conclude what you seem to think it did.

          More to the point, you are applying the wrong legal standard. It is not necessary that the police action was the sole cause of death. It is legally sufficient to meet the definitions of those crimes if a) the police actions were excessive and b) those excessive actions were a contributing factor to the death. The overwhelming medical testimony including from the defense’s medical expert agreed that the police actions contributed to his death. They disagreed only on degree. (There was a separate set of arguments over whether the actions were excessive. The defense expert on that point was utterly non-credible.)

  25. It is also clear that someone experiencing shortness of breath was finished off by a knee to the neck!

  26. 1. It is hard to believe that the policeman killed Floyd intentionally, since he was surrounded by a crowd of civilians and their cameras. It is hard to imagine someone being that stupid. Otoh, if our presumption is that it wasn’t intentional homicide, g-d forbid, it wasn’t homicide at all, the picture is much more different. Especially, considering all the serious health issues and blood toxicity that Floyd demonstrably had.
    2. Was the utilization of the knee technique inadequate/incorrect? Possibly, but in this world this rational question had never been presented. Instead, the media and the mass hysteria ensured that the verdict will be ‘homicide by asphyxiation’, even though it was scientifically disproved by the only medical examiner who saw the corpse.
    3. In other words, the important question in relation to the actus reus is whether Floyd had survived sans police intervention (kneeing or no kneeing), and it can also be asked, what would have happened with a healthy person under the exact same technique (kneeing on neck, upper back). One can even go as far as to ask, how many people die (on average) due to this technique. Because I have a hunch that if it’s a legally approved technique in MN, then it is used. If it is used, then we must have statistics about it. And if we have these data, then we can show how deadly this technique really is. My bet is on that most healthy adult survive this technique, and not just in the USA, but anywhere else too.
    4. Unrelated to the actus reus we can also ponder on the fairness of this (show) trial. How could we possibly think that the jurors were unaffected by the year-long propaganda presented to the globe by the msm? Unless they had been pulled from under a rock, they must have already heard ‘what happened’. And if so, this is already a huge problem. Add to that, that they held the trial in the midst of an ongoing mob violence, with threat of additional widespread riots if/when the verdict is not to their liking. Or the fact that politicians e.g. Maxine Waters in fact directly recommended this to them, unlike President Trump, who never actually did anything to that effect.

    1. re: 2 and 3 – Prosecution and defense expert testimony addressed those points pretty precisely. The jury, who had access to all that information plus the ability to directly assess the credibility of the witnesses, believed the testimony that Floyd would not have died but for the police intervention. They also believed the testimony that this was ‘homicide by asphyxiation’.

      Remember that the legal standard is not whether a healthy person would have died under the same abuse but whether the police abuse was a willful and preventable contributing factor to this person’s death.

      1. Their belief is irrelevant, insofar as truth and justice is concerned. Floyd did not die due to asphyxiation, therefore, he could not have been killed by asphyxiation (and this is the msm claim, regurgitated by all the acolytes and retards). Now the medical examiner did claim that it was a homicide, yes, but he also emphasized that in his profession this simply means that there was an outside influence that which contributed to the demise of the victim. It is not homicide per se in the criminal sense of the word, obviously, since he’s not a law expert, but a medical one. He also stated that the knee on the neck/back was too much for Floyd’s heart (emphasize on the ‘his’ and ‘heart’ parts).

        Willful, no. Preventable, possibly.

    2. 1. It is hard to believe that the policeman killed Floyd intentionally, since he was surrounded by a crowd of civilians and their cameras.

      He kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for two more minutes after being told there was no pulse. What is the justification for that?

      1. He was under stress, perhaps it was an involuntary psychological reaction, a mental block of some sort. Regardless, even if that was the case, does that mean that he’s responsible for Floyd’s demise directly and intentionally? Not really.

        1. Yes really. The jury said so.

          Sort of how like George Floyd and countless others got justice delivered by a choad in a uniform, except minus the due process.

      2. It’s not clear that Chauvin knew Floyd didn’t have a pulse. From coverage/commentary on Legal Insurrection re audio from the officers’ cams:

        “Kueng states ‘I can’t find one’, the police radio is chattering loudly, and Chauvin surely would have been listening for radio reports of EMS progress to the scene. In addition, concurrent with this broken exchange between Chauvin and Kueng regarding pulse there was another dispatch call involving a suspect pointing a gun at a crying child–it’s difficult to think of a call that would be more distracting to the attention of a police officer.

