Chauvin Verdict

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

SomeDude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by SomeDude » Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:45 pm

tomfoolery wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 pm
flyingpylon wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:58 pm

What percentage of those killed were in the process of committing a crime? Certainly some percentage would have been justified. Lots of context missing here.
So it’s okay to murder someone for committing a crime, like selling loose cigarettes or passing a homemade $20 bill? Or is it only okay if they’re black?
Half black is also acceptable depending on which race they identify with.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:46 pm

I've a few times mentioned how powerful and persuasive was the testimony of Dr. Tobin (pulmonologist).

Vinny

Juror says medical expert convinced her of Chauvin's guilt

CNN.com - Top Stories / 2021-04-22 15:20

(CNN)An alternate juror in Derek Chauvin's trial told reporters Thursday that Dr. Martin Tobin, the soft-spoken doctor who explained how George Floyd died, convinced her of the former police officer's guilt.

"Dr. Tobin was like the turning point for me," said Lisa Christensen. "I appreciate him explaining it in the way that all of us could understand it. I understood what he was saying. I thought it was very powerful -- probably the most important witness they had."

Tobin, a pulmonologist who studies the physiology of breathing, testified that Floyd died of low oxygen due to Chauvin's restraint. Christensen praised the way he narrated key, specific moments in the video that might have otherwise been missed.

"I feel like he could actually point out, going through the video, saying, 'Hey at this instance right here is where Mr. Floyd lost his life,' " she said.

As an alternate juror, Christensen sat through the entire trial but was dismissed prior to deliberations, so she was not one of the 12 jurors who voted to convict Chauvin on two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter.

Still, her comments are the first public indication of what jurors in court every day felt and thought of the case against the former Minneapolis Police officer. Her analysis also fits neatly with what court viewers and legal analysts said of the most powerful witnesses.

In a press conference with the media as well as in an interview on "CBS This Morning," she said she believed Chauvin was guilty.

"I didn't know if he was going to be guilty on all counts, but I would have said guilty," she told CBS.



Christensen said watching the video of Floyd's death, which she hadn't seen in full before, left her in tears a couple times. And she expressed her continued confusion about how a suspected fake $20 bill got so out of hand.

"I just don't understand how it got from a counterfeit $20 bill to a death," she said. "It kind of shocks me."

The jurors in the high-profile case were unnamed and unseen on camera to protect their identity.

In jury selection, Christensen, a White woman in her 50s, said she worked until recently in customer service in a suburban business that was damaged in the civil unrest after Floyd's death. She said she had a "somewhat negative" view of Chauvin, but generally trusts police and believes people who follow their instructions have nothing to fear.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Fri Apr 23, 2021 8:52 pm

I've seen a lot of articles on the trial. Most of them I've found deficient.

This one is excellent.

Vinny

When officers kill a person, they're rarely charged and even more rarely convicted. Here's what made this case different.

CNN.com - Top Stories / 2021-04-22 13:24

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/us/why-d ... index.html

(CNN)When police officers kill a person, they are rarely charged with a crime. It's even more rare for a jury to convict an officer for murder or manslaughter.

So what made Derek Chauvin's case different?

From the beginning, the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, has stood on its own as a uniquely disturbing police killing in a sea of disturbing police killings.

It was captured in clear and intimate video by bystanders and the officers' body cameras. It lasted over 9 minutes rather than a few seconds. Police officials across the country came together to denounce his actions as excessive. And making it all the more upsetting was Chauvin's impassive facial expressions and body language throughout.

Combined, these factors spurred people across the world to pour into the streets in protest and frustration, and they spurred accomplished lawyers and renowned medical experts to link up with Minnesota prosecutors on the case.

And in the courtroom, prosecutors repeatedly highlighted these four factors to convince a jury to convict Chauvin of two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter. Here's a closer look at how they did so.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by WiseOne » Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:13 am

Tortoise wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:59 pm
Yikes, indeed.

If the new precedent being set -- at least in MN -- is that a cop can be convicted of murder or manslaughter any time they apply procedurally-approved force to a suspect and the suspect dies in the process, then I have no idea why anybody would choose to become a cop. Way too much risk for not nearly enough reward.
Yes, that's exactly my point. We should be grateful that there are people willing to put themselves into danger regularly to protect our safety. I donated to the NYC police foundation last year and will do so again, to show my support for people who make it possible for me to live in security. I encourage all of you to do the same.

