Police

A Few Thoughts in Anticipation of the Derek Chauvin Verdict

Whatever happens, much will remain to be done to curb police abuse. But there is still no justification for rioting.

|

Iconic photo of Derek Chauvin kneeling on the George Floyd's throat.

 

As we await the now-imminent jury verdict in the trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd, it is worth remembering that, no matter what the jury decides, much work remains to be done in curbing police abuses. At the same time, even if the jury commits what I would consider a terrible error and acquits Chauvin on all charges, there is no justification for rioting, which will predictably harm innocent people and set back the cause of police reform. I made these points in a series of posts last year, which I think remain relevant today.

  1. "How to Curb Police Abuses—and How Not to"

This post outlines several strategies for curbing police abuses, and also explains why rioting is both wrong in itself and likely to be counterproductive. Sadly, public opinion research suggests that last year's riots did indeed lower white support for police reform. And it is undeniable that the rioting harmed large numbers of people. Since I wrote that post, some progress has been made on reforms such as ending qualified immunity. But much remains to be done through both litigation and political action. The "other" Ilya—Shapiro of the Cato Institute—has an excellent article on how many police abuses of constitutional rights can be curbed by cutting back or eliminating the War on Drugs. We differ on some other issues. But the Ilyas are very much of the same mind on this one!

2. "The Problem of Racial Profiling—Why it Matters and What Can be Done About it"

This post summarizes the evidence that racial profiling is a serious problem, and makes the case for various measures to curb it. Anyone who believes that government must be color-blind and abjure racial and ethnic discrimination cannot make an exception for those government officials who carry badges and guns, and have the power to arrest people (and, in extreme cases, kill or severely injure them).

3. "Rights and Wrongs of 'Defunding the Police'"

This post describes some ways in which the role of police in society can be beneficially reduced, but also warns against more radical forms of "defunding the police, " particularly in light of extensive social science evidence that having more police on the streets reduces violence and property crime (of which poor minorities are disproportionately victims).

The above combination of views may (for different reasons) annoy both some conservatives and some on the left. But I nonetheless hope that a wide range of people might eventually agree that we need to hold police accountable for abuses, curb racial discrimination, and also ensure that police can protect people against violence and theft.

UPDATE: Chauvin was convicted on all three counts.

NEXT: "Retroactive" Liability after Barr v. AAPC

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. A few more thoughts.

    1. Maxine Walters has threatened additional “Confrontation” if the verdict isn’t what she wants..
    a. Why is she still on Twitter? Isn’t this type of language the sort that incites riots?
    b. The judge has pointed out that her comments may be grounds for an appeal.

    2. If you’re a jury member, do you feel threatened if you don’t give a guilty verdict?
    a. The “wrong” defense attorney has gotten lots of hate mail
    b. One of the defense witnesses old houses has been felony vandalized.

    1. While no single action warranted a mistrial, the accumulated events certainly warranted declaring a mistrial, from prosecution misconduct (especially from blackwell), the intimidating circumstances, several potential jurors expressing fear of delivered the “wrong verdict”

      1. The case of the “Scottsboro Boys” comes to mind.

        1. The case of the “Scottsboro Boys” comes to twisted, obtuse minds.

          FTFY

          1. Twisted obtuse minds who understand what George Santana said about the importance of knowing history.

            Do you really think this trial was any fairer than the one those young men got a century ago?

            I don’t…

            1. “Do you really think this trial was any fairer than the one those young men got a century ago?

              I don’t…”

              Because you have a twisted obtuse mind. And massively ignorant I’m guessing.

              1. I mean, try to dwell on how profoundly stupid what you are saying is Crazy Eddie.

                Chauvin didn’t face a literal lynch mob. Chauvin didn’t face a by law all black jury and an all black audience. Chauvin got more than a day and a half trial. Chauvin didn’t have a a 69-year-old attorney who had not defended a case in decades and an out of state real estate attorney as his defense team. Etc., etc.,

                I mean, I can get a normal person thinking this trial turned out wrong. I myself thought only manslaughter appropriate (but knowing I had not watched the whole trial so I won’t say confidently either way). But someone who said what you just said, how do you put your pants on without help.

                1. Are you too clueless to not understand the explicit threats?

                  As an aside, I’m imagining that the opiate overdose fatality rate in that city (and other cities) is going to increase exponentially as police officers start rolling “Code 0” on Black Overdose calls.

                  “Code 0” doesn’t officially exist, but it involves going the long way — the *really* long way — to a call and driving like you are your grandmother as well. And so what if they administer the Narcan — 2, 3, 4 of them — it might have done some good had the gotten there 5-10 minutes earlier, but now he’s definitely dead.

                  If you want to worry about police executions, get real — THIS is how the police can execute people. Not by doing something visible that they kinda know is going to get recorded….

                  Chauvin had an audience — and *knew* that he had one — that’s why I don’t think he intended to murder Floyd — he could have done it later in the police station without witnesses….

                  1. I named a bunch of structural differences. You are beyond obtuse here.

                    1. The white jurors were obviously afraid for their lives.

                    2. But they bravely took a stand against the cops.

                  2. “Are you too clueless to not understand the explicit threats?”

                    Nobody can match you for cluelessness,
                    Ed.

                    1. James Pollock
                      April.20.2021 at 9:47 pm
                      “Are you too clueless to not understand the explicit threats?”

                      Nobody can match you for cluelessness,
                      Ed.

                      Far more clueless to pretend those explicit threats dont exist

                    2. If these explicit threats exist, then prosecute the threateners. I’m sure there will be no problem convicting.

                  3. “Chauvin had an audience — and *knew* that he had one — that’s why I don’t think he intended to murder Floyd”

                    Which is why he was charged with felony murder… that way, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove that there was intent to murder the victim.

            2. You know, George Santana. Carlos Santana’s brother.

              1. No, Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, who was a professor at Harvard from 1889-1912.

                1. I don’t think Jorge Santayana is related to Carlos Santana at all.

                  1. 70s English sort-of-manufactured rock band Paper Lace had a guitarist called Carlo Paul Santana. They hit #1 with Billy, Don’t Be a Hero.

                    Amusingly, the ‘real’ Santana has never had a #1 in the UK 🙂

                    1. Paper Lace’s #1in America.

                      (The Daley administration reportedly did not like it.)

          2. America is improving.

            Some people can’t handle it.

            Carry on, clingers . . . but only so far and so long as better Americans permit.

        2. You think this was Jim Crow nullification, except to convict a white guy?!

          1. Nice straw man. It was fear of rioting and violence if they got to the “wrong” verdict.

            Which is not to say they did not have solid evidence to convict. But it was done in a threatening atmosphere. “Do what we want, or your city burns.” (Of course it may well burn anyway.)

            1. Read the comment I was replying to, chief.

              1. I am more interested in what is happening in real life than one-upping commenters on a blog.

                Fact is that Waters created an atmosphere of threats if the jury did not reach the verdict she wanted. Even the trial judge recognized that, although he then punted to the appellate court.

                1. The fact is you’re full of it. Waters didn’t create an atmosphere of threats except in the right-wing fever swamps.

                  1. What is dousing a witnesses house in pig blood, if not threatening and witness intimidation?

                    1. After the witnesses testified?

                      It’s vandalism.

                    2. It’s making an example.

                    3. “Witness intimidation”

                      “You have the timeline backwards”

                      “But nevertheless…”

                      The reign of terror you posit is nonsense, AL.

                    4. Here’s a simple question for you Sarcastro.

                      Would you, as a juror, feel safe in greater Minneapolis, if you gave a non-guilty verdict, and your name was released to the public?

                      Or would you feel potentially threatened and endangered?

                    5. I would feel safe, yeah. Because I don’t buy into your ‘American under siege by angry blacks’ thing you take as received wisdom.

                    6. You would feel safe Sarcastro?

                      Despite all the boarding up of windows, barbed wire, and such going on around you?

                    7. I lived in DC until recently. Plywood everywhere. Yeah, I felt safe. And if my name were in the news, I’d also feel safe. There were plenty of past tension-filled trials where the jurors were fine; this is no different.

                      You’re appealing to incredulity now. A sign you’ve bought into your own narrative to the point you can’t believe anyone would disagree with you.
                      In reality, Portland and DC are not wastelands, burnt to the ground by rioters.
                      In reality, you need a lot more than what you have to prove jury intimidation.

                    8. Particularly when it’s the WRONG house….

                    9. “What is dousing a witnesses house in pig blood, if not threatening and witness intimidation?”

                      A witness’s house that is in a completely different state? It’s irrelevant (except to whoever has to clean it up.)

                  2. “Waters didn’t create an atmosphere of threats except in the right-wing fever swamps.”

                    Which is where Ed LIVES.

                    1. CNN headline – “Waters calls for protesters to ‘get more confrontational’ if no guilty verdict is reached in Derek Chauvin trial”

                      Even CNN knows maxine waters is inciting the explicit threats – pollock apparently remains unaware

                    2. You can tell by the CNN headline not saying ‘inciting the explicit threats’.

                    3. Sacastro –
                      CNN was pointing out both the implicit and explicit threats.

                    4. No, I think that’s you doing that.

                    5. I consider it a mark in my favor that I’m generally unaware of whatever is growing in the right-wing fever swamps.

                2. “Fact is that Waters created an atmosphere of threats if the jury did not reach the verdict she wanted.”

                  She’s not that scary. It’s like being threatened to a fistfight by Ted Cruz.

                  1. She is not scary, but she is a crazy. She is the Rep Greene of the Left.

                    1. Apart from the crucial difference of Waters having something real to be angry about and Greene and Co just floating off in a weird but terrifying world of their own creation.

