The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Robert S. Griffin Archive
If I Had Made the Closing Argument in Defense of Derek Chauvin...
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

At this writing, in mid-May, 2021, former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin has been convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd during Floyd’s arrest. Chauvin hasn’t been sentenced yet. The first charge carries a maximum of forty years in prison.

Chauvin was one of four officers involved in the arrest of Floyd on May 25th 2020 for passing a counterfeit $20 bill. They handcuffed him but were unable to get him to go into the back seat of a police car. While Floyd was lying face down in the street, Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck and shin on his back for over nine minutes and he died. Mobile phone video taken by a bystander recorded the episode. The autopsy revealed that Floyd had COVID, heart disease, and high amounts of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at the time of his death. The medical examiner’s opinion was that Floyd died of cardiac arrest and that his health condition contributed to his death, which he ruled a homicide. The case received extensive attention because of its racial angle: Chauvin is White, Floyd was Black. It fit the current widely-believed narrative of an epidemic of racism-motivated killings of blameless Blacks by White cops.

I didn’t follow the Chauvin case all that closely. I sampled front-page news accounts in the paper and read daily summaries of the trial on the internet. I watched the defense closing argument on television, which brought up questions for me and prompted this writing. Later, I read a transcript of it.[1]Both the transcript and a video of the defense closing argument are online.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/defense-closing...-floyd

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video/5503824-full-vi...art-1/

Defense Attorney Eric Nelson
Defense Attorney Eric Nelson

In his closing argument, Chauvin’s defense attorney, Eric Nelson, didn’t exactly hit the ground running. It’s fifteen minutes into his presentation and he’s still defining reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence and I’m going, I got it, I got it, move it! When Nelson finally got into the substance of what he had to offer, it seemed as if the word “reasonable” was in every other sentence: what was reasonable for a police officer to do in this circumstance; reasonable, reasonable, reasonable. This from the transcript characterizes the thrust of Nelson’s closing argument:

And then you look at the direct knowledge that a reasonable police officer would have at the precise moment force was used. That includes information that they gather from dispatch, their direct observations of the scene, the subjects, and the current surroundings. They have to take into consideration whether the suspect was under the influence of a controlled substance. They can take that into consideration, because again, this is a dynamic and ever-changing. Just like life, things change. It’s a dynamic situation. It’s fluid. They take into account their experience with the subject at the beginning, the middle, the end. A reasonable police officer tries to, or is at least cognizant and concerned, about future behavior, and that factors into the reasonable police officer’s analysis too, because sometimes officers take someone into custody with no problem and suddenly they become a problem. It can change in an instant.[2]From the transcript of the defense closing argument. Op. cit.

This went on for about forty-five minutes and I’m thinking, what’s he doing this for, reasonableness is the last thing you want to try to tack on to Chauvin. What Chauvin did was, it seems to me, obviously unreasonable. The reasonable thing to have done when all four officers couldn’t get Floyd into the police car—he was a really big muscular guy—was to call for a police van, or better, an ambulance and emergency medical personnel (Floyd was saying he couldn’t breathe), and let Floyd sit or lie somewhere handcuffed until they got there. At least Chauvin could have taken his knee off Floyd’s neck as soon at Floyd stopped thrashing around.

And anyway, I thought to myself, Chauvin isn’t accused of being unreasonable. You don’t go to jail for being unreasonable. You go to jail for breaking a law. It struck me that, really, I didn’t know what law or laws Chauvin was accused of violating. As did everyone, I had seen the video and assumed that it was to be taken as Chauvin out-and-out murdering Floyd, but I wasn’t up on the particulars—first degree, second degree, and so on–and Nelson going on about reasonableness wasn’t helping me out in this regard.

I quickly checked online while Nelson was making his presentation and learned that Chauvin was accused of second degree murder and two lesser charges, manslaughter being one of them. I didn’t get into any details of the laws, wanting to get back to Nelson—or sort of; in truth, he was boring the hell out of me. I kept waiting for him to deal directly with the charges against Chauvin and how the prosecution hadn’t proved them, but it never happened. He jumped around, this, that, and the other thing—all the trouble they had getting Floyd to cooperate, what force is authorized, how long Chauvin’s knee was on his neck (or was the knee on his upper back?), Floyd’s cause of death, and the hostile bystanders, and what was reasonable in all of that.

It was clear Nelson was conscientious and had put in a lot of preparation time, but I’m reacting, “How exactly does all of this relate to what Chauvin’s accused of doing?” The trial must be more than just whether Chauvin is a racist White cop like all the rest of them and oppresses Blacks for no reason at all and looked very bad on a video, and that if you agree that what was going on was evil personified, and who wouldn’t, put the creep in prison and throw away the key. The law is more precise, nuanced, than that, or so I assumed anyway. (Later: Yes, the law is more precise than that, but I’ve concluded from writing this up that Chauvin was indeed convicted of looking on the video like your typical racist White cop who tortures and executes poor, helpless Blacks, case closed, cart him off.)

I’m not an attorney, but I’ve taught school and written for publication, and I know that to convince people of something—which was the challenge for the defense here—you need to organize your presentation so that things tie together in an easy-to-understand, accessible, convincing way. People ought to feel good about themselves for getting on board with you. From watching his presentation and later reading a transcript of it, my call is that defense attorney Nelson didn’t bring that off.

• • •

Take this for what it’s worth, I’m no expert on the details of the case and have zero legal expertise, but I’m going to be so presumptuous as to sketch out how I would have come at the closing defense argument in the Chauvin trial for your consideration.

I’d have grounded my presentation in the specifics of the laws Chauvin was accused of violating and argued that the prosecution hadn’t established beyond a reasonable doubt that he had violated them. I’m not contending this would make any difference in the verdict, just that it would have been better than what Eric Nelson did. This was a rigged proceeding from the get-go, right out of Stalin’s time or East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was a show trial. Here’s an enemy of people, nail him good (and, in this instance, if you don’t, it’s an apocalypse, and we know where you live). Clarence Darrow couldn’t have won this case. But even if a cause is futile, we still are obligated to do the right thing the best we can. We can push the rock up the mountain even if it is sure to roll back down on us. Here’s how I would have pushed the rock.

In the closing argument, I would have put the Minnesota legal statutes Chauvin was accused of violating on big pieces of cardboard and set them on easels. I looked it up, there were three of them, three counts. With a pointer that had a rubber tip on it, I would have directed my presentation at what was on the three pieces of cardboard. If it wasn’t on the cardboard, I wouldn’t deal with it (with one exception, which I’ll get to right at the end of this writing).

As it was, in no time at all, the jury found Chauvin guilty on all three counts. One juror after the trial said that eleven of the twelve were ready to convict twenty minutes into the deliberation, but one juror held them up a bit on some technicalities. Count I was second degree murder. Count II was third degree murder. Count III was second degree manslaughter. Wielding my pointer, I’d have said to the jury, “These are the three laws that Derek Chauvin is accused of violating. Let’s go through them one at a time. The question for you is whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin did these things. Men and women of the jury, much less a reasonable doubt, there is no doubt that Derek Chauvin didn’t violate any of these laws.”

I’ll go through the three counts here and briefly say how I’d come at them. You can add your own thinking to mine. The counts are taken from the formal charges against Chauvin.[3]The formal charges against Chauvin.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6935897/D...ge.pdf

COUNT I

Charge: Second Degree Murder – Unintentional – While Committing a Felony

Minnesota Statute 609.19 (1)

Maximum Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 40 years.

Offense Level: Felony

Charge Description: That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Derek Michael Chauvin caused the death of a human being, George Floyd, without the intent to effect the death of any person, while committing a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting, namely assault in the third degree.

This is the big one, forty years. What jumps out here is that in order to be guilty of violating this law, it isn’t enough that Chauvin caused the death of Floyd, he had to do it while committing a particular felony, third degree assault (which usually isn’t a felony, but sometimes is if the offense is bad enough). Subdivision 1 of the Minnesota statute for third degree assault applies in this case:

609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE

Subdivision 1. Substantial bodily harm.

Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

The issue with this count is whether the prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was assaulting Floyd rather than restraining him.

To the jury:

“Are you certain enough that Chauvin was assaulting Floyd to put him in prison for forty years? The video has this exchange:

Chauvin: Relax.
Floyd: I can’t breathe!
Chauvin: You’re fine. You’re talking fine.

And this:

Officer: I just worry about the excited or delirium or whatever.
Chauvin: That’s why we have EMS coming.

“Does that sound to you like assault with the intent to inflict substantial bodily harm, no reasonable doubt about it? Could it be that Chauvin thought he was restraining Floyd until the medical people got there? He may have been unreasonable, or unwise, in doing what he was doing, but that is not the issue in this count. It is whether he was committing the felony offense of assault against Floyd. Ask yourself, ‘How has the prosecution demonstrated to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was assaulting rather than restraining Floyd?’ They haven’t, and there is no doubt about that.”

The second count, third degree murder.

COUNT II

Charge: Third Degree Murder – Perpetrating an Eminently Dangerous Act and Evincing a Depraved Mind

Minnesota Statute 609.195 (a)

Maximum Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 25 years

Offense Level: Felony

Charge Description: That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, Derek Michael Chauvin caused the death of another, George Floyd, by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.

The key elements here are perpetuating an eminently dangerous act and evincing (revealing) a depraved mind, without regard for human life.

“Has the prosecution demonstrated to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the neck restraint Chauvin applied is eminently—exceedingly, extremely—dangerous? No, it hasn’t. This restraint is authorized by the Minneapolis police department, is widely used by law enforcement throughout the world, and is not known for causing death; it certainly hadn’t in Minneapolis before the Floyd incident. Are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin thinks to himself, ‘Here’s my chance to perpetrate an eminently dangerous act right here in front of all these people and with this young woman taking a video on her cellphone.’ Conjecture isn’t evidence. Presumption isn’t evidence. What hard evidence has the prosecution given you that supports you being so certain that this human being—Chauvin is a human being, just like George Floyd, just like you—was perpetrating an eminently dangerous act rather than trying to do his job that you are willing to put him in prison for 25 years? Twenty-five years from now is 2146. And how have you been shown that Derek Chauvin is no less than depraved? Not just performing an ill-advised act, but depraved. And that he is without regard for human life? The prosecution has established this? When? How? This count takes the cake. It’s absurd.”

And the third charge, second degree manslaughter.

COUNT III

Charge: Second Degree Manslaughter – Culpable Negligence Creating an Unreasonable Risk

Minnesota Statute: 609.205 (1)

Maximum Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.

Offense Level: Felony

Charge Description: That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Derek Michael Chauvin caused the death of another, George Floyd, by his culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk and consciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to another, George Floyd.

The angle here is the part about consciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm.

“It’s fair to say that what Derek Chauvin did contributed to George Floyd’s death, though even that isn’t a dead certainty given Floyd’s dire health condition. But did Chauvin consciously take the chance of killing Floyd? Was that on his mind? The prosecution has established that? Absolutely, it hasn’t. Chauvin had no way of knowing about Floyd’s COVID and heart disease. We’re talking about a police officer here, not a medical expert. It’s commonly believed that if you can speak you can breathe. Should Chauvin have just let Floyd lie there until medical help got there, where Floyd said he wanted to be (‘I want to lay on the ground, I want to lay on the ground. I’m going down, I’m going down. I’m going down’). Arguably, yes. Given that Mr. Floyd died, we can assume that with 20/20 hindsight Derek Chauvin would do things differently. But that doesn’t justify putting him in prison for ten years. He didn’t consciously—consciously, with intent—take the chance of causing Floyd’s death. There is no evidence that supports that speculation.”

More to be said, but you get the idea of how I would have come at the closing argument. If nothing else, it provides an alternative to the approach taken by Chauvin’s defense attorney, Eric Nelson. A New York Times article squared with what I saw Nelson doing, that is to say, pushing the reasonable-police-officer theme.

For nearly three hours, Mr. Nelson focused on Mr. Chauvin’s decision-making and on what factors may have caused Mr. Floyd’s death. He emphasized that the jury instructions say that no crime has been committed if a police officer was justified in using reasonable force and that jurors should determine what is justified by considering what “a reasonable police officer in the same situation would believe to be necessary.”[4]“In His Closing Argument, Derek Chauvin’s Lawyer Urges Jurors to ‘Not Let Yourselves Be Misled.’” Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, The New York Times, April 19, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-...t.html

As far as I can see, in going this route, Nelson didn’t speak to what the charges against Chauvin actually were, and it was deadly bad for Chauvin. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be making the case that what Chauvin did was reasonable.

I keep thinking I have to be missing the point in all of this somehow. I’ve recently begun reading the Powerline site online and finding it very informative. It’s a group of attorneys commenting on the news. One of them, Scott Johnson, wrote this with reference to federal charges against the four police officers involved in the Floyd case:

State convictions and stiff sentences against the former police officers in this case would easily satisfy federal concerns. The theory of the state prosecutions is that, even though George Floyd was lawfully arrested and detained, police exploited their detention authority, abusing his rights to (a) be subjected to only reasonable (not excessive) force, and (b) have police protect his right to life. Chauvin was found guilty of those abuses, and it is highly likely that the other three former officers will be, too.[5]“A Redundant Prosecution, Star Tribune Edition,” posted on Powerline by Scott Johnson on May 8 th, 2021. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/05/a-red...on.php

Exploited detention authority? Used unreasonable force? Didn’t protect Floyd’s right to life? Chauvin was found guilty of those abuses? I thought the charges were violating Minnesota statutes prohibiting assault, committing an eminently dangerous act, behaving from a depraved mind and having no regard for human life, and knowingly taking a chance on causing death or great bodily injury. Scott Johnson is a Minneapolis attorney who for 25 years has written for major publications, including National Review and The New York Times, and he is a fellow at the prestigious Claremont Institute. He’s got really strong legal credentials, and I’m following the NFL draft (Wilson has a history of shoulder surgery). I don’t know. I’ll leave it to you to sort this out.

