Yes this is an issue, but notice who currently is doing the killing/attempted killings in this country. (It ain't the KKK) I notice how DEI wasn't mentioned in the article when it comes to recruitment and how since Trump/Hegseth did away with DEI that recruitment numbers are way up.
I see you're trying to express a nuanced take here, where what Chauvin did was wrong but he didn't kill Floyd. Imho, we asked a jury of peers to examine this question closely and entrusted them with the decision-making power. They saw all the evidence and heard the best arguments from both sides, and they all talked with each other knowing that their decision would carry real weight (not just winning an internet argument) and they unanimously came back with a verdict of guilty of murder -- meaning he caused the death of another person. Being the patriotic American that I am who believes sincerely in our Constitutional order, I have a real hard time with people on the internet who didn't sit through the trial and didn't participate in the jury room discussions having their own opinions of what really happened. We didn't create this whole edifice of dragooning everyday citizens into making life-or-death decisions in criminal cases just to say, 'yall worked real hard on all that, but I think your decision is some bs.' From a legal perspective, and speaking for the whole community, the jury determined Chauvin caused Floyd's death. No truer truth than that is possible short of God's judgment.
This is, quite frankly, nonsense. Jury verdicts can be wrong, and obviously wrong. OJ Simpson's case, for example, where there was DNA evidence tying him to the scene and the jury found him not guilty anyway because (to quote one of the jurors) they wanted to get payback for Rodney King. Jurors are not magical oracles of truth, they come in with their own biases and prejudices. They can be influenced by outside forces just like anyone else. Sometimes, they can just be stupid and not understand the law or how it fits together with the evidence (I have seen some mind-boggling jury questions). Frequently jurors are prevented from getting information that could greatly impact their decision that is available to the parties or the general public. No, the fact that a jury decided something is not some grand truth short only of the judgement of Heavan, sometimes it is just what we are stuck with.
as it relates to the OJ trial, again, force-fitting disjointed info into your convenient claim more than anything else, OJ was acquitted because of the incompetence of the prosecution team, Marcia Clark was average, at best but Christopher Darden had one trial experience his inexperience/incompetence was exposed by Johnnie Cochran the famous "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit johnnie cochrane was the former boss/supervisor of Judge Ito, when they both work in the DA office a more competent prosecution team would had filed for conflict of interest barring Cochrane from the trial btw, as for the claim about the dna, cochane also exposed the lack of credibility of the LAPD detective who supposedly found the dna Bruce Furman had been implicated on several cases of alleged racial profiling and illegally planting evidences while Kim Kadashian's dad, OJ's college buddy. hired the best attornies available to represent the killer, the DA had to settled fo a mediocre Marcia Clark and the inexperienced Christopher Darden
I anticipated this objection so much that I had drafted a preemptive rebuttal, but I deleted it before hitting Submit. Yes, of course, juries can make mistakes, accidental or willful. But, as a justice system, it's our best mechanism for creating a clean space where disinterested people can hear the best arguments from both sides, make a decision, and in making that decision represent and have the authority of the entire community. I recognize that biases among jurors can color decisions and sometimes innocent people go to prison (despite all our safeguards to prevent it). But there are also biases among randos on the internet who have opinions. And, if we are going to test the relative strengths of the decision-making processes of a jury of 12 in a court setting versus the opinion-making of a rando watching youtube videos, I know which one I'm picking. I would also highlight how poor an argument that is being offered here that Floyd "really" died of a meth overdose or other medical condition. The way the jury instructions read (and likely the statute too, but I haven't read MN's) is this: (For context, I'd add that the full instructions also explain that Chauvin's intent doesn't matter so long as the death resulted in the commission of another felony, assault. But the assault finding impacts whether it is second degree murder, not whether Chauvin "caused the death" of George Floyd.) So the jury was told (a) Chauvin's actions have to be a substantial causal factor but not necessarily the chief factor, (b) does not have to be the only causal factor, and (c) is only obviated if something else happening later is the actual sole cause of the death (which no one alleges). So the heart failure thing and the meth overdose thing does not conflict with the legal finding that Chauvin caused Floyd's death. Meth could be a contributing factor and even a substantial causal factor of Floyd's death, and nevertheless Chauvin holding his knee on the dude's neck for 11 minutes can still be found to be another substantial causal factor that caused Floyd's death and made Chauvin guilty of murder. Adhering to the definition in the jury instructions, it doesn't even seem like a close call. One might object that is only a legal finding, and it isn't what "really" happened. On that, I'd leave an open-ended question: if the legal finding isn't real, that what defines real when we're talking about murder? When the events meet the definition we've set, it is real.
