George Floyd | Chauvin guilty on all counts | Sentenced to 22.5 years

[4bars]

You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.

I cannot think of a single example in human history where being peaceful ever made something change. We only respond to violence and that’s because we’re reactive not proactive for the most part.

It shouldn’t be the case but it is.

Absolutely willing to listen to examples that prove me wrong though.

There are plenty of cases but violence is the once that makes the news and the history books and yes, it provokes a leap from point A to result point B. But the changes that for example nordic countries had experimented, or Buthan or others is an example to go from point A to point B without violence because society advanced with their demands because the politicians accepted what their society wanted.

Violence is a solution
Peaceful solution exists also

Violence is the outcome when peaceful solution doesn't work. I support and I understand both

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Challenge somewhat is the fratricide inside that grouping, but that’s another topic for another thread.

There are already institutions in place that have been the management for decades. SCLC / SNCC were the BLM of the 60s, albeit a bit more toned down. There definitely is a bit of an overall, tie-binding management level that can unite all POC across all lines right now, you are correct.

What has to occur is the layperson POC, those not necessarily attracted to resistance, needs to become more intense, raise the floor of the intensity. It’s akin to golf - one doesn’t get better over the long run trying to hit the perfect shot & perfect, one gets better over the long run by improving one’s bad shots & how bad they are on average, by eliminating mistakes, by constantly exerting pressure to improve & raise the floor.

I just do not have the best of feelings about what will happen when the trial is over. I have both been alive & have lived directly through some of the larger riots since Rodney King. I hope I am wrong, but there’s far too much recent history to prove me wrong.

The layman will only become more intensely resistant if either the racism they receive is more intense or the support they receive is more intense.

If it's the first, I share your bad feelings, but if it's the latter, hopefully we can achieve some changes

 

[calodo2003]

The layman will only become more intensely resistant if either the racism they receive is more intense or the support they receive is more intense.

If it's the first, I share your bad feelings, but if it's the latter, hopefully we can achieve some changes

Over time we will, it just will be slow. As a non-POC living in the states, I can see how more attention is focused on police brutality, but I cannot see true improvement across the board. There obviously has been some, but not enough & not consistent enough.

I read an article recently gaming out the potential backlash if the verdict is the same acquittal as the Rodney King verdict, how will the two compare. I’ll see if I can find it. The Rodney King tape was so shocking to us non-POCers as it was the first we had ever seen (& that wasn’t even a murder); the article discusses how inured we as society as a whole are to seeing such acts on POC now, whether we will have the same reaction & how our reaction will potentially be muted even though we saw a man murdered. It was rather interesting as it was from a non-POC view entirely.

 

[pierrethesnack]

I cannot think of a single example in human history where being peaceful ever made something change.

While I get your point and do agree that often violence is more effective, I think that's a very odd statement to make. If anything, being peaceful is a valuable change in itself. Are you really saying someone like Gandhi didnt't achieve anything?

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Over time we will, it just will be slow. As a non-POC living in the states, I can see how more attention is focused on police brutality, but I cannot see true improvement across the board. There obviously has been some, but not enough & not consistent enough.

I read an article recently gaming out the potential backlash if the verdict is the same acquittal as the Rodney King verdict, how will the two compare. I’ll see if I can find it. The Rodney King tape was so shocking to us non-POCers as it was the first we had ever seen (& that wasn’t even a murder); the article discusses how inured we as society as a whole are to seeing such acts on POC now, whether we will have the same reaction & how our reaction will potentially be muted even though we saw a man murdered. It was rather interesting as it was from a non-POC view entirely.

I don't really remember the Rodney King riots, so I don't know how many white people protested, but the BLM protests were more diverse than I expected, so maybe the reaction will be one of greater support from the white community. Well, here's hoping, anyway

 

[calodo2003]

I don't really remember the Rodney King riots, so I don't know how many white people protested, but the BLM protests were more diverse than I expected, so maybe the reaction will be one of greater support from the white community. Well, here's hoping, anyway

There were some, just like there had always been some since the 60s, not as mixed as this past summer.

The RK video is shocking in its own right due to the abject brutality in it, unbelievable that man survived that beating. To be honest, I wouldn’t have been much more horrified by the video if King had passed away due to its injuries. It was horrifying enough.

 

[calodo2003]

Really impactful testimony right now by the Minneapolis PD chief.

 

[The Firestarter]

Treating people with dignity and respect

 

[Pexbo]

Really impactful testimony right now by the Minneapolis PD chief.

To the benefit of whom?

 

[calodo2003]

To the benefit of whom?

Had to stop listening right when the defense started cross, until then it was very damaging to Chauvin. No clue how it’s currently going now.

 

[Carolina Red]

To the benefit of whom?

Well, he said that Chauvin “absolutely” violated the neck restraint policy and that he didn’t use reasonable force.

 

[Pexbo]

Had to stop listening right when the defense started cross, until then it was very damaging to Chauvin. No clue how it’s currently going now.

Well, he said that Chauvin “absolutely” violated the neck restraint policy and that he didn’t use reasonable force.

Excellent, thanks for the update. Just pray it means something.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

While I get your point and do agree that often violence is more effective, I think that's a very odd statement to make. If anything, being peaceful is a valuable change in itself. Are you really saying someone like Gandhi didnt't achieve anything?

Gandhi and Mandela and MLK are often brought up in these discussion, but what people often overlooked is that they were to a man backed by revolutionary/racial violence that forced colonialists/segregationists into negotiation with what they perceived to be the lesser evil. Without manifested threat of violence, the ruling class did not and would not concede any ground.

 

[RedPed]

Day 6



Not a good day for Chauvin. Very incriminating testimonies today.

 

[Carolina Red]

You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.

I cannot think of a single example in human history where being peaceful ever made something change. We only respond to violence and that’s because we’re reactive not proactive for the most part.

It shouldn’t be the case but it is.

Absolutely willing to listen to examples that prove me wrong though.

I’m not sure of any uses of violence campaigns in the American suffragist movement.

 

[matherto]

I’m not sure of any uses of violence campaigns in the American suffragist movement.

Whilst they themselves were proud of their non-violent approach, the fact that they were met with violence undoubtedly helped their cause. The British suffragettes certainly weren’t peaceful either.

Even if those trying to change things don’t espouse violence (similar to Gandhi @pierrethesnack ), there has to be violence involved to provide the catalyst for proper change, which is how I probably should’ve put it.

We still only properly respond after things get extreme, peace doesn’t do much on it’s own. People have to be deeply uncomfortable with the situation.

 

[Carolina Red]

Whilst they themselves were proud of their non-violent approach, the fact that they were met with violence undoubtedly helped their cause. The British suffragettes certainly weren’t peaceful either.

Even if those trying to change things don’t espouse violence (similar to Gandhi @pierrethesnack ), there has to be violence involved to provide the catalyst for proper change, which is how I probably should’ve put it.

We still only properly respond after things get extreme, peace doesn’t do much on it’s own. People have to be deeply uncomfortable with the situation.

Apologies, it seemed when you said “being peaceful has never brought about change” that you were talking about the group doing the outcry for change specifically.

 

[VeevaVee]

It goes to the reduction of severity of the incident (Floyd was calling out for his girlfriend, not his mother, so the incident couldn’t have made been too traumatizing for Floyd, trying to lessen the blow of his death). It goes to lessening the shock of the whole incident to the jurors.

These sort of shitty mind games with the jury surely makes a mockery of a justice system?

 

[calodo2003]

These sort of shitty mind games with the jury surely makes a mockery of a justice system?

It’s been happening since the very first trial by jury, it’s nothing new. It appears more weaponized & impactful the more sensational the trial is, but it’s basically what both attorneys are supposed to be doing, trying to sway minds. Cameras being recently installed in courtrooms in the past few decades has shone some light on the practice.

It will typically look worse for defense attorneys when they go to some extreme level, but winning hearts & minds of the jury is the name of the game. Both sides will push the envelope.

 

[matherto]

Apologies, it seemed when you said “being peaceful has never brought about change” that you were talking about the group doing the outcry for change specifically.

Yeah I worded it wrong in fairness. The ones wanting the change can be peaceful but it feels like there's always the escalation to violence that provides the necessary conditions for us to actually change something. And I guess the same thing applies to this as to my inital post, I'm willing tio be proven wrong.

