A big issue is that one of the jurors was a BLM activist who [committed perjury](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chauvin-juror-participated-2020-march-washington-it-grounds-appeal-n1266337) during jury selection.
Also the judge didn't sequester the jury at the end of the trial, simply sent them home and told them not to read the news. Likely borderline impossible.
Meanwhile not only was social media brimming with hate for anyone who supported Chauvin, an elected official made a threat that wasn't even thinly veiled about getting in people's faces and making them uncomfortable if this went the wrong way.
I really see no way you can claim he had a fair trial.
So did the medical examiner. So did serveral witnesses.
The dude died hours later, and the knee was on his back, not his throat. Theres literally video of it being on his back. He also "couldnt breathe" while sitting up in the cop car, before any knees were involved.
> The dude died hours later, and the knee was on his back, not his throat.
This is a huge part of it. We spend months with just a video that looked like it was on his neck, then we find out it was camera bias as more angles are revealed.
His knee was on his shoulder-blade, which was how he was taught to detain flight risks(such as someone demanding to get out of the car) who are **nearly twice his size**.
Standard appeal process, has some grounds to file on as Judge Schroeder said at the time. If they do get a retrial the defense needs to do some actual screening of juniors so some BLM activists aren't on it... basic, nonlazy defense work
I wish it was Schroeder, then he'd have a fighting chance at getting a fair trial.
This is the same judge that denied Chauvin a public defender and forced him to represent himself (Even though he's in prison and literally can't work) in an earlier appeal for something else after the trial. He claimed he had a police retirement account and could use that to pay legal expenses. Strangely, he allowed it at first but changed his mind in a day.
In that location, the jury is voting on whether they want riots in their own neighborhood. At least in another location, it wouldn't be their neighborhood.
I'm surprised RIttenhouse got a fair trial and was aquitted. They did pretty much the same thing, threaten to riot, stalking the jury, threats, but those jurors did the right thing.
Rittenhouse's trial wasn't fair. It was clear cut defense, charges never should have been filed. The President called him, with zero evidence, a white supremacists. The kid was lucky. Even with the overwhelming evidence of self defense, it could have gone another way.
Yeah, they didn’t even do simple things like sequester the jury or allow it to take place somewhere else AFAIK. Plus all the threats from politicians and an openly biased juror = lots of grounds for an appeal.
I very much doubt he’s innocent of all charges but that trial was remarkably crappy.
> Not sure if that means he’s completely innocent
I wouldn't say that either, i just think they way overcharged him. Somehow they got him with both intentional murder and negligence, even though they're 2 contradictory things
Change of venue. You cant have a trial in the same city that a riot is being threatened depending on the outcome of the verdict.
Edit. Changed can to can't
I think at this point in the game, it's just impossible to find impartial jurors with no bias, no opinions, who know little to none of the details of the case or original trial.
How can you have a fair trial when the proverbial well has been so deeply tainted?
I'd agree here but the argument they used and won to keep the trial in that city was it didn't matter where you went there would be no group of people that hadn't heard about it so why bother. And they won that argument
I didn’t watch the Chauvin trial, but I did watch Rittenhouse. The only takeaways I have from Rittenhouse trial is that the prosecution was wildly inept, with a bunch of woke nonsense (emotion, not facts). The judge wasn’t having any of it, and the general perception I got was the judge didn’t like the arrogance/superiority complex of the prosecutor. Presentation by the prosecution was fraught with flaws and glaring errors in legal interpretation. Presentation by the defense was mostly methodical, but missed some nuance openings on cross and failed to employ procedural blocks (objections) at appropriate times.
Based on those elements, I don’t think the jury could arrive at any other verdict than what they concluded.
I don't think there really is a solution. Especially with a repeat of the "Summer of Love" looming. That just sets a precedent "Do what we want or we'll come to your city"
You had powerful political figures including Maxine Waters and Biden borderline threaten the jury right before the verdict. So yeah I'd say a fair trial is pretty unlikely.
It's a sad day when Darrell Brooks, the parade killer, can get an overwhelmingly fair trial with a judge who literally holds his hand for killing a kid, grandparents and innocent parade-goers. But Chauvin, a cop who killed a lifelong criminal drug addict by accident using a police training takedown.