                    2. Nah, Don. She’s old, and using rhetoric right out of the civil rights era that doesn’t play today.

                      She’s not playing footsie with QAnon and trying to create a white supremist caucus in Congress.

                    3. SO,
                      Indeed she is old and out of touch. Time for her to retire.

                    4. No argument here.

                      I don’t like the instantiation of congresspeople as institutions, be they civil rights leaders or founded a town or whatever.

                      In general, the average age in Congress is a sign of some flaws in our system.

                  2. James, it’s not Waters herself but the unbalanced people who listen to her.

                    Say what you wish about Ted Cruz, he’s never called for violence.
                    No one on the right has — yet. Nut another summer of the Burn, Loot, & Murder brigade running loose, who knows.

                    I fear for the future of the Republic…

                    1. “James, it’s not Waters herself but the unbalanced people who listen to her.”

                      You don’t scare me, either.

            2. IANAL, but if Mohammed Noor only committed third degree in shooting (with a gun) a woman for no freaking reason, then that’s all Chouvin did here, assuming both (a) he did everything he was accused of and (b) there were no extenuating circumstances.

              There’s absolutely no question what killed Justine Damond — the bullet that Noor fired. Here, it isn’t really so clear…

              1. IANAL,

                You should have stopped there.

                1. On exactly what basis?

                  I don’t recall being asked for my BBO number in any of my jury summonses….

                  1. Don’t sweat it. It’s just the perpetual senior associate randomly swiping at non-lawyers to try to feel better.

                  2. “I don’t recall being asked for my BBO number in any of my jury summonses….”

                    Presumably, you actually showed up for those, and if you hadn’t been excluded from the jury pool for being so bag-of-rocks stupid, you would have had an opportunity to see some evidence before you made up your mind.

                    1. and if you hadn’t been excluded from the jury pool for being so bag-of-rocks stupid

                      As compared to people claiming to be lawyers who actually think that’s how the system works?

                    2. “As compared to people claiming to be lawyers”

                      Maybe take up your complaint with people claiming to be lawyers.

                    3. Maybe take up your complaint with people claiming to be lawyers.

                      Clearly my mistake. That puts more than a few things in perspective.

                    4. “Clearly my mistake. ”

                      Not the first one, nor (very likely) the last.

                2. A lawyer is just one entry of the long list of things Special Ed is not.

                  1. Ableist slurs are no better than racist ones.

                    1. So stop making either kind.

          2. Jim Crow nullification?

            1. Yeah, letting white terrorists off the hook and ignoring due process for blacks in the Jim Crow South. That’s what Ed is invoking, because he’s a ridiculous man who is very angry at this verdict for reasons best left unsaid.

              1. The Scottsboro boys was Jim Crow #believewomen, not nullification. But we should be angry to the extent rioting and comments by people like Maxine Watters call the verdict, which I agree with, into question.

                1. Split hairs all you want, that’s nothing like what’s happening today in either metoo nor this trial.

                  Jesus, dude.

                2. You’ve completely internalised the process of moralising (I was going to say reasoning, but it’s not even that) through forced equivalence at this point.

              2. Silly me, I actually believe that people are entitled to a *fair* trial…

                1. No, you quite clearly want white cop to be able to kill black guy and get away with it.
                  Because you’re kinda awful.

                  1. I don’t think Ed’s preference necessarily includes “cop”. I’m sure that in his “mind”, nobody murdered Ahmaud Arbery, either (for the slow, all that Ed needs for “not guilty” is “white guy killed black guy”)

    2. Agents of the failed dumbass prosecutor vs agents of the Chinese Commie Party. Tough choice.

      Minneapolis will be Baltimored. The police answers 911 calls, takes a report, file it. Period. They do nothing else. After Baltimore was Fergusoned by Ivy indoctrinated scumbag, Rod Rosenstein, the surge in murders was 2 orders of magnitude greater than police murders of blacks.

      1. No, I can see an outright police strike over this.

        Maybe a “Blue Flu”, maybe an outright strike — but the conviction on the 2nd degree charge is bullshyte.

        1. No justice for the 35000 white women raped by black men, with no black women raped by white men. No justice for the 3 fold greater number of white men murdered by black criminals, compared to the reverse, including police homicides.

          1. Incoherent and race baiting, two flavors that so often go together!

            1. Queenie, you are quite safe from sexual victimization.

              1. I don’t know, your mom can be quite aggressive…

                1. QA,
                  It is not worth arguing with a fool.

                  1. I give you facts. You reply with epithets. You sound frustrated.

                    1. It might be frustrating, if you had the ability to recognize facts, a premise for which there is no evidence.

                    2. David,
                      I am not frustrated at all. The verdict that I expected bsed on the facts of the case was reached.
                      I almost could feel sorry for you, David.

                  2. The white jurors were afraid for their lives after going home this weekend.
                    That judge should be fired.

                    1. James, my facts came from the DOJ crime victimization survey, the gold standard of measurement of crime.

                    2. Odd that you choose to reply to your own comment and address it to someone else (me? maybe, can’t tell.)

            2. Someone needs to read what Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás said about history…

              Why do you think that Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the Klan?

              To his credit, he tried to abolish it when he realized what he had done, but why do you think he did it?

              1. Ed,
                Chauvin caused untold damage to this country.
                From the testimony of forensic pathologists, murder 2 was highly probable and manslaughter was a slam-dunk.
                He deserves whatever punishment that the judge announces.

                1. And use the 8th Amendment for toilet paper…

                  1. Ed,
                    The 8th Amendment has nothing to do with this case …
                    until the judge sentences Chauvin to be drawn and quartered

                    1. They’re going to sentence Chauvin to be sent to a prison full of black men. That’s cruel for sure.

                2. Donnie, Donnie. That jury was afraid for its life.

                    1. Let’s see what an anonymous juror tells the press.

                    2. CBS had an interview with one of the juror alternates, but not anonymously. She said the jurors who deliberated got it right. Didn’t seem scared of anything. But then again, that was happening in objective reality. I’m sure in the right-wing bubble, she was cowering in terror.

                3. Don, why did George Washington pardon Daniel Shays?

                  What was it that Washington was trying to prevent from happening, and what was Washington trying to accomplish?

                  1. Don, why did George Washington pardon Daniel Shays?

                    He didn’t.

                    Aristotle was not Belgian, the principle of Buddhism is not “every man for himself”, and the London Underground is not a political movement.

              2. “Why do you think that Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the Klan?”

                Because he was a bitter loser?

                1. Maybe avoid taking lessons from terrorists.

          2. ‘No justice’

            Even on the racist face of it, these are all arguments for defunding and reforming police.

        2. Of course you can. Because you can’t stop hoping there’s a critical mass of people as partisan and crazy as you are.

          But so far, that has not proven the case.

          If the police go on strike for the right to kneel on necks for 11 minutes…well, I don’t see that working out as you think it will.

          1. Your comments indicate you haven’t been following this case or the trial very closely. It was 9 minutes and 28 seconds, which was widely publicized. And, if you watched the trial or even read summaries of the testimony, you’d know it wasn’t his neck that was knelt on, and that he wasn’t choked to death. But I doubt that’s important to you.

            1. “It was 9 minutes and 28 seconds”

              ThePedant

              1. That thing that connects his head to his torso is no longer his “neck”
                –same guy

            2. Publius, if anyone who isn’t a police officer put a knee anywhere on someone for 9 minutes and that person then died, there wouldn’t even have been a jury trial because any competent lawyer would have told the client to take a plea deal. Had there been a jury trial the jury would have convicted in about five minutes.

              1. Well, sure, and if anyone who isn’t a police officer cuffed you, forced you into his car, drove you away, and locked you in a cell, you’d have a slam dunk kidnapping charge, too. Police get to do a lot of things us regular peons aren’t permitted to do, sometimes perfectly reasonable things for police to be doing.

                I think Chauvin might have been guilty of a crime, but that Murder 2 was over-charging. And I expect he’s going to get a retrial.

                1. Not if the person was making a legitimate citizens arrest I wouldn’t. Police don’t actually have that many more legal rights than civilians do.

                  I would not bet one way or another if he gets a new trial. A competent attorney can always find something to appeal, but the court of appeals is not going to want to re-try this circus again if it doesn’t have to.

                2. I think Chauvin might have been guilty of a crime, but that Murder 2 was over-charging. And I expect he’s going to get a retrial.

                  Brett is now a Minnesota criminal defense lawyer.

                  1. He knows as much about Minnesota criminal law as anything else he chooses to spout about.

                  2. It’s not just Minnesota law — it’s also the 14th Amendment.

                    1. Where does the 14th amendment refer to murder?

                3. ” Police get to do a lot of things us regular peons aren’t permitted to do, sometimes perfectly reasonable things for police to be doing.”

                  Murdering people turns out not to be one of them, this time around.

        3. Maybe a “Blue Flu”, maybe an outright strike — but the conviction on the 2nd degree charge is bullshyte.

          Based, no doubt, on your extensive study of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.19. Which element of the offense do you think the prosecution failed to prove?

          1. This bogus verdict came from a jury afraid for its life, of course. Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose. That judge needs to be fired.

            1. “This bogus verdict came from a jury afraid for its life, of course.”

              This accurate verdict came from a jury that sat through all the evidence.

              1. Jurors were forced to sit next to Democrats who knew their names.

        4. ” the conviction on the 2nd degree charge is bullshyte.”

          Yeah, totally. It’s not like there was video of him committing the crime…

    3. Waters and then Biden, we have had this reported in Australia, “I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict. I think it’s overwhelming, in my view. I wouldn’t say that unless the jury was sequestered now.”