To my mind, if you engage in risky behavior and bad stuff happens, it's no one's fault but your own. When you go sky diving for example, you accept that there is a risk of being injured or killed if your parachute doesn't open or you land badly. The same philosophy should apply to people who get violent with police officers. And, I would really like to see how people who criticize police actions in a dangerous situation, would act if they were in the exact same situation. I would bet that a good percentage of them would end up with a bad outcome, possibly much more so than police who do have training and experience designed to minimize those bad outcomes. It is totally unrealistic - and frankly childish behavior - to expect that such bad outcomes from dangerous situations can be completely eliminated.

In case you're wondering what life will be like in a scenario in which criminals rights are paramount and there is no police protection for the rest of us, look no further than NYC in the 1970s and 80s. It was all about neighborhood watch groups, Guardian Angels, avoiding public transportation, staying out of public parks especially at night, and arming yourself with pepper spray, illegal guns, or whatever you could manage to get hold of. That would actually be more dangerous to both criminals and law-abiding citizens than what we have currently. In other words, be careful what you wish for.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by moda0306 » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:02 am

WiseOne wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:13 am
Tortoise wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:59 pm
Yikes, indeed.

If the new precedent being set -- at least in MN -- is that a cop can be convicted of murder or manslaughter any time they apply procedurally-approved force to a suspect and the suspect dies in the process, then I have no idea why anybody would choose to become a cop. Way too much risk for not nearly enough reward.
Yes, that's exactly my point. We should be grateful that there are people willing to put themselves into danger regularly to protect our safety. I donated to the NYC police foundation last year and will do so again, to show my support for people who make it possible for me to live in security. I encourage all of you to do the same.

To my mind, if you engage in risky behavior and bad stuff happens, it's no one's fault but your own. When you go sky diving for example, you accept that there is a risk of being injured or killed if your parachute doesn't open or you land badly. The same philosophy should apply to people who get violent with police officers. And, I would really like to see how people who criticize police actions in a dangerous situation, would act if they were in the exact same situation. I would bet that a good percentage of them would end up with a bad outcome, possibly much more so than police who do have training and experience designed to minimize those bad outcomes. It is totally unrealistic - and frankly childish behavior - to expect that such bad outcomes from dangerous situations can be completely eliminated.

In case you're wondering what life will be like in a scenario in which criminals rights are paramount and there is no police protection for the rest of us, look no further than NYC in the 1970s and 80s. It was all about neighborhood watch groups, Guardian Angels, avoiding public transportation, staying out of public parks especially at night, and arming yourself with pepper spray, illegal guns, or whatever you could manage to get hold of. That would actually be more dangerous to both criminals and law-abiding citizens than what we have currently. In other words, be careful what you wish for.
1) His own police chief and others stated Chauvin's tactics were not appropriate given the scenario, nor approved generally...

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over ... -testimony

2) If you can consider "being a cop" risky behavior, then they deserve what's coming to them. What about walking down a crime-ridden street? That's risky behavior. Do you deserve what's coming to you if you engage in that?

3) Criminal rights were absolutely not paramount in 1970's in 10980's NYC. Dear gawd. The corruption and brutality of the NYPD during that time is stuff of legend. It's why we can watch movies like Serpico, American Gangster, etc and not feel one bit in a fictional world when we do.

Based on what we see police do now that we have video of it, often when they KNOW they're being videotaped, for those that choose to watch it anyway and don't just bury themselves in a sea of willful ignorance, I can't even imagine the parade of abuse and corruption that existed before. Well, we can with some of it, because some of it is documented, but all the millions of undocumented interactions are lost into the ether.

4) A handful of cops have been convicted of on-duty murder in the last 20 years. So the risk is next to nil when it should be much higher. Their job is itself half as risky as pizza delivery while paying twice as much.

https://scapimag.com/2021/01/08/the-thi ... ing-a-cop/

To put it bluntly, your entire narrative here is a parade of bullsh!t.
Last edited by moda0306 on Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:18 am

As I've thought more about it I probably would have had to vote to convict as a matter of survival for me and my family. Sounds like some of the jurors are hinting at just that.