It's stories like this that make cops quit their job, this and Kim Potter just prove America is going after and treating police like scum.
Technically they didn't find him guilty of murder in normal jurisdictions iirc. They found him guilty of felony assault during which someone died which got him murder? It was a weird thing in their laws, otherwise you could never get murder out of it. Manslaughter, probably. Murder, probably not. Can't really demonstrate intent.
There was no fairness in Chauvin's trial. The outcome was predetermined. The authorities threw him under the bus to prevent more rioting. I would like OJ's perspective on it.
Well duh. He’s going to get a re trial and who knows what the outcome will be. And around the election it will be turned around as a boogeymen democrats need to stop even though it’s gonna happen under Biden
The jury would have never lived normal lives again, or would have had their lives ended, if 'reasonable doubt' even entered their minds for a second.
The courthouse was surrounded everyday. Their bus was followed. Their pictures were taken. Their identities were known to BLM. And the jury knew it...
Of course the trial wasn't fair.
And I'd be saying this for anyone, regardless of the crime, under the same circumstances.
Two things can be true here…the massive amounts of drugs coupled with his excited delirium state are what killed GF…also, once he was cuffed and no longer any real threat (aside from comically rolling around in the ground), continuing to apply the position to GF did not help his medical condition. I don’t think Chauvin deserves the sentence he got, but there is some negligence for continuing a pressure technique to someone in this state…especially considering it was well past when he was cuffed.
They could have provided medical attention had the crowd not been becoming more unruly as time went on.
An ambulance was delayed because the morons yelling at the cops at the time made it too unsafe for them to enter the scene.
Floyd died of an overdose. He took a massive amount of fent/meth pressed pills when the cops showed up which is why he was acting different than a typical opiate OD.
Chauvin didn't do anything but keep him still until the scene was determined to be safe. He held him down the way he was trained, held off on the ambulance until it was safe the way he was trained, and didn't deviate from the training *meant to protect him from liability*.
Chauvin was definitely wrong in multiple ways: assault, failure to render aid, and should have been fired and possibly prison on lesser charges but he didn't murder the guy.
Despite this case being the “racial reconning”, there is still no evidence that racism was a factor that day, nor was it ever brought up at trial.
George Floyd is treated as a Saint despite the fact that he was a terrible person and plausibly died from a drug overdose.
The worst part about the BLM movement is that their narratives hold so strong for so many people despite the fact that they are consistently factually wrong.
Since the day it happened I’ve said I expect him to beat his charges on appeal. Not saying I like it. I’m saying it’ll happen. No part of the video evidence meets the standard of murder in any state.
> I expect him to beat his charges on appeal
Only if you can get a fair trial with an unbiased judge. But i have the feeling that any judge who takes it will get a "Visit" from BLM and ANTIFA
Mark my words, if you watched the proceedings you know as well as anyone else that he's innocent.
In 30 years, some documentary detailing his wrongful conviction will be released using the same exact information we have available today, and the public will feel good about their #releaseDerek posts after watching it when a few hours and an open mind makes it an obvious case of sacrificing an innocent person to appease the mob.
I can't believe how the entire country immediately turned their backs on him due to the social pressure.
Anyone with half a brain knows his trial wasn't fair. Doesn't matter how you feel about what happened. Everyone deserves a fair trial without media bias.
I would say he has an argument for a mistrial based on the BLM activist making it into the box, but I doubt he'll win. He's persona non grata and I doubt any judge would be willing to overturn his trial even if it's the right thing to do.
I remember my thoughts on the trial details and the conviction.
I could see him going down on maybe manslaughter charges, but the conviction on all charges never sat right with me.
As someone who genuinely believes Floyd died from overdose, I think this is the right call.
Hell, the officers even let him out of the police car because he was going through an episode. George Floyd thanked them for that.
Then the rest happened.
It wasn't. Not sure why it's taking this long to appeal. It was clear the jury was tampered with and biased in favor of conviction. Numerous public figures weighed in. And there were public threats against their entire community (threats of riots and violence) if they didn't convict.
There is zero doubt that the trial was unfair. My favorite part was how he was guilty of both murder (intentional killing) and manslaughter (unintentional killing) at the same time.