        Further, Chauvin was positioned around the rear fender of squad 320, and far more exposed to the angry shouts from the crowd than was Kueng—and the crowd at this precise moment was exceptionally loud. It seems quite possible that between Kueng speaking, the radio chattering, and the crowd shouting, that Chauvin simply never heard Kueng’s ‘I can’t find one’.

        Indeed, immediately after Kueng makes that statement, amid radio chatter and crowd noise, Chauvin responds, ‘Huh?’ This suggests that he heard Kueng say something, but didn’t hear exactly what was said.

        Kueng then responds to Chauvin’s ‘Huh?’ with ‘I was checking for a pulse’.

        Note what Kueng does not say here, after Chauvin indicates a need for clarification. He doesn’t say, ‘I was checking for a pulse, and I couldn’t find one’. Kueng may have presumed that Chauvin heard his first earlier statement, ‘I can’t find one’. but perhaps merely didn’t understand the context. In that case, the follow-up ‘I was checking for a pulse’ would appear to Kueng to sufficiently clarify the matter.

        But from Chauvin’s perspective, which is what controls for purposes of his trial, if all he heard in an understandable manner was the second statement ‘I was checking for a pulse’, in the absence of having understood Kueng prior statement that he hadn’t found one, Chauvin might have reasonably inferred that Kueng had found a pulse—after all, not finding a pulse is important information that wouldn’t be left unsaid, and as far as Chauvin knew it had not been said.

        And that was the last discussion of pulse between the officers.”

    3. the important question in relation to the actus reus is whether Floyd had survived sans police intervention (kneeing or no kneeing),

      Video from prior to 911 shows Floyd walking around a convenience store in no distress. After Chauvin kneels on his neck he is dead. It would be difficult to rationalize that Chauvin’s actions didn’t lead to Floyd’s death. Per sworn testimony from Chief Arradondo, Chauvin violated department policy.

  27. “An article written by the Star Tribune in Minnesota that has revealed copious amounts of personal information but falling short of revealing names and addresses has many wondering if the article has put the jurors selected for the Derek Chauvin trial in danger.”
    I am concerned about a fair trial, due process and the rule of law:
    the jurors were identified, harassed and threatened. This is not due process, this is not a fair trail. I make no judgement on the verdicts, but I do on how it was made, by the mob.
    Change of venue should have been granted.
    New jury should have been seated after this jury was exposed.
    Juror should have been sequestered.
    A mistrial should have been declare. Especially after Rep. Waters interference.
    I believe and appeal will be granted, starting this all over again due to the government and judge’s incompetence.

    Now my personal opinion:
    The charge and conviction should have been for involuntary manslaughter. He was negligent and showed a callus disregard for life. Floyd was certainly complicit in his own death. It is as likely his drug use killed him as Chauvin’s knee. Yes, if the cops had recognized the overdose and administered an antidote, Floyd MIGHT have lived. Floyds drug use and criminal activities eventually led to his death, regardless of what/who killed him.
    A lesson for all.

    Involuntary Manslaughter
    The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally.
    Most unintentional killings are not murder but involuntary manslaughter. The absence of the element of intent is the key distinguishing factor between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

  28. What has become of Lysander Spooner in the modern libertarian movement? Did he not write “It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another.”

    Yet, here we see comments applauding the conviction of a person for “unintentional” murder and unintentional manslaughter.

    1. Despite the names of those charges, that’s not precisely a fair description of the legal elements of those crimes. “Unintentional” X can still leave you with Spooner’s requisite intent if, for example, you didn’t specifically intend to do X but you did intentionally do Y and recklessly disregarded the fact that Y would lead to X.

      For example, someone driving 90 mph down the street with their headlights off for thrills might not intend to kill the little old lady out walking her dog but the driver certainly intended to drive far too fast for conditions. Even under Spooner’s model, the driver deserves to pay the consequences of his decisions. However, Spooner (and most everyone else) would also say that the driver in this scenario is less culpable than someone who actively aimed at the old lady when running her down.

  29. I’m glad that Derek Chauvin is going to prison. Personally, I would have felt more comfortable with the verdict and would consider that justice was server fair and equal if Dereck Chauvin was found guilty on some but not all of charges. I have a hard time seeing how the Minnesota Statutes as written apply.

    My gut feeling is not that the evidence was overwhelming for the jury, but the mob opinion was overwhelming for them. Yes, Maxine Waters did a stupid thing with her comments and she should have to pay for her stupidity. The Judge presiding over the case told politicians to stop forcefully making such statements.

    Then President Joe Biden makes his comments which were ill advised, unwarranted and specifically requested by the presiding judge not to be made. For politicians who a few months ago railed against the then President Donald Trump of inciting a riot, it is deeply hypocritical.