Had you voted for an acquittal, not only did you have to fear that the government would not protect you but many people in government, Maxine Waters, Kamala, Keith Ellison, Joe Biden, and the rest of the usual crowd would have been throwing flames on the fire. It probably would be somebody in government who doxxed you to the willing press, the police might not even come when called, perhaps even being ordered to stand down, and if you owned a gun and tried to defend yourself you could be charged with a crime like the couple in St. Louis.

If that sounds like an exaggeration I don't believe it's much of one based on current events.

And besides that you knew very well that the DOJ would have done all they could to put Chauvin in jail any way and almost surely succeeded.

No wonder crime is way up in the big cities.

Glad I don't live in one and just hope it all stays there.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:00 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:59 pm
Yikes, indeed.

If the new precedent being set -- at least in MN -- is that a cop can be convicted of murder or manslaughter any time they apply procedurally-approved force to a suspect and the suspect dies in the process, then I have no idea why anybody would choose to become a cop. Way too much risk for not nearly enough reward.
But that's not the precedent that's being set.
See my other post. There is a lengthy list of tests in MN that were applied in the Chauvin case before bringing and convicting on the charges. It was, and remains, extraordinarily difficult to convict a police officer of murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence, or some variation of these charges. If legislative change occurs that lowers the bar, then your concerns would be valid, but as it sits, the bar is very high. It just so happens that Chauvin's acts were egregious enough to meet that bar, at least in the jury's eyes.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:40 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:02 am


1) His own police chief and others stated Chauvin's tactics were not appropriate given the scenario, nor approved generally...
This was a key linchpin in the trial IMO. While Dr. Tobin's testimony about cause of death was critically important, the defense bet heavily on a "reasonable officer" argument i.e. that Chauvin was simply acting reasonably in the course of duty. When the police expert witnesses, including his own chief, contradicted this position, he was left with no leg to stand on.
Personally I think if Chauvin had gotten off Floyd as soon as he was no longer responsive and no longer resisting, or if he had turned him over on his side when the other office asked if they should do so, the reasonable officer argument would have been much harder to defeat.

Some of the comments of others argue that people who engage in risky behavior deserve what they get. This implies that the alleged "bad guy" does not have rights, but that's just not the way the Constitution works. There's a presumption of innocence, and a legal process that goes far beyond a police officer's judgment in establishing guilt. Until then the person has the same rights as you and I and the officer owes a certain duty to them as part of the public that he/she serves.
The Constitution concerns itself with limitations on police powers for this very reason, 4th, 5th, 6th amendments all being examples. Yes the police should be able to do their job, even vigorously. And they should be appreciated for it. But there is a demarcation point beyond which the police can easily move into the territory of infringing rights and that's not okay. What the jury said here is that Derek Chauvin took things beyond that demarcation point.

I'm not sure why this would be arguable around here where the general consensus is to cherish Constitutional protections, maintain a healthy skepticism of government, and when in a grey area err to the side of individual liberty. Are not the police a government representative and as such, why would we hold them any less accountable than any other aspect of government?

Note that I have not mentioned race here. This is because the issue I raise is independent of race. For all the obvious reasons, race has taken center stage in the Chauvin trial but a sad consequence is that race has totally overshadowed a more universal constitutional issue that concerns all Americans.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Sat Apr 24, 2021 1:48 pm

I read that one of the juror's said, I think it was an alternate, that they didn't like the look in Chauvin's eyes.

So maybe making the defendant wear a mask so they couldn't see his complete facial expressions will be additional grounds for an appeal.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by stuper1 » Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:48 pm

The latest episode of The Glenn Show with Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, two black guys, discusses this whole issue. They basically have the same position as WiseOne above. They say it's a lie that blacks are killed more often than whites by police. They say if blacks didn't have a culture of thuggish behavior, the cops wouldn't be so trigger happy anyway. The Glenn Show is probably my favorite podcast. I look forward to every episode of intelligent discussion.