      We have had judges reprimand and demand apologies or threaten action from Ministers of the Federal government for expressing a concern that terror goal terms in general weren’t severe enough while one was before them for sentencing. Yet senior members of your Congress can demand convictions, for murder, manslaughter would require “confrontation”, while a matter is before a jury, and your President doesn’t think it matters about him declaring a person guilty before the matter is decided before the court because the jury is sequestered. The judge?

      Asking God to get the 12 men and women of the jury to do “right”. And where exactly does this genius of a President thinks that leaves the members of that jury if they don’t get it “right”. He has not sat on the jury and heard all the evidence and been made responsible to make an honest judgement, yet he presumes to tell America that he is worried they may at best fail in their duty. What an awful man. And in the meantime the citizens desperately try to protect themselves from the oncoming storm. Which he has no doubt fanned mightily.

      You do have the rule of law? It looks and feels like trial by media and mob, and worse, he has made it a political trial. I am amazed, and frightened of what you have become. Our initial response was this can not be right.

      1. I dread what Biden is going to say.

        White people can riot too, and it can be a lot uglier than what happened on January 6th.

        I think this was the second Dredd Scott decision, with the same inevitable consequences. God help us…

        1. It’s like a shaken up bee hive of hyperbole inside your head all the time, isn’t it?

          1. Do you think you improve your status somehow by constantly attacking Ed? Please stop, it adds nothing to the discussion, and fouls the atmosphere here.

            1. Your wacky partisanship that fosters Ed but condemns me for calling his craziness out is noted.

              1. For some, The Last Word means more than being thought a skunk at a picnic.

              2. Queenie tell the class the gender on your birth certificate?

                1. Sure. What species is on yours?

          2. You’ve never lowered yourself to associate with the White working class, have you?

            Ever driven a truck? Ever worked construction?
            I’ve done both, and I understand these people a little bit better than you do…

            1. “never lowered yourself to associate with the White working class”

              That was too far — but my point was/is that I really don’t think that Queen Amalthea understands the White working class, and that’s scary because they are like cobras — they sit, upset, for a long time, and then they act.

              I fear that this is going to be a really ugly summer…

              1. You don’t know white working class people at all, you think so low of them that they’ll erupt into political violence for the racist crap that gets your blood up.

                Quit devaluating white people, Ed. You’re always wrong about it, and it’s always gross.

            2. ” I understand these people a little bit better than you do…”

              Another Special Ed claim with no evidence to support it.

        2. White people have jobs. Too busy to riot.

          1. This is just another way of saying that actually they don’t give a shit.

        3. “White people can riot too”

          Yeah, we saw that in January. Didn’t work out the way you imagined, did it?

      2. The awful man in this context is the murdering police officer, who abused his authority to criminal degree.

        Anyone who believes Joe Biden is the awful man in this context deserves to be scorned, mocked, and shunned.

        Carry on, clinger. But just so far as your betters permit.

        1. Both can be awful men – and in this context, are.

          1. new “awful” men keep adding themselves to the debate.

        2. Charles Manson was an awful man, but Richard Nixon ought not have said what he did.

          Now as to Biden, does he even know *where* he is?

          1. Biden isn’t right every time, but he’s got a considerable lead on Special Ed. Literally anyone capable of directly perceiving reality would have an advantage on Special Ed.
            The part where Eddie is concerned that Biden is oriented to his surroundings is particularly ironic.

      3. ” where exactly does this genius of a President thinks that leaves the members of that jury if they don’t get it ‘right’.”

        Wrong, duh.

    4. Confrontation…you need to stretch hard for that to be solicitation to riot.

      And since you defended Trump saying stuff like “‘If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” you and your bad faith can GTFO.

      1. “you need to stretch hard for that to be solicitation to riot”

        Gaslito returns!

        Just like”fight” by Trump was a stretch, amirite?

        1. Fight like hell easily is more provocative than get more confrontational.

          Google them both:

          Fight: “take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.”
          “the men were fighting”

          Confrontational: “tending to deal with situations in an aggressive way; hostile or argumentative.”
          “he distanced himself from the confrontational approach adopted by his predecessor”

          1. Making excuses for violence is a hallmark of the insane left.

            1. I get dictionaries are strange to you.

            2. Getting stomped into political and cultural irrelevance by better Americans is the province of the bigoted, backward right.

              Keep up the good work, clingers.

              1. Please do this more. It illustrates many aspects of majoritarianism probably other than what you intend. Tomorrow belongs to you?

                1. In the long run, justice wins out.

          2. “Google them both:”

            Ok, did. Oh, this is interesting

            “fight

            NOUN

            a violent confrontation or struggle.”

            1. Too bad he wasn’t using it as a noun.

              When you chuck all principles for the Orange God the principles of grammar go to I guess. Lol.

              1. “wasn’t using it as a noun”

                Fight as a noun and fight as a verb mean different things? Amazing.

                1. Trying to argue grammar to distract from the fact that you don’t like that this defendant is guilty as charged isn’t going to advance your cause, Bob.

                  1. Good news, Bob. It looks like the police shooting in the news that happened in your state may actually involve a justified shooting.

          3. Maxine Waters:

            ” If nothing does not happen, then we know that we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice,”

            Neither Trump’s comments nor Water’s comments were incitement, though.

            1. Right-wingers coming down hard against the right to protest.

              1. They’re huge fans of free speech, unless you speak in criticism of them.

      2. Trump was a drogue anchor — and without him doing that, things very well could get very ugly, very quickly.

        God help us all….

        1. You’ve seen political violence around every corner since you logged onto this site.

          You’ve been wrong literally every time. The one time there was political violence this summer, you weren’t tracking.

          IOW, I’m not worried.

          1. “The one time there was political violence this summer,”

            What?

          2. “You’ve seen political violence around every corner since you logged onto this site.”

            It reminds me of the religious folks who sell all their possessions because Jesus is coming back next week, this time for sure.

            1. Timothy McVeigh was ALSO certain that the white people were going to rise up against the federal government.
              That logic led him to blow up a daycare center.

        2. “Trump was a drogue anchor”

          Yes, he was and is a drag. And he’s still dragging you down.

      3. “And since you defended Trump saying stuff like”

        Ahh, the “but Trump” defense. The last refuge of the desperate.

        1. Trump was the last refuge of the desperate, the disaffected, and the obsolete.

          Now, the reckoning.

        2. I’ll engage with the Watters thing (and yeah, that wasn’t good) when y’all have the standing to bring it up.

          So far you’re just revealing yourselves as a huge swath of hypocrites.

          I’m not going to pretend you’re arguing in good faith when you so clearly turned on a dime.

          1. Back to the ad hominem arguments, I say.

            One, I never defended Trump. I in fact have great contempt for him.

            Two, what Trump did or did not do does not justify what Waters did.

            Three, this is not an Article III court, so the notion of “standing” is laughable.

            1. It’s not an ad hominen to essentially impeach the witness. Look up inductive logic for pete’s sake.

              1. You really understand very little. These are opinion arguments, not factual witnesses. What Waters did is a matter of public record, and no one needs a comment of someone on this blog to verify it.

                1. Waters didn’t and doesn’t have the power to tell the national guard to let rioters gather in the capital.
                  Which is the OTHER reason why parallels to Trump are stupid.

              2. QA,
                Your inductive logic is quite a stretch in this case.

                1. As noted, I’m fine with engaging with people who I think have a legit beef, but AL and BL’s past history on this issue indicates no such principles.

                  1. That’s the problem with having no principles.

          2. “I’ll engage with the Watters thing (and yeah, that wasn’t good) when y’all have the standing to bring it up.”

            But if you don’t engage it, won’t you lose your standing to criticize the Trump thing?

            1. Trump is gone to Florida, and God willing, will stay there. Unless he’s stupid enough to go overseas.

          3. As you know, I criticized Trump for his part in the Capitol thingy. By your standards that means I can criticize Waters and others who spoke along the same lines.

            If Trump should have been impeached for what he said – and that’s a given on the left- then Waters should be removed from Congress. What’s good for the goose.

            A sitting congressperson telling a jury tithe equivalent of “nice city you got hrrr, shame if something were to happen to it” in unacceptable.

            But here we have the people who condemned trump declining to do so for waters, and the people that defended trump condemning waters. Why can’t people say that violence is bad no matter who causes or threatens it. It shouldn’t be that hard, but politics has destroyed your brains.

            1. violence is bad no matter who causes or threatens it.

              1. NONONO.
                violence is awesome when the brave firearms enthusiast defends himself by shooting some “attacker” in the back.

            2. Yep, you absolutely can.

              I don’t think Waters should be removed from Congress – what she said was nothing like what Trump said – witness the complete lack of imminent lawless action.

              But she shouldn’t have said it.
              Biden said it better, no doubt: ““I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is, I think it’s overwhelming in my view,” the president said, adding: “I wouldn’t say that unless the jury was sequestered.”

              1. Waters is a demagogue. Nothing new there.
                She is not going to be removed by Nancy’s troops. NP needs her in the House.
                A wise president would just thank the prosecutors and jury for their conscientious service to the community. Little more need be said.

              2. Biden shouldn’t have said that before the trial was over. He’s gone full Nixonian.

                Manson trial reference for those that don’t get it.

                This is not the first time that Waters has encouraged violence. She should go.

                1. In today’s lesson, we’ll learn that “confrontation” does not imply violence. See, e.g., the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them.

            3. “If Trump should have been impeached for what he said – and that’s a given on the left”

              Said… AND DID.

            4. “As you know, I criticized Trump for his part in the Capitol thingy. By your standards that means I can criticize Waters and others who spoke along the same lines. ”

              But you’re still limited to things that actually, objectively happened, and not things that you just imagine happening.

