Beast

Skin Colour, Races and Racism

Recommended Posts

"Fired Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, 44, was found guilty on Tuesday on all charges in the May 25, 2020 death of George Floyd, 46. A jury of Chauvin’s peers decided that he was guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter."

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/derek-chauvin-found-guilty-in-death-of-george-floyd/

 

I don't expect this to be yet; and it will be curious to see what things get put in for appeals etc. I have a feeling eventually some charges may be reversed or diminished - but its only speculation on my part. For now, hopefully, it is a sign of happening change and not just one lone piece of Justice.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know if he was actually going to be declared guilty or not, and that's a sad reality. Happy with the outcome though, and I can still hope this sets a strong precedent.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good outcome, but I do wonder how much that outcome was influenced by the inevitable (but totally justified) outrage that would've happened if a guilty verdict wasn't reached.

I know that the jury selection process in the US requires members to be as impartial as possible, but I can't imagine anyone can be exactly that with how much coverage it got.

"The Court of Public Opinion" can be a dangerous thing. We'll have to see if future and similar police killings will follow this path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

It's a good outcome, but I do wonder how much that outcome was influenced by the inevitable (but totally justified) outrage that would've happened if a guilty verdict wasn't reached.

I know that the jury selection process in the US requires members to be as impartial as possible, but I can't imagine anyone can be exactly that with how much coverage it got.

"The Court of Public Opinion" can be a dangerous thing. We'll have to see if future and similar police killings will follow this path.

This is ofc an age old problem; so courts are used to dealing with it. In fact essentially it was eeked/tweezed out in the jury selection - but it is indeed an arguably increasing issue in the age of social media(and even just this week after a growing favourite of mine Maxine 'Hot' Waters of the dems made a public defense moved for mistrail - Cahill dismissed it as not significant enough given the already high profile nature of the case and prev commitments by jurors re: this but he did publicly admonish Waters within his court and I believe even too stated the risk it leads to for potential overturns on appeal - many people arent away the 3rd degree murder charge is often notoriously difficult to secure guilty verdicts on as it is depraved mind or something and also that it was almost not on the docket - Cahill had dropped it but there's a pending case of something else that set a bind on him for now).

All I'll say is whilst I take and appreciate your concern I've been very impreased with how Judge Cahill held his court. I did not know of him before now and a food few spanners could have been thrown in at this case - but he was pretty deft just and swift in many issues. On varying sides. I believe he conducted a pretty decent trial, personally.

 

(note that 'decent trial' is NOT the same as end verdicts or outcomes, tho a decent trial should end in right justice which will have right verdicts)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Obvs sites still doing live articles as we speak etc but these are my main goto legal dudes for US stuff as I often can get direct links to court documents etc. for original source material.

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/legal-experts-doubt-remarks-by-president-biden-and-rep-waters-could-prop-up-successful-derek-chauvin-appeal/?utm_source=mostpopular

It's some opinions from legal folks on what I referenced above re: Maxine 'Hot' Waters and turn of appeal, may be of interest @Glen-i. There's an irony to be had on top of this with Maxine Waters as I think a week or so ago she told Jim Jordon to 'You need to shut your mouth' or something to that effect in the House whilst he was attempting to bully Fauci a bit - tho in reality she was telling him to shut his mouth because his time was expired and he was acting Out of Order.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, if I'm understanding that article correctly, then comments from outside a trial, especially from people of high profile, are more likely to be used against their intended cause instead of helping matters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Glen-i said:

Interesting, if I'm understanding that article correctly, then comments from outside a trial, especially from people of high profile, are more likely to be used against their intended cause instead of helping matters?

Of course, because they can be used to discredit a jury/juror.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Glen-i said:

Interesting, if I'm understanding that article correctly, then comments from outside a trial, especially from people of high profile, are more likely to be used against their intended cause instead of helping matters?

That's the eseential crux I guess - but its always a spectrum over black and white. Anything that could 'prejudice' a trial is grounds for appeal - but as noted George Floyd was already big enough an issue/case it was already impossible to have not seen it in the media - so that kinda raises the bar BUT there was the explicit condition and agreed to by Jurors to ignore further news during trial specifically and actively - and they are presumed to do so.

 

Not the same manifest but the principle a bit akin to when Tommy Robinson 'in the interests of free journalism' and definitely not as part of his fucking bellend PR shit went filming in courtooms to 'expose' a muslim pedophile trial which 'wasnt being reported on'. Why wasnt it being reported on? Because it facts were not public and journalists were barred from reporting at risk of case jeopardy. Whilst Tommy was saying he was 'exposing' pedophiles he actually came very fucking close to giving them a complete clean run and exoneration by tainting the case. Luckily the judge was on the ball and cleared the court and the jury, had Tommy summoned in front of him and iirc put him immediately on remand(Tommy had previoysly existing conditions relating to this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Glen-i said:

It's a good outcome, but I do wonder how much that outcome was influenced by the inevitable (but totally justified) outrage that would've happened if a guilty verdict wasn't reached.

I know that the jury selection process in the US requires members to be as impartial as possible, but I can't imagine anyone can be exactly that with how much coverage it got.

"The Court of Public Opinion" can be a dangerous thing. We'll have to see if future and similar police killings will follow this path.

Yeah, this was my first thought. The jurors were kept anonymous but various newspapers have revealed a lot of information on them - it wouldn't be difficult for colleagues and such to piece together who they were based on who has been absent from work.

In this case as a juror, you'd definitely be fearful of consequences if you came to a light verdict. I bet that was playing on their minds for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheikah said:

Yeah, this was my first thought. The jurors were kept anonymous but various newspapers have revealed a lot of information on them - it wouldn't be difficult for colleagues and such to piece together who they were based on who has been absent from work.

In this case as a juror, you'd definitely be fearful of consequences if you came to a light verdict. I bet that was playing on their minds for sure.

Huh, I never really thought about the more personal relations of the jurors. I can't speak for anyone else, but if I was on that juror, I imagine that would be playing on the back of my mind.

You know, if I actually had real life friends I cared about enough to worry about that in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites