George Floyd’s death in 2020 while being arrested in Minneapolis, led to violent riots across American cities for months, leading to multiple deaths, vast amounts of property destruction, particularly of small businesses and – for all practical purposes the destruction of the Minneapolis CBD, as well as severe damage to the CBD’s of other small cities and, in the case of Chicago, one big city.
Given this, the trial of the police officer in charge of Floyd’s arrest, Derek Chauvin, on charges of second degree murder, is likely to be one of the more important trials in the history of the USA. If Chauvin is found not guilty, I have no doubt that the riots will be repeated across the USA. Whether the Democrat Party will move against them or not is a question mark, given that they will no longer be useful as a weapon to be wielded against a sitting GOP President.
For reasons of ideology – the demand of Critical Race Theory (and its street thug version, Burn Loot Murder) that America is a systemically racist country – and a simple and well-founded fear of the mob, the state forces of Minneapolis and Minnesota absolutely must obtain a conviction of Chauvin.
To this end the city and state have marshalled huge resources for the prosecution, with multiple lawyers and all the research backup one could want. That’s before we even consider whether a impartial jury can even be hoped for after this last year.
By contrast, Chauvin’s defence lawyer, Eric Nelson, is basically on his own, other lawyers and law firms having backed away from having any contact with the defence because they’re afraid of the mobs, both street and professional. This list includes numerous law firms that have gleefully provided pro bono legal defence to Islamic Jihadist terrorists over the years – and been applauded for that by their fellow trial attorney’s.
Yes, that’s how screwed up this whole system of law and order is, let alone justice, which is always something different from law and order.
The best source of analysis of the trial that you’re going to get will be Scott Johnson at the Powerline blog. The following link, The Chauvin Trial, includes past commentary as he analysed the lead up to the trial, including jury selection, and the latest updates going forward:
The reasons for following Johnson on this trial are as follows:
- He is a retired attorney with hundreds of trial cases behind him. He understands both the law and the tactics of a legal case fought in the courtroom, whether criminal or civil.
- He has been writing for twenty five years on public policy issues such as income inequality, income taxes, campaign finance reform, affirmative action, welfare reform, and race in the criminal justice system.
- He is a Minneapolis resident, so is intimately familiar with the local politics, law and people; the world in which judgement is going to be rendered on Chauvin.
- He is a right-winger, meaning more than simple membership of the GOP. This means he brings a perspective unlikely to be found in the MSM, especially here in NZ, where it will simply be Reuters/AP/WaPo channeled through the likes of the NZ Herald.
If you are at all interested in this criminal trial I strongly urge you to follow what Scott Johnson writes about it at Powerline.
No Minister 
I would also recommend people follow Alan Dershowitz’s Pod Cast on YouTube. “The DerShow”
Dershowitz who most famously defended OJ Simpson, was also a law professor for over 50 years..
It is all theatre – the facts of the matter irrelevant and the narrative everything.
What has come out so far is the police were dealing with a 6ft 4, 220lb man off his face on snowballs, a mixture of meth and fentanyl who was struggling and probably dying given the amount fentanyl in his system while being barracked by a hostile crowd while they waited for an ambulance, they had called to arrive…
… and it is turned into a tale of rascism
The United States is failing
Derek Chauvin. Not Murray Chauvin.
Fixed. Thank you.
Also “fellow trail attorney’s” should be “fellow trial attorneys” 🙂
Yes, yes, yes.! That word is a classic typo trap.
Good summary by Ben Shapiro below. I predict a hung jury as it appears unlikely that Chauvin will be found guilty of the charges as they stand unless the trial descends into a complete kangaroo court which is always a possibility in a Democrat controlled city. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxHcuRI_sYI
Great line: Law and order is not the same as justice. Brilliant.
The case against Chauvin is weak to say the least – it has been firmly established in the public mind through endless repitition that Officer Chauvin had his knee on Gorger Floyds kneck and while the viral video seems to support this or at least not contradict it the body cam footage and autopsy does – Floyd was pinioned by his left shoulder not his kneck
The “girlfriend” testified for the prosection this am, another junkie, dressed up to look like a librarian perhaps – but the defence cross hit the bullseye several times.