Of course there is bad police behavior, just as there is bad behavior among any group of people. Does the bad police behavior have anything to do with race? Not really, not anymore. If there is truly egregious behavior, which Chauvin's case may be an example of (I say may because I haven't followed it closely), then sure it should be punished. But Loury and McWhorter say that the media amplification of the racial aspect is simply and purely a lie, which allows the true causes of black underachievement to stay unaddressed, all so Democrat politicians like Maxine Waters can continue their fiefdoms without actually helping their constituents.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:13 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:48 pm
They say it's a lie that blacks are killed more often than whites by police. They say if blacks didn't have a culture of thuggish behavior, the cops wouldn't be so trigger happy anyway.
I read of a study where policemen were put in some sort of virtual simulation and it showed that police are more likely to hesitate before killing a black person than a white person. Is that really hard to believe? Does any policeman want to be the next Derek Chauvin, becoming world famous as an evil, vile human being, spending years of your life in prison, probably fearing for your life every day if they put you in with the general population? Seems like a powerful deterrent to shooting black people to me, even if you are the vilest racist, white supremacist who can't resist the endorphin rush of killing a black person.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by moda0306 » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:56 pm

glennds wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:40 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:02 am


1) His own police chief and others stated Chauvin's tactics were not appropriate given the scenario, nor approved generally...
This was a key linchpin in the trial IMO. While Dr. Tobin's testimony about cause of death was critically important, the defense bet heavily on a "reasonable officer" argument i.e. that Chauvin was simply acting reasonably in the course of duty. When the police expert witnesses, including his own chief, contradicted this position, he was left with no leg to stand on.
Personally I think if Chauvin had gotten off Floyd as soon as he was no longer responsive and no longer resisting, or if he had turned him over on his side when the other office asked if they should do so, the reasonable officer argument would have been much harder to defeat.

Some of the comments of others argue that people who engage in risky behavior deserve what they get. This implies that the alleged "bad guy" does not have rights, but that's just not the way the Constitution works. There's a presumption of innocence, and a legal process that goes far beyond a police officer's judgment in establishing guilt. Until then the person has the same rights as you and I and the officer owes a certain duty to them as part of the public that he/she serves.
The Constitution concerns itself with limitations on police powers for this very reason, 4th, 5th, 6th amendments all being examples. Yes the police should be able to do their job, even vigorously. And they should be appreciated for it. But there is a demarcation point beyond which the police can easily move into the territory of infringing rights and that's not okay. What the jury said here is that Derek Chauvin took things beyond that demarcation point.

I'm not sure why this would be arguable around here where the general consensus is to cherish Constitutional protections, maintain a healthy skepticism of government, and when in a grey area err to the side of individual liberty. Are not the police a government representative and as such, why would we hold them any less accountable than any other aspect of government?

Note that I have not mentioned race here. This is because the issue I raise is independent of race. For all the obvious reasons, race has taken center stage in the Chauvin trial but a sad consequence is that race has totally overshadowed a more universal constitutional issue that concerns all Americans.
There hasn't been any meaningful libertarian presence here for years. There's a name for people who like tax cuts and regulatory cuts, while vociferously defending the police state and militarized borders. It's called being conservative.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:02 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:56 pm
There hasn't been any meaningful libertarian presence here for years. There's a name for people who like tax cuts and regulatory cuts, while vociferously defending the police state and militarized borders. It's called being conservative.
I'm happy to go with all of that except for the "police state" part.

Interesting observation though. Most libertarians probably grow more conservative as they get older. Myself included.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by moda0306 » Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:16 pm

pp4me wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:02 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:56 pm
There hasn't been any meaningful libertarian presence here for years. There's a name for people who like tax cuts and regulatory cuts, while vociferously defending the police state and militarized borders. It's called being conservative.
I'm happy to go with all of that except for the "police state" part.

Interesting observation though. Most libertarians probably grow more conservative as they get older. Myself included.
I've gotten more left-libertarian as I've grown older. To the degree that I've flirted with libertarianism in the past (college mostly), it always had entirely to do with economics, and maybe gay marriage and a couple other social issues. It certainly didn't include my current position on the criminal justice system, immigration system and perma-war surveillance state, which I think are pretty necessary if you're going to even call yourself a libertarian. Otherwise you're just a conservative. This becomes especially true when we are debating the Presidency (not pertinent to this conversation, but worth mentioning generally as that's been a hot point of debate), as their power is by far the most extensive in areas of foreign policy and guiding executive branch enforcement.

And that's fine, I suppose. But it's not libertarianism.

