(06-30-2021 08:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-30-2021 07:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad -
Your assumption that Chauvin is guilty because a jury found him guilty flies in the face of previous rantings from the left about how disproportionate numbers and sentences of black people displays racial bias in the justice system.

Either (A), A conviction means means you are guilty, or B), it may not, even if you are a white cop.

Pick one.

I think that is a false choice you're presenting. Most notably because you're talking about how court decisions for black defendants are biased and the fact that Chauvin isn't black...

But also because when we speak in generalities, those generalities are just that - general. They aren't applicable to each individual case, as some may be outside the norm. You're presenting (once again) a binary choice that isn't binary.

I've not followed the case closely enough to get into the weeds with Tanq (who clearly has) about the ins and outs about why specific arguments from each side are valid or invalid. I can clearly do a bit of cursory research on specific statements made (like the false premise that the prosecution avoided asphyxiation - Tanq has clarified that statement to mean they pivoted away from an argument about a boot to the neck), but to go back and forth in the nitty gritty seems pointless.

They actually pivoted to 2 different COD with 4 or 5 modalities amongst them.

In essence, they said to the jury 'here is a grab bag of causation of death, and a grab bag of ways each, if it happened, might have happened. Pick one that suits your pissed off mood'.

But a jury trial is not about the law, many times not about the facts. It is a passion play.

Get a jury stoked up (most preferably anger, since that is the easiest emotion to fuel), and then flip a switch on the object of that anger. And, on listening to the predisposition of jury at the outset, there wasnt a snowball's chance on Mercury that Chauvin walked out a free man, nor even a chance he got popped for the manslaughter charge only.

And, the pressure on 'tagging' the other three rookies in the mix is going to be the same. But, the gods need a sacrifice every now and then to sate the thirst.

The problem is that the facts developed in the actual case dont meet the predisposition of what people 'think' they know --- which is limited to literally one tape segment played ad nauseum. But, I guess one has to shrug their shoulders and mutter 'It is what it is.'

Edited to add: in all candor, I can see a case against Chauvin on the manslaughter issue after everything. I think there was a responsibility at some point to put Floyd into a 'recovery position', which Chauvin ignored the advice of his compadres.