One score was while every one who has seen the video heard Floyd call out “Mama” as he died, they assumed he was calling for his mother but it turns out this is how he addressed this woman, he called her “Mama”
Another was she had to admit that he OD on the same snowballs in March and spent 10 days in hospital, one of the symptoms he displayed then was foaming at the mouth and police bodycam footage clearly shows occuring this long before he was put into the car, he was also complaining of not being able to breath again before being put into the car
A third piece of testimony from this woman was he got the drugs he OD on in March from the very same two people he was with on the day he died…
The defence guy is doing quite a good job IMHO, but whether or not justice prevails remains to be seen
Your humble opinion is not shared by Scott Johnston
Sgt. David Pleoger, Chauvin’s direct supervisor also disagrees with you.
Emphasis added.
Whether or not Floyd had a history of drug use or abuse, the penalty for that is not death by Police. A properly trained Police Officer would know how to deescalate and preserve life for all involved.
Well Adolf, Scott Johnson was not impressed by the defence’s opening statement nor the cross of the first bystander witnesses, three of whom were underage.
However he had more respect for the way he dealt with the off duty EMT, who the prosecution and media granted heroic status but in the end was thoroughly rebuked by the judge in the case for her combative attitude towards the defence attorney and who later appears in police body cam footage as being a right pain in the proverbial
The whole thing is going to come down to whether the jury agrees it was “the knee on the neck” or the drugs that killed this man and there is going to be hours and hours of mind numbingly boring expert testimony on this matter…
… the prosecution is trying to sway the jury with emotive testimony, it might work
But if there was no bystander video George Floyd’s death would be ruled either be an OD or perhaps even a Covid death
When I say the prosections case is weak it is because I know a big hurdle they have to overcome are the two lowlifes he was hanging with when this occurred and one or both of whom provided the “snowballs” he was off his face on.
Right now the prosecution who have control over the narrative can replay the bystander video of George Floyd dieing over and over but the defence will be able to show video of the preceeding 30 minutes and what the police were actually dealing with which includes the hostile crowd, George Floyd foaming at the mouth and resisting and the lowlifes who were with him when he was arrested
I don’t know how it comes out in the end – I was watching on NBC and in during a break they were promoting a documentary on threats posed by White supremacy and Neo Nazis to the USA which seems to me to be a dangerous thing to be stressing, it is almost as if someone is trying to get Americans to turn on each other along racial lines
Well Sir Loin it is easy for Sgt. David Pleoger to Monday morning quarter back at this point. He is after all going along with the crowd and taking the path of least resistance. He is retired now anyway
And I’m sure that all four of the officers directly involved would play it differently if they got a do over – but that is not the way life works, now is it?
The sad thing about this is the way this regrettable incident is being used to establish a narrative of white racism, even though one of the officers involved is Asian. As Tom notes whatever the outcome it will be used to reinforce that narrative.
Eric Talley, do you know that name? He was the cop shot in Boulder about a week ago, by an Arab. That doen’t fit the narrative of systematic racism, so he is quickly forgotten by all but his loved ones, whereas the entire planet is following this trial because it can be shaped to fit that construct
Luckily you and I do not have to deal with 6″4′, 220lb drug crazed indviduals so we can show our moral superiority by treating an individual who had to with the contempt he undoubtedly deserves for not dealing with the situation he faced in a manner that the pontificators in comfy newsrooms approve.
Andrei
You and Tom have clearly already come to your conclusions about the trial. In fact you seem to think there should not even be a prosecution. How about doing what the jury is doing, and wait for all of the evidence to come out before you do so.
After all none of us are (or should be) invested in this case, we are simply observers of the case.
I would note that in NZ if there was such a case and the charge was murder, the jury would have the option of entering a manslaughter conviction, if they were satisfied the offender did not have the intent to kill or was not recklessly indifferent to the risk of death. For instance the use of excessive force resulting in death would support a manslaughter conviction.
And just what conclusion do you think I have come to Dr Mapp?
Luckily for you. you don’t have to deal with drug crazed individuals on a daily basis or have people second guess your every move if it all turns to custard when you’re the man on the spot.who does have to protect you and your property from such an individual.
The world is an ugly place sometimes and there is no shortage of political whores waiting for opportunities to exploit that ugliness to advance their own agendas.
If you were to go into an ED room where they revive OD patients you would see they often restrain them and have a security guard present as they do it Watching the processs would not be a pretty sight, in fact would be downright disturbing…
Wayne is correct that none of us in NZ have any skin in the game, however the ramifications of the conclusion of this case could be quite profound, and in the interests of the study of human nature, the case is relevent.