      4. Did you read all of her remarks? Much more an incitement to violence than anything Trump said on January sixth.

        In part:
        “We’re looking for a guilty verdict and we’re looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd. If nothing does not happen, then we know that we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice.”

        1. “fight”

          Oh, so exactly like Trump.

          1. Not exactly like Trump, unless she told them to be sure to protest peacefully.

            1. Crucial difference – one was in response to a video of a polceman committing murdering, the other was in response to losing an election.

      5. “And since you defended Trump saying stuff like “‘If you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” you and your bad faith can GTFO.”

        What about your bad faith for defending Waters but not Trump?

        1. It is Gaslito, 12. What do you expect?

          1. No fair. I want a grade-school-level nickname, too.

      6. “I hope that we are going to get a verdict that says ‘guilty, guilty, guilty,’” Waters continued.

        “If we don’t we cannot go away. We have got to get more confrontational. We have got to make sure that they know that we mean business,”

        Uh huh…. The Judge already said it could be grounds for appeal.

        1. He also said he didn’t think it was material, so…

          1. ‘It could be grounds for appeal, but to somebody who doesn’t have to live in this town.’, basically.

            1. Your telepathy continues to astound.

              1. When he starts selling those Bellmore-branded reality filters on the open market, he’s going to make a fortune.

      7. You’re coming at this wrong. They don’t have to stretch. They’re watching people protest against injustice, with violence and property destruction erupting in the course of it (always bearing in mind that the heavily armed and judicially protected police with the power to respond with overwhelming violence to the protests are the very people they are protesting against) and they think the problem here is the protesters, not the injustice, or the corrupt institution being called to account. Whether the violence justifies the institution continuing in its present state or whether they are wholeheartedly on the side of the corrupt institution is fungible – they are simply against the people protesting, first and foremost. These are the same people who fetishise the 1st amendment as a means of violently opposing oppression.

        1. Yes, we think the people ‘protesting’, actually rioting, ARE the bigger problem, because they’re far worse than the police in terms of the damage they’re doing.

          When you’re fighting an injustice, you have an obligation to not perpetrate worse injustices in the process.

          I have been to many protests in my life, all of them remarkably peaceful. Violence, arson, and looting are not inevitable parts of protesting, they are a reflection on the people doing it. And, inevitably, a reflection on the cause they are doing it in the name of.

          1. ‘because they’re far worse than the police in terms of the damage they’re doing’

            The protesters haven’t caused any damage. The rioters haven’t caused a fraction of the damage a corrupt and unaccountable police force routinely inflicts.

            ‘When you’re fighting an injustice, you have an obligation to not perpetrate worse injustices in the process.’

            Where was this wisdom in the run-up to the second Iraq War? Protesters are inflicting no injustices. Rioters cannot possibly inflict worse injustices than a corrupt and unaccountable police force.

            Violence, arson and looting are not an inevitable part of protesting, but they’re a predictable side effect of respect for the institution of policing breaking down, and for police turning into something resembling an occupying force. If you truly believe in what you are saying, you are clearly abjuring the second amendment, and have turned into an anti-war activist since the heady days of the Axis Of Evil and Abu Ghraib.

            1. “‘When you’re fighting an injustice, you have an obligation to not perpetrate worse injustices in the process.’”

              Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

          2. “I have been to many protests in my life, all of them remarkably peaceful. Violence, arson, and looting are not inevitable parts of protesting, they are a reflection on the people doing it. ”

            And, in your imagination, everyone standing nearby is also tarred by it. (Unless they’re protesting losing an election.)

          3. “Yes, we think the people ‘protesting’, actually rioting,”

            The problem is that you can’t tell the difference between the people protesting and the people rioting.

    5. “Maxine Walters has threatened additional “Confrontation” if the verdict isn’t what she wants..”

      Did she do it on Twitter? Also, ‘confrontation’ is a bit vague.

      “One of the defense witnesses old houses has been felony vandalized.”

      Is there a link for this (and what does ‘old’ mean, one they used to own but have no connection to now?)?

        1. Thanks for the help actually, that’s messed up certainly.

          1. It’s a real bummer for whoever lives there now, for sure.

      1. Saturday evening

        “Waters, a California Democrat, had joined protesters on Saturday outside the police department of a Minneapolis suburb where a police officer fatally shot a Black motorist earlier this month. Waters, who is Black, told the crowd she wanted to see a murder conviction against Derek Chauvin for Floyd’s death.”

        Sunday morning:

        “Two soldiers in the Minnesota National Guard suffered minor injuries on Sunday after they were fired upon in a drive-by shooting in Minneapolis.
        Officials said several shots were fired at Minneapolis police officers and Minnesota National Guard soldiers from a light-colored SUV at around 4:19 a.m.”

        1. ““Two soldiers in the Minnesota National Guard suffered minor injuries on Sunday after they were fired upon in a drive-by shooting in Minneapolis.”

          Yeah, both sides engage in insurrection.

          1. That being the case, which side is rebelling against injustice, and which against democratically losing a position of power?

    6. I’m much more blunt — the message that White America has been given is VIOLENCE WORKS.

      The 2nd degree conviction is bullshyte — the others not but the 2nd degree IS and remember that Mohammed Noor who shot (with a gun) a woman for no reason at all only was convicted of 3rd degree.

      Violence Works.

      That is not a good message…

      1. “the message that White America has been given is VIOLENCE WORKS” he said, defending a police officer kneeling on an unarmed man until he died…

        1. Still defending left wing violence I see.

          1. Still drunk I see.

      2. I’m part of white America. Not what I’m picking up.

        Oh wait, it’s just you threatening violence by proxy because something didn’t go your way.

        Well, that’s sad once again.

        1. You’re a liberal. That makes you a traitor to the white race, even if you purport to be part of it yourself.

          1. Conservatives, your fellow.

          2. Never been so proud to be called a traitor.

      3. “I’m much more blunt”

        This is the analysis from the dumb-as-boxes-of-rocks-American community.

        “the message that White America has been given is VIOLENCE WORKS”

        In the sense that the black guy will still be dead, but the murderer will be convicted.

      4. White America has known that violence works since America began. The monolithic nature of the power violence has given white people is what’s being threatened. What everybody else has learned is that there can be video of a white cop kneeling on a black man until he’s dead and only massive effort will bring about a conviction, the result will be in doubt until the very end, and white America will still get mad about it.

        1. ” white America will still get mad about it”

          You’re grouping the people mad about it by the color of their skin, rather than by the emptiness of their character.

          1. That was Dr Ed’s grouping.

            1. So you should have KNOWN it was wrong.

              1. I never claimed to be perfect!

    7. I agree that the comments of Waters (not Walters) were silly and inappropriate. Nevertheless:
      1. “Confrontation,” whatever that means, is not the equivalent of violence.
      2. Politicians have a habit of saying stupid things about trials while they’re underway. Nixon said that Charles Manson was guilty in the middle of that trial. It didn’t necessitate a reversal there and I doubt the comments of Waters will do so here, for 2 reasons:
      a) at this point we don’t even know that the jurors were aware that she made the comments;
      b) while a plausible argument could be made in the Manson case that the jury might be affected by the statements of the President of the United States, it’s hard to believe that the jury would be affected by the comments of a congresswomen who, I suspect, is relatively unknown in Minnesota.

      1. The fact is, he was recorded on video committing the crime. That had more effect on the trial than any commentary from outside.

      2. The statement of the Congresswomen…as she addressing the rioters in Minnesota…who are actively vandalizing and threatening the defense.

        I’ll say this. Would you, as a juror, feel “safe” in greater Minneapolis, if your name was released and you had given Chauvin a not guilty verdict?

        Or would you be personally afraid you may be attacked, verbally, socially or physically?

        1. Yes, AL, because I don’t live in some trashy thriller where blacks are all violent vigilantes.

          1. I never said anything about “all” blacks or even skin color at all.

            It only takes one person who feels personally aggrieved. You’re just a private citizen. You can’t request personal police protecting like Maxine Waters.

            You think you wouldn’t get any hate mail as a juror, if you gave the “wrong” verdict and your name was released?

            1. So you’ve climbed down to maybe hate mail now?

              Everyone who is in the news risks someone being aggrieved. Your risk aversion is all out of whack.

              Your putting fear into people you don’t know is just more of the right victimhood narrative. Here, the racial component is a particularly bad look.

              1. When the entire city gets boarded up before the verdict.

                When the courthouse you’re entering every day has double layer protective fencing installed

                When you get thousands of National Guard on the street corners in fatigues.

                All because of the trial you’re a jury member on. And you know quite well, that if you decide “wrong” all of those “safety” measures are there because of it and what may result. And you have to live in that city.

                Yes, a rational person feels fear.

                1. The jury was sequestered. Businesses are not people. Courthouses are not people.

                  You’ve got nothing but wild angry gestures and speculation, all towards an outcome that you want. Why the hell are you so committed to this police officer getting away with killing a black guy?

                  1. The jury was not sequestered until the deliberations.

                    They saw all of this. Every day, they walked into the courthouse, with the new security measures, the National guard with fatigues on corners.

                  2. “Why the hell are you so committed to this police officer getting away with killing a black guy?”

                    Because I believe in fair trials. Do you?

                    If a literal Nazi is on trial, should they get a fair trial, free of undue influence. Or should they just be told that they are guilty because they’ve been called a Nazi, and who cares about fair trials?

                    1. You’re speculating wildly based on telepathy and fiction to call the trial not fair.

                    2. “‘Why the hell are you so committed to this police officer getting away with killing a black guy?’