And I'm not talking about being some sort of woke-scold, culturally, or having to be a perfect anarchist. I'm talking about where the government does by far the most massive objective and actual violent harm. I'm even forgetting about the massive caveat that libertarianism was "invented" by libertarian socialists. I'm conceding the term on the economics front. But I won't concede it on policing, immigration and war. Let's just call a conservative a conservative and move on.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:30 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:16 pm
pp4me wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:02 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:56 pm
There hasn't been any meaningful libertarian presence here for years. There's a name for people who like tax cuts and regulatory cuts, while vociferously defending the police state and militarized borders. It's called being conservative.
I'm happy to go with all of that except for the "police state" part.

Interesting observation though. Most libertarians probably grow more conservative as they get older. Myself included.
I've gotten more left-libertarian as I've grown older. To the degree that I've flirted with libertarianism in the past (college mostly), it always had entirely to do with economics, and maybe gay marriage and a couple other social issues. It certainly didn't include my current position on the criminal justice system, immigration system and perma-war surveillance state, which I think are pretty necessary if you're going to even call yourself a libertarian. Otherwise you're just a conservative. This becomes especially true when we are debating the Presidency (not pertinent to this conversation, but worth mentioning generally as that's been a hot point of debate), as their power is by far the most extensive in areas of foreign policy and guiding executive branch enforcement.

And that's fine, I suppose. But it's not libertarianism.

And I'm not talking about being some sort of woke-scold, culturally, or having to be a perfect anarchist. I'm talking about where the government does by far the most massive objective and actual violent harm. I'm even forgetting about the massive caveat that libertarianism was "invented" by libertarian socialists. I'm conceding the term on the economics front. But I won't concede it on policing, immigration and war. Let's just call a conservative a conservative and move on.
Too much to unpack with a couple glasses of whiskey.

Not joining any tribes right now. If things get violent people may have to make choices to survive but we're not there yet and I hope we won't ever be. Been there, done that.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:04 pm

pp4me wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:18 am

As I've thought more about it I probably would have had to vote to convict as a matter of survival for me and my family. Sounds like some of the jurors are hinting at just that.

Had you voted for an acquittal, not only did you have to fear that the government would not protect you but many people in government, Maxine Waters, Kamala, Keith Ellison, Joe Biden, and the rest of the usual crowd would have been throwing flames on the fire. It probably would be somebody in government who doxxed you to the willing press, the police might not even come when called, perhaps even being ordered to stand down, and if you owned a gun and tried to defend yourself you could be charged with a crime like the couple in St. Louis.

If that sounds like an exaggeration I don't believe it's much of one based on current events.

And besides that you knew very well that the DOJ would have done all they could to put Chauvin in jail any way and almost surely succeeded.

No wonder crime is way up in the big cities.

Glad I don't live in one and just hope it all stays there.


If what you say is true......he was charged with three crimes.....would they not have covered themselves from the above if they just found him guilty on the one lesser charge? That they did not makes me believe that they genuinely believed he was guilty of all three charges and without regard to any consideration for what you state above?

We do now have on record one alternate juror who gave her name who stated she believed him to be guilty (and there did not seem to be any hint of her believing him to be guilty for any of the reasons you state above).
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:08 pm

pp4me wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 1:48 pm

I read that one of the juror's said, I think it was an alternate, that they didn't like the look in Chauvin's eyes.

So maybe making the defendant wear a mask so they couldn't see his complete facial expressions will be additional grounds for an appeal.


It was an alternative juror and here is how she was quoted:

"Christenson expressed discomfort with Chauvin himself, who appeared in court every day but did not testify.

"We locked eyes quite a few times and I was pretty uncomfortable," she told CBS.

Yet she also expressed some empathy for him in her conversation with the media. "I do feel bad for him. Whether, you know, he made a huge mistake and it cost somebody their life... nobody is a winner out of this whole situation. I feel bad," she said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/us/derek ... index.html
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by Maddy » Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:04 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:56 pm
There hasn't been any meaningful libertarian presence here for years. There's a name for people who like tax cuts and regulatory cuts, while vociferously defending the police state and militarized borders. It's called being conservative.
It's called liberterianism grounded in reality.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by glennds » Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:20 pm

Maddy wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:04 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:56 pm
There hasn't been any meaningful libertarian presence here for years. There's a name for people who like tax cuts and regulatory cuts, while vociferously defending the police state and militarized borders. It's called being conservative.
It's called liberterianism grounded in reality.
How do you negotiate the balance between police powers and individual liberties if holding the police accountable is considered unsupportive or worse yet, Leftist?
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by I Shrugged » Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:24 am

Heard a joke the other day. What’s the difference between a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist?

Ten years.

:)

One big problem with libertarians is they all have strict purity tests. Put two together and you get a cat fight.

Anything “left” involves authoritarianism. It always has and always will. So they aren’t thinking through their idea of abolishing police. Rather, they’ll need to replace existing police with left wingers, probably even more rough than the current ones.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Sun Apr 25, 2021 12:16 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:08 pm
pp4me wrote:
Sat Apr 24, 2021 1:48 pm
I read that one of the juror's said, I think it was an alternate, that they didn't like the look in Chauvin's eyes.

So maybe making the defendant wear a mask so they couldn't see his complete facial expressions will be additional grounds for an appeal.
It was an alternative juror and here is how she was quoted:

"Christenson expressed discomfort with Chauvin himself, who appeared in court every day but did not testify.

"We locked eyes quite a few times and I was pretty uncomfortable," she told CBS.

Yet she also expressed some empathy for him in her conversation with the media. "I do feel bad for him. Whether, you know, he made a huge mistake and it cost somebody their life... nobody is a winner out of this whole situation. I feel bad," she said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/us/derek ... index.html
Alan Dershowitz thinks there's a good chance the case will make it to the supreme court on appeal and if it does there is already a precedent set in the case of Sam Sheppard. You're as old as me so you probably remember him. The character Dr. Richard Kimball of "The Fugitive" was supposedly based on him only the real Doctor Sheppard didn't escape on the way to prison.
"The Supreme Court overturned that decision saying Sheppard had been denied a fair trial, and the trial judge should have adopted stricter courtroom rules for the news media."
I remember that story being all over the news but it was nothing like the Chauvin case because people got their news from 3 TV channels and newspapers. Also I don't remember politicians, talking heads, and celebrities weighing in and pouring gasoline on the fire. Should be an interesting case if it makes all the way to the Supreme Court. I can see the national guard being called out to surround the Supreme Court building before the decision is announced. It'll take years to get there so maybe by then passions will be less inflamed but if things continue the way they have been I doubt it.

For an interesting note, Dr. Sheppard lived out in the country not too far from me after he was finally acquitted in a second trial. I never met him myself but a girl friend of mine used to go there with her friends to smoke pot and do other drugs with Dr. Sam.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by pp4me » Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:50 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:24 am
One big problem with libertarians is they all have strict purity tests. Put two together and you get a cat fight.
Same thing with all political ideologies, not just libertarians, IMO.
" A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
My Dad with only his high school education, same as me, was a perfect example of this. You could never narrow down his opinions to the point of being predictable. Just when you thought you had him nailed he would express his opinion about something and completely blow you away.

Seems like when you join a certain tribe your are required to think a certain way to stay a member of the tribe so I have mostly decided not to join.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:40 pm

pp4me wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:50 pm

I Shrugged wrote:
Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:24 am

One big problem with libertarians is they all have strict purity tests. Put two together and you get a cat fight.


Same thing with all political ideologies, not just libertarians, IMO.

" A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson


My Dad with only his high school education, same as me, was a perfect example of this. You could never narrow down his opinions to the point of being predictable. Just when you thought you had him nailed he would express his opinion about something and completely blow you away.

Seems like when you join a certain tribe your are required to think a certain way to stay a member of the tribe so I have mostly decided not to join.


Amen, brother!
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:37 pm

Insightful article regarding the juror selection process.

Vinny


The Chauvin Trial’s Jury Wasn’t Like Other Juries

Its guilty verdict resulted not just from the strength of the evidence, but from a jury-selection process that departed from American norms

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ource=feed

by Sonali Chakravarti
The Atlantic / 2021-04-28 09:01


The jury convicted the former Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin on the weight of the evidence before it: video footage, expert testimony, and eyewitness accounts.

But even with all that evidence, convictions don’t happen on their own. Twelve people, selected by lot from the public, must come to a unanimous decision. That jury�who it comprised, how those people saw the world�waswas of enormous consequence. This wasn’t just any jury, and the difference that made should invite a major reckoning with how juries�the deciding bodies of the country�’s judicial system�are selected in America.