Tom’s comment that “Law and order is not the same as justice” is quite apt. It was the first thing I was taught by a lawyer when I was doing a management paper for a degree.
I understand that the jury in the Chauvin case does have the option of a manslaughter conviction. It is very hard to imagine they won’t do that. Whether or not Floyd was high on meth is irrelevant to the nine minute knelling when he is already handcuffed and prone.
The only way he would not be convicted of the lowest charge is if the defence can show it is likely that Floyd died of something other than the neck compression. They will have to provide really solid evidence of that. From memory, when the defence raises a defence of this nature they have to do more than simply raise a reasonable doubt, they have show it is likely that the victim died from another cause. It is one of the areas within a criminal case where the burden shifts to the defence even though the overall test for criminal cases is that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. However, I might be wrong on how the burden (and standard) shifts within a criminal case.
Let’s assume the defence does raise a reasonable case that Floyd died from another cause. It won’t exempt Chauvin from the excessive force issue, though that might require a new and different case. In the circumstances the prosecution would lay another charge.
I’m guessing you have a Phd in naivite Wayne – it is a political necessity that this man be offerred up as a sacrifice to try and appease the Mob, which is foolishness because the bloodlust of mobs is never satiated
And everything thing but the kitchen sink is being thrown at this case and the cases against his collegues to meet that end
. There are 17 prosecutors assigned to this case with virtually unlimited resources, while the defendant has only his attorney assisted by a young woman admitted to the bar less than a month ago
He was convicted by the media nearly a year ago who have replayed the bystander video on endless loop and continue to do so while ruthlessly suppressing any exculpatory evidence.
It is the Dreyfus affair in 21st century American format
Facts and statutes will have little to do with the eventual outcome which will be urban ghettos where lawless reigns and law enforcement dare not set foot
Wayne the facts of the case are the police officers were dealing with a very large man, off his face on drugs, on a busy intersection with traffic flowing past mere inches away. being baracked by a hostile crowd while they waited for an ambulance to arrive
This is not a situation commly encountered in the ivory towers of university common rooms or the drawing rooms in leafy suburbs and not something you would be able to handle I would humbly suggest
Andrei
During my university student years (early 1970’s) I spent 4 months at what was Oakley mental hospital as a nurse aid. Mostly in M3. This was the ward for the criminally insane. A very violent place. Things happened there that would never happen today. The hospital was closed because of the problems.
So you should not make too many assumptions about my experiences.
I should add that I was sufficiently concerned about what was happening, that I wrote to the then Minister of Health, Bob Tizard. At that stage I was active enough in politics to have previously met him. An Inquiry was held. I like to think that I helped in the ultimate closure of Oakley. Think of “One flew over the Cuckoos Nest”, except much worse.
There you go Wayne, the world can be an ugly place at times.
Oakly I’m sure was an ugly and disturbing place. The mental hospitals were reduced in size and the patients discharged into the community but that just shifted the problems to the streets and the prisons…
… it didn’t fix them
You decided not to devote your life to mental health but law and politics, I don’t blame you, I wouldn’t want to work in that arena either. Its why I’m an engineer, metal and machines are easier to deal with than people
But what do you do with the Graeme Burtons of this world? They exist, they are dangerous and the general public needs protection from them.
I guess what gets under my skin is when people in the front line, is when those tasked by society and who put their lives on the line have to tackle a pyschotic individual then have the spotlight shone upon them after the event because of a bad outcome
When you look at that bystander video, you see the defendant in this case looking around and you see cruelty and indifference
I see a man who has found himself, through no fault of his own in a very bad space, dealing with a very large psychotic individual and with a hostile and growing crowd to one side of him and moving traffic in close proximity to the other, scanning for threats
George Floyd’s family has hit the jackpot, they received a huge payout though they had little to do with him in life while four police officers have had their lives ruined
Wayne below is a famous picture
If you tell someone who has not encountered it before that you are going to show them a picture of a toung woman that is what they will see
However if you tell them you are going to show them a picture of an ugly old woman then that is what they will see
Maiden/crone
Now with this incident we have been told ad infinitum we are seeing an example of systematic racism or something, rather than it being a grim illustration of urban blight and the impact the opiod crisis is having on the population in lower socio ecomic groups
Well that is my perspective anyway
Remember, whatever in the USA there are many different racial extractions in the Police Force but only one Black man, and that is all that matters in this case.