I wouldn't accept either as gospel and would instead rely on my own interpretation of the facts. I don't know why anyone else would do otherwise. I have little interest in relitigating the Chauvin case and I don't think anyone's mind will be changed. My objection was more a philosophical one. Juries are not all-knowing oracles. Just because they say something, doesn't make it so. Obviously, our justice system cannot and will not be decided by "randos watching YouTube videos".
Well, that's foolish because for every big court case that hits the news cycle, you don't have nearly the familiarity that jurors have with the facts of each case. But that is my point, or one of them. A legal decision can make something real. Its not that the courts have to know, but that they decide. Obviously, when they are wrong on the facts of the case, they are wrong. If, for example, a jury finds that you fired the gun that kills a person but you never fired the gun, that they make a wrong finding of the facts can't make it so that you did kill a person. But if the facts are rightly understood -- and in the Chauvin case, there isn't much dispute as to what the facts are -- when the jury interprets those facts as meeting the legal definition, then it is true. That's what it means to be true. They looked at what Chauvin did and decided he was a murderer, so he is. There is no other framework by which to determine whether he is or not. If I'm wrong, tell me what that framework is.
A friendly reminder that although there's no shortage of evil sh*theads out there these days, there are still decent people too...
Floyd's official cause of death was his heart stopped due to Chauvin being on his neck, not his heart stopped due to drugs
Same with lawyers. That's why people should have actually listened to the testimonies of the doctors and medical experts themselves during the trial, instead of basing their opinions on prejudice, a gut feeling, or social media.
there's an Alanis Morissette joke in there somewhere, but I'm not Norm Macdonald enough to attempt it.
Sometimes you will have more, sometimes you will have less. Anyone who practices criminal law knows that there are things kept from the jury for any number of reasons. I had a case where the jury was not allowed to hear anything about the defendant's gang status, or that he was having a gang dispute with the victim who he shot 6 times. Instead, the jury only got to hear that the victim was "mean mugging" the defendant, and when the defendant left the store, he saw the victim "reaching under his seat" so he shot him. Because the jury didn't have all the facts, they acquitted the defendant (who was very clearly guilty). The jury also could not be told that the victim wasn't testifying because he had died of a fentanyl overdose several months before trial. The verdict doesn't make something real. It is real or it isn't. The jury simply decides the outcome of the trial. Juries are also terrible at applying the facts to the law. They frequently don't understand the law, and other times choose to ignore the law to reach a conclusion they prefer (jury nullification and jury bias are two examples). I already told you what the framework is. You look at the facts and reach your own conclusions. Your conclusions won't change the outcome of the case, the jury and the judge decide that. Your conclusions can be more or less correct than the conclusions drawn by the jury though.
Factual truth is about what happened- what is objectively verifiable. Legal truth is about how the system labels actions, based on statute and precedent. Moral truth is about what ought to happen or what is just, regardless of legality. My truth is about my own conclusions.
@StupidMoniker I see your arguments about George Floyd in that thread. I understand not wanting to reitigate that discussion. I understand that the jury ignored DNA evidence in the OJ case but the George Floyd case is not anywhere similar
this is how all these devils need to be treated I hope he has no kids and his lineage dies out with him
