How can Derek Chauvin expect a fair trial in Minneapolis?

[Tom Sawyer]

I mean, if you murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped, it's not an "unfair trial" which guarantees your conviction. It's that you chose to murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped.

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean, if you murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped, it's not an "unfair trial" which guarantees your conviction. It's that you chose to murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped.

Yeah I've been struggling to express this cleanly: just because the verdict is already known does not make it an unfair trial. The question is "does the evidence show you did it?" And the answer to that CAN be an absolute "YES".

You're entitled to "a fair trial" not "a trial you can win".

 

[TSwizzle]

Yeah I've been struggling to express this cleanly: just because the verdict is already known does not make it an unfair trial. The question is "does the evidence show you did it?" And the answer to that CAN be an absolute "YES".

Except all the evidence hasn't been heard yet. Until all the evidence has been presented and closing arguments heard, the accused should be presumed innocent. You would be excused from jury duty.

 

[TomC]

I mean, if you murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped, it's not an "unfair trial" which guarantees your conviction. It's that you chose to murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped.

Yeah I've been struggling to express this cleanly: just because the verdict is already known does not make it an unfair trial. The question is "does the evidence show you did it?" And the answer to that CAN be an absolute "YES".

You're entitled to "a fair trial" not "a trial you can win".

Lots of black people had the problem with the U.S. justice system. The verdict was already known before anyone bothered with a trial.
So The People just didn't bother wasting effort on the trial.
It's called "lynching". If you already know what the outcome of a trial should be, why go to the trouble?
Tom

 

[repoman]

So Steven Crowder who is 90% an idiot blowhard and only 10% reasonable when covering the furthest insanity of the left was given a convenient pretextual one week strike for an old video after getting at least 82,000 livestream viewer covering the Chauvin Trial. Numbers that blew away all the other MSM sites. And that was just for the boring opening arguments.

According to the comments:
"NBC: 19k people watching.
Washington post: 39k people watching.
ABC News: 7.1k people watching.
Crowder before leaving: 82k people."

Also:
"289k views just minutes after stream ends.

Crowder will be banned for this just like RSBN for Trump's CPAC speech. Not allowed to show up Blue Anon."

Don't worry he just got stripped of any ability "for the forseeable future" of youtube revenue

 

[abaddon]

Except all the evidence hasn't been heard yet. Until all the evidence has been presented and closing arguments heard, the accused should be presumed innocent. You would be excused from jury duty.

Not all the evidence, just almost all of the evidence - namely the video. Humans can't see that and not form a view on what they saw. It's not reasonable to expect it.

The presumption of innocence is a nice principle and the jurors should stay open to the possibility of mitigating factors. But the basic fact here is every bit as blatant as someone robbing a bank or stabbing a person ON CAMERA. You don't see that and then un-see it.

 

[Elixir]

Except all the evidence hasn't been heard yet.

Lulz. You're waiting for a "professional witness" to opine that he died from a fentanyl overdose, right?

 

[TSwizzle]

Not all the evidence, just almost all of the evidence - namely the video. Humans can't see that and not form a view on what they saw. It's not reasonable to expect it.

All the evidence is required in order for a jury to come to a verdict. The peanut gallery on here made their minds up months ago.

The presumption of innocence is a nice principle and the jurors should stay open to the possibility of mitigating factors. But the basic fact here is every bit as blatant as someone robbing a bank or stabbing a person ON CAMERA. You don't see that and then un-see it.

Chauvin's actions are undoubtedly a contributing factor in Floyd's death, but there are other factors that need to be considered. Floyd's drug intake and his general poor health and lifestyle for example.

 

[abaddon]

The time to consider Floyd's health was there on the scene, from the start. "Oops, we didn't know he wasn't healthy" is the lamest defence. "Oops, you mean he died during those 4.75 minutes that he was unresponsive and we just kept sitting on him?" means the man was murdered.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I wouldn't have survived either. Nothing to do with drugs.

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean, if you murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped, it's not an "unfair trial" which guarantees your conviction. It's that you chose to murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the street while being videotaped.

Yeah I've been struggling to express this cleanly: just because the verdict is already known does not make it an unfair trial. The question is "does the evidence show you did it?" And the answer to that CAN be an absolute "YES".

You're entitled to "a fair trial" not "a trial you can win".

Lots of black people had the problem with the U.S. justice system. The verdict was already known before anyone bothered with a trial.
So The People just didn't bother wasting effort on the trial.
It's called "lynching". If you already know what the outcome of a trial should be, why go to the trouble?
Tom

Because you still need to put the evidence in front of people and give people due process.

Otherwise it is as you say, lynching.