It’s quite a mis-reading of my post to claim that I’m making an assumption that Chauvin’s is innocent and not thinking that a trial is needed at all, but then I should be used to that by now from Wayne.
In fact my assumption ran in the other direction for some time as I started off thinking it should be a manslaughter charge, but then decided that 2nd degree murder was more appropriate, as you can read in my post, Time it was upped to 2nd Degree Murder!.
I decided that on the basis of MSM coverage when I should have known better that their reporting, as usual, was hysterical, overblown and just plain wrong on the facts, let alone having all the facts. The “independent autopsy” was simply a long-retired coroner-for-hire with a history of telling his clients what they want to hear.
Just a few months later it became apparent that such “facts” were bullshit, and the prosecutors had known that for some time, which makes conviction on such a charge very difficult to obtain.
I stand by my claim that Chauvin was a thug in blue who should have been turfed for earlier behaviour, but manslaughter is the appropriate crime here. Of course there is the question mark over the other three officers, two of whom are mixed-race (not that that should matter but in this world it does) and university graduates in sociology; just the sort that the police are trying to hire, but then the MPD is clearly not in good shape when it comes to hires, as the Mohamed Noor case showed when he gunned down the innocent Aussie woman a few years ago.
You start from the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and what I do know from over 30 years as a JP and currently 9 years as the holder of a Judicial warrant that you need to be there in person and listen to the evidence in total before you can reasonably make a call as to guilt/innocence. You listen to the evidence and the cross. You look at body language. You listen to closing submissions and then you stand back and evaluate everything against the law as it stands.
And relying on the media or someone else’s take on a case to support own view on guilt/innocence is fraught with difficulty. The media ain’t noted for accuracy in reporting. Indeed, this month I sat on a case in Rotorua. The media confused us, as the appellant authority, with the respondent and also referred to an earlier decision of ours as saying something it definitely did not say.
Having said all that I guess it has to be tempered against the fact this case is being held in another jurisdiction with other forces in play.
Tom,
Fair cop.
I think a second degree murder conviction could be quite difficult. The accused has to intend death or at least be reckless about that prospect. I guess the latter point will definitely be in play. The jury may be convinced that in the circumstances Chauvin was reckless.
Manslaughter, which simply requires an unlawful act, would seem to be an almost certain conviction. The only way the defence can succeed is by showing credible evidence that Floyd died from some other cause. Highly unlikely. The prosecution would be be able to say a heart attack was bought on by the neck compression, and the resulting panic of Floyd.
If such a case happened in New Zealand, I reckon the defendant would plead guilty to manslaughter in the hope of a reduced penalty due to the guilty plea. I think that just about any defence lawyer would raise that option given the highly probable likelihood of a conviction in the event of a not guilty plea.
I know some people are of the view that the preceding events and the drug use are hugely important. I don’t think they will be. The focus of the case will be on the nine minutes after Floyd was handcuffed and prone on the ground. I know the defence will focus on these other issues, but I doubt whether they will sway the jury that much.
They have. occurred here – there was litigation before the courts as recently as last year over the Stevan Wallace shooting, whch occurred in 2000 of course.
Well obviously any fair person would think the context surrounding the final nine minutes both before and after is hugely important and the fact that you don’t is deeply disturbing – it suggests you are not interested in truth and justice but just getting ther “right” outcome
Have you actually watched any of the proceedings or are you relying on CNN or whatever
News propaganda source you get your information from?If you were keeping up you would know that the prosecution introduced edited body cam video into evidence last week and the defence has a motion before the bench to introduce the full body cam video, unedited. What do you make of that?
Also the defence is awaiting a ruling where bodycam video of a previous arrest where the deceased swallowed drugs and ended up in hospital is admissable
What worries me is what will sway the jury is not the facts the thought they will get their house burned down if they don’t return the desired verdict
Without the bystander video this would be a straight forward death from drug overdose but the video appeared like manna from heaven to the political grifters who stir racial disharmony to advance their power and who will eventually lead the USA into civil war
Here watch this cross examination of a prosecution star witness (you wont of course because it would bring about cognative disconnect)
Riveting stuff Andre. Thank You.
She has an axe to grind….and interesting to see the defence attorney picking away at her credibility.
Reminded me of Wayne being an expert on mental health when he had only been in the job as an 18 year old for 3 months but formed definitive opinions
Andrei
Are you aware in a manslaughter charge how relatively minor the unlawful act has to be?
