Justice and the George Floyd trial

remember, the defense is under no moral obligation do anything but get its client "OFF".
I would not be surprised to hear that the defense claims "self defense"

We already know the defense case. They will argue that drugs in Floyd's system were an important part of his death, and that the police were using procedure and we're distracted by the crowd in a chaotic scene.

I think the presence of drugs is the strongest part of their case.

The political left is being irresponsible in their reaction to this trial.

You can not get rid of due process in a criminal trial. You can not eliminate the right of a defendant to defend himself. You can not guarantee a verdict.

The 12 jurors are not there to provide a political stand on racism, or to stamp out police misconduct or to address years of injustice. The jury has one job, to look at the facts and evidence in this one case to decide if this one individual. The verdict is nothing more; a statement of whether the facts and evidence of this one case justify a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

And yes, there is a reasonable chance the verdict will be not guilty. Any time you have a fair trial, there is a chance the verdict will be not guilty.

So we are setting ourselves up for more senseless violence. I don't see anyone on the left saying that there shouldn't be violence. Any violence from the verdict will be senseless. It is protesting the decision of 12 people charged with making their best judgement based on facts and evidence.

There are real things that protests can achieve; police reform, accountability in police departments, training, standards, changes in practice, community engagement.

In any practical sense, this trial is the least important thing in the movement for social justice. It is the judgement of one man who is facing murder charges for his part in this death. You can't ask for more (unless you seriously want to fix the verdict).

And yet, the result of this trial has become the symbol of racial injustice in America and somehow the verdict (really practically means almost nothing) now means everything.

Either way, after the verdict and the aftermath we have work to do as a society.

youre screaming at the choir. However, listening to phony moderates like oralloy, they too are working with " already proven" (not presumed) Innocence.

Our system of equal legal representation and presumed innocence isnt made for "wacko" internet judgements.
Let it play out, then comment. You are neither part of the trial nor the process.

I know where my feelings lie but this aint the place. All you ask for will only draw out the normal A2k responses of insult without any added light.

And you know this how?

I don't understand what you are saying here. You don't seem to be disagreeing with me.

My consistent theme on able2know, from my first day here, has been to present topics from different viewpoints. That's who I am, take it or leave it.

I intended that as a statement of opinion (not fact). But the defense argument is emphasizing this.

I am curious Farmerman.

If the jury returns a verdict of not guilty, what do you think the response should be?

I would feel that any violence would be both unacceptable and politically stupid. If you are arguing against the police use of force, images of burning businesses is simply idiotic as far as optics

The focus should be on legislation, policy, and community engagement with police departments.

dont go from a specific case to some broad generality. Thats what we get a lot of on the internet.

Are you saying that "legislation, policy, and community engagement" are broad generality?

My point is that the verdict in this specific case is not very important, and that any violence would be unacceptable and politically stupid.

I am saying the left putting so much weight on the verdict of this trial is a bad thing. It puts the focus on outrage instead of progress. And the outrage is on "due process", something that is so much a part of our democracy that it can't truly be challenged.

The "generalities" are just a side point. It is dangerous and counterproductive for the left to be stirring up outrage over the possible verdict in a trial.

Do you disagree?

the way youre using it.yes. When we go from a speciic case to crreate these broad generalities like youre doing, I worry about youre motives.
When you try to expand all judgements beyond this case even before its reached its terminus is what most of the conpiracy clowns try to do.

Youre a scientist who claims he only dels in facts and evidence. Youve gone outside that claim.
Im not gonna keep this up. I know youre style and Im in no mood for interminable rebuts

Farmer, you are pushing my buttons. I think that is your intent, but I am not strong to resist responding to your little jab. So let's make this clear.

I have never said a scientist can't have opinions. My principle is that no one should confuse an opinion with a fact. I have never said that someone shouldn't have an opinion.

It is a testable fact that George Floyd had Fentanyl in his system at the time of his death. It is a fact that the defense has already indicated that this is a significant part of their case. It is my opinion that this is going to be relevant to the jury especially if there is a verdict of not-guilty.

I am guessing you are here for emotional reasons... you are throwing barbs and not seriously trying to engage in conversation. You can leave at any time of course.

But I am going to express my opinions nonetheless.

The Heritage legal analysis believes that this was murder. However, they think the third degree murder charge was a mistake.

Their analysis is that in Minnesota Third Degree Murder can't be directed against a specific intended target... and that if this is the verdict, it will be overturned on appeal.

It seems like there is a drastic disconnect between the trial and the left that is going to grow significantly as the defense starts its case. The defense is going to ignore the narrative of the political left. They should ignore the left, they are speaking to an audience of exactly 12 people (who are chosen to not be on the political extremes).

I am reading about the defense strategy, the defense is going to implicate the "crowd" of bystanders as part of the reason George Floyd died. This is going to drive the left absolutely nuts, it is basically blaming Black Lives Matters.

But the only audience that matters is the jury (which isn't on the political left)... and the defense needs to get the jury to think about what it is like to be a police officer. I don't know if this is going to sway the jury, but it is really going to piss off the political left.

How to move forward?

Well, when someone receives a fair trial and is proven not guilty, adults who don't act like spoiled children move on with their lives.

Will a fair trial happen here? Of course it won't.

But if it did, the black supremacists will riot and murder until they get what they want. Then BLM will claim more victimhood and receive several million more dollars, none which will actually be spent on black communities, rather put in the Marxist pockets of a small few.

and if the cop is found guilty will the "Oat Kippers" and "Qninneys" want to attack the capitol again??

Chauvin will be found "guilty". It's illegal to do your job properly while being white.

The antifa and black insurrectionists have made certain of that.

You are more ridiculous than the most extreme of the liberals here.

First of all, how is what we are having not a fair trial? We have lawyers on both sides that presided over the jury selection process and are now each being given an opportunity to present their case. The case will case will be decided by a jury that, I believe, needs to reach a unanimous decision to convict. If that isn't fair to the defendant, I don't know what is.

Second of all, if you don't see that Black Lives Matter has a valid point (given math) then you are so stuck in your ideological bubble that math no longer works.

Thirdly, there is no rational argument that Chauvin was doing his job properly. Not even his peers are saying this.

By the way, have you gotten over the election yet?

Please explain to me how it's a "fair trial" when the trial is being held in Minneapolis, with jurors who LIVE in Minneapolis. Why isn't it being held somewhere, ANYWHERE other than the literal cradle of where the riots ignited last summer?

Explain to me how these people could somehow not be aware that if they don't reach the "correct" verdict according to the BLM mob, that they will be personally responsible for their homes, and their neighbors homes and business being burned to the ground, their neighbors murdered, or even worse. Their family members threatened or killed.

This is the world that the leftist grievance mongers have wrought upon us. "Do what we say, or else."