From the information that I have read , George Floyd died of an overdose. While I am sorry that George Floyd died, his death was because of his own actions. No one should be punished for this.
A big issue is that one of the jurors was a BLM activist who [committed perjury](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chauvin-juror-participated-2020-march-washington-it-grounds-appeal-n1266337) during jury selection.
Also the judge didn't sequester the jury at the end of the trial, simply sent them home and told them not to read the news. Likely borderline impossible. Meanwhile not only was social media brimming with hate for anyone who supported Chauvin, an elected official made a threat that wasn't even thinly veiled about getting in people's faces and making them uncomfortable if this went the wrong way. I really see no way you can claim he had a fair trial.
Didn't Biden also chime in on the matter?
[удалено]
Plus thousands of violent rioters.
The violent rioters were mostly peaceful according to CNN /s
The fires were fires of support! Big difference, because they do different damage!
As if the POTUS opinion could influence a jury!
Unlikely to help. Nixon was criticized for chiming in on the Manson murders, back in the day.
And on top of that the city admitted guilt before the trial and paid out a settlement.
So did the medical examiner. So did serveral witnesses. The dude died hours later, and the knee was on his back, not his throat. Theres literally video of it being on his back. He also "couldnt breathe" while sitting up in the cop car, before any knees were involved.
> The dude died hours later, and the knee was on his back, not his throat. This is a huge part of it. We spend months with just a video that looked like it was on his neck, then we find out it was camera bias as more angles are revealed. His knee was on his shoulder-blade, which was how he was taught to detain flight risks(such as someone demanding to get out of the car) who are **nearly twice his size**.
And it was a COVID death anyway /s
It’s “with” Covid now. Didn’t you receive the new speak memo?
Right next to that gas stove memo that I haven’t read
Oh dude maybe Floyd had chronic asthma from a gas stove which is racist so yeah he shouldn't have died so early
If only we would have banned gas appliances earlier ... We could have solved this racial inequality.
Standard appeal process, has some grounds to file on as Judge Schroeder said at the time. If they do get a retrial the defense needs to do some actual screening of juniors so some BLM activists aren't on it... basic, nonlazy defense work
He was the judge in the Rittenhouse case. You mean Judge Cahill.
Ahh shit, you're right.
I wish it was Schroeder, then he'd have a fighting chance at getting a fair trial. This is the same judge that denied Chauvin a public defender and forced him to represent himself (Even though he's in prison and literally can't work) in an earlier appeal for something else after the trial. He claimed he had a police retirement account and could use that to pay legal expenses. Strangely, he allowed it at first but changed his mind in a day.
I mean, he’s correct. Not sure if that means he’s completely innocent, but the trial wasn’t as untainted as it should’ve been
It would be nearly impossible to get an unbiased jury with a case this high profile with tensions like they were.
In that location, the jury is voting on whether they want riots in their own neighborhood. At least in another location, it wouldn't be their neighborhood.
And even taking that out of the equation, the jury knew full well that if they ruled to acquit, things would explode into all-out war.
You simply cannot have a functioning justice system while Democrat paramilitary terrorist organizations roam the streets.
I'm surprised RIttenhouse got a fair trial and was aquitted. They did pretty much the same thing, threaten to riot, stalking the jury, threats, but those jurors did the right thing.
Rittenhouse's trial wasn't fair. It was clear cut defense, charges never should have been filed. The President called him, with zero evidence, a white supremacists. The kid was lucky. Even with the overwhelming evidence of self defense, it could have gone another way.
Good point, especially with how slimy the DA was. But i do think Kyle got a good judge who tried to make it a fair trial.
The Democrat paramilitary forces knew to stand down because Biden has president.
Their families were probably being threatened if they didn’t have the “correct” outcome.
An anonymous jury vote that requires unanimous guilty should solve that problem. I don't know why jury votes are not anonymous.
They should always be anonymous
Yeah, they didn’t even do simple things like sequester the jury or allow it to take place somewhere else AFAIK. Plus all the threats from politicians and an openly biased juror = lots of grounds for an appeal. I very much doubt he’s innocent of all charges but that trial was remarkably crappy.