• • •

I’ll close with three things I would have done if I had been defending Chauvin.

First, I would have done my best to get that mask off him. Personalize him, make him an individual. With the mask on, Chauvin comes off as a type, a symbol for racist cops everywhere. If you throw the book at him, you are making a statement about police and their practices in general, not punishing a mortal, fallible-like-we-all-are, individual person, with parents and a sister and former stepchildren whom he may still be in contact with and a job that happens to be that of a police officer. I’d try to humanize Chauvin, make the jury aware that whatever they do, for whatever reason, they are doing to him.

I would have had him testify. Attorneys are really skittish about having defendants testify, something about them getting worked over by prosecution grilling. I don’t get it. I don’t care what instructions judges give juries—don’t read anything into the defendant’s choice not to testify, etc. If I’m on a jury, I’m thinking he has something to hide or he’d be bursting at the seams eager to tell his side of the story. Plus, I want to hear from him. We’ve heard from everybody else. Tell us, what were you doing and why? Give us your side.

I don’t see how Chauvin would be vulnerable on the stand. All he has to do is hang in there with a simple story. “We’ve got a guy who we can’t wrestle into the car and he’s ranting and thrashing around and kicking his legs. I thought I was staying calm and restraining him until the ambulance got there, which turned out to be longer than I expected. People were yelling at me and threatening me and I thought I might have to use mace to protect myself when in my mind I was doing the proper thing. It was a dangerous situation, so bad that the emergency medical people wouldn’t attend to Floyd until they got him out of there. Absolutely, I wasn’t assaulting Floyd. I thought the knee restraint was safe and that since he was talking he could breathe. I feel terrible that he died. I’ll live with it for the rest of my life. I wish I could have done better by George Floyd, but I know in my heart that I did the best I could to safely make the arrest within the intense pressure of that moment.”

And last, I would have ended my closing argument by referring to the elephant in the room: people were threatening to tear apart the city of Minneapolis, and other cities as well, if the jury didn’t convict Chauvin, and there were threats against the jurors themselves if they didn’t do the mob’s bidding. The jurors weren’t sequestered, they knew this. I don’t know how directly I could have addressed the threat that was looming over the trial. Perhaps something like this: “There are times in our lives, not more than a few, when we are called upon to do the truly honorable thing and there is a very strong temptation not to. Doing the honorable thing in that circumstance tests our character: our honesty, our integrity, our autonomy, our toughness, our courage. This is a highly charged case, you knew that before you took your oath as a juror. You’ll very likely never be tested like this again in your life. You have the responsibility to assess thoroughly and impartially whether or not the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Derek Chauvin violated three Minnesota laws. You pledged to do that, and only that. Now is your time to stand up and be counted, as a citizen and as a human being. Thank you.”

Endnotes

[1] Both the transcript and a video of the defense closing argument are online.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/defense-closing-argument-transcript-derek-chauvin-trial-for-murder-of-george-floyd

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video/5503824-full-video-defense-presents-closing-arguments-in-derek-chauvin-trial-part-1/

[2] From the transcript of the defense closing argument. Op. cit.

[3] The formal charges against Chauvin.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6935897/Derek-Chauvin-Second-degree-murder-charge.pdf

[4] “In His Closing Argument, Derek Chauvin’s Lawyer Urges Jurors to ‘Not Let Yourselves Be Misled.’” Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, The New York Times, April 19, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-defense-closing-argument.html

[5] “A Redundant Prosecution, Star Tribune Edition,” posted on Powerline by Scott Johnson on May 8 th, 2021. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/05/a-redundant-prosecution-star-tribune-edition.php

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. No closing argument or any evidence, for that matter, would have made a difference in the Chauvin case. The jury had its mind made up before the trial even began, and even if it hadn’t, the obvious threat of reprisals against jurors and general rioting by blacks in the event of an acquittal made the verdict a foregone conclusion.

  2. Very good. I agree the defence lawyers were weak.

  3. Why isn’t”rigged proceeding from the get go” understood?

    It’s blue police,blue actors,in a blue city,of a blue state
    at a time when everything that could be used to derail
    the “Trump train”wasn’t working.Russiagate,Putingate,
    Muellergate,racist,homo/islamaphobe,sexist,fascist etc.
    Then the virus,impeachment and the threat of civil war.
    You people are talking about the camera angle?
    Kamala,Waters,Obama,and even Al Sharpton helping
    the blue judge,blue jury in a blue court.
    You people are asking about Israeli police tactics?

  4. Anastasia says:

    In order to be an assault, the touching has to be unlawful.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  5. I’m not a lawyer either, but some fireworks seemed to be in order for the closing arguments.

    The quote of the 90’s was from Johnnie Cochran at the O.J. trial. He had Simpson struggle to put on a tight glove allegedly worn by the killer. Cochran stood before the O.J Simpson jurors and urged them to keep this in mind:

    “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

    Nelson should have put a handcuffed man on the courtroom floor in front of the jury box. Put four cops on his back.

    After nine minutes, have him stand and ask him what he felt. If he’s not dead, “you must acquit”.

  6. KenH says:

    I think Nelson did a pretty good job cross examining prosecution witnesses but this trial was rigged to ensure a conviction all along. Nelson’s arguments were crafted for a jury that was open minded and thoughtful neither of which were present with the jury he actually had. The jury that had its mind made up before the trial which doomed Chauvin like it will doom the other three officers.

    Nelson’s specialty is not criminal defense based on some things I’ve read and if true I don’t know why he was selected as Chauvin’s attorney. There was probably a lot of political pressure for some of the best criminal defense attorneys in MN not to take the case and subtle threats of retaliation if any of them did.

    Chauvin should have been granted a change of venue given the toxic political climate in Minneapolis. that is the only way he could have received a semi-fair trial.

    • Agree: mike99588
    • Replies: @gandydancer
  7. Getaclue says:
    @Badger Down

    Could have been Perry Mason made zero difference– both the Jury and Judge were in the bag for a Conviction — you don’t win those cases…LOL

  8. Officer Chauvin should have had a fair trial.
    Police officers in catastrophic calls like this should be given the benefit of any doubt.
    He may have known Floyd but wanting to harm him, that is insane.
    Folks have been watching too many movies and/or CNN/MSN?AP.
    The jury seemed to ignore the medical reports indicating Floyds impending mortality.
    Why hear a case in the middle of a starving pack of hyenas and mob rabble?
    Was the Judge trying to appease or what? No mistrial this take much work/time on the part of
    the Judge’s court.
    Don’t you hate it when a tainted news media, elected officials and a misguided prejudiced, public eye
    seem to believe what they know is right, then continue unopposed to applying extraordinary pressure on a living breathing court trial for an American citizen.

    • Agree: GomezAdddams
    • Replies: @anon
    , @moi
  9. Thomasina says:

    Robert Griffin – a helluva good job! Well presented. You definitely would make a great lawyer.

    I believe (correct me if I’m wrong) that the jury never heard evidence regarding the fact that the Israelis had trained the Minneapolis Police Department on this particular knee restraint. If not, why not? This would have established the fact that Chauvin was merely following his training.

    I agree with others that nothing short of a guilty verdict was going to fly. I believe Nelson did just “enough” to make it appear like he was defending. As you said, he did not focus on the charges or Chauvin’s intent. I think everybody got what they wanted. I believe Chauvin will get off on appeal, and I also believe he knows this. He was not stunned or screaming when he left that courtroom. This was a Bad White on Good Black stage play.

    Last night (Thursday, May 13) on Tucker Carlson’s show a reporter (Trace Gallagher) talked about some documents (or emails/taped conversations, I can’t remember which) that were uncovered by counsel for one of the other cop defendants. Apparently they allude to the fact that when the Chief Medical Officer for Hennepin County handed over his report to the prosecutor, it caused a furor because it said that Chauvin’s actions did not cause asphyxia. This Chief Medical Officer apparently was then immediately contacted by some medical officer in D.C. and told that he must change his report – which he DID. He changed his report!

    If true, this is huge.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    , @gandydancer
  10. Thomasina says:

    Here’s is what Trace Gallagher had to say on Tucker Carlson’s show last night:

    “TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey Tucker. These court documents were filed by attorneys defending former Minneapolis police officer Tou Thao. They claim in May of last year, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker met with prosecutors and told them his autopsy showed no physical evidence that George Floyd died of asphyxiation.

    The attorneys allege that a few days later, former D.C. medical examiner Dr. Roger Mitchell called Dr. Baker to complain about his findings saying, quoting here, “Neck compression has to be in the diagnosis.” Adding, quoting again, “You don’t want to be the Medical Examiner who tells everyone they didn’t see what they saw. You don’t want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong.”

    Dr. Mitchell then allegedly threatened to write an op-ed in “The Washington Post” critical of Dr. Baker’s findings. Shortly after the conversation, defense attorneys say Dr. Baker released his final autopsy and sure enough, it said neck compression did contribute to George Floyd’s death.

    The attorneys also claimed that when a former Maryland Medical Examiner testified during the Derek Chauvin trial that George Floyd’s death was undetermined, Dr. Mitchell also targeted that Medical Examiner wanting his medical license investigated.

    The Minnesota A.G.’s Office calls the allegations bizarre and says it will respond within a week.”

    Was there some serious arm-twisting going on, some threats?

    • Thanks: Dieter Kief
    • Replies: @Redman
  11. Keith_ says:

    This would have been a much better closing. Nelsons long and plodding closing failed to drive home the main points that needed to be made:

    – Chauvin was NOT committing a felony when Floyd died while VIOLENTLY RESISTING a LAWFUL arrest with 3X THE LETHAL LEVEL OF FENTANYL in his system. Chauvin was following his training BY-THE-BOOK specifically when dealing with suspected cases of EXCITED DELERIUM officers are trained to get the suspect on the ground IN THE PRONE POSITION and the training manual actually shows the KNEE RESTRAINT USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. The training specifically says this procedure is to MINIMIZE THREAT OF POSITIONAL ASPHXIA – i.e. Chauvin was doing everything he could to PREVENT FLOYD FROM HARMING HIMSELF. Once established that Chauvin’s was not committing a felony cause of death becomes irrelevant

    – Prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin’s actions were the SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE of Floyds death. The autopsy reports that no evidence of injuries causing death were found. Even the state witnesses agreed that Floyd was not asphyxiated as a result of the knee restraint. The state would only allege – without evidence – the Floyd died from positional asphyxia.

    But biggest mistake by far was not putting Chauvin on the stand. It was an incredibly stupid decision and if in fact it was Chauvin’s choice then he is an idiot. If it was at the advice of Nelson then Chauvin had an idiot for a lawyer. The only good reason for not putting a defendant on the stand is when they are guilty as hell and the best chance of an acquittal is by not having them testify. In Chauvin’s case he was completely innocent of the charges. There is nothing the prosecution could have done to hurt him on cross examination. No doubt the jurors were inclined to convict but let them – and the world – hear Chauvin in his own words. Make them look into the eyes of the man they were predisposed to send to prison for life.

    I watched most of the trial and noticed that Chauvin had his head down almost the entire time taking copious notes – he was really engaged in the proceedings and I thought he was preparing himself for when he would testify but I was wrong. Even during Nelson’s closing Chauvin was furiously taking notes which was pointless.

    Chauvin will have a chance to speak to the court during the sentencing phase. I hope he will use that chance – when the eyes of the world will be on him – to vigorously assert his innocence. I’m afraid Nelson will coach him to be contrite and he will instead grovel to the judge and the Floyd family begging the family for forgiveness.

    • Agree: moi, Patrick in SC
    • Replies: @profnasty
    , @Rogue
    , @Anonymous
  12. USA1943 says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Only if the Jurors were Cowards.

  13. In closing your Honor, my client Derek Chauvin acted out because SHE’s really a woman and now identifies as a black dragqueen. She wants to marry her Penguin…

    CASE DISMISSED!!! All charges dropped. Not guilty.

  14. I follow the trial right here on another unz thread. Interesting information came to light. The prosecution certainly did not prove that Chauvin’s actions killed Floyd, much less intent. The medical testimony showed that Chauvin’s actions may have been a factor in his death. At the same time, there is no reason for a cop to be kneeling on top of a handcuffed man who is already unconscious, and over 100 Americans have died in the prone restraint in the past decade. I think some form of criminal misconduct would be a correct charge, because this certainly was not provable murder. In fact, it isn’t even provably manslaughter, because the drugs in his system could have been fatal on their own. I detest the oligarch’s goon squad (cops) as much as the lying media, so I don’t really have a dog in the fight. 2nd degree murder it was not; but at the same time the people who think Chauvin did nothing wrong are jumping to another extreme. The cops ARE out of control, are being used to enforce the covid madness and arresting innocent people. They murder whites in even more brutal fashion too.