I have been studying juries for many years. I have written about juries in historic trials such as those for the Camden 28, the Central Park Five, and Angela Davis. But starting late last year, one took over my work: the Chauvin trial. Great interest in it led the Hennepin County clerk to make public the initial questionnaire sent to jurors, and District Judge Peter Cahill decided to allow television cameras in the courtroom, a first for the state of Minnesota. From voir dire�the interview between the judge, aattorneys, and each potential juror before a jury is selected�to the attorneys’ opening and closing statements to the testimony of more than 40 witnesses during the trial, everything was viewable via live-stream. What I saw was a jury-selection process that substantially departed from the country’s norms, resulting in a racially mixed jury, a number of whose members criticized American law enforcement for systematically discriminating against Black people.

All the jurors interviewed during voir dire were familiar with the case, and some had seen the video of George Floyd’s death. To varying degrees, they all understood the weight of the case and the intense media scrutiny it would undoubtedly receive, yet many were eager to serve. When interviewed by the defense counsel, Juror 27, who identifies as Black and an immigrant and who ultimately ended up on the jury, said that he had spoken with his wife about the killing shortly after it happened. “We talked about how it could have been me,” he said. Juror 91 put it simply when she said, “I’m Black and my life matters.” That these people held these views and still served on the jury shows a path toward greater democratic representation in America’s courtrooms.

There were many reasons to think things would not go this way�that Chauvinn would be tried by a mostly white or all-white jury, and that people with systemic critiques of how criminal justice works in America would be struck from the jury pool. For one, Hennepin County, where the killing took place and where the trial was held, is nearly three-quarters white. For another, studies have found that Black jurors are less likely to be called for jury duty and less likely to be selected to serve. And finally, there was the complication of having the trial during the coronavirus pandemic, which has disproportionately affected Black and brown communities. According to the former Minneapolis public defender Mary Moriarty, during the pandemic, juries have been even whiter, on average, than before the pandemic.

Yet ultimately the jury seated in the Chauvin case included four Black people, two people who identify as mixed race, and six white people. (The jury comprised 14 people, including two alternates who were both white.) Much of the credit goes to Judge Cahill, who conducted the jury-selection process. Cahill set a tone of honesty and inclusivity during jury selection, emphasizing that he would consider the totality of a juror’s answers and not focus on individual statements when determining whether a juror was qualified to serve. He expected jurors to have strong feelings about Floyd’s death, but what was most important to him was a juror’s willingness to take on the responsibilities of legal judgment, including a commitment to the conventions of a fair trial.






Another limit of the more capacious approach to jury selection came with Juror 120, who was dismissed not for his critique of the legal system but for an analogy that dominated his reaction to the video of Floyd’s death. During Juror 120’s initial questioning by the judge, he started expressing his uncertainty about whether he could truly be fair in the case. He turned to the judge and said, “Do you have any brothers?” “I do,” Judge Cahill replied. The juror went on to describe an analogy that kept coming to mind when he thought about Chauvin. “So you’re tussling with your brothers. If one of your brothers says, ‘I give up, etc., etc.,’ you stop, right? ... You have to stop when someone says, ‘No more.’” Judge Cahill suddenly grew still, touched his mask, and replied: “As the little brother to three older brothers, I know exactly what you are talking about.” Then, almost apologetically, he added, “I am going to release you.” No further discussion of the case, the police, or Black Lives Matter was necessary for the judge to decide that this juror was unfit for the case.

In many cases, a disqualifying life experience involves a prospective juror’s firsthand witnessing of police violence or coercive plea bargaining, for instance. In the case of Juror 120, however, the issue almost appeared to be one of excessive moral clarity. It illustrates the paradoxical nature of jury service�and the expeectations of the ideal juror. Juror 120’s moral clarity was what made him unfit for service. In other words, for a juror, moral clarity can conflict with the openness needed to fairly consider both verdicts. A juror who is too convinced of a defendant’s guilt before hearing the evidence, as Juror 120 seemed to be, cannot be a fair juror. But Judge Cahill recognized that jurors in this trial might hold views about the reality of systemic racism and its deep moral costs while still being able to perform their role as impartial jurors. The result might in fact be greater fairness and�perhaps�healing: A fair triarial by jury may be one of the best ways to foster trust in the legal system.