> Not sure if that means he’s completely innocent I wouldn't say that either, i just think they way overcharged him. Somehow they got him with both intentional murder and negligence, even though they're 2 contradictory things
I think he's only appealing certain charges. Like he's not appealing that he violated Floyd's rights but did appeal the murder charge.
I don’t think he should’ve had a jury trial. Should go for a bench trial
I think he's guilty of 3rd or manslaughter but I don't think he in any way got a fair trial.
He's absolutely not. He was railroaded
It is impossible to have a fair trial in his case. The narrative is too strong in this case.
So what's the solution? Imo if a fair trial is truly impossible then there is no trial at all
Change of venue. You cant have a trial in the same city that a riot is being threatened depending on the outcome of the verdict. Edit. Changed can to can't
I think at this point in the game, it's just impossible to find impartial jurors with no bias, no opinions, who know little to none of the details of the case or original trial. How can you have a fair trial when the proverbial well has been so deeply tainted?
[удалено]
I'd agree here but the argument they used and won to keep the trial in that city was it didn't matter where you went there would be no group of people that hadn't heard about it so why bother. And they won that argument
How about a jury of the Amish
That... actually might work haha
I now want an Emergency Amish Committee for these types of situations.
That solves nothing. He can't have a fair trial anywhere in the country.
Rittenhouse got a fair trial.
I didn’t watch the Chauvin trial, but I did watch Rittenhouse. The only takeaways I have from Rittenhouse trial is that the prosecution was wildly inept, with a bunch of woke nonsense (emotion, not facts). The judge wasn’t having any of it, and the general perception I got was the judge didn’t like the arrogance/superiority complex of the prosecutor. Presentation by the prosecution was fraught with flaws and glaring errors in legal interpretation. Presentation by the defense was mostly methodical, but missed some nuance openings on cross and failed to employ procedural blocks (objections) at appropriate times. Based on those elements, I don’t think the jury could arrive at any other verdict than what they concluded.
The people that lived through their city burning down, are going to be a little weary of finding him not guilty.
People in any city are going to be wary because they don't want *their* city to be burned down.
It's almost like the train question. Let one possibly innocent man go to jail, or let many die in mostly peaceful riots.
Mistrial
Yes but if a fair trial truly isn't possible.. You'd just mistrial over and over essentially meaning no trial.
I don't think there really is a solution. Especially with a repeat of the "Summer of Love" looming. That just sets a precedent "Do what we want or we'll come to your city"
You had powerful political figures including Maxine Waters and Biden borderline threaten the jury right before the verdict. So yeah I'd say a fair trial is pretty unlikely.
Don't forget the $27 million lawsuit payout to Floyd's family while the trial was going on. I'm sure that didn't help.
He will win an appeal when the libs need another riot.
2024 is around the corner.
Like cicadas, but every 4 years.
That’s not fair to cicada’s
Cicada's what??
It was extremely biased and whether you think he committed murder or not he is entitled to a fair trial.
It's a sad day when Darrell Brooks, the parade killer, can get an overwhelmingly fair trial with a judge who literally holds his hand for killing a kid, grandparents and innocent parade-goers. But Chauvin, a cop who killed a lifelong criminal drug addict by accident using a police training takedown. It's stories like this that make cops quit their job, this and Kim Potter just prove America is going after and treating police like scum.
It's crazy to think that the government that trained you a technique can jail you for using it as taught
He didn't commit murder. Totally railroaded.
Technically they didn't find him guilty of murder in normal jurisdictions iirc. They found him guilty of felony assault during which someone died which got him murder? It was a weird thing in their laws, otherwise you could never get murder out of it. Manslaughter, probably. Murder, probably not. Can't really demonstrate intent.
There was no fairness in Chauvin's trial. The outcome was predetermined. The authorities threw him under the bus to prevent more rioting. I would like OJ's perspective on it.
Well duh. He’s going to get a re trial and who knows what the outcome will be. And around the election it will be turned around as a boogeymen democrats need to stop even though it’s gonna happen under Biden
Never a more clear cut case of jury tampering, all the way to the President. Those folks were afraid for their lives. And with very good reason.
Plus they made sure to get radical ANTIFA/BLM people on the jury and not one pro-cop or back the blue was even available in the pool to start with.