    • Agree: Bro43rd, moi
  15. Atle says:

    Honestly, a little surprised at how lame his defense was. This really was an open and shut case. Either Chauvin behaved in a law-enforcement approved way or he didn’t. That was really it.

    I truly see civil war here.

    • Agree: moi
    • Replies: @Anon
  16. Sean says:

    A very thoughtful, link-sparing, and clearly written article, as is always true when the author is Robert S. Griffin.

    When Nelson finally got into the substance of what he had to offer, it seemed as if the word “reasonable” was in every other sentence: what was reasonable for a police officer to do in this circumstance; reasonable, reasonable, reasonable

    Yes, and that must have sounded like Nelson was arguing along the lines of a justifiable homicide defence, rather that framing Floyd’s demise as the death of someone in poor health and under the influence of drugs who had been determinedly and successfully resisting arrest when his heart gave out.

    This went on for about forty-five minutes and I’m thinking, what’s he doing this for, reasonableness is the last thing you want to try to tack on to Chauvin

    Absence of reasonableness is more easily shown than the culpability necessary for conviction on second degree murder, even if without without intent. Surely a first class defense attorney would be trying to up the bar for a guilty verdict.

    One juror after the trial said that eleven of the twelve were ready to convict twenty minutes into the deliberation, but one juror held them up a bit on some technicalities.

    Prior to the trial there was a lot of media talk about how difficult it is to successfully prosecute a cop, and so I believe a juror who was willing to say he was not convinced might have been far from impossible to find among that twelve, with a good performance by Nelson. He only needed one juror to hold out for an acquittal and there would have been a re-trial; what a truly catastrophic failure by Nelson to get the jury to properly consider the defence case actually ensued. It is questionable if the jury understood or obeyed their instructions, in view of them having came to a settled conclusion at such an early stage.

    I’m not an attorney, but I’ve taught school and written for publication, and I know that to convince people of something—which was the challenge for the defense here—you need to organize your presentation.

    Yes, and not be obnoxiously repetitive. Unless the lassitude and unengaging presentation by Nelson was in furtherance of a strategy to lose, then appeal for the verdict to be set aside on the grounds of the jury room deliberation being unduly preemptory, one must regard his lassitude as evincing a simple lack of commitment to his client’s cause.

  17. anon[241] • Disclaimer says:

    Biggest mistake the defense made was not having black lawyers front and center. It is apparently how the game is played in the states.
    The other huge mistake the defense made was not vociferously complaining about large crowds of black people gathering ’round the courthouse and elsewhere and actually threatening the jurors and the whole country with violence if the decision didn’t go their way.
    Black lawyers does not necessarily mean black lawyers born in America either; it could mean black lawyers from African countries who practice in America but who have seen the results of mob rule in their own home countries. Who have seen political leaders like Obama and Biden using political influence to decide trials for their own political gain. Or not discouraging criminal riots because they saw that it was to their advantage not to do so. Very slippery slope to start sliding down.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
  18. 7 out of 10 that Chauvin will beat it.

    The author admits he is not an attorney; likewise he’s unable to admit what else he doesn’t know.

    For example, his proposed “strategy” might have worked, that is, were it not for the defense already knowing it could not work, extensively due to pretrial rulings which operated to bar such strategy. Known as rulings upon motions in limine, the court in this way severely curtailed presentation of evidence which otherwise could have supported the author’s strategy. Before a jury, the only thing worse than asking a question whose answer you don’t already know, is raising a theory without the evidence to support it.

    However, as several commenters have noted, the trial didn’t go bad, it was made bad. And in the end, Chauvin will more than likely beat it. Worse, it may already be a done deal, seeing how such an orchestrated outcome in the future if used at the perfect time could serve to incite chaose even worse than had he been acquitted at trial.

    • Agree: Catdog
  19. Biff says:

    More beating of the dead horse.

  20. @Anastasia

    “In order to be an assault, the touching has to be unlawful.”
    Interesting.
    Can touching/contact begin lawfully, but due to altered intention or changed circumstances become unlawful?

    • Replies: @The Soft Parade
  21. TKK says:

    You are not an attorney and have no legal expertise.

    That is why you don’t realize that:

    1) 99% of attorney are so boring you do want to jump the divider and strangle them

    2) The 1% who are not boring are filthy rich plaintiffs attorneys who are professional con artists

    3) This attorney- milquetoast and uninspiring – is very limited in what he can and cannot say, even in the best of circumstances

    4) Due to the absolute bias against Chauvin – as well as the US Government coming out against a not guilty- his best hope, his only hope—is an appeal.

    Laying the Record, preserving the Record is boring, tedious and makes people mad. It is not CSI. It is not Law& Order.

    It is workmanship. It takes balls. But it is a his only hope.

    For every objection overruled- guess what an EXCELLENT trial attorney does- not mesmerize the jury, those gossiping mouth breathers, not dazzle the audience.

    You ask to proffer. And that means clearing the jury and putting ON THE RECORD why this

    1) objection should be sustained
    2) putting your case law on the Record as to why the Trial Judge is in error.

    This is so the appellate court can see a mistake was made by the Trial Judge. It is a pain in the ass but it is what would save Chauvin.
    Unless your attorney does proffer and preserve every point you lose- your argument is lost. Forever. The only way to force an appeals court to review it is de novo review.

    And to give you an example of how hard that is to obtain, client’s whose lawyers sleep through their murder trials have been denied de novo review.

    His only chance is an appeal. Is that exciting? Never. But that is why courtroom dramas hurt defendants with the expectation that every moment will be a thrilling showdown, a Matlock moment.

    Your best lawyers put their shoulder to the wheel and push. It makes everyone in court mad- from the court reporters to the judges because it is tedious and time consuming. But this is not TV.

    If it is not in the Record, it did not happen. The appellate court cannot reverse it if they can’t read it.

  22. Fentanyl killed George Floyd. End of story.

    The jury was afraid for their lives if they turned in anything other than a guilty verdict.

    In the short term, Derek Chauvin deserves a new trial and a change of venue. Traverse County, Minnesota is nice this time of year, and their juries are generally 100-percent White.

    In the longer term, I believe that we should move towards a Red State Semi-Autonomous Republic, where the Tenth Amendment will mean something again, in those select states.

  23. One of the interesting features of this website is that everyone’s text is published unedited. Mr. Griffin’s article would have been better if he had scrapped the entire long introduction and gone right into his subject, rather than forcing us all to read about a thousand unnecessary words.

    • Agree: moi, Theophrastus
    • Replies: @bb
  24. gotmituns says:
    @Badger Down

    Under the circumstances, the Defense lawyer did a good job – courteous, respectful, professional. Because of it and now that that black juror has been outed with the BLM shirt (among other things), Chauvin will get another trial, most likely in a different venue. I’d say Duluth or Hibbing. It’s a very different world upstate Mn. than down around Minneapolis.

  25. That trial was a kike job on white men. The deliberations started from day 1. The most wonderful non-nigger black in history-think the Green Mile guy- was killed by evil whitey. Big Jew says whitey evil. Bad whitey. Bad Orange man. Rioting, aided by several brick makers and Mossad, began as planned.
    We are close to Peak Stupid. I’m not sure but I think when Rachel Levine is President, has a Significant Other in the White House, who is also a minor that she is related to, and decides to go to war with Iran because they were mean to some tranny…..So another 5 years or so.

  26. If I Had Made the Closing Argument in Defense of Derek Chauvin…

    If you had made the closing arguments, he would have been convicted regardless. If Jesus Christ had chosen that precise time and place to return in all His divine glory and if He had personally argued in favor of Derek Chauvin, he would have been convicted regardless. That’s because everyone in the jury was a nigger, a nigger-worshiper, or someone terrified of the first two. If I had been in their place, I would have convicted. Well, okay, I wouldn’t because I throw away jury summons, so I would never have gotten into that situation in the first place. But if somehow I found myself in that jury, I would have convicted because I know that if I didn’t they would go through my entire life, expose me as a R A C I S T, and destroyed everything that makes life worth living. Better Derek Chauvin than me, especially since the jury in the second trial would have convicted him anyway.

  27. Remember also, one of the orc jurors admitted he lied, claiming he didn’t know about the cowardly city’s payout to Saint Meganose Fentanyl’s rotten family. Being a black genius, he openly encouraged other orcs to lie their way onto juries.

    In a non-clown world a mistrial would already have been declared.

    • Agree: moi
  28. anon[407] • Disclaimer says:
    @Frank McCarthy

    Folks have been watching too many movies — of real life police brutality caught on camera. Anybody who isn’t dutifully sucking cop dick is well aware of their widespread abuse of of American citizens, e.g.:

    https://www.youtube.com/c/PoliceBrutalityMatters/videos

  29. As a non-lawyer, I don’t understand how the defendant could reasonably be convicted on all three charges, when these charges all refer to the same set of actions taking place within the same episode of restraint.

    The most serious charge would seem to encompass the lesser charges and a conviction on this charge would seem to render the other charges superfluous. Proceeding also to convict on the two lesser charges therefore appears both unnecessary and vindictive.

    I had assumed that the lesser charges were added in order to allow the jury to consider conviction for a lesser crime if they were not satisfied that the defendant had commited second degree murder. In which case the judge should have instructed the jury only to consider the lesser charges if they could not agree to convict on the more serious charge.

    As things stand, the presence of separate convictions for three serious violent offences appears bound to influence sentencing, resulting in a lengthier prison term than would otherwise have been given for second degree murder alone, and for the very same set of actions that were the basis for the two lesser convictions. A form of triple punishment within the process of a single trial.

  30. Chauvin’s knee was no more on the neck of his suspect than that of a professional wrestler displaying the same move on a downed opponent. It was body positioning, nothing more, and there was no real pressure from the knee to the neck. The appearance of, yes, but not the reality of. This jury probably believes that Hulk Hogan’s leg drop was a legitimately devastating move and should have been banned along with choke holds and white people.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  31. sally says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Jury preconception, threat of reprisal=> outcome foregone? Not sure about that..

    I think most jurors were undecided until they saw the video .. and realized Chauvin was defenseless while secured in police custody..

    negligence <=no concern <=ignored the obvious <=failed to comply with a standard or complete a duty
    Chauvin failed to investigate or head the plea for air to breath. <=that intentional negligence..
    intentional <clearly Chauvin intended to restrain the victim.. so IMO that made the outcome intentional
    and fully satisfies the element of intent.
    so it comes down to defending the intentional act. by justification..
    was Chauvin justified to use the knee to neck method of restraint?

    answer: probably at the outset whatever Chauvin had to do was justified, but Floyd was justified to complain [he needed air from the get go}, and because of his reputation and size was forced into a position where the louder he screamed "I cannot breath" the more his "call for air" was interpreted to be an act of defiance or non compliance. .. probably Floyd's unwillingness to quiet down was the result of anxiety caused by Floyd's increasing inability to comfortably breath, this would have probably been true even if the knee restraint were discontinued.. The duty to keep whole the victim includes taking account of all circumstances of the victim, without regard to how unusual or even how unreasonable that circumstance is. Such a duty is absolute.

    The element of intention satisfied, Chauvin had a duty to protect Floyd even if Floyd had not advised he could not breath. IANAL but to me this is a classic case of intending to shoot A but missing and killing B instead. Intent to shoot is clear.. even though the shot killed the wrong target.
    Since Intent is clear. the only defense left, is to justify the intended act
    in this case, the intended act had a time line. and the justification for the act was diminishing over time for
    two reasons, after Chauvin had been cuffed and positioned face down (Chauvin was no longer a life threat to the police or to possible a innocent bystander) and Chauvin was calling for air to breath which everyone at the scene ignored. I just can not see how Chauvin is not guilty as charged. Moreover, i think it is a good rule that the police must keep safe those secure and in their custody.

    Everyone on that jury put themselves or their children in Floyd's place.. They evaluated the brutality of the police method of restraint and decided it was justified to a point, but they could also see, themselves or one of their children in the care of police custody. Once secured and in police custody, the rules of engagement change. Every juror could see the danger [for themselves or their children) of being "secured by handcuff, rendered face down on the street, being denied opportunity to speak and to be heard and properly attended to, while in police custody". The police have a duty, to keep even a villain safe while the villain is secured and in custody.

    But was Floyd's death premeditated? At some time during the course of the event, did Chauvin decide to use this opportunity to eliminate Chauvin.. don't know about that and Chauvin was not charged with pre-medicated, just intentional. once again I am not a Lawyer.

  32. “And last, I would have ended my closing argument by referring to the elephant in the room: people were threatening to tear apart the city of Minneapolis, and other cities as well, if the jury didn’t convict Chauvin, and there were threats against the jurors themselves if they didn’t do the mob’s bidding. ”

    Let’s be even more specific about the “elephant in the room” as in Maxine Waters who flew into Minneapolis to intimidate the jury and rev up the BLM who were threatening riots if Chauvin wasn’t convicted of all charges.

    http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2021/04/moscow-1936-to-minneapolis-2021.html

  33. Cites the law:

    609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE

    Subdivision 1. Substantial bodily harm.

    Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

    Then argues Chauvin didn’t violate it by declaring:

    “Does that sound to you like assault with the intent to inflict substantial bodily harm, no reasonable doubt about it? Could it be that Chauvin thought he was restraining Floyd until the medical people got there? He may have been unreasonable, or unwise, in doing what he was doing, but that is not the issue in this count. It is whether he was committing the felony offense of assault against Floyd. Ask yourself, ‘How has the prosecution demonstrated to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was assaulting rather than restraining Floyd?’ They haven’t, and there is no doubt about that.” The second count, third degree murder.

    Now I ask you: Does the word “intent” appear anywhere in the statute you cite that Chauvin is accused of violating? Come on, all you Chauvin fans, don’t be bashful, point it out to me.

    When you do, I’ll listen to your arguments.

    But until you do, your claims that he didn’t violate the law his nothing less than racists apologizing for someone who got his just desert for exactly what he did that reflected fully on who he is.

    Now I’ll tell you why his attorney continued to argue about Chauvin being reasonable. It’s because the intent involved here is that a person intends the natural consequences of his voluntary acts. Every action Chauvin took to restrain Floyd was done of his own free volition. He decided to kneel on his neck and compress his chest so Floyd suffocated from the force that Chauvin applied.

    Thus simply by demonstrating with the video that Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck and back even for up to four minutes after Floyd no longer had a pulse was all the proof the prosecution needed to establish beyond any doubted that Chauvin acted with the requisite intent, namely, that he was directly responsible for the consequences of his voluntary acts which resulted in Floyd’s death.

    Why did Nelson stress Chauvin was being reasonable? Because the evidence made it impossible for him to argue that anything Chauvin did was a result of involuntary acts on his part over which he had absolutely no control. The involuntary has to be like when a doctor hits you on the knee cap with a rubber hammer and your knee jerks. That’s the kind of involuntary that gets him off.

    Is there any evidence of any kind that anything Chauvin did was an involuntary act on his part?

    Nelson’s only choice was to argue everything Chauvin did was reasonable. That was absurd, which is why the jury had not the slightest trouble convicting him on the basis of the law and facts presented in the case by the prosecution, and unrefuted by the defense.

  34. @sally

    You may not be a lawyer, but you hit the nail on the head about the issues involved.

  35. I don’t think, in any country I have visited – yours is obviously not on the list – I have ever seen or heard of a policeman restraining someone by kneeling on their neck. It strikes me that if law enforcement officials widely used this method of “restraint” all over the world there would be plenty of examples of it.

    • Replies: @Redman
  36. Mike Tre says:

    “If I could save time in a bottle
    The first thing that I’d like to do
    Is to save every day till eternity passes away
    Just to spend them with you

    If I could make days last forever
    If words could make wishes come true
    I’d save every day like a treasure and then
    Again, I would spend them with you

    But there never seems to be enough time
    To do the things you want to do, once you find them
    I’ve looked around enough to know
    That you’re the one I want to go through time with

    If I had a box just for wishes
    And dreams that had never come true
    The box would be empty, except for the memory of how
    They were answered by you”

    Ahhhh, to dream.

    • Replies: @Dave Bowman
  37. BorisMay says:

    The Chauvin trial only goes to prove that the US is a Stalinist style Marxist state incapable of either applying justice or honour in its legal proceedings.

    The Covid scam is a classic Marxist takeover revolution and Biden is a classic Marxist puppet.

    Consequently you are wasting your time arguing this point.

    The only thing worth noting is that the children of Marxist revolutions (politicians, media, law enforcement, medical fascists, bankers and many oligarchs) get murdered by the hierarchy that bought their services.

    After all, traitors, which is what all these people are, can not be trusted (although all these traitors have been told they will survive the revolution and live long natural lives)!

    No one loves a traitor, especially those who turned these idiots against their own people.

    More than likely, when all the useful idiots that put Chauvin away are dead, he will be quietly released to live a quiet retirement in some isolated place.

  38. Richard B says:
    @sally

    but Floyd was justified to complain [he needed air from the get go

    He couldn’t breathe because of the drugs, not the knee. The knee was SOP.

    Chauvin was not charged with pre-medicated, just intentional.

    pre-meditated and intentional are synonyms.

    https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/intentional

    Oh, and it’s pre-meditated, not pre-medicated.

    I am not a Lawyer.

    No kidding. You’re not even a competent thinker.

    However, your comment does prove one thing beyond the shadow of a doubt. That there’s no inherent connection between personal opinion and observable fact.

    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  39. Yes, you certainly didn’t follow the case closely as the cops did get Floyd into the police car and then let him out.

  40. PJ London says:

    There was no way that a jury, any jury, could acquit Chauvin, not until the furore has died down and he can quietly be released probably with a new identity.
    Everyone knew that if he was acquitted then the country would have burned.
    There are a dozen grounds for appeal and reversal of judgement.
    Sit quietly in a comfy jail for 2 years and you can go back to normal.
    Not even the USSC would have let him go, look how they handled the blatant disregard of law in the election.
    This is real life not some TV series.

  41. Officer Chauvin should have never been brought up on charges. This was as clear a political prosecution as there can be. The whole affair is disgusting. This prosecution has totally destroyed whatever trust I had left in the judicial system in this country. Hard times are coming, When a system has such little respect for justice, it is just a matter of time before things get out of hand.

    • Agree: Redman
    • Replies: @Jeffrey A Freeman
  42. profnasty says:
    @Keith_

    You’ve nailed it.
    Chauvin was intent upon HELPING George.
    Floyd’s family ought to send Derek a letter of gratitude for trying to save their son’s life. The EMT’s were on the way. Chauvin is a hero. One of many on the thin blue line.

    • Replies: @Blodgie
  43. moi says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    ” Doing the honorable thing in that circumstance tests our character: our honesty, our integrity, our autonomy, our toughness, our courage.”

    Where you gonna find such honorable folks in the USA? Not even in the three branches of government. We are now a corrupt country.

    • Thanks: stevennonemaker88
  44. onebornfree says: • Website

    Big Picture:

    Looking for/expecting genuine and fair justice to be administered via a government-run “justice system” is a mugs game, as is fantasizing about making closing arguments that might have [supposedly] changed the final verdict in some way.

    My advice: Wake.The.Fuck. Up!

    “Regards” onebornfree

  45. moi says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    No MMA fighter dies from an opponent putting a neck on the neck. Chavin weighed about 140 lbs, Floyd da Felon was well over 6-ft tall and weighted about 220.

    • Agree: Marckus
    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  46. moi says:
    @Frank McCarthy

    At most, it could be argued that what Chauvin did was unreasonable–BUT it was not criminal.

    • Replies: @sally
  47. Trinity says:

    Really impressed with Eric Nelson, but as someone mentioned earlier about the jury, Chauvin could have had Perry Mason as his lawyer and it would not have mattered. CLEARLY Blacks HAVE ABUSED their right to serve on juries and the right to vote, btw, I would probably have voted for the manslaughter charge, but not the other two charges. Even the manslaughter charge is highly debatable, but being charged on the two other more serious charges is ridiculous. Something must be wrong with Whites in Minnesota as well, why are Whites electing Blacks as mayor of their city or people like Ilhan Omar. Knew a White girl in the service, pretty blonde of Scandinavian heritage like so many Minnesotans, girl was boinking every other dude on the ship and even did a Black dude. Obviously there was something wrong, straight up alcoholic to boot and could drink most men under the table. So even the Whites selected to serve on the jury were probably f*cked up in the head. Once again regarding Eric Nelson, quite impressed with him, very smart man IMO.

    • Agree: anarchyst
  48. Redman says:
    @sally

    I think we’ve figured out who sally is. Cuz that’s some genuine frontier gibberish.

  49. Redman says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    Use google. There are plenty of examples.

  50. @TKK

    I remember you mentioned you were a lawyer or something to that effect before. I appreciate your first hand perspective.

    3) This attorney- milquetoast and uninspiring – is very limited in what he can and cannot say, even in the best of circumstances

    This is a great point. I remember a lawyer in Germany was imprisoned for representing her client too aggressively. The powers that be don’t want anyone rocking the boat.

  51. Rogue says:
    @Keith_

    Definitely agree about Chauvin not taking the stand.

    That is, that it’s never gonna look good, no matter what the theory is.

    I suspect it was his lawyer’s advice. If his own decision, then a very poor one.

  52. How long it will take to retarded police to figure out that niggers are untouchable and they can do anything they want and they must not be disturbed.

  53. Or was it all a hoax, a psy op? Sandy Hook was fake. The Boston Marathon bombings were fake. Orlando was fake, Las Vegas was fake. There have been DOZENS of fake shooting events. It was illegal to have the trial on TV per State law, but was it a trial? No one changed the State law. Since so many of the social platforms censor, all the “expose” vids are no longer available. No one can trust the lying mainstream media, heck they STILL lie about 9-11 and 99% of the public KNOWS the “official” story if a bunch of lies. Why do they keep on lying? idiots.

  54. Did Chauvin have the same shit lawyers that “defended” James Fields?

  55. Blodgie says:

    The attorney had to walk a fine line of making it look like he was doing everything he could to defend Chauvin but at the same time not wanting to be the guy who got him off.

    He never would have lived that down, so he phoned it in with plausible deniability.

    Asshole.

  56. Blodgie says:
    @profnasty

    Ridiculous boot licking of the guys that literally will come to your house and murder you if they are ordered to.

    Stop sucking the blue dick you Tradcon dorks!

    • Replies: @stevennonemaker88
  57. Che Guava says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    As an observe from afar, I agree.

    One point missing, Chauvin did a moonlight job with Floyd as a bouncer at some place.

    It demonstrates four things.

    Chauvin was able to work with Floyd.

    Chauvin had no serious hate against Floyd, there is no account of conflict between them when they were co-part-time workers.

    In that situation, Chauvin likely had some idea of Floyd’s drug problems, but as a co-worker in that setting, did the right thing by not switching roles from co-worker to cop or informant.

    Knowing Floyd personally, Chauvin well knew that Floyd was a danger to himself and others in Floyd’s state at the time.

    It is all such a bad joke!

    • Replies: @Janetsuzet
  58. Marckus says:

    Several months ago when I went for a quote on auto insurance, the Broker punched in my info and up came the details of every car I ever owned, every policy etc. It seems to me that these days the Police, right in their patrol car, can instantly access all there is to know about a stopped motorist.

    Hence, I am going to say that Chauvin knew all there was to know about thick lips Floyd BEFORE he got out of the police car ie Floyd had spent several years in jail , was a druggie and was a violent criminal and a hefty guy. I remember seeing the Rodney King thrashing where that Nigga shook off several police officers like they were flies. Rodney was only subdued when they went to work on him.

    What would any Police officer do when confronted by a 240 pound resisting black felon ? Make him a cup of tea ? The hold Chauvin applied is a submission hold not a kill hold. I invite anyone to have a 140 pound individual apply the same “knee on the neck” and it quickly becomes obvious that neither the airway nor the main arteries to the brain are constricted.

    In any case this article is horse shit. The author is not a lawyer but waxes for 3800 words on what HE would have done. Let me draw a similar situation. You go to the heart specialist and he tells you that you need a stint. To install it he will go up through one of the arteries in your leg. After the consultation you come home and have a chat with your neighbour who is a writer. He tells you “I am not a heart specialist but here is what I would do. Let me draw a diagram and with a rubber tipped pointer I will explain. Now I would drill a hole in your skull and connect with one of the blood vessels going to the heart. Therein I would install the stint”.

    In both cases who is the professional and who is the idiot ?

    These days we have too many “experts” all have rectums and all have opinions !

    Floyd deserved what he got. He had it coming to him. He died from heavy drug use and a diseased body. As for Chauvin;s actions they were mild compared to what Floyd would have encountered in a black country. He would have been shot out of hand and no-one would have bothered. Floyd will soon be forgotten. He was an expendable animal of no consequence who was the mutt of everyone who saw an opportunity to use him. Even where his $27M settlement is concerned, the black lawyers would have taken a sizable chunk (40% or more) and Floyd;s family and friends will blow the rest. Sharpton also has to get his piece. Dont for one minute think he tooled out of his 5th Avenue apartment just for the fun of it. I bet that in a year or so the Floyds will again be broke. If they have an ounce of sense they will immediately move out of the Ghetto and into a white area to live among the people they supposedly hate and who supposedly “hold them down”.

    As for Chauvin’s lawyer this is not TV where Street Legal or Miami CSI solve the case in one hour with every guilty perp confessing. Get real. Chauvin was convicted before he even entered the courtroom. He would not have received a not guilty verdict even if he had a battery of Jew lawyers with Christ leading the team. I think that in the end he will get another trial and be quietly sentenced for a short period and then released. There is nothing more for the Jiggaz to harvest from this situation and Floyd will blow away like the piece of dried up shit he was.

    Police officers are fleeing the profession in droves and as usual the public who suffer the most are blacks. Whites dealing with blacks need to remember that it is always better when there are no witnesses and no video.

  59. @Richard B

    pre-meditated and intentional are synonyms.