Extremes sadly make the difference.

 

[shamans]

I'm afraid there will be reasonable doubt here.

 

[calodo2003]

I'm afraid there will be reasonable doubt here.

And you are saying this just from watching the defense with their crosses.

When it is their presentation, we may all feel this way, unfortunately. He will be relentless in his manufacturing of doubt.

 

[Carolina Red]

The ones wanting the change can be peaceful but it feels like there's always the escalation to violence that provides the necessary conditions for us to actually change something.

That’s a fair assessment I think

 

[Sky1981]

Gandhi and Mandela have the power of tens of millions behind them. Their silent disobedience is just "look what we can do with being silence, let alone if we started not to be silence". If gandhi and Mandela doens't have the majority behind them I doubt they'd go far.

 

[Sky1981]

Sometimes I wonder, how on earth can 12 common ordinary folks seems so well versed in laws that they can decide that it's "reasonable doubt", "technicalities", "lack of evidence" as if they're scientis of harvard Law school. A normal human being would have seen the video (both videos, before and during) and made up their mind, and no amount of "this exhibit is inadmissible please disregard this"

The sort of conditioning both sides are playing on the jurors is a grave injustice. It's all about who paints the best naratives

 

[calodo2003]

Sometimes I wonder, how on earth can 12 common ordinary folks seems so well versed in laws that they can decide that it's "reasonable doubt", "technicalities", "lack of evidence" as if they're scientis of harvard Law school. A normal human being would have seen the video (both videos, before and during) and made up their mind, and no amount of "this exhibit is inadmissible please disregard this"

The sort of conditioning both sides are playing on the jurors is a grave injustice. It's all about who paints the best naratives

That’s the essence of a jury trial, especially from the defense perspective. The burden is on the prosecution, the defense can adopt a purely deflective strategy in certain cases like these, try to mitigate the damage, then do a smash & grab on the counter for full acquittal. The defense is a smug cnut, but he isn’t out of line legally in the slightest. Morally, different argument to be had.

Chauvin should be found guilty on at least one charge though.

 

[pierrethesnack]

Gandhi and Mandela and MLK are often brought up in these discussion, but what people often overlooked is that they were to a man backed by revolutionary/racial violence that forced colonialists/segregationists into negotiation with what they perceived to be the lesser evil. Without manifested threat of violence, the ruling class did not and would not concede any ground.

Good point, I don't really have a good answer. Will think on it.

 

[Anustart89]

As I said I’m not giving sentence here saying ones right or wrong. I’m looking at the officers intent and the obvious struggle to withheld him. Sometimes you brain goes blank and obviously the cop made a mistake in his actions to handle the situation properly.

Don’t you just hate it when you get so distracted that you forget that your knee’s on a pleading man’s neck.

 

[calodo2003]

Is the prosecution able to call to the stand the other officers who took part in the murder?

 

[Pexbo]

Is the prosecution able to call to the stand the other officers who took part in the murder?

5th

 

[RedPed]

A great lesson in how dirty cops flim-flam their way out of any culpability...

 

[calodo2003]

5th

Gotcha. Makes sense.

 

[adexkola]

Gandhi and Mandela and MLK are often brought up in these discussion, but what people often overlooked is that they were to a man backed by revolutionary/racial violence that forced colonialists/segregationists into negotiation with what they perceived to be the lesser evil. Without manifested threat of violence, the ruling class did not and would not concede any ground.

And Mandela was in no way "peaceful". He went to Algeria in the 60s for training with the FLN.

MLK was non violence for sure but he was seen as the better alternative to Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. And they shot MLK anyways... So much for non-violence

 

[shamans]

Again, I think defense have a strong case here.

 

[RedPed]

Day 7

 

[2mufc0]

It's pretty damning when his colleagues are pretty much calling him out. Don't see a good argument for his actions here.

 

[Martial'sEmergingSmile]

It's pretty damning when his colleagues are pretty much calling him out. Don't see a good argument for his actions here.

The defence has 49 different Minneapolis Police officials who can be called next week. What we're seeing now are purely prosecution witnesses.

