[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

You mean like the proud boys?

Yes like them.

Looting and stealing has no place in "activism". NONE. ZERO. No matter WHO does it. Bogie you and I sit on different sides of the political aisle. But stealing and burning and ruining anything is WRONG and should not be protected by the First Amendment.

[graciegirl]

In the aftermath of the verdict, I want to share this video from Live PD showing one of my favorite segments.

Please watch Policing done right. Please see that it isn't about RACE.

Live PD segment. cop cries - Bing video

[Gmaf6]

And I’m sure Tony’s family didn’t get $27 million

[Linnberg]

Originally Posted by Swoop

If Floyd was white, the charges against Chauvin would have been dismissed...

Wow! Can’t believe
You believe that!!

[jbrown132]

How many of those jurors do you think sat in that jury room and said to themselves if I vote to acquit on any of those charges I don’t want to be the one responsible for watching my city burn. The judge should have changed the venue and the jury should have been sequestered throughout the trial. Not saying innocent or guilty, just saying almost impossible to get a fair trial under those circumstances.

[tvbound]

If nothing else, a public service is being provided by a lot of posts that exemplify the root of the problem and demonstrating how so many don't view people of color as even being human beings - deserving of equal treatment under the law.

[diva1]

Originally Posted by Swoop

If Floyd was white, the charges against Chauvin would have been dismissed...

If Floyd was white, this incident would never have happened.

[Grill Meister]

Supreme Court Might Reverse Chauvin Convictions because of Maxine Waters

by Alan M. Dershowitz
April 21, 2021 at 5:00 am



The Minnesota appellate courts might not reverse the conviction but the United States Supreme Court well might, as they have done in other cases involving jury intimidation.

In seeking to put her thumb on the scales of justice, Rep. Maxine Waters perhaps unwittingly borrowed a tactic right out of the Deep South of the early 20th century.

In the Deep South during the 1920s and '30s, elected politicians would organize demonstrations by white voters in front of courthouses in which racially charged trials were being conducted. The politicians then threatened, explicitly or implicitly, that violence would follow the acquittal of a black defendant or the conviction of a white defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts reversed several convictions based on these tactics of intimidation.

The judge in the Chauvin trial made a serious error in not sequestering the jury during the entire trial.

Already, we have seen blood sprayed over the former home of a witness who testified for Chauvin; the defendant's lawyers have received threats. An aura of violence is in the air. Jurors breathe that same air....

This is not the Deep South in the 1920s. It is the "Identity Politics" of the 21st century. But the motives of the protesters are not relevant to whether jurors in the Chauvin case could be expected to consider the evidence objectively without fear of the kind of intimidation threatened by Waters.

The evidence, in my view, supports a verdict of manslaughter, but not of murder. Any verdict that did not include a conviction for murder was likely to be unacceptable to Waters and her followers, however, even if the facts and the law mandate that result. Waters is not interested in neutral justice. She wants vengeance for what she and her followers justifiably see as the unjustified killing of George Floyd.... That is not the rule of law. That is the passion of the crowd.

We must be certain that threats of intimidation do not influence jury verdicts. That certainty does not exist now in the Chauvin case, thanks largely to the ill-advised threats and demands of Maxine Waters and others.

The convictions of Derek Chauvin might not mark the end of this racially divisive case. The US Supreme Court might ultimately decide whether to uphold the convictions.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) made a statement — while jurors in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin were not yet sequestered — which demanded street confrontations unless Chauvin were found guilty of murder. The trial judge correctly suggested that any conviction in the case might ultimately be thrown out on appeal, based on what Waters said. He condemned Waters' remarks in the strongest terms, but he did not have the courage to grant a defense motion for a mistrial. Had he done so, that almost certainly would have led to riots — which would have been blamed on the judge, not on Rep. Waters. So he left it to the court of appeals, months in the future, to grant a new trial -- which he should have granted.

The Minnesota appellate courts might not reverse the conviction but the United States Supreme Court well might, as they have done in other cases involving jury intimidation.

In seeking to put her thumb on the scales of justice, Rep. Waters perhaps unwittingly borrowed a tactic right out of the Deep South of the early 20th century. Though her motives and intentions were far better than those of the white southerners, the tactic is essentially the same. In the Deep South during the 1920s and '30s, elected politicians would organize demonstrations by white voters in front of courthouses in which racially charged trials were being conducted. The politicians then threatened, explicitly or implicitly, that violence would follow the acquittal of a black defendant or the conviction of a white defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts reversed several convictions based on these tactics of intimidation.

The judge in the Chauvin trial made a serious error in not sequestering the jury during the entire trial. Instead, he merely told them not to read or watch the news. That is not nearly enough; even if the jurors scrupulously followed the judge's narrow instruction, it is inconceivable that some of them did not learn what was going on outside the courtroom from friends, family, media and TV shows that were not "the news." It is safe to assume that many if not all of the jurors were fearful — either consciously or unconsciously —that a verdict other than the one desired by Waters and her followers would result in violence that threatens them, their homes, their businesses and their families.