                      Because I believe in fair trials. Do you?”

                      so your definition of “fair trial” includes a requirement that “police officer kills black guy” = not guilty?

                    3. AL — to its credit, Israel did not convict an almost certain Nazi death camp guy a while back because of the burden of proof that Israeli law has.

                      As I understand it, they go beyond even “beyond reasonable doubt” and require something more, which — 80 years later, is probably as it should be.

                      And if Israel can give Nazis (Holocaust-era Nazis) this level of due process, why can’t we???

                2. ‘All because of the trial you’re a jury member on.’

                  All because the police are corrupt, unaccountable and a virtual law unto themselves. Easy to lose sight of what’s at the root of all this.

                3. “Yes, a rational person feels fear.”

                  And so do you.

            2. “You’re just a private citizen. You can’t request personal police protecting like Maxine Waters. ”

              Literally ANYONE can request police protection. Like, say, you were a 16-year-old girl in Ohio, you can call the police to report that a carload of people has been threatening you. Then the cops roll up and shoot you. I’m white, so I don’t get THAT kind of police protection, but that doesn’t mean I need them nearby, either.

              “You think you wouldn’t get any hate mail as a juror”

              EEK! some rando with a stamp wants to say mean things!

        2. “Would you, as a juror, feel “safe” in greater Minneapolis, if your name was released and you had given Chauvin a not guilty verdict?”

          Why should corrupt, racist jurors feel “safe”?

          1. Why indeed…. Why should jurors feel safe?

            Well, you’ve made it clear how you view the justice system

            1. Is reading difficult for you?

              1. Or is it just a problem with being confronted by people who don’t share your silly prejudices?

        3. “The statement of the Congresswomen…as she addressing the rioters in Minnesota…who are actively vandalizing and threatening the defense.”

          these Minnesota rioters had time to travel to California to vandalize a house? And then get back in time to not riot once the verdict came down? Those the rioters you’re referring to?

  2. Floyd died from the lack of oxygen in the lungs. The fluids from the drug overdose built up too fast which prevented the alveoli from being able to exchange the O2 with the blood.

    It is absurd to believe that prosecution claim and the three state witnesses that drugs played no factor in his passing.

    1. “It is absurd to believe that prosecution claim and the three state witnesses that drugs played no factor in his passing.”

      That wasn’t actually the claim. The claim was that even if the drugs contributed, he would not have died but for Chauvin’s actions.

      1. Except that with quantity of drugs taken , by the time Floyd exited the car, he was destined to die from the overdose even with first aid being administered. The fluid was rapidly building up at that point. The asphyxiation was set in stone at that point.

        1. When the joe_dallas M.D. show returns, the magic of crystals!

        2. Joe, you are telling on yourself.

          There is no “overdose dose” that can be determined from a drug test. Each junkie has different tolerance levels.

          So when one of the sources you favor tells you that Floyd was destined to die and it is a scientific fact, you now know that you should discard those sources as partisan fiction.

          1. LD50 is about 3ng/L, Floyd had over 10ng/L.
            While it is theoretically possible that Floyd might have survived that level of overdose, it would have been a miracle.

            Trying to pretend than minor variance in individual tolerance would have compensated for an over 300% overdose is just crazy talk. It’s the sort of claim that ignorant biased writers of fiction come up with.

            1. We’re not trying to pretend – we have the jury and experts on our side.
              You’re not an ME. You’re not an expert on drug tolerances, nor on pharmacology.

              The experts and the jury all say you’ve got it wrong. But you’ll selectively decide who to believe, I’d wager.

              1. The experts simply werent credible on the mechanism that caused the death. The excess fluid in the lungs prevented the exchange of oxygen through the alveoli in the lungs.
                The breathing difficulty started 4-5 minutes before the floyd was on the ground.

                1. Who are you that you get to say the experts were lying?

                  1. The medical experts for the state lost considerable credibility when they opined that the meth and fentanyl had nothing to do with the death.

                    The chicago cardiologist lost even more credibility when he claimed that a heart with 90% blockage in a main artery was less likely to suffer from a heart attack

                    1. You’re just talking out of your hat. They’re the official experts, you’re a rando on the Internet.

                    2. “The chicago cardiologist lost even more credibility when he claimed that a heart with 90% blockage in a main artery was less likely to suffer from a heart attack”

                      You’re not good at math, are you? A heart attack occurs when one of the cardiac arteries is 100% blocked. An artery with 90% blockage is not 100% blocked.

                2. The experts simply werent credible

                  The jury disagreed.

                  1. the jurors lacked sufficient background knowledge to be able to ascertain the credibility of most of the medical testimony

                    1. If only you were king, there would be justice in this land.

                    2. “the jurors lacked sufficient background knowledge to be able to ascertain the credibility of most of the medical testimony”

                      You lack sufficient intelligence to be able to assess the ability of the jury to assess credibility of witnesses.

                3. “The experts simply werent credible on the mechanism that caused the death. ”

                  If only criminal trials had some sort of credibility-testing built into their procedures.

                  The fact that you don’t/didn’t want to believe what they told you doesn’t change the fact that the jury charged with assessing the evidence did.

            2. LD50 for somebody who wasn’t a drug addict. If you take drugs on a regular basis, your body adapts to their presence, reducing the effect, you even end up with a reverse effect if you don’t take them, thus “withdrawal” symptoms.

              He was a quite ill walking pharmacy, but if he’d been a regular user who was otherwise in good health, it’s entirely possible 10ng/l would have just got him high.

              1. The guy wasn’t a first-time user. He didn’t die any of those other times when no cops hassled him. But the nasty drugs killed him THIS time just coincidentally when the cop was on top of him. OBVIOUSLY.

              2. Not really Brett — I’m also not a pharmacist but as it has been explained to me, LD50 (and remember that is only for 50%) actually remains constant while effective dose increases.

                As addiction progresses, the two levels start to get closer and closer to each other and, before fentanyl, that’s what led to overdoses.

        3. I mean, several medical experts disagree, but clearly they’re not going to convince you.

        4. Even if you’re right, that doesn’t actually matter legally, unless you’re contending that GF would have died at that exact moment regardless of the knee on his neck.

          If a guy jumps off a building and you shoot him on the way down, it’s still murder even if he probably would have died anyway when he hit the ground.

          1. Can you cite case law on that claim?

          2. No, that’s true: If you do something to a dying man that would kill a man who wasn’t dying, it is still murder.

            OTOH, if you do something to a dying man that a man who wasn’t dying would just shrug off, it’s not necessarily murder, even if it did accelerate the process a little.

            The restraint applied would not have harmed a man in good health, it was not the legal equivalent of shooting somebody. But there IS the ‘eggshell skull’ rule.

            I think you could reasonably have gotten to manslaughter in this case. Murder 2? Yeah, I think that charge will be overturned.

            1. I think you could reasonably have gotten to manslaughter in this case. Murder 2? Yeah, I think that charge will be overturned.

              I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ed, above:

              Based, no doubt, on your extensive study of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.19. Which element of the offense do you think the prosecution failed to prove?

            2. ” If you do something to a dying man that would kill a man who wasn’t dying, it is still murder.”

              Not if you live in a state that authorizes “death with dignity” assisted suicide.

              1. That Ed fellow isn’t very bright, is he?

                “I agree…”

          3. A ) the knee as on the back, not the neck
            B) the Knee on the back accelerated Floyd’s death by 2-3 minutes.

            1. A ) the knee as on the back, not the neck

              I believe this is what’s known as “gaslighting.” We all saw where the knee was.

              1. the body cam’s showed the knee on the top of shoulder

                I prefer to look at all the evidence, not the cherrypicked evidence.

                1. The body cam showed the knee on Floyd’s shoulder only after the paramedics arrived — likely after Floyd was already dead. It showed the knee on his neck for the bulk of the 9 minutes+.

            2. “A ) the knee as on the back, not the neck”

              Look at the photo again.

      2. “he would not have died but for Chauvin’s actions.”

        True, but there is a distinction between *IF* Chauvin knew his actions would kill him and if Chauvin *DIDN’T* know that — which gets into if the so-called “reasonable man” would have known.

        Floyd was recovering from Covid. While we didn’t know it in May of 2020, we now know that screws up the lungs. The autopsy reported fluid in Floyd’s lungs.

        I *still* think that Covid was a factor here — and Chauvin had no way of knowing either that Floyd was recovering from Covid or that Covid screwed up the lungs. Not in May when our best MDs didn’t know it…

        1. For good or for bad, we have taken qualem

          1. *talem. Thanks, autocorrect

        2. ” Chauvin had no way of knowing either that Floyd was recovering from Covid or that Covid screwed up the lungs.”

          It’s not like the victim didn’t straight up SAY he couldn’t breathe…How was Chauvin supposed to know that the guy he was kneeling on was having respiratory distress?

        3. ” there is a distinction between *IF* Chauvin knew his actions would kill him and if Chauvin *DIDN’T* know that — which gets into if the so-called “reasonable man” would have known.”

          Throw this on the big pile of things that Ed didn’t really understand as well as he likes to think he did.
          Hint: Whether or not Chauvin knew that the submission tactic he was using might interfere with breathing enough to cause death, He was told that it was interfering with breathing. The other officer suggested shifting Floyd’s position, but Chauvin wouldn’t let him do it.

    2. With that analysis, surely your handle should be Dr. Tom for equal rights.

    3. The state’s witnesses were experience forensic pathologists.

    4. “It is absurd to believe that prosecution claim and the three state witnesses that drugs played no factor in his passing.”

      Not as absurd as believing that the prosecution claimed that drugs played no factor in his passing.