Despite that, I don't think it's been going well for the prosecution overall. Certainly not for the murder charges, which no longer even seem to be their focus.

Nicole McKenzie was a big mistake today...basically played like a heaven-sent defence witness. Nelson was able to use her to hit on just about every point they could have hoped for.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The whole slideshow from 4:29:39 onwards was nightmare fuel for the prosecution:


She agreed that people on meth had to be physically restrained until EMS arrived - that it's protocol to do so, admitted that fentanyl can be lethal even in tiny doses (prosecution tried to shut this down at 4:33:11), they talked about excited delerium and the importance of restraining people who were experiencing it as they frequently attack paramedics...also talked about bystander danger re: load and go - which seems ridiculous to me but perfect for the defence. (4:37:10, 4:41:26).

We also found out that George Floyd had taken at least 4.4mg of fentanyl (blood concentration: 11ng/mL peaking at 16ng/ml) within 30 minutes of his death, while the LD50 (Lethal Dose in 50% of humans) is around 2mg.

She was such a nightmare witness for the prosecution that Nelson literally told the judge on the spot that he would be calling her again next week as a defence witness - to relitagate the whole excited delerium thing that the prosecution objected to.

It was possibly the worst day so far for the prosecution.

Jody Stiger was their saving grace, making some good points about excessive force...but even he didn't survive cross too well, with his credentials being questioned and also admitting that, when seeing alternate angles, Chauvin's knee appeared to be on Floyd's back/shoulder rather than his neck.

 

[maniak]

Sometimes this whole thing is a bit surreal. Something that we've all watched on video is now being analyzed like a college debate competition, when it's not really about what we see with our own eyes, but something academical and theoretical, more about how both sides can argue and find really tiny details here and there that don't mean a thing but are analyzed as gotcha moments that can change the outcome.

Every single honest person knows he's guilty, so the chance that he walks because someone said "yeah sure, a guy on drugs can die from that" or a woman says "yeah sure people yelling can be distracting" and these affirmations are being seen as amazing moments for the defence is mind-boggling.

 

[Martial'sEmergingSmile]

Every single honest person knows he's guilty, so the chance that he walks because someone said "yeah sure, a guy on drugs can die from that" or a woman says "yeah sure people yelling can be distracting" and these affirmations are being seen as amazing moments for the defence is mind-boggling.

Guilty of what? Murder or negligence?

Also important to note the defence argument isn't 'a guy on drugs can die from that' (assuming you mean Chauvin kneeling) - it's 'he died directly from a drug overdose, consumed after being stopped by police.'

That's why it was such a big deal, and so contested by the prosecution, that the defence will be allowed to present this video of a 2019 arrest of George Floyd showing him doing the same thing - attempting to down whatever substances he didn't want police to find after being pulled over.

The camera angles showing Chauvin on Floyd's back and shoulder also makes up a big part of the defence.

I think he might get a manslaughter charge - and I think he, and the rest of the cops appear to have been negligent - but I don't see either murder charge sticking based on what's been presented so far (which, again, have been prosecution witnesses).

 

[maniak]

Guilty of what? Murder or negligence?

Also important to note the defence argument isn't 'a guy on drugs can die from that' (assuming you mean Chauvin kneeling) - it's 'he died directly from a drug overdose, consumed after being stopped by police.'

That's why it was such a big deal, and so contested by the prosecution, that the defence will be allowed to present this video of a 2019 arrest of George Floyd showing him doing the same thing - attempting to down whatever substances he didn't want police to find after being pulled over.

The camera angles showing Chauvin on Floyd's back and shoulder also makes up a big part of the defence.

I think he might get a manslaughter charge - and I think he, and the rest of the cops appear to have been negligent - but I don't see either murder charge sticking based on what's been presented so far (which, again, have been prosecution witnesses).

I understand all the legalities surrounding the case, but when I try to squeeze the whole thing, all that comes out is that those 12 people saw a man murder another man and now they are being asked if that's really what happened. It is, they saw it. Now the question is, will the defence confuse them enough or not. It's how the system works, I get it, and it's probably the best system we have right now, but in a case like this it's a hard pill for me to swallow.