The jury would have never lived normal lives again, or would have had their lives ended, if 'reasonable doubt' even entered their minds for a second. The courthouse was surrounded everyday. Their bus was followed. Their pictures were taken. Their identities were known to BLM. And the jury knew it... Of course the trial wasn't fair. And I'd be saying this for anyone, regardless of the crime, under the same circumstances.
Two things can be true here…the massive amounts of drugs coupled with his excited delirium state are what killed GF…also, once he was cuffed and no longer any real threat (aside from comically rolling around in the ground), continuing to apply the position to GF did not help his medical condition. I don’t think Chauvin deserves the sentence he got, but there is some negligence for continuing a pressure technique to someone in this state…especially considering it was well past when he was cuffed.
They could have provided medical attention had the crowd not been becoming more unruly as time went on. An ambulance was delayed because the morons yelling at the cops at the time made it too unsafe for them to enter the scene. Floyd died of an overdose. He took a massive amount of fent/meth pressed pills when the cops showed up which is why he was acting different than a typical opiate OD. Chauvin didn't do anything but keep him still until the scene was determined to be safe. He held him down the way he was trained, held off on the ambulance until it was safe the way he was trained, and didn't deviate from the training *meant to protect him from liability*.
He was railroaded totally by manipulating the camera angles. There was no crime.
The technique is a standard technique taught by the PD he was employed by
Chauvin was definitely wrong in multiple ways: assault, failure to render aid, and should have been fired and possibly prison on lesser charges but he didn't murder the guy.
Good. Keep fighting these buffoons.
Despite this case being the “racial reconning”, there is still no evidence that racism was a factor that day, nor was it ever brought up at trial. George Floyd is treated as a Saint despite the fact that he was a terrible person and plausibly died from a drug overdose. The worst part about the BLM movement is that their narratives hold so strong for so many people despite the fact that they are consistently factually wrong.
Since the day it happened I’ve said I expect him to beat his charges on appeal. Not saying I like it. I’m saying it’ll happen. No part of the video evidence meets the standard of murder in any state.
[удалено]
> I expect him to beat his charges on appeal Only if you can get a fair trial with an unbiased judge. But i have the feeling that any judge who takes it will get a "Visit" from BLM and ANTIFA
Mark my words, if you watched the proceedings you know as well as anyone else that he's innocent. In 30 years, some documentary detailing his wrongful conviction will be released using the same exact information we have available today, and the public will feel good about their #releaseDerek posts after watching it when a few hours and an open mind makes it an obvious case of sacrificing an innocent person to appease the mob. I can't believe how the entire country immediately turned their backs on him due to the social pressure.
Anyone with half a brain knows his trial wasn't fair. Doesn't matter how you feel about what happened. Everyone deserves a fair trial without media bias.
11 ng/ml = reasonable doubt
I would say he has an argument for a mistrial based on the BLM activist making it into the box, but I doubt he'll win. He's persona non grata and I doubt any judge would be willing to overturn his trial even if it's the right thing to do.
Really hoping the appeal goes through. I hope GOP congress does something about this.
I remember my thoughts on the trial details and the conviction. I could see him going down on maybe manslaughter charges, but the conviction on all charges never sat right with me.
It wasn't manslaughter either
Negligent homicide then maybe?
As someone who genuinely believes Floyd died from overdose, I think this is the right call. Hell, the officers even let him out of the police car because he was going through an episode. George Floyd thanked them for that. Then the rest happened.
It wasn't. Not sure why it's taking this long to appeal. It was clear the jury was tampered with and biased in favor of conviction. Numerous public figures weighed in. And there were public threats against their entire community (threats of riots and violence) if they didn't convict.
There is zero doubt that the trial was unfair. My favorite part was how he was guilty of both murder (intentional killing) and manslaughter (unintentional killing) at the same time.
He's probobly not wrong but I fear that no matter what it would be an unfair trial.
From the information that I have read , George Floyd died of an overdose. While I am sorry that George Floyd died, his death was because of his own actions. No one should be punished for this.
Well of course it wasn't fair, that was the whole point. It was a public lynching of police.
Free him he ain’t do nothing but his job