Watching the three weeks of jury selection and hearing potential jurors speak about their pets and favorite sports teams, in addition to their perceptions of racial discrimination, I was reminded that jurors are called to serve precisely because of their lack of expertise in the law. They are not repeat players in the courtroom with incentives to reach a particular verdict. But this has it backwards: It is because of their distance from the work of the court that they are better able to understand what it means to feel the power of law enforcement as an external force in their lives and to determine its legitimacy. The jury in the Chauvin trial included a broader perspective of life experiences than is typical in America’s courtrooms, better fulfilling the ideal of why we have juries in the first place. During jury selection, the jurors who spoke about Black Lives Matter and the pattern of police violence in this country were unusually honest about who we, as Americans, have been. And, with their verdict, they showed us where we might yet be going.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Chauvin Verdict

Post by vnatale » Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:09 am

Inside the Chauvin Jury Room: 11 of 12 Jurors Were Ready to Convict Right Away

by Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs
NYT > U.S. / 2021-04-29 18:21


One juror described the closed-door deliberations over Derek Chauvin in one of the most closely watched trials in a generation.



Seated at tables six feet apart in a hotel conference room, 12 jurors scribbled letters on slips of paper to indicate how they were leaning on a murder charge against Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer on trial for killing George Floyd.

When the jury foreman tallied the votes that morning, one of the jurors recalled, there were 11 papers with a “G” written on them � guilty. One paper said “U,” for unsure.

The seven women and five men spent the next few hours poring over the evidence in one of the most closely watched trials in a generation, according to Brandon Mitchell, who has been the only juror to publicly describe the deliberations last week near Minneapolis. Mr. Mitchell said the jurors watched the graphic videos of Mr. Floyd’s death, discussed the testimony of many of the witnesses and experts, and created their own timeline using markers and a whiteboard. By lunchtime, Mr. Mitchell said, the juror who had been unsure, a white woman, had made up her mind: Mr. Chauvin was guilty of all charges.

Mr. Mitchell, 31, a high school basketball coach in Minneapolis, described the deliberations in an interview on Thursday, shedding light on what had happened inside the jury room before the jurors convicted Mr. Chauvin on two murder charges and a manslaughter charge.


“I had no doubt in my mind,” Mr. Mitchell said of his decision about Mr. Chauvin’s guilt. Jurors discussed the case for about seven hours over two days before reaching a verdict on the afternoon of April 20, Mr. Mitchell said. They spent much of the first evening of deliberations getting to know one another rather than talking about the case, he said.


As the jurors considered the murder charges, Mr. Mitchell said, they focused at one point on the exact cause of Mr. Floyd’s death. Many jurors said they believed the prosecutors’ version of what had happened � that Mr. Chauvin’s knee had caused Mr. Floyd’s death � but at least one juror who supported a convictiion said she could not be sure that Mr. Chauvin’s knee had been the cause. Still, Mr. Mitchell recalled, the juror said she believed that the former officer was nonetheless responsible because he had continued to pin Mr. Floyd down even after he lost consciousness and never provided medical aid.

After several hours of discussions over a third-degree murder charge, all of the jurors said they favored a conviction, Mr. Mitchell said, and after another half an hour, they had agreed on a second-degree murder conviction as well.



Mr. Mitchell said that for many of the jurors, including himself, the most powerful witness testimony had come from Dr. Martin J. Tobin, a lung expert who pinpointed what he said was the exact moment that Mr. Floyd took his final breath.

“He just had all of our attention 100 percent,” Mr. Mitchell said of Dr. Tobin, who testified for the prosecution. “I don’t know if there is any other witness that captured us like that.”



Mr. Mitchell said he found the defense team’s case to be weak, lacking in revelatory testimony that might poke holes in the prosecution’s case.

“I was waiting for a moment that was going to be climactic like ‘Wow!’ � a ‘Boom! Aha!’ moment � and it just nevnever happened,” Mr. Mitchell said. “Nothing ever hit. It was kind of deflating. It made the case easy.”

Judge Cahill has said that the jurors’ identities will be kept secret until at least October, though they are free to speak publicly if they choose to. One of the two alternate jurors, who attended the trial but was excused before deliberations began, has spoken publicly, saying she never doubted that Mr. Chauvin was guilty.

Throughout the trial, the jurors referred to one another only by their juror numbers � Mr. Mitchell was No. 52 � until they began deliberations annd shared their names. Mr. Mitchell said he and the other jurors made tentative plans to get together for drinks in the summer or the fall, when the case is no longer drawing as much attention.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Post Reply