So long as the prosecution can a direct link between the unlawful act (excessive force) and the death, then the jury can find the defendant guilty.
In short, in this case the prosecution has to show the use of force was excessive. If they can then that is an unlawful act.
That is why I think the defence had an uphill battle. The issues you refer to are basically irrelevant to that point.
Please note that I am referring to the manslaughter charge, not the murder charge. Naturally the murder charge is of greater concern to the defendant. Murder has a much greater stigma and a much longer sentence.
Rossco,
I was proved right. Oakley and M3 were closed relatively soon thereafter, because of the ongoing problems. Incidentally when I was at Oakley I was 21, and had done 3 years at University, including clerking at a small law firm.
In the previous summer I had done my 3 months basic military training as a volunteer, plus numerous specialist courses. Prior to that I worked in sawmills, forestry contracting and agricultural contracting (picking up hay) since I was 16. I had a reasonably wide cross section of work with all sorts of people.
Wayne;
You left out the “beyond reasonable doubt” part.
And therein lie the problems
(1) Were the officers actions unlawful?
and
(2) did they lead to George Floyd’s death
“beyond reasonable doubt”
Today the prosecution produced a still extracted from the bystander video when questioning the Minneapolis Chief of Police, a horrendous image that shocks and inflames
In response during cross the defence showed the portion of the bystander video from whence it came matched with the bodycam video from Officer Kueng and the Police Chief had to concede that it showed the knee not on George Floyds neck but his left shoulder blade
During cross of the ED doctor who prounounced death the defence probed the good doctor on the effect of taking drugs rectally – WTF ask those who are not paying attention but those that are awake know the answer lies within the police bodycam footage and maybe there is more to come for alI know
Expect to see in the fullness of time discussions on shoving street drugs up your bum, in decorous language of course
But the actual verdict delivered by the jury will not have much to do with comparing actions to statutes, we might pretend thus for to do otherwise would rock our comfortable certainties – inreality though it could well be about fear of the mob and the consequences of not going along to get along
Throughout human history when the peasants get restless the rulers throw them a scapegoat, like Simon Sudbury during the peasants revolt – you might think we are more sophistcated than 14th century people but we are not really, we just have more things and live a lot longer
Andrei
“Reasonable doubt” has a different meaning to what you think. For the defence to raise a reasonable doubt as to the cause of death, they have to bring forward credible evidence that Floyd died of a different cause than neck compression.
This is what I meant by the shifting of the burden of proof.
The defence will have the burden of proof that there was another plausible cause of death. It is not just a question of raising the question. They have to bring forward credible medical evidence that Floyd did in fact die of this other cause. It takes credible evidence to be able raise a reasonable doubt. It has to be more than conjectural. Simply pointing to previous drug use or heart issues won’t be enough. They will have to show these things could have actually caused Floyd’s death, separate and aside from the neck compression. As has already been pointed out to you in another comment this could be a case of “eggshell skull”. The law accepts that victims will have vulnerabilities and if they make a death more likely in a death that was primarily initiated by an unlawful act then that is sufficient.
The Judge will cover all these things in his summing up to the jury. You can be sure that the Judge will take an exemplary approach, both for the defence and prosecution, in his summing up knowing the eyes of the world are upon him. I know enough about judicial reasoning and practise to be certain about this.
As I have indicated, I personally doubt the jury will convict on the count of second degree murder, but will convict on the count of manslaughter.
tsk tsk tsk Patronizing
What is amazing to me about this comment in its totality is how revealing it is of how little you actually know about this case , its background and the issues before the court
You talk about closing Oakley with pride and there is no doubt Oakley was a horrible place where horrible things happened but closing Oakley and its ilk does not address the underlying problems they were built to address in the first place and you don’t seem to have the whit to see that
Warehousing a dangerous individual in Paremoremo prison, which is a horrible place where horrible things happen, instead of Oakley, what is the diffrence?
Is allowing the totally dysfunctional to live under motorway bridges more humane than institionalizing them?
These are not questions that I can answer and I wouldn’t even know where to begin in figuring out how to turn someone like Graeme Burton into a functional contributing member of society
I’m just glad I don’t have to deal with him in my neighbourhood
I am reading enough to get a reasonable sense of the evidence in the trial. But I am not watching it. I don’t need to do so to know how the law applies in these situations.