    You have to be careful with synonyms, and language in general. Pre-meditated and intentional have quite different meanings in a legal sense. Pre-meditated means planned in advance. Intentional could be in the heat of the moment. It is possible to commit a crime intentionally that is not pre-meditated. Also, it is possible to harm someone accidentally but still be guilty, if the person was behaving recklessly or committing another crime at the time, etc.

    thesaurus.com also lists administrator as a synonym for master. These words, while in some cases could be used interchangeably, in many cases mean something VERY different. The master and the administrator might even be opposites, if the administrator is a slave….

    Language is quite nuanced, and shades of meaning matter.

    • Agree: The Old Philosopher
    • Replies: @Richard B
  60. @Blodgie

    Ridiculous boot licking of the guys that literally will come to your house and murder you if they are ordered to.

    Exactly. They will shoot your dog and murder your wife and son while they’re at it.

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Ruby-Ridge

    The cops deserve to have a guerilla war waged against them. Shoot to kill any armed forces of the evil US Government.

    “Collaboration with the forces of occupation will be punished by death”

    Michael Collins

    • Replies: @profnasty
  61. j. Polk says:
    @Badger Down

    Nelson did an OK job on cross examinations, but I don’t think it mattered. Also his closing was really boring, more like borderline retarded, for this specific audience of 80% blacks and sobbing women.
    We don’t need lawyers nowadays, because LAWS DON’T MATTER.
    We need story tellers and persuaders, that can mold and mutilate the mind of a jury member.
    After all, we live in a reality where FACTS DON’T MATTER.

    • Replies: @The Soft Parade
  62. @Mike Tre

    And this has got WHAT to do, exactly, with the article above ?

    Cretin alert.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  63. @Marckus

    Whites dealing with blacks need to remember that it is always better when there are no witnesses and no video.

    Your statement is totally false. Accused of rape, white man Daniel Hubbard was exonerated by video.

    Marcky malarkey posting more retarded lies. big surprise.

  64. RestiveUs says:
    @sally

    Floyd perpetrated his own “pre-medicated” death.

  65. @animalogic

    Can touching/contact begin lawfully, but due to altered intention or changed circumstances become unlawful?

    Cause and Effect, period. As a matter of law Floyd caused the effect. Was the effect excessive? Fact question for the jury.

  66. @Marckus

    Chauvin and Floyd knew each other. They worked part time security at Minneapolis club El Nuevo Rodeo where Chauvin worked the outside, and Floyd the interior. Familiarity breeds contempt.

    One can only imagine what Chauvin knew and thus hated about Floyd. Not that Chauvin was not an idiot. When he responded to the scene and found Floyd, as the arresting officer he should have immediately tagged out.

    We’ll now return to the imaginary narrative of your mommy Mr. Nonnemaker . . .

  67. Wee Jimmy Cranky
    Leads a nation
    Doesn’t think you have to obey nation’s laws

  68. @j. Polk

    We don’t need lawyers nowadays, because LAWS DON’T MATTER. . . After all, we live in a reality where FACTS DON’T MATTER.

    Well said man. Say anymore and you concede your point. The courts these days are propping up lies; worse, they’re enforcing lies. I’m doing my daily best to make this clear to our local gunslingers how they should not be getting involved in the lies, but rather should be stepping aside and allowing certain judiciary and governmental official to enforce their own “facts” by means of their own bullshit. I love our system of rules, but it has been hijacked by psychos on both sides of the political aisle.

    Police officers should know the law–rather than simply obey what they are told. “The human mind, once expanded, never regains its original shape.”

  69. How can you be found guilty of murder AND manslaughter.??

  70. If he had gotten Anderson Cooper to say on CNN, If I had a son, he’d look like me he would still be in the slammer forever

  71. @beavertales

    So many police officers got away with murder – now one does not get away with gross negligence.

    Unjust? YES!

    But necessary, sadly.

    • Troll: AceDeuce
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  72. Another looking for clients at any price.

  73. Dutch Boy says:
    @TKK

    Your commentary reminds me of a news story about a local Superior Court judge retiring after thirty years on the bench. The reporter asked him what percent of the of the defendants in trials were guilty. His answer: all of them. The only reason they go to trial is they can’t get an acceptable plea bargain from the prosecutors so they go to trial hoping for some appealable error by the court. They may get a reversal and maybe a new trial or to get a better plea bargain opportunity.

  74. CMC says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    You know the statute defines the word “assault” in another subsection right?

  75. Any trial involving whites where a black has died is now a racist hate crime that tax payers are on the hook for millions in extortion payouts (Black Death Reparations) or watch your city burn to the ground.
    This summer will be the final straw that breaks the camels back. Common sense folks are fed up with BLM/Antifa and their (((alphabet))) handlers. Not only will SHTF, it’s going to hit these despicable rats where it hurts most.
    We also have global support, and as the gas pipeline exposed, we have the tech to wreak.
    Bring it on bitches.

  76. This case was decided long before the trial.

  77. Alfa158 says:
    @Thomasina

    All good but sadly still irrelevant. Chauvin has the same chance of getting off as Nikolai Bukharin.

  78. @but an humble craftsman

    By that logic, any given doctor could be convicted of malpractice when one of his patients doesn’t recover, as long as 1) a lot of people are made aware of the case and 2) “everybody knows” there have been many other doctors that should have been convicted of malpractice but weren’t.

  79. @gleongelpi

    Death squads.

    Snipers.

    Lists.

    • Replies: @profnasty
  80. Chauvin was made out to be the sacrificial lamb for the follies of the grifter class whose representatives included the faggoty mayor kneeling before the coffin and crying like a bitch… in as much as Chauvin made a mistake, hopefully, the appeals court would set him free going forward.

  81. aandrews says:
    @Badger Down

    There was only one defense lawyer, as far as I could discern, as opposed to a three-lawyer team for the prosecution, with all the resources of the state attorney general’s office.

  82. profnasty says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Wrong.
    It makes ‘Mistrial’ a foregone conclusion.
    fify

  83. profnasty says:
    @Jeffrey A Freeman

    Just now.
    The Net has scrubbed knowmorenews.org, and TruNews.
    Things are changing fast. Hold on to your yarmalke(?).

    • Replies: @aandrews
  84. profnasty says:
    @stevennonemaker88

    When Black Thugs attack you, or your family; don’t you dare to call the police. Cops should have your house on file: No Help.

    • Replies: @aandrews
  85. You have this exactly right. I was a trial lawyer for 35 years and I learned that in final argument you better go over the law that the jury will have to address and you better tell they jury how to answer the questions they will have to answer. And you better make a good argument that they jury should answer the questions they way you want them to.

    • Replies: @gotmituns
  86. gotmituns says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    That assortment of dumbfuckfeeblemindedjackasses was no jury (I mean that only in the best way)…

  87. @The Old Philosopher

    You left out more than half of the pertinent phrase.

    The pertinent phrase is “intent to inflict substantial bodily harm.”

    Prove that Chauvin “intended to inflict substantial bodily harm.”

    If you conclude that in doing what he did, Chauvin intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, when he was trained to do this maneuver in his police training, then you are basically concluding his training taught him to inflict substantial bodily harm.

    Why would Chauvin think he was taught to “inflict substantial bodily harm”? Do you think he was trained to “inflict substantial bodily harm?”

    If nine minutes is too long, how many minutes is not too long?

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  88. There are two kinds of cowardice.

    1. The honest kind. It ain’t good but it’s at least honest and understandable. People fear the power, and if they admit the fear, then they are at least human… though not very admirable.

    2. The dishonest kind. This kind is wrapped with faux-courage of moral outrage but only if it’s tolerated or encouraged by the power. Look at so-called Hollywood Liberals. Oh, they are so courageous in their moral outrage about social evils… but notice that all their outrages follow the script enforced by Jews. There isn’t one of them that dare condemn Zionist tyranny and terrorism against Palestinians. Brad Pitt’s ‘courage’ amounts to badmouthing Trump and Deplorables in his service to Jews as a good goy dog. But total silence about Zionist evils and Wars for Israel. Same with the likes of George Clooney.

    Not that conzos are any better. Whenever conzos go on and on about the ‘conscience of conservatives’, it’s always sucking up to Jews as the superior race with bigger bucks. It all comes down to, “We worship you high-IQ Jews with so much money and prestige. Please come over to our side because we will suck your dic* longer than the Democrats are willing.”

    All so pathetic.

  89. Anonymous[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @Keith_

    Had Chauvin taken the stand, he would have opened himself up to being questioned about 19 previous complaints of excessive force.

    Plus whatever other skeletons we don’t even know about..

    • Replies: @Keith_
  90. “I didn’t follow the Chauvin case all that closely. I sampled front-page news accounts in the paper and read daily summaries of the trial on the internet.”

    “I didn’t know what law or laws Chauvin was accused of violating.”

    “I didn’t get into any details of the laws,”

    “I’m not an attorney, but …”

    “I’m no expert on the details of the case and have zero legal expertise,”

    This is not a promising start to a 3800 word essay on how to make a closing argument at trial.

    I’m sympathetic to Chauvin and to all the LE who have to deal daily with subhuman garbage like Floyd, but I’ve refrained from making a firm opinion about the verdict precisely because I am as ignorant as this author is.

  91. Anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Atle

    They had police department officials on the stand saying that what Chauvin did was not lawful and was not part of training. he should have taken the stand and pointed out that it WAS part of training and he had done it before and was not thrown off the force or arrested for it.

  92. aandrews says:
    @profnasty

    Know More News is still up on Twitter and Bitchute.
    https://twitter.com/Know_More_News
    https://www .bitchute.com/video/i7ZeQzFpKJUC/

  93. aandrews says:
    @profnasty

    Note the demographics of the crowd in the video.

    Portland is Coming to America
    Andrew Anglin
    May 8, 2021

    The shocking incident where drivers were assaulted & robbed by the armed #BLM mob in north Portland occurred at around noon today. @PortlandPolice are asking for anyone with information to come forward using case no. 21-121818. https://t.co/bJhzo7MCMa

    — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) May 7, 2021

    Andy Ngo posted a video on Thursday of armed BLM-Antifa, who had set up a roadblock in the street, pulling some guy out of his truck and stealing his gun.

    The man did pull his gun out, but only after armed communists stopped his truck.

    The video in Andy’s tweet has been removed, but there is a copy still up on YouTube. It’s actually a longer clip which provides a bit more context.

    There aren’t many details, but this is how leftists are recording the event:

    A little after 1pm, a man decided to run his truck through the weekly Justice For Patrick Kimmons March, then got out of his truck with a gun before he was disarmed by volunteer security. https://t.co/SyYNJLKI0e

    — We Out Here Magazine (@weoutherenet) May 6, 2021

    • Replies: @profnasty
    , @profnasty
  94. Hibernian says:
    @TKK

    Unless your attorney does proffer and preserve every point you lose- your argument is lost.

    Nelson didn’t do this.

  95. I think Nelson was going for appeal which is outside of the psycho woke crowd.
    He will be acquitted on appeal because it is obvious the trial should have had change of venue.
    Now we hear jurors lied to get on the jury.
    Patience grasshopper.

  96. You would have been an active participant in a show trial phase of a scripted event.

    Motown in Hamburger Hill, “It don’t mean nothing, man. Not a thing.”

    Here’s just one of many inconsistencies in the process:

    “Nelson [Chauvin’s defense attorney] failed to ask for a change of venue, and allowed all the jurors to come from Minneapolis. This would almost guarantee a prejudice. Another indication the trial was scripted. No real defense attorney would fail to object and file motions at this point.”

    For the complete rundown on the scripted event:

    http://mileswmathis.com/chauvin.pdf

  97. @Che Guava

    I wonder why the judge would not allow the fact that both Chauvin and Floyd worked as bouncers in the same nightclub to be revealed in the court case. It seems that would have had some bearing on the circumstances.

    • Thanks: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Che Guava
  98. Lincoln had the right idea. He said blacks should not be allowed to serve on juries.

  99. Mike Tre says:
    @Dave Bowman

    Butthurt alert.

    This article is navel gazing click bait; fantasizing about courtroom heroics in a trial that was predetermined before the first juror was ever selected. The title of this navel gazing article begins with “If I Had” – the same three words used by Jim Croce in his romantic ditty.

    People who are in tune with the seriousness of anti white vitriol and persecution in this country have no time for the pontificating of someone imagining themselves the white knight of a victim of this persecution. In short, the article is self-congratulatory hindsight and not worth anything further than comparison to a dreamy serenade from long ago. Clear?

  100. @Jeffrey A Freeman

    This jury probably believes that Hulk Hogan’s leg drop was a legitimately devastating move…

    Not a chance. Jesse Ventura, maybe, but not Hulk Hogan.

  101. If I Had Made the Closing Argument in Defense of Derek Chauvin…
    As defense, I would make sure I had my black attorney address the jury and court in a southern Ebonics slang dialect as follows.
    Dear distingwish jury and fine peepooz of da court, We all noz Mista Flod wuz uh criminal and wuz a drug addick. We als noz dat Mista Flod swallowd sum Chinese fentanyl dat wuz gonna kill da niqqa no matta wut way y’all look at da evadinse.
    Offisa Chebin es a good cop, he an Mista Flod wuz best homies, Dey eben wok part time at da same club to Mak extra money. Offisa Chebin ddint kill Mista Flod by giving him uh knee, dat knee wuz fo repect fo all niqqaz lik Mista Flod, jus like Dey do at NFL games.
    Distingwish jury and fine peepooz of da court, don’t let President Bidum an race hustlaz like Al Werz mi money Sharpton influinz yo fine sexy azz mind.
    Show Offisa Chebin sum love an save his white azz frum all doz Niqqaz dat wunt da kill his azz.
    Tank you and praise da lord fo all yo schitt, hallelujah aman.
    I rest my case.

