The George Floyd trial thread
-
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@mik said in The George Floyd trial thread:
What I have seen though is disturbing in that there have already been threats of what will happen if he does not go to jail.
You want to really be disturbed?
A lot of people think that is the right thing to do.
-
@copper said in The George Floyd trial thread:
@mik said in The George Floyd trial thread:
What I have seen though is disturbing in that there have already been threats of what will happen if he does not go to jail.
You want to really be disturbed?
A lot of people think that is the right thing to do.
Privileged white people are garbage. That is the first and last intersection I ever have with them.
-
The verdict will be interesting and probably please nobody.
-
@mik said in The George Floyd trial thread:
those present do their job without my input.
What I have seen though is disturbing in that there have already been threats of what will happen if he does not go to jail.This one doesn’t have to have anything to do with privilege or racism. This is simple. Chauvin needs to go to jail. Even if it was an overdose, he was criminally negligent in not calling for an ambulance sooner. Floyd would likely still be alive today if they would have called for assistance earlier.
-
Based on the 3 charges, it’s hard to see him being found guilty of any but the last one, IMO.
- 2nd degree unintentional murder (40 years), which requires Chauvin to have intentionally assaulted Floyd (resulting in unintentional death), but then again I don’t see what he did as assault.
- 3rd degree murder (25 years), which is an odd one since it requires multiple victims?
- 2nd degree manslaughter (10 years), which requires Chauvin to have taken "an unreasonable risk" and "consciously (taking) chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another."
Based on what I know, and the videos I’ve seen, and the drugs and alcohol and health issues he had, as well as the fact that he said he “couldn’t breathe” while he was in the back of a car without anyone on top of him yet.... oh and the unlikelihood that Chauvin would willingly risk killing someone in front of all those people and cameras... just seems like there’s plenty of reasonable doubt if I were on the jury.
That being said, i’m pretty sure the jury will find him guilty. Mob rule, maybe. Or just a visceral “get off him he’s dying!” reaction while watching the video that I think we all had, knowing the outcome.
-
Here’s the real question. If I was on the jury and didn’t think there was overwhelming evidence against him, would I still vote to find him guilty if I was the only one holding out?
If I’m being honest, I probably would. Otherwise I’d basically be setting a death sentence for my family, based on the likely mob retaliation.
-
If he’s only found guilty of the last, there will be a massive riot for the “only 10 years” sentence.
If he’s found guilty of the 2nd degree murder, there might still be riots since it’s only 40 years compared to life or a death penalty.
My guess is he’ll get 50 years by being found guilty of 2nd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.
-
Manslaughter is a slam dunk. 2nd degree? Yeah, I can see it.
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@lufins-dad You can't really make any conclusion until you hear the defense's case. That is, as to guilt vs. innocence. If the prosecution is competent, then they'll have convinced the viewer of their position, and you need to hear the defense position before you can draw any conclusion.
As to the possible retaliation, that is in Cloud Crazy Land. The competence of either or both sides does not matter.
It's pretty sad, though. Headed toward mob rule, we are.
ETA: And thanks very much, MSM, for keeping the thing alive and in the forefront so fervently every damn day. That'll help. NOT.
-
@89th said in The George Floyd trial thread:
Here’s the real question. If I was on the jury and didn’t think there was overwhelming evidence against him, would I still vote to find him guilty if I was the only one holding out?
If I’m being honest, I probably would. Otherwise I’d basically be setting a death sentence for my family, based on the likely mob retaliation.
Look between your legs. If you've got a pair, you do The Right Thing. Sometimes doing that costs.
-
@catseye3 said in The George Floyd trial thread:
@lufins-dad You can't really make any conclusion until you hear the defense's case. That is, as to guilt vs. innocence. If the prosecution is competent, then they'll have convinced the viewer of their position, and you need to hear the defense position before you can draw any conclusion.
As to the possible retaliation, that is in Cloud Crazy Land. The competence of either or both sides does not matter.
It's pretty sad, though. Headed toward mob rule, we are.
ETA: And thanks very much, MSM, for keeping the thing alive and in the forefront so fervently every damn day. That'll help. NOT.
Not in this case. Cut and dried and INDEFENSIBLE. Manslaughter is exactly what happened before your eyes on that video. The failure to reach out for medical assistance is inexcusable and indisputable. There is no explanation that negates that. He was an officer of the law. He needed to be better.
-
@89th You are a caretaker of your family. To subject your loved ones to peril on the strength of some nebulous concept like "balls" would make you an idiot. Better: If you're called for jury duty, make your case to the Clerk that you must refuse, for fear of your family's safety in the case of retaliation for whatever decision you'd be a part of. If they come back at you for dereliction, that's the time to stand fast.
Success is measured by your discipline and inner peace. – Mike Ditka
-
@catseye3 said in The George Floyd trial thread:
@89th You are a caretaker of your family. To subject your loved ones to peril on the strength of some nebulous concept like "balls" would make you an idiot. Better: If you're called for jury duty, make your case to the Clerk that you must refuse, for fear of your family's safety in the case of retaliation for whatever decision you'd be a part of. If they come back at you for dereliction, that's the time to stand fast.
Sometimes, you have to be a man. I know that integrity and doing the right thing may be a foreign concept to some, but if you (collective you) are that scared of life, go crawl into a corner and die.
-
@lufins-dad I don't argue. If that's what happened, then that's what happened. But systemically, in a criminal trial, you can't justify a decision until both sides have presented -- be it this or any other trial. It's only just, only fair.