  3. The black “community” won’t be taken seriously until they stop making every bad man who happens to die at the hands of police a folk hero. I’ve watched the video, and I think Chauvin acted criminally and inappropriately. But that doesn’t change the fact that Floyd was a very bad person

    1. My take is that chauvin acted appropriately until approximately 5 minute point at which time chauvin should have recognized that floyd was in serious medical straits. However, less than 4 minutes prior to that point and less than 6 minutes prior to that point floyd was quite active, therefore expecting / anticipating that Floyd would die of the drug overdose with in the next 5-8 minutes would be easily missed. So while I agree that chauvin acted inappropriately after the 5 minute point, his actions only had a very minor effect on the timing of his death. Basically Floyd was pre-ordained to die when he took the drugs.

      At the point that chauvin should have recognized the dire medical situation, floyd was too far along in the dying process to be saved by any first aid that could have been provided.

      1. I want to know why it took so freaking long for an ambulance go get there code 3.

        Code 1: Drive like a civilian.
        Code 2: Lights & Siren.
        Code 3: Go like hell….

        Chauvin declared a medical emergency when he elevated the call to Code 3 — and this was an ambulance that, supposedly, was already rolling. Wow….

        This isn’t T2R4 — this was in the middle of a freaking *city* and where the hell was the ambulance?!?!?!?!?

        1. “where the hell was the ambulance?”

          For a black dude? In a black neighborhood? Seriously?

          1. Well, yes…

            I think that Black dudes in Black neighborhoods deserve ambulance service — don’t you?

            1. The ambulances aren’t based in the ‘hood.
              It’s like the difference between trying to hail a cab in Manhattan vs. trying to hail a cab in Laramie.

              1. Well if they have a 3000 mile response distance, that needs to be addressed.

                1. In today’s update, Ed learns that things are different in the ‘hood than they are where the uptight white folks live.

      2. You should become former officer Chauvin’s prison pen pal.

        1. He should have lots of time for writing, since they won’t be able to put him in the general population. It’s not clear if the white racist prisoners will accept him just because the black racist prisoners don’t like him, or reject him for being a former cop.

      3. “Basically Floyd was pre-ordained to die when he took the drugs.”

        All those other times he took the drugs, nobody kneeled on him, so he was just lucky those other times.

        1. “Basically Floyd was pre-ordained to die when he took the drugs.”

          All those other times he took the drugs, nobody kneeled on him, so he was just lucky those other times.

          correct – he was lucky those other times, two of which he nearly died of the drug overdose. he had 11ng of fentanyl along with meth. The common range of OD from fentanyl ranges from 3ng to 16ng.

          1. It’s just a coincidence that the only time he DID die was that time the cop was kneeling on him.

            1. A) you only die once
              B) he apparently took small overdoses in the two prior times he nearly died. and probably without the combination of meth with the prior near death od’s

              1. “A) you only die once”

                There are a few books that show otherwise. One by a guy named Fleming, and another one that forms the basis for a major religion.

                  1. There was a prophecy at the end of each of the early Bond films…

                    “James Bond will return…”

                    and LO, HE IS RISEN!

    2. Being angry about law enforcement executions isn’t making the victim a folk hero.

      1. Law enforcement executions aren’t (and never have been) carried out in public in front of witnesses. Go rent the movie _Mississippi Burning_ if you want to see what a real law enforcement execution was like.

        Now this well may lead to law enforcement executions of the Jeffery Epstein style, but this was not such. Nor 2nd degree murder — I could live with 3rd degree but NOT SECOND!

        1. “Law enforcement executions aren’t (and never have been) carried out in public in front of witnesses.”

          That’s some top-level revisionism at work.

        2. ” Go rent the movie _Mississippi Burning_ if you want to see what a real law enforcement execution was like.”

          Say, Ed, you know that movies aren’t real, right? Hollywood is pretend make-believe. You knew that, right?

      2. It doesn’t have to be, but in this case, and that of Michael Brown, and nearly everyone else, it was.

    3. I’m … somewhat shocked. You said something reasonable:

      “I’ve watched the video, and I think Chauvin acted criminally and inappropriately.”

      Correct! Go you!

      At which point … murdering a very bad person is still murder. The victim being a “bad person” isn’t relevant, right? Serial murderers don’t get to say “I killed prostitutes so I’m innocent of murder!”, right?

      Just making sure you’re being rational here, because I don’t expect it to last.

      1. Yeah, because prostitution is JUST like committing an armed robbery and shoving a gun in a pregnant woman’s stomach. Let’s face the facts here. Floyd was a bad, violent savage, and the world is a better place with him dead.

        1. Chauvin was a bad, violent savage, and the world is a better place with him in prison.

          1. Sure. I don’t really see the relevance though.

            1. He committed a crime, got caught and got convicted. The end.

              1. For some reason, you’re whining about the fact that a violent murderer was convicted.

    4. The choice of bad persons to be poster boys is no accident. There are outfits involved that thrive on conflict and hate, and the last thing they want is to draw people together and solve problems.

      So they deliberately pick the cases that will divide us, not the ones that would unite us.

      1. …outfits?

        …they?

        This is some warmed over lame-ass protocols crap.

      2. I never thought of it that way, but I think you’re right.

        1. “I never thought”

          Believable, but it gets less believable when you continue on.

      3. To add to that, BLM was a perfect opportunity to oppose the over-policing of America in general, but since that would benefit whites too, they couldn’t have it.

        Notice how little the media spoke about Philando Castile, which was a flagrantly outrageous case? Or about Botham Jean? But both of them were law abiding people, so they wouldn’t serve as good poster boys for bad policing.

        1. If your analysis depends on the premise that the media didn’t cover the Philando Castile case, that proves it isn’t very good analysis.

          1. Are you autistic or something?

            1. No. But you’re schizophrenic.

      4. ‘The choice of bad persons to be poster boys is no accident.’

        90% of the attraction of Trump for his base.

    5. ” The black ‘community’ won’t be taken seriously until they stop making every bad man who happens to die at the hands of police a folk hero.

      The twit community won’t be taken seriously until they stop reflexively supporting cops who kill unarmed black people.

  4. Whitesplaining police brutality.

    1. Hi, Bubba. I hope Democrats win in your jurisdiction.

      1. Send them some money to help make it happen.

  5. Floyd, a man who most people worshipping him now, wouldn’t spit on if he was in fire most likely died primarily from his poor health and drug habit. Chauvin at most deserves involuntary manslaughter. Anything more, sends the message that the rule of law is secondary to political winds.

    1. Way to second guess the medical examiner.

      1. The examiner simply added the choking as involved because he was a scared little baby like most people. There is nothing to suggest it in the report itself or any outside medical evidence which actually contradicts it.

        1. “because he was a scared little baby like most people”

          In addition to being a medical expert AmosArch is a mind-reader!

          I’m betting he’s a climatologist, epidemiologist, and more as well!

          1. When you really, Really, REALLY want something to be true, the evidence just melts and reforms itself to show that the something is true.Cutting taxes increases government revenue, cutting deficits. Every time! (Unless the Democrats are sabotaging it, of course.)

        2. Your telepathy is as amazing as your bravery, which is in turn as amazing as your medical expertise.

          1. no burst blood vessels indicative of choking. Talking fluently. Massive lethal doses of drugs in system. Waiting on your specific medical evidence other than ‘they said so’.

            1. I’m not claiming anything other than that you’re full of it.

              1. You were clearly arguing with me and now that I’ve shown you don’t have anything to back up your arguments you are suddenly Johnny Edgelord above the fray. Got it

                1. Yeah, I’m arguing that your statements are full of it.

                  Contradicting the ME, the other MEs, the jury, and the judge, with nothing more than medical gobbledygook.

                  1. The amazing part is how Amos got one set of evidence, and the jury got another, despite the trial being televised.

    2. “Anything more, sends the message that the rule of law is secondary to political winds.”

      EXACTLY.

      And that threats of mob terrorism are an acceptable way to influence those political winds…

      1. ” threats of mob terrorism are an acceptable way to influence those political winds…”

        Didn’t we settle that this is not the case back in January?

        1. No, we didn’t.
          They ought to have worn masks…

          1. You didn’t learn anything from failing? Why isn’t that a surprise?

    3. “Chauvin at most deserves involuntary manslaughter.”

      For murdering a fellow in public, in broad daylight, while pretending to act under color of law?

      1. No, for negligently contributing to the death of a fellow, while actually acting under the color of law.

        1. Extrajudicial killing isn’t how “color of law” works, Brett.

  6. Guilty of 2nd and 3rd degree murder and manslaughter.

    Now instead of burning down Minneapolis in anger, they can burn it down in celebration.

    Until the appeals begin.

    1. Chauvin’s appeal position does not seem strong. Maybe the clingers should put Trump Elite Litigation Strike Force on it.

      1. ” Maybe the clingers should put Trump Elite Litigation Strike Force on it.”

        How can Donald Trump make some money from that? If he can’t, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen…

    2. Like WTF is he legally guilty of besides making an inflammatory video? Does anyone really know? The chokehold was textbook allowed protocol. The police don’t have a duty to release someone because they ask. Uhhh..I supposed he should have called the ambulance sooner, even though Floyd probably was already dead. So…I guess we’ve just reversed countless federal court decisions and not only retroactively reinstituted duty to rescue for police but tacked on the murder penalty to top it off. Wow, legislation by Twitter is such a wild ride!

      1. He HAD called the ambulance — Chauvin actually elevated the call priority from Code 2 to Code 3.

        Now where the hell it was is a question that I think needs to be asked, along with what (if any) medical training Chauvin himself had, but he had declared a medical emergency and requested that the ambulance be expedited.

        1. They summoned the ambulance because Floyd was bleeding from the mouth. The guy was unable to resist (because he was dead) before Chauvin got off him.

          1. Doesn’t matter.

            1: Had Chauvin called for an expedited ambulance?
            2: Had it arrived???

            Now if Chauvin had told the ambulance crew to go f*** themselves, that would be a very different situation….

            1. “1: Had Chauvin called for an expedited ambulance?
              2: Had it arrived???

              Now if Chauvin had told the ambulance crew to go f*** themselves, that would be a very different situation….”

              Funny you should mention allowing the ambulance crew to attend to Mr. Floyd. You do know what happened when they showed up, right? How Mr. Chauvin immediately hopped off Mr. Floyd and assisted the EMTs in attempting to revive him (which, for some reason, didn’t show up on video.)

      2. “The chokehold was textbook allowed protocol.”

        Not according to the people who wrote the textbook, or the people who taught the textbook to Minneapolis police officers. It’s details like this that can really trip up your legal arguments.

        1. After the incident. Funny how everything lines up once everyone jumps on the same bandwagon. Now find where in the PDs teaching materials created before the incident where the chokehold was flagrantly wrong.

          1. Are you accusing the police of engaging in a cover-up? Big if true.

          2. “Now find where in the PDs teaching materials created before the incident where the chokehold was flagrantly wrong.”

            They took the sleeper hold out of the Portland Police Bureau training a couple of decades ago because a few too many suspects, mostly black ones, were dead before they could be booked into the jail. So the cops got t-shirts made that said “smoke ’em don’t choke ’em” which surprisingly didn’t go over well, PR-wise.

      3. “Like WTF is he legally guilty of besides making an inflammatory video?”

        Well, he killed a guy. Some people consider that a crime.

    3. I would love to see all cops walk off the job in every place with any significant number of blacks. Leave these people to their own devices.

      1. Why do you want all the cops fired?

        1. I don’t. I want cops to refuse to police black neighborhoods. Let them burn.

          1. Yes, but you’re a racist psychopath with violent fantasies.

            1. And you’re a pansy liberal.

              1. And you’re terrified of me! I love it!

          2. Q: Why do you want all the cops fired?
            A: “I don’t. I want cops to refuse to police black neighborhoods. Let them burn.”
            You’d burn them for not doing their jobs? Harsh.

      2. I wouldn’t love to see that, myself, because even in the worst of these areas, most of the people are innocents who are deserving of police protection.

        But, going forward, it is going to become extraordinarily difficult for urban areas to hire and retain cops. And that’s actually going to exacerbate things, because they’re going to have to lower their standards to staff police departments, they won’t be able to be picky.

        1. Yeah, well, as the black community showed us with the sack dance after the OJ acquittal, they hate America, and they hate us. I’m done with them. Even the “good” ones are 95% Democrat Party voters, and those “deserving of police protection” still would rather channel their anger toward white America and not the bad people in their own communities.

          Screw them.

          1. You hear that, black community? The racist is DONE with you!

            1. Why don’t you go **** yourself?

              1. Because Nige, unlike you, has other options?

              2. Come now, the white race won’t propogate itself with that sort of carry on.

        2. If people don’t want to be cops because they might get in trouble for killing folks, I’m thinking we didn’t want to hire them in the first place.

          1. Oh give me a break. Darren Wilson was patently justified in his actions, and he still was attacked by the BLM crowd.

            1. You’re proving my case – you’re the kind of person I don’t want as a cop.

              1. And you’re the kind of person I don’t want as my fellow countrymen.

        3. But, going forward, it is going to become extraordinarily difficult for urban areas to hire and retain cops.

          Why? How hard is it to find people willing to fill good-paying jobs that don’t require much intellect that allow you to do pretty much anything you want to anyone as long as there’s no camera rolling?

          1. Yeah, but there’s paperwork.

    4. ” instead of burning down Minneapolis in anger, they can burn it down in celebration.”

      Did the Timberwolves win a playoff series?

  7. In the wake of this verdict, I hope you’ll join me in calling for America’s police to remain peaceful and stay off the streets.

    1. They should stay off the streets. Who needs law enforcement anyways.

      1. You seem disaffected, Bob from Ohio. Does this mean you are aware you and the other wingnuts are getting stomped in the culture war?

      2. What do America’s police have to do with law enforcement?

        1. I fear you’re about to get a crystal-clear read on that. Hopefully you’ll maintain the swagger and bravado to the end instead of curling up and whining like a coward.

          1. You think the cops are going to terrorise me for criticising them?

            1. What cops, too-cute troll?

              1. The heavily-militarised, over-budgeted, prone-to-violence, unaccountable, routinely lying cops.

                1. This particular thread was about them ceasing enforcement of the law. Please at least attempt to keep your yammering contextually appropriate.

                  1. It’d be nice of them to begin enforcement of the law sometime.

                  2. “This particular thread was about them ceasing enforcement of the law.”

                    If the job is too hard for them, maybe they shouldn’t be doing it.

                  3. “This particular thread was about them ceasing enforcement of the law. Please at least attempt to keep your yammering contextually appropriate.”

                    Why, if you won’t?

            2. Terrorise? I’m really tired of moralizing from foreigners. Go worry about your own worthless corner of the world.

        2. “What do America’s police have to do with law enforcement?”

          Oh, nothing/

          “VOX: From 2014 to 2019, Campbell tracked more than 1,600 BLM protests across the country, largely in bigger cities, with nearly 350,000 protesters. His main finding is a 15 to 20 percent reduction in lethal use of force by police officers — roughly 300 fewer police homicides — in census places that saw BLM protests.

          Campbell’s research also indicates that these protests correlate with a 10 percent increase in murders in the areas that saw BLM protests. That means from 2014 to 2019, there were somewhere between 1,000 and 6,000 more homicides than would have been expected if places with protests were on the same trend as places that did not have protests. ”

          3 to 20 times more deaths due to BLM protests.

          So, if the higher figure is accurate, more dead blacks because of BLM than Jim Crow lynchings.

          1. But the BLM protests were a response to police brutality, extrajudicial murders and lack of accountability. You act like the police becming a law unto themselves and people objecting to that isn’t going to lead to civil unrest. that’s why you don’t let the police become a law unto themselves.

            Also, the question raised by your research is why are cops so dependant on the use of lethal force to do their job competently? Seriously, if the police not killing people leads to a rise in crime, then there’s something seriously wrong with the police.

            1. Seriously, if the police not killing people leads to a rise in crime, then there’s something seriously wrong with the police.

              This is some of the best logic I’ve ever seen you employ. Well done!

              Now all you need is some real-world data. I’d suggest you start small to establish the principle and work your way up — stop killing bugs in your flat, and let us know how things are in a couple of years. That includes poisonous spiders, of course. And if you want to demonstrate the clear superiority of an “open windows” policy at the same time, all the better.

              1. I don’t kill bugs or spiders where I can help it. Haven’t you heard about the biodiversity crisis? Also, bugs and spiders are not people. This is, uh. Well. Wow.

                1. I don’t kill bugs or spiders where I can help it.

                  And there you have it. Hopefully enlightenment is starting to set in. Hopefully.

                  1. Yeah, now listen closely, this may comes as a shock. People, are not bugs. Not EVEN, and I want to make this absolutely clear, not EVEN black people.

                    1. It’s cute how you’re now playing the race card to try to squirm away. Go back and search (control-F in most browsers) for the word “principle” in my post. Look it up if you need to.

                    2. What can I say? When right wingers start talking about killing people in terms of killing vermin, I start to get a bit grinchy. I don’t think I want anything to do with a principle that justifies the killing of people by taking as a starting point the killing of bugs; you shouldn’t either.

                    3. ” Go back and search (control-F in most browsers) for the word ‘principle’ in my post.”

                      Are you conceding that there’s no principle in your posts?

                    4. Are you conceding that there’s no principle in your posts?

                      That’s the word he overlooked, dipshit. Clearly you didn’t look yourself.

                    5. No, not overlooked, I think you’ll find that developing your principle about the necessity of killing people from the starting place of killing bugs is what horrified me.

                    6. Nope. No principle.

                  2. What can I say?

                    Well, for starters, I think we’ve clearly established that you have no issue at all with the concept of playing god — you just want to be the one calling the shots. Next?

                    1. Playing god? ‘As flies to little boys’ was a simile you turnip.

                2. “I don’t kill bugs or spiders where I can help it.”
                  Wow, a man on the moral high ground. Hah!

                  1. I honestly wasn’t expecting to find myself on such dizzying moral heights as to be exchanging barbs with bright sparks from the moral depths who are comparing killing people to killing bugs.

            2. Nige, BLM *might* have started out in good faith, though I doubt it given the admitted Marxism of some of the founders. But it has long since devolved into a front for street gangs who want the cops off their turf.

              Yes, if you pull the police out of an area, the police are killing less people in that area, including the people justifiably killed, such as that woman shot the other day while trying to stab somebody.

              And then the lack of police will result in the area becoming much more violent, since we’re talking about areas where police violence was always a tiny, tiny fraction of the total violence, and was actually keeping the non-police violence in check.

              1. a front for street gangs who want the cops off their turf.

                This is utter bullshit. Don’t make stuff up.

                1. Well, of course, dude — I mean, someone went out and interviewed every last one of them, and nobody said that was the reason! And what a relief to finally understand that criminals never, EVER take cover in the halo of something that appears more righteous on the surface.

                2. Don’t make stuff up.

                  Why are you trying to silence Brett?

                  1. Because he’s a font of odious misinformation.

              2. Everything BLM has done or said has been justified and proven correct by the actions of the police, and the utter moral bankruptcy of responses like this, accepting that police explicitly keep control of black communities through violence, then through the threat of withdrawing the dubious protection of that violence. Policing is clearly rotten to the core.

              3. “BLM *might* have started out in good faith”

                Careful, Brett. They’ll pull your membership card if they hear you sympathising with the libs.

        3. A typically know nothing snark

    2. “calling for America’s police to…stay off the streets.”
      That is no help either.
      Chauvin caused massive harm to America. He was found guilty.
      It’s time to move on.

      1. “Chauvin caused massive harm to America. He was found guilty.
        It’s time to move on.”

        Alas, the dumb-as-box-of-rocks community decline to move on, as exemplified by their spokesman, Special Ed.

        1. I suggest that you and others ignore Ed.

          1. Sadly, he’s not alone. Others are smart enough to not try saying it out loud where decent people can hear.

  8. I will say the most interesting aspect of the case for me was the ‘spark of life’ testimony that seems to be a virtually exclusive Minnesota (never heard of it in law school though that was more than a few years ago). From what I’ve read I don’t think the prosecutors went over the line the precedent allows with that but I’m certainly less than comfortable with the entire doctrine.

    1. Just admit you’re a 1st year law student.

      1. Back to the one sentence, regression, it’s sad.

  9. Since this is a legal blog, what does it mean he was convicted on all three counts? I thought when there is a lesser included offense, the jury only convicts on the highest one.

    Does it add anything to have him convicted on all three counts, instead of the highest one?

    1. I assumed the trial Judge told them they could find guilty on any or all. If they should have only found on the highest, I assume the Judge would tell them to do this. I would however assume he will be sentenced on the highest count.

    2. He will only be sentenced on the highest count. But what it means is that if the conviction on the highest count is overturned for any reason, he doesn’t need to be retried.

      1. That’s what I assumed as well. But no one seems to be saying that in the coverage.

        Mr. D.

      2. Unless the highest count is overturned for a legal or factual reason that would imperil the other convictions as well.

        1. You mean like the jury hearing that a US Congresswoman is calling for riots???

          1. Yes, like that.

            Or a legal determination that the jury acted unreasonably in determining that Chauvin’s actions caused Floyd’s death. If that was the determination, then all charges would need to be reversed.

            1. Do we usually find that juries are unreasonable when they find facts to be facts?

              1. When the juries are made up of women of any races and blacks/hispanics? Absolutely.

                1. Ah. So your stupid and malicious opinion can and should be disregarded, then?

            2. Appellate courts in criminal cases do not review the reasonableness of jury verdicts. Only if evidence is insufficient when considered in the light most favorable to the government for any rational trier of fact to find every element of the offense to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is appellate relief available.

              Here the evidence of causation was contested and determined by the jury. The testimony of multiple experts supports the jury´s determination that causation was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

              1. Not true. Appellate courts can reverse jury verdicts if they find that no reasonable jury could have come to the conclusion it did based on the facts presented. It’s a tough hurdle, yes, but to flatly say that appellate courts don’t review reasonableness of jury verdicts is wrong.

                1. You’ve vastly moved the goalposts from your initial standard of ‘jury acted unreasonably.’

                  1. I didn’t say the jury acted unreasonably. I said that if the appellate court found that the jury acted unreasonably in deciding that Chauvin’s actions caused Floyd’s death, then all convictions would have to fall, not just the murder one.

                    1. Which is not the standard an appellate court would use.

                      ‘no reasonable jury’ is a higher standard than ‘this jury was unreasonable.’

                    2. No, it’s not.

      3. But I imagine he’ll have to get three different sentences, all to run concurrently.

        Or do they only sentence for the worst offense, and then if that charge is overturned on appeal they have to re sentence?

    3. ” what does it mean he was convicted on all three counts? I thought when there is a lesser included offense, the jury only convicts on the highest one.”

      The jury does what the jury does, and then the legal professionals apply the jury’s findings. So he won’t be sentenced for three convictions, just one. Chauvin and his lawyer waived a hearing on upward sentencing, so maybe they’re recognizing that they lost the jury anyway, or maybe positioning for ineffective assistance.

  10. It is worth noting that it took a 9 minute video showing Chauvin killing George Floyd to get a conviction. It took a very talented and hard working prosecution to get a conviction. How many people are convicted with much less evidence? This was a victory for the justice system but it also showed how limited is the system.

    1. You may not see it here, but since this summer, the needle has moved. It has a ways to go, but the arc of history etc. etc.

      1. Be careful what you wish for lest you get it — a disproportionate percentage of criminal defendants are Black males, and if obtaining convictions is now easier, then….

        1. There are black male cops, but they aren’t often charged with crimes, because it’s often very difficult to convict police officers.

        2. LOL, that’s not the needle that had moved, Ed.

          1. One needle that moved was Special Ed’s outrage meter. Why, if police can no longer murder black men in the streets, then the results will be anarchy! If Special Ed gets what he’s wishing for, anyway.

  11. Just from looking at the complaint and not having paid any attention to the proceedings, I’m a little puzzled as to why there’s no talk about possible merger in sentencing, or about any internal consistency of the verdict. This might, for some, end up being be too much of a good thing.

    Not expert, not advice, haven’t looked closely, don’t rely.

    Mr. D.

    1. There is no talk of merger for sentencing because procedure isn’t juicy debate. That doesn’t mean the lawyers and judge aren’t well aware of it.

      There is nothing inconsistent with the verdict. If you commit 3rd degree murder, in Minnesota, you necessarily commit the manslaughter as well. And the 2nd degree murder charge was the non intentional felony murder charge. I’m not sure what you think is inconsistent.

      I would have convicted of the manslaughter and 2nd degree murder charger. I’m on the fence about the 3rd degree murder charge, but don’t think it is unreasonable. I would need to give that charge more thought than I care to spend

      1. You’re probably right — I just quickly read the instructions and complaint. Intuitively: perhaps a tension between depraved mind and conscious disregard of a known risk, and the way that the state of mind for assault might have interacted with things. But that’s just top of the head from someone far remote from the field and the facts.

        Mr. D.

  12. ” Whatever happens, much will remain to be done to curb police abuse. ”

    We are continuing to get better, Prof. Somin, thanks mostly to the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

    1. I agree that much still needs to be done, and I want to be optimistic, but I’m also worried that in an effort to do SOMETHING, many jurisdictions will do the wrong things.

      Like NY City for example passed a law (with some good things in it) that prohibits police from putting any weight on a suspect’s body during arrest. While I’m sure we’ll intentioned, this is catastrophically stupid. If anything, cops should be required to train in jujitsu and become far better at restraining suspects safely and harmlessly. But this law renders all effective non violent force to be pretty much impossible.

      When you start taking away non violent tools you leave cops with only violent tools, and they will use them rather than potentially lose a fight with an uncooperative suspect.

      1. Or sit in the cruiser and wait for backup — and then call for a fire truck to clear up the blood…

        1. Fortunately for all of us, most of the cops in this country are not as useless and cowardly as you are.

        2. Perhaps coincidentally, one of Mr. Chauvin’s former coworkers apparently had a habit of acting as Special Ed suggests.

          1. And a lot more will.

            And your attack on me is similar to a racial slur.
            Just sayin….

            1. You’re your own race now?

              1. and calling you a you is a slur?

  13. I am a not a lawyer. Can someone explain the following?

    How can Derek Chauvin be found guilty on three separate counts, viz., second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter? Wouldn’t the most serious conviction supersede the lesser counts?

    And shouldn’t sentencing be based on the most serious count only, with no weight given to conviction on the lesser counts?

    I find this hard to understand. There was only one victim, not three. Why three guilty verdicts and three sentences for one crime?

    Whistling Willie

    1. “How can Derek Chauvin be found guilty on three separate counts, viz., second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter?”

      Easy. He’s guilty of all of them.

      ” Wouldn’t the most serious conviction supersede the lesser counts?”

      It does. Unless, on appeal, it gets vacated. In which case, he’s still guilty of the lesser charge.

      “And shouldn’t sentencing be based on the most serious count only, with no weight given to conviction on the lesser counts?”

      Yes. There’s other arguments for upward deviation in sentencing. Which normally have to be approved by the jury signing off on all the elements of the aggravating factors, but Chauvin waived this requirement. The judge applies the the same factors, but you don’t have the possibility of a split jury.

  14. No reasonable person could infer that the Chauvin jurors were not intimidated, or even in a state of horror after the Minneapolis riots and all the media drama. I cannot.
    ___
    [In 1966, the United States Supreme Court ruled “The massive, pervasive and prejudicial publicity attending petitioner’s prosecution prevented him from receiving a fair trial,”freeing Dr. Sam Sheppard from prison and condemning the media for their handling of a trial 12 years previous.] — from googling the Sam Sheppard case

    1. No reasonable person could infer that the Chauvin jurors were not intimidated, or even in a state of horror after the Minneapolis riots and all the media drama. I cannot.

      They were sequestered, you yutz.

      1. Not through the whole trial, just for deliberation.

        1. So you agree that ‘no reasonable person could infer that the Chauvin jurors were not intimidated?’

          Of course you do – no one who disagrees with you is ever reasonable.

          1. Upthread, Mr. Bellmore conceded that maybe, possibly, back in the beginning, maybe BLM was acting in good faith. That’s about as far as he bends.
            What more do you want?

    2. “No reasonable person could infer that the Chauvin jurors were not intimidated, or even in a state of horror after the Minneapolis riots and all the media drama. I cannot.”

      You don’t have to infer what you can ask them directly. There was a juror on the TV this morning talking about being a juror, and oddly, intimidation wasn’t a subject she brought up.

Please to post comments