Already, we have seen blood sprayed over the former home of a witness who testified for Chauvin; the defendant's lawyers have received threats. An aura of violence is in the air. Jurors breathe that same air, and the guilty verdict in this case — whether deserved or undeserved — should be scrutinized carefully by the appellate courts.

This is not the Deep South in the 1920s. It is the "Identity Politics" of the 21st century. But the motives of the protesters are not relevant to whether jurors in the Chauvin case could be expected to consider the evidence objectively without fear of the kind of intimidation threatened by Waters.

Both the prosecution and the defense put on effective cases. The evidence, in my view, supports a verdict of manslaughter, but not of murder. Any verdict that did not include a conviction for murder was likely to be unacceptable to Waters and her followers, however, even if the facts and the law mandate that result. Waters is not interested in neutral justice. She wants vengeance for what she and her followers justifiably see as the unjustified killing of George Floyd.

Yet, justice is not black and white. It requires calibration, common-sense nuance and a careful evaluation of all the evidence presented by both sides. There can be no assurance that this jury was capable of rendering justice without the threatening sword of Damocles — unsheathed by Waters — hanging over their heads. That is not the rule of law. That is the passion of the crowd.

We must do a better job of insulating jurors from outside influences in racially charged cases. We must be certain that threats of intimidation do not influence jury verdicts. That certainty does not exist now in the Chauvin case, thanks largely to the ill-advised threats and demands of Maxine Waters and others.

[JanetMM]

Originally Posted by Swoop

If Floyd was white, the charges against Chauvin would have been dismissed...

If Floyd were white, he would still be alive. Your above statement of charges would be moot since there would have been no murder.

[Joe C.]

These are my thoughts. Maybe they are wrong, but still, seeing what I have on the body cams, I don't think that Chauvin is guilty. The jury says yes, but I think that they considered all the rioting across the country that would have happened if an innocent verdict was issued and that was heavily weighed in their decision.
George Floyd kept saying "I can't breathe", yet he was breathing. As the defense said, that in order to talk you must breathe. Chauvin did use his knee to the neck, but it was to the side of the neck and not the windpipe. Floyd was on fentanyl and methamphetamine when he passed the counterfeit money and got arrested. He was foaming at the mouth when he was approached. That in itself could cause breathing problems.
Then there is the "race factor. The media and the left played that to the hilt. Too much publicity and left wing activism tainted the jury's decision.
Is Chauvin "innocent"? I think that he is complicit, yes. But murder? Not so much.

[Pat2015]

Originally Posted by noelphyl

If Floyd were White he’d still be alive.

I don’t believe that at all. I think actions have consequences and in this case the officer was wrong to use that kind of force. If you believe that police officers kill people because they are black, does it also hold true that they kill twice as many white people a year because they are white?

[skarra]

Originally Posted by DeanFL

.
.
With the speed of the jury verdict - Chauvin will be found guilty of some, if not all charges. Not saying right or wrong at all.

BUT with the jury NOT sequestered for the 3 weeks, with all the local MN publicity and "commotion" and ESPECIALLY the public "commentary" by political leaders... Definite Appeal material for defense. Said directly from the Judge after the jury left the courtroom after the Closing>

"I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch and our function," Cahill added later. "I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the Constitution, to respect a coequal branch of government."
.
.

This is the first step towards EVERYONE regaining confidence in law enforcement, particularly amongst people of color who have been singled out in the past.

We eliminated one very bad apple which is good for the entire system.

[Swoop]

Originally Posted by Linnberg

Wow! Can’t believe
You believe that!!

Originally Posted by diva1

If Floyd was white, this incident would never have happened.

Originally Posted by JanetMM

If Floyd were white, he would still be alive. Your above statement of charges would be moot since there would have been no murder.

The three of you should read post #33...

[Pat2015]

Originally Posted by tvbound

While justice was served in this case, just go back and read the original police release when it happened, it was totally played down until that brave young lady posted her video. It's also obvious that this is just a beginning, proved by all of those who are basically saying "yes, Chauvin probably killed him, but look at all of the other blacks who loot and riot when they've reached their breaking point on the obvious lack of equality, when it comes to black Americans being treated equally."

It's the systemic/institutional racism on how people of color are treated differently and that constant, big, "BUT" - that needs to change from here on out.

There is never an excuse or justification to burn down and destroy people’s property and steal from their businesses. If you want to march in protest that’s fine, but I feel these incidents have little to do with “Justice” and more about destroying places and getting free stuff. Where is the “Justice” for people who’s lives and businesses are destroyed that had nothing to do with the latest case that’s used as an excuse to behave in this way?

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by Patriceunger

I don’t believe that at all. I think actions have consequences and in this case the officer was wrong to use that kind of force. If you believe that police officers kill people because they are black, does it also hold true that they kill twice as many white people a year because they are white?

"does it also hold true that they kill twice as many white people a year because they are white?"

You may want to research the per-capita ratio, in your misleading statement. Almost 5 times as many whites than blacks in this country, but only twice as many whites killed - tells a different story.