  102. Uncle Sam says:

    In the future all a black suspect placed under arrest by a white police officer(s) has to say is: I can’t breathe. The police will probably let him go for fear of winding up like Derek Chauvin or the police officer in New York City (I don’t remember his name, but he had an Italian surname) in connection with the big, fat black guy (I don’t remember his name either) resisting arrest for illegally selling cigarettes.

    I think Judge Cahill should interview all the jurors to find out what went on in the jury room. If there was intimidation, coercion or any other psychological or emotional factor that should not have been present he should immediately throw the conviction out.

    Above all, Brandon Mitchell should be prosecuted for perjury. His false statements would be enough to declare a mistrial. If he does not prosecute Mitchell he should resign being a judge and pursue another line of work.

  103. sally says:
    @moi

    disagree, Chauvins Treatment of Floyd started out lawful, became unreasonable, and ended up unconstitutional. Meaning no law could protect Chauvin , Floyds First Amendment rights were unreasonably violated IANAL

    Also there is an issue here ” the right of the criminal or the accused innocent” to be kept safe after being adequately restrained.. disarmed, cuffed, hands behind back, lying face down on pavement <= adequate.. IMO

    At that point the "restrainer" position changed from defense (keeping the restrainer safe) to offense and with that change comes "restrainer" duty to keep the "lawfully restrained" safe.

    Amendment VI to the 1787 constitution ratified in 1788 constitution with first amendments (Bill of rights) amended Dec 15, 1791.. says "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ”

    and Amendment IV “The right of the people to be secure (safe) in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    each of the amendments imply that the government must guarantee that the restrained is to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, if the police kill him before the can get to court. then those amendments have been violated.

    It is these two amendments that obligate the police to keep safe from harm anyone they arrest.. exception being when person arrested is unrestrained and truly dangerous to the police or to bystanders in the area.

    Floyd was cuffed, hands behind his back, face down on the street, he was no real threat to anyone.. at that point.. I often wonder if the reason Floyd did not want to get out of the car was that Floyd was short on air.. ?

    Just imagine your child, your grandchild, or yourself in that position.. and needing some kind of medical attention, arrested and restrained, but every time you open your month the police do as they did<= when Floyd announced he could not breath ?

    what should the police do? What should the arrested expect from the police? i think this is the question the jury dealt with. IANAL.

  104. Cking says:

    Simplify, Simplify, simplify. and say it over and over again. Officer Chauvin was ordered by Central Dispatch to support an arrest-in-progress. George Floyd could not be managed by the first two police officers who responded to Central Dispatch summons to investigate a suspect accused of stealing and/or passing counterfeit bills. The police officers found Mr. Floyd in his parked vehicle under the influence, they exerted some effort prying him from his vehicle, walked him to the sidewalk, where Floyd’s anxiety about being arrested became visibly heightened as the two officers proceeded to put Floyd under arrest. George Floyd, displaying delusional psychosis caused by drug use, will not cooperate, will not sit in the Police Vehicle, wiggles his way out the other side of the vehicle, spitting a pill out of his mouth onto the vehicle floor; Officer Chauvin arrives at the scene of the arrest and within a minute orders Central Dispatch to send the EMT’s who can normally be relied upon to respond in 3 minutes. This day, the EMT apparatus takes more than 9 minutes to arrive at the scene. Mr. George Floyd had already passed away. True, optics were not observed, but a prison sentence is not applicable here.

    An autopsy revealed Floyd had consumed what amounted to 3 times the toxic level of Fentanyl needed to kill a man. No one and nothing could stop the trajectory of Floyd’s life. Irrational political leadership leverages this tragedy to loot the City of Minneapolis for $27 million dollars. The City’s political operators at every level, the MSM, before, during, and after George Floyd’s death demands investigation for letting this tragedy turn into a riotous event at Minneapolis and other cities across the nation. Pattern and operations are recognizable here, right out of the Leninist Bolshevik playbook, that demanded the Moscow Police stand down. The trial is not about Chauvin’s alleged racism in the death of Mr. Floyd; it’s political theater in support of a politically driven warfare offensive conducted against the American people and the nation.

    Our focus is stolen. Poverty, caused by the Fed/Wall St. system is the actual national security crisis given great cover by the Covid Madness and the Left’s New Racism. The US economy has been laid to waste through Wall St.’s financialization of all economic activity, the debasement of the Family, Labor, wages, and the US currency. Americans, knowing nothing, sit trembling thinking how and who are going to be the victims of the Left’s dispossession policy diktats. We see the Greatest Depression, Poisoning, and Totalitarian Regime, because the American people will not confront the Fed/Wall St. system. The fate of the nation is in our hands and we really need to wake up.

  105. SafeNow says:
    @anon

    “Biggest mistake the defense made was not having black lawyers front and center”

    Agreed. In fact, ANY black lawyer who would take the case. But preferably a black woman. I agree with your implication that such a lawyer does not exist in the United States. But it’s long odds that a non-U.S. black lawyer would do it. So perhaps there was someone who has a fatal illness anyway, and had no family, and so would not mind having his life upended. Another possibility would have been a black lawyer who would then join the witness-protection program. But no, the name of the new identity would be leaked. So I think it was unlikely. But if this could still be done — for the sentencing hearing, new trial, and federal trial — then Chauvin should do
    it.

  106. Keith_ says:
    @Anonymous

    No he wouldn’t have opened him self up in the manner you describe. On cross the prosecution can only question Chauvin on issues raised by the Defense in their direct examination. They cannot bring up issues not raised by Nelson on direct and an instant objection would be raised if they dared tried to. Also it’s doubtful that past complaints against Chauvin would ever be allowed in evidence as it would be considered prejudicial although with this judge who knows

  107. profnasty says:
    @aandrews

    I saw the vid. After gun guy was knocked down, camera guy panned away. I was afraid for gun guy’s life. It seems (They) went easy on him; slimy little monsters is what they are.

  108. profnasty says:
    @aandrews

    I don’t so much worry about the skeezy White* kids. It’s the Black guys who know how to hurt ya. They’re also low on impulse control. Yikes!

  109. ****I think Judge Cahill should interview all the jurors to find out what went on in the jury room. If there was intimidation, coercion or any other psychological or emotional factor that should not have been present he should immediately throw the conviction out.****

    And then democrats will order antifa to burn his house down and the press will look the other way.

  110. @moi

    No NMA fighter is hut in those events that are all staged. Wresting has been staged for decades. It’s not even classified as an athletic event any more.

    Staged events are designed to appear as though the participants are murdering each other but done just like in the movies.

    Tell us how many people involved in motion picture gun fights have actually died?

    Don’t be bashful. Take your time, It may eventually come to you.

    The difference between staged evens and the real thing is that people don’t take care to avoid harm but inflict it.

    That’s why Chauvin was convicted. He did it, and the evidence proved it.

    Anyone who contests the obvious is either exhibiting their incurable terminal prejudices or that their intellectual capacity ranks them below brain dead imbeciles.

    Your choice.

    • Replies: @moi
  111. @davidgmillsatty

    Your brain is obviously missing uncounted synapses that prevent you from apprehending and comprehending anything more challenging that “see sally run.”

    So let’s go back to the issue involved. I was responding to the following comment in which someone recited a section of a statute:

    Subdivision 1. Substantial bodily harm.

    Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

    Then argues Chauvin didn’t violate it by declaring:

    “Does that sound to you like assault with the intent to inflict substantial bodily harm, no reasonable doubt about it? Could it be that Chauvin thought he was restraining Floyd until the medical people got there? He may have been unreasonable, or unwise, in doing what he was doing, but that is not the issue in this count. It is whether he was committing the felony offense of assault against Floyd. Ask yourself, ‘How has the prosecution demonstrated to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was assaulting rather than restraining Floyd?’ They haven’t, and there is no doubt about that.” The second count, third degree murder.

    Thus as is plain to see, the provision he cites imposes liability on anyone who assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily injury” that is clearly meant to distinguish it from anything that r4sults in minors injuries like scrapes and bruises that is meant to keep out of the criminal courts minor altercations.. .

    And by citing only that provision, he claimed it absolved Chauvin by asking whether the law he cited sounded like Chauvin having done it”with intent to inflict substantial bodily harm.

    So, I gather you noticed that the word “intent” is missing entirely from that provision that makes it impossible for you to refute my point based on the basis he was citing for his argument.

    So you’re toast on that issue.

    Ah, but then you say there is another provision that purports to invoke “intent” as a condition to be satisfied for committing an assault.

    Now, were that so, and were you even capable of making a fact based argument, you would then have cited the section to demonstrate fully how it substantiates your position.

    I noticed you didn’t do that, and leave it up to everyone’s imagination that it confirms your unsubstantiated position.

    But I know why you didn’t go there. It’s because the sense of intent involved was addressed during closing argument and references to the relevant provisions of law when the judge gave his jury instructions. And you know it, which is why you didn’t cite all the relevant provisions that apply.

    And that is that in this case the intent conditions that triggers liability is that anyone intends the natural consequences of his voluntary acts. That was made absolutely clear at the trial.

    So the intent in this sense is that someone engaged in the voluntary act of physically assaulting (striking, hitting, pushing, forcing, etc. etc. whatever other verb of similar import you want to use to describe it) to “inflict substantial bodily harm” with death, of course fully satisfying that requirement.

    That sense of intent is distinguished from any involuntary act by someone. Like suppose somebody shoves me into someone else that causes them to fall and sustain a substantial injury like breaking an arm from the fall. My having been pushed by someone else makes my act of pushing someone an entirely involuntary act on my part and I would therefore not have committed an assault on the person who was injured.

    The person who would be responsible is the one who pushed me if his pushing me was a voluntary act on his part, and he would be liable for assaulting the person I was knocked into who got hurt even though he may never have intended to strike him. But it was his voluntary actions which resulted in the harm to the other person.

    In tort law, its called strict or absolute liability. To put another way, when applicable, anyone doing anything that caused harm owns it and has to pay for it.

    That’s the law that got Chauvin. Deservedly so, and none of your blabbering is going to change it.

    Your blabbering does, however, expose that your are either inflicted with terminal congenital prejudices or your intellectual capacity ranks you below a brain dead imbecile. Your choice.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  112. @beavertales

    I witnessed OJ attempting to “put on” the glove and it was farcical to say the least. Nobody in their right mind would put the damn thing on the way he did…. fingers splayed out. It was an absurd joke. The smoking suit carry-on that the Juice returned with seemingly, and conveniently, disappeared as soon as he returned from his sojourn out of town. It was a mess from beginning to end.

  113. X the Owl says:

    Stop posting pictures of that balloon-lipped porchmonkey.

    I’m sick of the site of the creature.

  114. moi says:
    @The Old Philosopher

    Old Phil,

    Have you watched an MMA (not NMA) fight. You’re telling me the bruises and the blood are not real. That they don’t get knocked out or pass out from what are called rear naked choke holds.

    Don’t be an ass!

  115. @The Old Philosopher

    Now I ask you: Does the word “intent” appear anywhere in the statute you cite that Chauvin is accused of violating?

    It appears when you look up the definition of “assault”; IOW you apparently don’t assault someone by accident for example.

    2020 Minnesota Statutes

    609.02 DEFINITIONS.

    Subd. 10.Assault. “Assault” is:
    (1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or

    (2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  116. Legba says:
    @beavertales

    That’s brilliant, but it probably wouldn’t have worked anyway, it was a rigged game.

  117. @The Old Philosopher

    You don’t know much about the law. You sound like you just ripped off some 1st year hornbook on the concept of intent.

    In an actual trial, the the judge gives the jury precise instructions about what the words mean if they are not usual and customary terms as to each offense. Unless you know what the exact instructions of the judge were regarding intent, you don’t know what the definitions the judge gave the jury.

    You obviously didn’t read what I said. Regardless of the judge’s instructions you have to interpret intent within the context of the rest of the phrase.

    You obviously think that Chauvin “intended to cause substantial injury to Floyd.” Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t.

    Maybe the video just looked like he did.

    Maybe Chauvin was taught to do this very thing and from his training he did not believe what he was doing was going to cause Floyd substantial harm. Maybe if Floyd hadn’t had Covid, hadn’t been on fentanyl and hadn’t had a heart attack due to a serious heart condition, Floyd would not have had a substantial injury at all.

    It is not as if Chauvin shot Floyd with a gun. In that case it is pretty obvious the intent is to substantially harm someone. It is not like he beat Floyd in the head with a baseball bat. In that case it is pretty obvious he intended to do substantial harm. It is not like he pushed him off a cliff.

    When you are restraining someone, it is hard to know when you have gone to far, and it is often hard to know what someone actually intended.

    You are absolutely wrong about voluntary and involuntary. Doing an act voluntarily does not equate to intent to harm.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  118. @sally

    “I think most jurors were undecided until they saw the video ”

    That statement proves that you don’t think, and are probably incapable of rational thought.

  119. Richard B says:
    @stevennonemaker88

    You have to be careful with synonyms, and language in general.