It doesn't make it any less fair that everything he did is on film, a matter of public and indelible record.

It's a good thing we are demanding a fair trial. But what some are asking for is a kangaroo court to rubber stamp a murder as "nothing to see here".

The fact that the trial is really just a procedural element here doesn't make it a lynching so go blast that in the toilet where all the smelly liquid turds belong.

 

[zorq]

People get confused by what "fair trial" means. It's not like dividing a cookie "fairly" with your sibling. It means that all relevant evidence is presented objectively. Someimes that means a fair trial isn't "fair" at all using the other definition of "fair".

 

[repoman]

 

[untermensche]

Is a black lives matter shirt a problem?

Their lives do matter.

 

[Derec]

Is a black lives matter shirt a problem?

It's a political statement worn for no other purpose than to unduly influence the jury.
Note that #BLM is currently occupying territory in Minneapolis.

 

[Derec]

People get confused by what "fair trial" means. It's not like dividing a cookie "fairly" with your sibling. It means that all relevant evidence is presented objectively. Someimes that means a fair trial isn't "fair" at all using the other definition of "fair".

It means you move the venue when fair trial cannot be offered in the county in question. Given the violence over the last Summer, and threats of violence should Chauvin get acquitted, a fair trial (in the first sense) is impossible in Minneapolis.

 

[Derec]

Yeah I've been struggling to express this cleanly: just because the verdict is already known does not make it an unfair trial.

Verdict being fixed before the trial is the very definition of a show trial.

 

[laughing dog]

People get confused by what "fair trial" means. It's not like dividing a cookie "fairly" with your sibling. It means that all relevant evidence is presented objectively. Someimes that means a fair trial isn't "fair" at all using the other definition of "fair".

It means you move the venue when fair trial cannot be offered in the county in question. Given the violence over the last Summer, and threats of violence should Chauvin get acquitted, a fair trial (in the first sense) is impossible in Minneapolis.

I have shown your reasoning means that it is impossible for Chauvin to get a fair trail anywhere in Minnesota,

 

[Derec]

Did you ever hear the common expression "gasping for breath"? Why are you the only one here who is ignorant/stupid enough to think a person cant say they can't breathe while being asphyxiated?

There is a difference between ventilation and gas exchange. The amount of liquid in Floyd's lungs would have made gas exchange very inefficient no matter the amount of air he could move back and forth. Which means he would be struggling to breathe Chauvin or no Chauvin.

But the Gospel according to Derec states that juries are ONLY swayed by fear of "antifa" violence (property damage) and have no fear of murderous right wing white supremacist mobs.

First of all, a number of people died during the violent #BLM/Antifa riots last year. It's not just property damage, even as property damage is an important thing, especially when it is your business looted or burned down.
Second, "right wing white supremacist mobs" are not threatening violence should Chauvin get convicted. They are not occupying territory in Minneapolis.

Yeah I remember on January 6th when they tried to overturn a National election - oh wait (again)

And that's the only thing you remember. You conveniently forgot the violet riots in many US cities last year that led to more damage and deaths than what happened on January 6th. You forgot the Ferguson and Baltimore riots in 2014/15 that were called "uprisings" by the rioters. You are forgetting a number of riots that took place between those two bookends like Milwaukee or Charlotte.

- that was YOUR boys.

Those are NOT my boys. But #BLM/Antifa are yours. I say pox on both your houses!
The January 6th rioters need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What I am infuriated by is people (including in mainstream media and Democratic politicians) excusing left-wing violence and left-wing prosecutors dropping charges against #BLM and Antfa rioters.
Is attacking government buildings only wrong on January 6th? Why are you ignoring police stations, court houses, ICE buildings etc. attacked or set on fire by "YOUR boys"?
Is killing people only wrong on January 6th? Why are you ignoring for example the murder of David Dorn during the #BLM riot in St. Louis?

Tell us again what Lib-rul you are.

I am truly liberal, unlike those who use that term but are really left-wing illiberals.
Political violence is wrong whether committed by Proud Boys or by #BLM and Antifa. Unfortunately the latter have many allies in DA and mayor offices and on city councils. Socialist Seattle councilwoman Kshama Sawant for example opened the city hall to the #BLM mob and marched with them to the mayor's residence. How is that ok behavior for an elected official?

 

[Derec]

I have shown your reasoning means that it is impossible for Chauvin to get a fair trail anywhere in Minnesota,

You have shown no such thing. Certainly people living in metro Minneapolis would be more strong affected by #BLM threats of violence and insurgency than the population of say Brainerd should the trial be moved there.
View attachment 32634

Or maybe they need to go further out, like International Falls. But in any case, Minnesota is a big state - much bigger than metro Minneapolis.