    President Joe Biden needs to be roundly and severely criticized in the media. I’m not making the case for impeachment, but I sure that President Joe Biden’s ineptitude will be swept under the rug and hidden from plain view.

  30. Good to see a murderer go to prison. Justice finally served.

    1. It will be better served when you’re executed for your Marxism.

  31. So Sullum’s view of this trial is the same as his view of the election, the outcome was what he wanted therefore it was a totally fair and just process. Shocker.

  32. Contrary to the headline, the jurors really believed that their houses would be burned, they would lose their jobs, their kids would never get admitted to college and their relatives would be terrorized by thugs if they didn’t vote to convict.

    1. The cops threw Chauvin to the wolves to live to murder black people with impunity another day. The only potential outcomes here were conviction and justice, or acquittal and lunacy. The video was too compelling. Video is another word for evidence.

      If even this cop couldn’t be convicted, the blacks would have every right under the sun to riot. You get to riot when the country you pay taxes to murders you with impunity.

      When do you not get to riot? When you lose an election.

      Glad to clear these things up as usual.

  33. the jurors voted not to be doxxed and have their lives ruined. there was plenty of reasonable doubt that drugs and bad health, rather than a restraint permitted by the MPD, killed Floyd.

  34. This was the first post-truth trial to be publicized. Your summary of the defense is so pathetic and lacking in facts that one cannot reasonably conclude that you watched the trial.

    Personally, I believe you reviewed the information that was made available, but do you see how this works? How facts and truths aren’t the same thing? On multiple occasions you cited “facts” that are considered as such, but are not actually true. You can have all the experts in the world say that Floyd might have had a harder time breathing, but you can’t change the truth that he wasn’t bruised, his breathing wasn’t obstructed, he wasn’t asphyxiated, he had normal O2 levels, he was high as a kite and well above the levels needed to OD, and that the actual medical professional who examined him could not determine a cause of death. That’s the difference between facts and truth.

    Reasonable doubt, btw. Times mentioned in your article, zero.

  35. Chauvin chose not to take the stand and testify in his own defense. Juries want to hear from the defendant. If they don’t they usually convict. Maybe they would have convicted anyway , but we will never know. Chauvin never gave himself a chance

  36. Chauvin was sending a message to all the police-protected drug dealers of Minneapolis that if you don’t keep up your payments to the police, you die.
    Apparently, they didn’t (enough). So, the shooting in Brooklyn Center (Minneapolis) just this week.
    Hope they get it now. Or more will die (and maybe get convicted of murder.
    END THE DRUG WAR.

  37. Changes in state laws need to occur also. In the State of WA, this statute makes it very difficult for State level prosecutions to succeed:
    RCW 9.46.212
    Officers designated with police powers authorized to take action to prevent physical injury to person or substantial damage to property—Immunity from civil liability—Exception.
    When physical injury to a person or substantial damage to property occurs, or is about to occur, within the presence of an officer of the commission designated with police powers pursuant to RCW 9.46.210, the designated officer is authorized to take such action as is reasonably necessary to prevent physical injury to a person or substantial damage to property or prevent further injury to a person or further substantial damage to property. A designated officer shall be immune from civil liability for damages arising out of the action of the designated officer to prevent physical injury to a person or substantial damage to property or prevent further injury to a person or further substantial damage to property, unless it is shown that the designated officer acted with gross negligence or bad faith.
    [ 2017 c 111 § 1.]

  38. “Brodd also averred that “drug-influenced” suspects “don’t feel pain” and “may have superhuman strength”—an old canard with racist roots that police tend to drag out when they are accused of using excessive force.”

    C’mon, Sullum. EVERY libertarian position is accused of having racist roots by the left. Why use their tactics?

    1. Yet nothing triggers you people more than the merest, most obvious mentions of racism.

  39. Anyone scrutinizing the facts after the jury has spoken is missing the entire point of everything. Say it could have gone either way. Who knows? We weren’t on the jury.

    Putting Chauvin in a rape dungeon doesn’t solve anyone’s actual problem, and neither would setting him free to kill again.

    Proving to your own satisfaction, usually a low fucking bar around here, that he was innocent doesn’t give you a “win,” and it doesn’t make the black college students go away and stop complaining. You need to decide if you are a libertarian and want to put cops in a box, or if you’re a fascist who wants to genocide all the undesirables.

    I for one wish we didn’t have to always be picking teams all the time, but I said Twitter was a bad idea when it was invented.

Please to post comments