    Language is quite nuanced, and shades of meaning matter.

    Thanks for your response and interesting comment.

    The thing I like about it the best is that it makes it clear as day that meaning isn’t immanent. I’m not saying that was your intention. Just that your comment pointed in that direction.

    The meaning of any word isn’t in the word. Meaning is ascribed, by us. Meaning isn’t a property of language. It’s a property of behavior. Words don’t refer. People do. The ultimate function of language is to predictive.

    It’s not so much that language is nuanced. It’s that we need it to be for whatever purposes we have.

    There’s basically two ways to go; sraight line thinking, or semantic branching. The first one is the kind you see more in philosophy. But semantic branching is used in the courtroom all the time. In fact, the practice of law would be impossible without it.

    So, you’re right. We all have to be careful with language.

    But not because of language. But because of us.

  120. @Harold Smith

    cites statutes referring to intent that he imagines address the issue as he claims:
    2020 Minnesota Statutes

    609.02 DEFINITIONS.

    Subd. 10.Assault. “Assault” is:
    (1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or

    (2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.

    Just as I thought. You forget to cite the other relevant section that further define the terms used as follows:

    609.02 DEFINITIONS.
    Subd. 7.Bodily harm. “Bodily harm” means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
    Subd. 7a.Substantial bodily harm. [Irrelevant because assault involves only bodily harm.]
    Subd. 8.Great bodily harm. “Great bodily harm” [also irrelevant.]
    §Subd. 9.Mental state. (1) When criminal intent is an element of a crime in this chapter, such intent is indicated by the term “intentionally,” the phrase “with intent to,” the phrase “with intent that,” or some form of the verbs “know” or “believe.” [Thus intent includes anything designaed by any of those words or phrases.]
    (2) “Know” requires only that the actor believes that the specified fact exists.

    (3) “Intentionally” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result. In addition, except as provided in clause (6), the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make the actor’s conduct criminal and which are set forth after the word “intentionally.” [Now in the case of assault, the cause specified is “bodily harm” that Chauvin’s actions clearly inflicted; that he had a purpose to do the thing is clear by his having deliberately placed his knee on Floyd in a manner that constricted his breathing that led to inflicting not just bodily harm, but death.]

    (4) “With intent to” or “with intent that” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result. [Slight variation from “intentionally.”

    So intentional simply means the actor either had a purpose to do it or caused the specified result (harm to Floyd) or believed that the successful performance of the act would cause the result.

    There is not the slightest doubt that Chauvin purposely placed his knee on Floyd to force him to maintain that position that led to the most extreme physical harm imaginable.

    But you tried to evade the obvious conclusion that reading together the relevant provision produced.

    But to save myself the trouble of going over the issues in detail, here is how USA today explains it to you based on Judge Cahill’s instructions (with my comments in brackets):

    Guilty: Second-degree murder charge
    Second-degree murder is causing the death of a human being, without intent to cause that death, while committing or attempting to commit another felony. In this case, the felony was third-degree assault. Chauvin was charged with committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.

    To convict Chauvin on this count, Judge Peter Cahill told jurors they must find that the former officer intended to commit an assault that could cause bodily harm or intentionally aided in committing such an assault.

    “It is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to kill Floyd. But it must prove that the defendant committed, or attempted to commit, the underlying felony,” the judge said.

    [This is the point you keep blabbering about that that the crime involved intending to kill Floyd as it purpose for doing the act. False, and the judge made that clear. Now try to grasp what that really means.]

    Cahill added that the state must prove that the assault either inflicted bodily harm on Floyd or was intended to commit bodily harm. That essentially could include loss of consciousness, the judge said. [Works either way since Chauvin’s actions clear produced the result.]

    “It is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm, only that the defendant intended to commit the assault, and George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm,” Cahill said.
    [And now you have the judge saying exactly the same point I have been making – it was the the assault that was committed intentional rather than as an accidental action on his part. Forcing Floyd to the ground for over 8 minutes proves it beyond any doubt.]

    Guilty: Third-degree murder charge
    Third-degree murder is unintentionally causing someone’s death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life. Chauvin was accused of committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.

    Under Minnesota law, an act that is eminently dangerous is one that “is highly likely to cause death,” Cahill told jurors. “The defendant’s act may not have been specifically intended to cause death,” and “it may not have been specifically directed at the person whose death occurred, but it must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life,” said the judge.

    These are the clear instructions based on the reading of the relevant provisions that make absolutely clear the law does not require that the act was done with the intent to produce what resulted from the actions that you seem bent on insisting is what needs to be proved case that flies in the face of the clear instructions .

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  121. @davidgmillsatty

    So here is my response #122 that was directed at someone else but that relates directly tom you comments as well as the issues about the Judge’s instructions.

    Just as I thought. You forget to cite or even refer the other relevant section that further define the terms used as follows with my comments in brackets:

    [MORE]

    609.02 DEFINITIONS.
    Subd. 7.Bodily harm. “Bodily harm” means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
    Subd. 7a.Substantial bodily harm. [Irrelevant because assault involves only bodily harm.]
    Subd. 8.Great bodily harm. “Great bodily harm” [also irrelevant.]
    §Subd. 9.Mental state. (1) When criminal intent is an element of a crime in this chapter, such intent is indicated by the term “intentionally,” the phrase “with intent to,” the phrase “with intent that,” or some form of the verbs “know” or “believe.” [Thus intent includes anything designaed by any of those words or phrases.]
    (2) “Know” requires only that the actor believes that the specified fact exists.

    (3) “Intentionally” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act performed by the actor, if successful, will cause that result. In addition, except as provided in clause (6), the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make the actor’s conduct criminal and which are set forth after the word “intentionally.” [Now in the case of assault, the cause specified is “bodily harm” that Chauvin’s actions clearly inflicted; that he had a purpose to do the thing is clear by his having deliberately placed his knee on Floyd in a manner that constricted his breathing that led to inflicting not just bodily harm, but death.]

    (4) “With intent to” or “with intent that” means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified or believes that the act, if successful, will cause that result. [Slight variation from “intentionally.”

    So intentional simply means the actor either had a purpose to do it or caused the specified result (harm to Floyd) or believed that the successful performance of the act would cause the result.

    There is not the slightest doubt that Chauvin purposely placed his knee on Floyd to force him to maintain that position that led to the most extreme physical harm imaginable.

    But you tried to evade the obvious conclusion that reading together the relevant provision produced.

    But to save myself the trouble of going over the issues in detail, here is how USA today explains it to you based on Judge Cahill’s instructions (with my comments in brackets):

    Guilty: Second-degree murder charge
    Second-degree murder is causing the death of a human being, without intent to cause that death, while committing or attempting to commit another felony. In this case, the felony was third-degree assault. Chauvin was charged with committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.

    To convict Chauvin on this count, Judge Peter Cahill told jurors they must find that the former officer intended to commit an assault that could cause bodily harm or intentionally aided in committing such an assault.

    “It is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to kill Floyd. But it must prove that the defendant committed, or attempted to commit, the underlying felony,” the judge said.

    [This is the point you keep blabbering about that that the crime involved intending to kill Floyd as it purpose for doing the act. False, and the judge made that clear. Now try to grasp what that really means.]

    Cahill added that the state must prove that the assault either inflicted bodily harm on Floyd or was intended to commit bodily harm. That essentially could include loss of consciousness, the judge said. [Works either way since Chauvin’s actions clear produced the result.]

    “It is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm, only that the defendant intended to commit the assault, and George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm,” Cahill said.
    [And now you have the judge saying exactly the same point I have been making – it was the the assault that was committed intentional rather than as an accidental action on his part. Forcing Floyd to the ground for over 8 minutes proves it beyond any doubt.]

    Guilty: Third-degree murder charge
    Third-degree murder is unintentionally causing someone’s death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life. Chauvin was accused of committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.

    Under Minnesota law, an act that is eminently dangerous is one that “is highly likely to cause death,” Cahill told jurors. “The defendant’s act may not have been specifically intended to cause death,” and “it may not have been specifically directed at the person whose death occurred, but it must have been committed with a conscious indifference to the loss of life,” said the judge.

    These are the clear instructions based on the reading of the relevant provisions that make absolutely clear the law does not require that the act was done with the intent to produce what resulted from the actions that you seem bent on insisting is what needs to be proved case that flies in the face of the clear instructions .

    As for your claim of superior legal knowledge, your response either demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the relevant legal issues or you are deliberately seeking to deceive, misrepresent or falsify the applicable legal issues.

  122. @The Old Philosopher

    Just as I thought. You forget to cite the other relevant section that further define the terms used as follows:

    I didn’t “forget” anything; you asked a simple question and I gave you a simple, polite answer. Period. The end.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  123. @The Old Philosopher

    But until you do, your claims that he didn’t violate the law his nothing less than r****ts apologizing for someone who got his just desert for exactly what he did that reflected fully on who he is.

    I understand that you’re an ignorant, hate-filled anti-White who has great difficulty containing his vitriolic rage, but that’s no excuse for gratuitously spewing anti-White slurs at the objects of your hatred. They’d be more likely to listen if you controlled yourself enough to employ more temperate language.

    Floyd “suffocated” from the force that Chauvin applied and blalblabla

    So, in what passes for your “mind,” it seems obvious that Chauvin, by placing his massive 150 lb weight on Floyd’s shoulder, somehow caused his tiny, frail, 230 lb Black body to expire from opioid-induced noncardiogenic pulmonary edema? Perhaps you could elaborate a little on your delusional impression of the pathophysiology involved, and the supporting autopsy/ laboratory evidence. Seems like there’s more than a few steps missing in from hypothesized mechanism here…

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  124. @Harold Smith

    Of course you did, because by omitting them, you tried to make it appear that the provisions you cited included all that was relevant for assessing the issues you were raising when the the reading of all the relevant provisions demolished your argument.

    It’s called lying by omission or by giving non-responsive answers as a witness. It’s an old, but very shopworn trick.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  125. @James Forrestal

    No, I jut despises lies and liars who in my view rank below whale shit on my morality and truth scales.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
  126. @The Old Philosopher

    Just as I thought. You forget to cite the other relevant section that further define the terms used as follows:

    I didn’t “forget” anything; you asked a simple question and I gave you a simple, polite answer. Period. The end.

    Of course you did, because by omitting them, you tried to make it appear that the provisions you cited included all that was relevant for assessing the issues you were raising when the the reading of all the relevant provisions demolished your argument.

    ROTFL! What’s wrong with you? You’re just making up nonsense. Anyone who cares to look at the above comments can see that I raised no “issues” nor made any “argument” about anything. Shall we go over it yet again?

    You said:

    “Now I ask you: Does the word ‘intent’ appear anywhere in the statute you cite that Chauvin is accused of violating?”

    And in reply to your question, I said:

    “It appears when you look up the definition of “assault”; IOW you apparently don’t assault someone by accident for example.

    2020 Minnesota Statutes

    609.02 DEFINITIONS.

    Subd. 10.Assault. “Assault” is:
    (1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or

    (2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.”

    Apparently it was because you were not familiar with the statutory definition of “assault” that the author’s statement (quoted below) confused you, which prompted your question, right? And now you simply can’t admit that you were ignorant about something and made yourself look foolish.

    “Does that sound to you like assault with the intent to inflict substantial bodily harm, no reasonable doubt about it? Could it be that Chauvin thought he was restraining Floyd until the medical people got there? He may have been unreasonable, or unwise, in doing what he was doing, but that is not the issue in this count. It is whether he was committing the felony offense of assault against Floyd. Ask yourself, ‘How has the prosecution demonstrated to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was assaulting rather than restraining Floyd?’ They haven’t, and there is no doubt about that.” The second count, third degree murder.”

    Edit:
    It seems you mistakenly addressed your earlier reply to me – a reply that you apparently intended to address to davidgmillsatty. But since you are apparently incapable of admitting that you could ever make a mistake or be in the wrong about anything – whether it’s due to ignorance of the subject matter or an incorrect reply to me – you’d rather pretend that’s not the case and continue wasting time with this silly nonsense that you know has nothing to do with anything I said. Your patheticity is breathtaking.

  127. And in reply to your question, I said:

    “It appears when you look up the definition of “assault”; IOW you apparently don’t assault someone by accident for example.

    2020 Minnesota Statutes

    609.02 DEFINITIONS.

    Subd. 10.Assault. “Assault” is:
    (1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or

    (2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.”

    Apparently it was because you were not familiar with the statutory definition of “assault” that the author’s statement (quoted below) confused you, which prompted your question, right? And now you simply can’t admit that you were ignorant about something and made yourself look foolish.

    It didn’t confuse me in the slightest. As I said before, I took his reference to be citing all the relevant laws that applied to the issues when he in fact omitted several provisions that also applied and changed the meaning of what he cited. And in fact I now have looked up all applicable provisions of the Minnesota code that apply to the issues at hand. In addressing the issues, you each cited only portions of them when in fact the several definitions intertwine such that they must be read together rather than as independent snippets as you applied them to the issues.

    Now, once they are read together, they mean exactly as I have been saying about how intent applies to the case, that you actually confirm when you note as cited your response that “It [intent] appears when you look up the definition of “assault”; IOW you apparently don’t assault someone by accident for example.” No kidding. That was exactly my point that the intent requirement does not go to what results from the action, but to the taking of the action that produces the result for which the individual becomes liable by having taken action.

