Jump to content

George Floyd and the protests.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Zathras said:

Anything's possible.  Juries are unpredictable.   I think it unlikely they will find him not guilty.  But, could be a hung jury, which effectively is the same thing. 

As long as they all have atleast 1 brain cell, I think he will be convicted of at least murder 3.

 

After the past year, I’m not sure Americans have a single brain cell between all of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thiiiiiiiis!   I threw myself into the Standing Rock movement in 2016, and ended up in a community organizer role. When you work with one social justice movement, you end up working with all of them,

I wish people would be just as outraged at the conditions that created the riots as the riots themselves.

I'm 110% all in on defunding the police. I also like the idea of disbanding departments and rebuilding them from the ground up, not necessarily with rookies though. But disbanding offers the opportuni

3 hours ago, Destiny Skywalker said:

If they acquit him, there are going to be riots. And they probably should riot. But its going to be bad.

Agreed.  Something worse than the Watts riots I imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The jurors burst into tears during the video. I think this is the one cop that finally gets his punishment for being a bad cop. He skated too long on the system that allows this to keep happening. But hey, I'm an optimist.

Okay, is anyone pissed that they're pivoting to say George's drug addiction and health issues are his reason for his death during this trial? Like even a healthy person should haven't a knee on his head for 9+ minutes. So I should die because I'm fat and don't exercise because I need to be prepared to have some cop sit on my neck while others block it? George's health issues and drug addiction should have ZERO to do with what the hell a cop was doing sitting on his neck. This defense is making me mad because my sister has addiction issues and if a cop did that to her I'd be super angry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing, everyone on that jury knows that Chauvin killed Floyd. Everyone in the country, hell even the world, knows this. And if that's all that our justice system hinged on, it would be a done deal. But Americans have such a warped view of justice and punishment that it doesn't actually matter. 

We view justice as a system of "what they deserved" where what someone "deserves" is often more about their individual demographics and characteristics rather than the circumstances surrounding a single event and the event itself. We tend to view justice as transactional as well - do A, then B. We don't deal with the big picture. We don't bother to think about what crime is or why it happens or what we can do to prevent it. 

We're also overly-punitive. Americans just LOVE to punish someone. You can see this attitude in the way people think about and talk about children as well. Anyone here who's a parent knows that if you go seeking advice about nearly anything involving your kids, people are going to suggest new punishments or ways to control behavior (which are often very punitive in themselves even if people wouldn't label them outright as a punishment). We apply this liberally whenever there's a "crime" involved as well. People want to see someone punished for a crime. We don't want to see criminals rehabilitated or systemic issues corrected, we want to see someone pay. And in far too many cases, it doesn't matter whether the person paying is actually guilty, but it does matter if they're seen as someone "deserving". "Deserving" people need punishment. "Non-deserving" people don't. 

Just think, prosecutors and district attorneys are known by their conviction rate regardless of whether that conviction rate actually has any effect on the crime rate or safety of their jurisdiction. Hell, our local constable precinct posts every single arrest they make on their Facebook page to brag about how "well" they're doing, and people EAT. IT. UP. There's no mention of presumed innocence or care for a suspect's privacy. But they claim to want to keep the public informed and aware of what's happening in their community. And yet, you know what, last night over 2 dozen of their officers, a K9 unit, and the HPD helicopter were all over my block looking for a suspect who broke into 2 vehicles at 3AM. They never found the guy, but do you think they're going to mention it on the FB page? Pfft. There isn't anyone to punish, so why bother? 

My point being, everyone knows that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, but that doesn't meant that everyone think he's "deserving" of punishment for it. The defense just needs to throw everything they can at the jury so that ONE person who doesn't want to see Chauvin pay has something to cling to. 

If anyone is looking for some good moral outrage this weekend, watch 13th and then The Innocence Files both on Netflix. Our system is so broken, and these 2 shows do a decent job of scratching the surface. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

'We view justice as a system of "what they deserved" where what someone "deserves" is often more about their individual demographics and characteristics rather than the circumstances surrounding a single event and the event itself.'

This.

We don't really WANT a system that rehabilitates, either, we only want a punishment system.

My guess is Chauvin walks and we have riots in at least 6 major US cities

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, monkeygirl said:

'We view justice as a system of "what they deserved" where what someone "deserves" is often more about their individual demographics and characteristics rather than the circumstances surrounding a single event and the event itself.'

This.

We don't really WANT a system that rehabilitates, either, we only want a punishment system.

My guess is Chauvin walks and we have riots in at least 6 major US cities

 

I agree. I hope not, but I agree.

I’m already planning on how to join the local protests once it happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's gross that we feel relief. That implies we all felt like there was a good chance he'd walk-- because based on this country's track record, it WAS very likely.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Destiny Skywalker said:

Well I'm relieved. They could not let him walk after that.

Me too, but it won't be long before something like this happens again, and it will start all over.

6 minutes ago, Tank said:

It's gross that we feel relief. That implies we all felt like there was a good chance he'd walk-- because based on this country's track record, it WAS very likely.

 

I didn't think there was a chance this guy would walk, but your point is taken and it is all too true.  Too much video footage.  This was a case where what you see is what it is, which was murder.  For me, the only question was it going to be 2nd degree, 3rd degree, or manslaughter.  Fortunately the jury convicted him on all three.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big part of the conviction was police/first responder testimony. Normally cops don't testify against other cops. If there hadn't been such a movement afterwards, would they have done so? Would they have finally said ok this guy really did cross the line?

I'll admit, I don't know if he was a bad bad cop all around, or just an incredibly shitty one for 9 minutes. Its clear he lost control of his ego and that's what killed George Floyd. His ego.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling of all the cops in this world, Derek Chauvin will survive. He's mean. But if he commits suicide I wouldn't be surprised either. I too thought it was pretty bad when people that are co-workers testified. Like how much of a dick was he to other officers but because of the way firing works with all the unionizing it was just hard to get rid of him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to rain on everyone’s parade, but the trial judge already said that the entire trial will probably be thrown out on appeal. And him commenting on it in that manner could probably be grounds for it alone, since the trial judge felt that there were big enough problems. Mostly related to Rep Maxine Walters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Destiny Skywalker said:

They were going to appeal no matter what.

Does an appeal have to start over completely or do they include all previous testimony? New evidence?

Appeals are related to matters of the trial, not retrying the case. So, for example, if they find that Rep Walters’ words could have swayed the jury by making them fear for their safety, then that could be grounds for a new trial. But they can’t just appeal and say “He’s innocent, the jury just got it wrong.”

So the judge making those comments means that there’s an easy argument to be made that the trial judge knew there was a serious issue with her comments related to the trial, but the judge erred in not declaring a mistrial.

If the trial is thrown out and there’s a new trial, then it pretty much starts over from the beginning. There can be situations where previous testimony can be used, but it typically requires extenuating circumstances - like someone who was a witness dying. 
 

At least that’s what I’ve gathered from working with attorneys and reading about trials. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fozzie said:

Not to rain on everyone’s parade, but the trial judge already said that the entire trial will probably be thrown out on appeal. And him commenting on it in that manner could probably be grounds for it alone, since the trial judge felt that there were big enough problems. Mostly related to Rep Maxine Walters.

I know you address some of this above, but don't murder trials have rights to appeal, anyway?  I am pretty sure they do, so that is to be expected.  I wouldn't blame the judge so much as Maxine Walters is an idiot and should have kept her mouth shut, instead of trying to glom on for attention.

That said, if it wasn't her idiocy, I am sure there would be a lawyer somewhere to find another reason for appeal, anyway.  We will see how it shakes out.  If Chauvin gets a relatively light sentence, he may wave his appeal, for fear of doing worse the next time.  

It should also be noted that appeal does not equate to an automatic retrial.  It just means that the defense has the right to appeal to a higher court, if there was something done incorrectly within the trial itself.   Maxine Walters can say whatever, but because the jury was sequestered, her comments had no bearing on the trial itself. 

As for the judge not declaring a mistrial, that is his right as a judge.  My understanding is that it takes a higher court to reverse his ruling (throw it out), and if that higher court refuses to hear the case, then the ruling stands. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waters wasn't a part of the chain of command or touched the jury. The jury would have had the standard instructions not to listen to outside sources. But we'll see. My faith in courts right now are minimal because of the previous administrations stacking of courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...