    This is the point I have been making all along to Chauvin apologists who have been insisting the intent requirement applies to intending to cause the injury rather than to the taking of the action that resulted in the injury. As I have also repeatedly noted, as the statutes as a whole read with respect to these issues, it is like absolutely liability under tort law that imposes the liability on someone for taking an action that resulted in harm rather than only if the person intended to cause the harm that resulted such as when a contractor engages in blasting in an urban environment and the blast he sets off damages property other than what he intended to demolish he is liable for the damage done regardless of whether he intended to damages the other property.

    Now what is so difficult about understanding this simple concept. It’s difficult only if you want to misrepresent, deceive, obfuscate and obscure what the real issues are to defend Chauvin’s criminal acts for which he was properly convicted.

    The fact also is I have posted a response in which I not only cited all the relevant statutory provisions but also the judge’s instructions about how those requirements applied to Chauvin’s actions and those instructions completely support the positions about this that I have been advocating over and over again that you Chauvin apologists have been denying.

    As for your editing comment that I misaddressed to you a comment meant for davidgmillsatty, I readily concede it’s possible and apologize, that of course instantly refutes your claim I do not admit error.

    It happened because I drafted the response on my word processing program rather than directly into the response box to a comment, and because both of you were addressing the same issues, I copied the response into the wrong response box.

    As for correctly reading statutory language, not only am I fully versed in fly specking it, but I have drafted numerous statutes that have been enacted by a state legislature and a city council, as well as dozens of rules adopted by a city agency besides having testified before legislative committees of several state legislatures as well as before federal and state rule making agencies.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  128. @The Old Philosopher

    Apparently it was because you were not familiar with the statutory definition of “assault” that the author’s statement (quoted below) confused you, which prompted your question, right? And now you simply can’t admit that you were ignorant about something and made yourself look foolish.

    It didn’t confuse me in the slightest.

    If it didn’t confuse you, then why did you ask the question in the first place? If you were familiar with the statutory definition of “assault” then your question simply made no sense, because it would’ve been clear to you that by the author’s use of the phrase “assault with the intent to inflict substantial bodily harm” he was apparently just making a distinction between 609.02 subdivision 10(1) and 10(2).

    In fact another person above, CMC, tried to clue you in when in reply to your question he said:

    “You know the statute defines the word ‘assault’ in another subsection right?”

    It was because you didn’t seem to acknowledge this information in any way or reply to him that I subsequently replied to you by going further and quoting the text of the statutory definition that he referred to.

    But then, rather than thank me for clearing up the confusion, you compounded the confusion by apparently misaddressing a reply to me, and then you compounded the confusion further by your failure to timely admit to the misaddressed reply, choosing instead to waste your time and mine by making up an imaginary discussion.

    And in fact I now have looked up all applicable provisions of the Minnesota code that apply to the issues at hand. In addressing the issues, you each cited only portions of them when in fact the several definitions intertwine such that they must be read together rather than as independent snippets as you applied them to the issues.

    Okay so you’re still pretending. For the Nth time: You asked a simple question, and I gave you a simple, polite answer.

    As for your editing comment that I misaddressed to you a comment meant for davidgmillsatty, I readily concede it’s possible and apologize, that of course instantly refutes your claim I do not admit error.

    Not quite; at most it means that you do not readily, reasonably or graciously admit error, because as anyone reviewing the comments above can see, you could’ve admitted error after realizing the error, e.g. by a timely reply to me telling me to ignore your misaddressed earlier reply. But rather than do that you decided to formulate an irrelevant, turgid, obscurantist word salad and pretend I had something to do with it. Apparently you’ll go to any extreme to assuage the self-inflicted damage to your ego.

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  129. Che Guava says:
    @Janetsuzet

    Not being U.S., I had not heard that. but it was and remains an ugly and, I would suspect, illegal decision by the judge.

  130. R.C. says:

    The biggest flaws with the trial as far as I can tell:
    – It shouldn’t have happened because the judge should have granted the defense’s pretrial motion to dismiss (I presume there was one.) Likewise, once at the trial, when the prosecution rested, and again after the evidence was closed, the court should have granted motions for directed verdict. (I again presume that such were done as a matter of course.)
    – The court should have moved the trial. The court could and should have dealt with the insane and illegal crowds – threatening a jury like that is called . . . obstruction of justice, etc.
    – The court should have sequestered the jury from day one.
    Author: You probably can’t say the penal terms, (e.g., 40 years, etc.) to a jury. As I recall, the only cases where the jury gets to hear about that are death penalty cases, and only then in the punishment section of deliberations AFTER conviction on the charge that carries the death penalty. (Discussions about jurors’ views on the DP are usually covered in voir dire.)
    The many comments pointing out often tedious procedural legalities seem generally correct. (I’ve not read them all.)
    Note: It seems that some of the comments have confused the concept of evidentiary proffers vs. preserving one’s objections for appeal. Evidentiary proffers are when there is evidence that the court has decided the jury will not be allowed to hear. In those, the evidence placed in the record in while the jury is not present. In criminal cases they are usually conducted by the defense. There are times you can waive such issues on appeal by not having done such a proffer at trial.
    Meanwhile, preserving a mere argument for appeal is usually simpler provided you argued it either in paper and/or in court.
    For those interested, do some quick research on Evidence, Objections, Criminal Trial Procedure, etc.
    There’s a lot more to say but I’m not going to
    R.C.

  131. @The Old Philosopher

    Your pathetic inability to make even the most inept, incoherent, flailing attempt to explain how Chauvin supposedly “caused” Floyd’s death from opioid-induced noncardiogenic pulmonary edema is duly noted.

    Sad!

    But at least you managed to control your vitriolic anti-White hatred and impotent rage enough that you were able to refrain from incontinently spewing anti-White slurs this time. So there’s that…

    • Replies: @The Old Philosopher
  132. @Harold Smith

    And you entirely ignored the substance of my remarks about how the judge in his instructions specified that the intent to Chauvin’s actions as I have been saying all along as the complete reading of the relevant interlocking definitions make clear. Instead, you sought to hide the fact that it was indeed my description of how the prosecution indeed proved the intent requirement for a conviction the law specifies by purporting to provide a complete summary of how the discussion proceeded that supposedly validates your claims about how my comments were incorrect about this matter.

    The fact is that your whole argument ignores the context of the issues involved to which my original comment was directed that was made clear as I framed it that you ignore with how you injected your comment as a response to my original posting.

    That context was that while discussing the three counts against Chauvin and whether the prosecutions had proved he violated the laws under which he was charged, Griffin noted with respect to the three counts and how he would have argued to the jury that Chauvin didn’t violate them, with my comment regarding his arguments in brackets:

    [MORE]

    I’ll go through the three counts here and briefly say how I’d come at them. You can add your own thinking to mine. The counts are taken from the formal charges against Chauvin.[3]

    COUNT I

    Charge: Second Degree Murder – Unintentional – While Committing a Felony (e.a,.)

    Minnesota Statute 609.19 (1)

    Maximum Sentence: Imprisonment for not more than 40 years.

    Offense Level: Felony

    Charge Description: That on or about May 25, 2020, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, Derek Michael Chauvin caused the death of a human being, George Floyd, without the intent (e.a.) to effect the death of any person, while committing a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting, namely assault in the third degree.

    609.223 ASSAULT IN THE THIRD DEGREE

    Subdivision 1. Substantial bodily harm.

    Whoever assaults another and (e.a.) inflicts substantial bodily harm may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both (e.a.)

    The issue with this count is whether the prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was assaulting Floyd rather than restraining him (e.a.).

    To the jury:

    “Are you certain enough that Chauvin was assaulting Floyd to put him in prison for forty years? The video has this exchange:

    Chauvin: Relax.
    Floyd: I can’t breathe!
    Chauvin: You’re fine. You’re talking fine.

    And this:

    Officer: I just worry about the excited or delirium or whatever.
    Chauvin: That’s why we have EMS coming.

    [This is a laughable defense for someone who is forcing his victim against the pavement to and substantially impair his ability to breathe for over 8 minutes. And it is then he makes his penultimate argument to the jury on this issue as follows:]

    “Does that sound to you like assault with the intent to inflict substantial bodily harm, no reasonable doubt about it? Could it be that Chauvin thought he was restraining Floyd until the medical people got there? He may have been unreasonable, or unwise, in doing what he was doing, but that is not the issue in this count. It is whether he was committing the felony offense of assault against Floyd. Ask yourself, ‘How has the prosecution demonstrated to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was assaulting rather than restraining Floyd?’ They haven’t, and there is no doubt about that.”

    My comment was directed solely to his argument to the jury about “does that sound like assault with intent to inflict substantial bodily harm” by pointing out the statutory language he cited says nothing about the accused making the assault with the intent to commit the bodily harm that resulted. And I simply asked that anyone who thought otherwise should point to where the word appears in that text. It doesn’t

    [It’s because Chauvin’s lawyer knew better than to make this ridiculous argument that he focused on continuing that everything Chauvin did was reasonable that was equally absurd on its face.]

    And then after citing my question that was direct at that statement Griffin made, you chimed in with your observation that:

    “Now I ask you: Does the word “intent” appear anywhere in the statute you cite that Chauvin is accused of violating?”

    It [intent] appears when you look up the definition of “assault”; IOW you apparently don’t assault someone by accident for example.

    And then you cite a portion of the relevant statutory language as follows:

    2020 Minnesota Statutes

    609.02 DEFINITIONS.

    Subd. 10.Assault. “Assault” is:
    (1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or

    (2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.

    COUNT II

    Precisely. The intent requirement goes to the act that was done being intentional not to effect or the result of the act. So that it is not that a person intended to cause the harm that resulted from the act (assault), but that he intended the act that caused it. Your response even suggests that is so by noting “IOW you apparently don’t assault someone by accident for example.”

    No kidding. That has been my one and only point about the intent requirement all along as the judge’s instructions to the jury make entirely clear that I noticed you ignored completely when I read it out chapter and verse that shows you are arguing with half-truth that you seek to twist into what ends as complete untruth whereby you seek to deny Chauvin’s clear cut guilt for the crimes he was convicted of committing that fully exposes exactly what’s the matter with you.

    And then by citing only those provisions, you ignore all the other provisions that are relevant to understanding what the ones you cite mean such as “intent,” intentional,” bodily harm” that all have to be read together which the judge in his instructions made clear mean exactly and precisely what I have been pointing out about the intent requirement that applies to the case.

  133. @James Forrestal

    What is pathetic is the congenital racist lenses through which you interpret the world.

  134. @Diversity Heretic

    Chauvin’s thug tactic- using the knee on the neck for several minutes– was damning enough. Chauvin’s prior history of violence was relevant at his sentencing. Chauvin belongs in prison. Case closed.

  135. @KenH

    Nelson’s specialty is not criminal defense based on some things I’ve read and if true I don’t know why he was selected as Chauvin’s attorney.

    Chauvin’s union was footing the bill and in order to get them to do it Chauvin presumably had to pick him from their list. That’s the way union-provided legal insurance works.

    Nelson was terrible. The trial was lost at jury selection, and Nelson provided no pushback to the prosecution getting a non-representative jury.

    He also let the prosecution get away with murder in terms of releasing discovery to him at the last minute, again with no effective pushback.

    And he let the judge walk all over him. Probably because he’s going to have to come before him and his pals regularly in the future, which was more important to him than doing his job for Chauvin. Chauvin needed a non-local attorney.

  136. @Thomasina

    If true, this is huge.

    Nah. It’s fake news. Not one of Fox’s finer moments.

    It’s a pretty short bit, as follows:

    Speaker 1 [00:26:24] So lawyers for one of the cops in the George Floyd case are tonight making a major allegation against the Hennepin County medical examiner. Fascinating twist in that story. Lots of trace. Gallagher has it for us tonight…

    Speaker 2 [00:26:39] These court documents were filed by attorneys defending former Minneapolis police officer TSL. They claim in May of last year, Hennepin County medical examiner Dr. Andrew Baker met with prosecutors and told them his autopsy showed no physical evidence that George Floyd died of asphyxiation. The attorneys alleged that a few days later, former D.C. medical examiner Dr. Roger Mitchell called Dr. Baker to complain about his findings, saying, quoting here, Neck compression has to be in the diagnosis, adding quoting again, you don’t want to be the medical examiner who tells everyone they didn’t see what they saw. You don’t want to be the smartest person in the room and be wrong. Dr. Mitchell then allegedly threatened to write an op ed in The Washington Post critical of Dr. Baker’s findings shortly after the conversation. Defense attorneys say Dr. Baker released his final autopsy and sure enough, it said neck compression did contribute to George Floyds death.

    https://www.novakarchive.com/fox-news-tucker-carlson/2021/5/13/tucker-carlson-may-13-2021-transcript

    Except that the autopsy said nothing about neck compression that I can recall. What was most notable about it was the unintelligibility of the claimed cause of death, which, however, said nothing about neck compression.

    Now, when interviewed by the prosecutor Dr. Baker pointed to pulmonary edema (lung weight 2-3x normal) due to Fentanyl as causing death, but stumblebum Nelson didn’t concentrate on this obvious cause of Floyd’s inability to breathe.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Robert S. Griffin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings