I wish the politicians would keep quiet; Waters has been especially egregious. At least Biden’s actions were private; I would think it hard to trigger a mistrial on statements that weren’t made publicly (even if they were made public).
If Chauvin had let up after, say, 6 minutes Floyd would still be alive. He is the primary cause of death. The only question would be if he was justified in kneeling on Floyd’s neck for the amount of time that he did.
Who cares what Waters said? Nixon said Manson was guilty and that didn’t nullify the verdict.
I haven’t heard anything so far that should create a mistrial in this case. I do, however, think that responsible people who have a national platform have only one “right” thing to say.
We watched the Cheeto-Faced Shit-Gibbon and his minions whip their followers into a frenzy, and the 1/6 Capitol riots (and a half-dozen deaths) were the result.
Public figures should all be calling for peace, and actively asking people not to engage in any criminal activity regardless of the verdict.
I think Waters’ comments were on the wrong side of that line, if not by much.
“No Drama” Obama served the nation chamomile tea. The Shit-Gibbon gave us Red Bull – WAY too much Red Bull.
More Red Bull is the last thing this country needs right now.
Not saying the state has to prove any of that, but they had to address those issues because it goes to the idea of “substantial”. Was Chauvin responsible for 100%? 60%? 30%? 10%? How is the jury going to define “substantial”?
If the state didn’t feel it was necessary, why go on for 20 minutes about how scared Floyd was to get into the car, how Floyd was really cooperative and the police were being unreasonable by arresting him? I think they know that is a hole in their case and they never quite figured out how to fill it.
The jury room ought to be interesting, would love to have a camera in there.
Oh, see, I take that whole line of evidence as answering a completely different question.
On top of the elements of each crime there is also the consideration of whether Chauvin’s actions were a “legitimate use of force”. So the entire dicussion about whether Chauvin was following training, whether the arrest was legitimate, whether and to what extent Floyd was resisting is all there to eliminate that defense. It has nothing to do with whether Chavin’s actions caused the death.
If the jury finds that Chauvin was using a legitimate amount of force in his actions as a police officer then none of the other questions matter - he must be acquitted.
To me, after watching way too much of the trial, I’m reasonably sure I would find that Chauvin’s actions were not a legitimate use of force. And that his actions were a substantial cause of Floyd’s death. So then the question is about “intent to commit assault” (for the 2nd degree murder charge) and “reckless indifference” and “depraved mind” (for the 3rd degree murder charge). I haven’t reached a clear conclusion about those, particularly the 3rd degree murder one since it seems clear that law was intended for a different sort of untargeted action than what actually happened here.
At least one judge cares. I am no expert so the judge may be way out of line but it’s troubling. There’s no real reason for Waters to be making these statements; it’s just political grandstanding. She should be asking for calm and waiting until the jury decides before offering her opinions.
i’m wondering if the jury will try a little reenactment…
For a family who lost a loved one, with a former police officer on trial for his death, what would “[coming] out to be OK” look like under the present circumstances? What is the “OK” that Biden was referring to?
But Nixon was white.
It’s hard to separate how much of the complaining about Waters is “politicians shouldn’t be saying anything” versus “that angry Black woman should stay in her place and not be so angry.” I’m sure everyone is convinced that their own complaints about Waters have zero to do with race, but I’m not sure that would hold up under honest introspection.
Minneapolis has agreed to pay an unprecedented $27 million to the family of George Floyd. I think a verdict that agrees with the city’s decision would be OK.
Well, it’s hard to say since we only have a quote from Floyd.
My supposition is that he talking about the grieving process, but I guess he could be talking about the legal process. I base this on the “He knows that the process of what we’re going through” part. Joe Biden obviously doesn’t know about the process of having someone on trial for the murder of a family member, so it must be about the process of recovering from the loss of a loved one, right?
I don’t know to what extent the results of the trial will help or hurt the Floyd family with their grief. I’m sure a full acquittal would be painful to them, but it’s not clear that a conviction will actually ease their pain. Fortunately I have never been in that situation, so it’s hard for me to speculate.
My concern with Waters’ comments aren’t really about commenting on what she thinks the result should be. That’s obviously perfectly fine, and lots of politicians have done that in well-publicized cases. I don’t think that the comments encouraging repercussions if the verdict is not what she would prefer are helpful, since they may prejudice the jury against a not-guilty verdict if they feel personally (or indirectly) threatened with violence.
Now, obviously the general fear of violence from black protesters is a racial issue, and I have no doubt that is part of some people’s reaction to the comments. Folks hear “get confrontational” about a BLM protest and they have a different reaction than “get confrontational” from an Oath Keepers rally.
We also need to be careful about making everything about race. My concern is almost entirely based on the judge’s response.
It’s possible that Nixon got away with his statements because the media circumstances were different, as were our ethics. I’ll guess that if Biden made public statements similar to Nixon that there would be an outcry.
In the case of a BLM protest, “get confrontational” means protesters shouting at police, pushing barriers, throwing stuff, risk of property damage and looting by potential opportunists.
In the case of Oath Keepers, “get confrontational” means somebody is going to get shot. Like that fucking idiot kid who went to a BLM rally and shot several people, killing at least one. I’m also thinking of Unite the Right rallies where vehicles are used as weapons.
Yes, I understand and largely agree with that. I think I will stop contributing to the side discussion regarding Maxine Waters’ comments since I think it’s far enough from the point of this thread (particularly the racial implications) that it would only detract.
Have folk heard anything anticipating how long the jury is expected to be out? Anyone have any guesses?
I’ve heard (and I don’t recall where I heard this) that the rule of thumb is 1 day of deliberation per week of trial. 3 weeks of trial = 3 days of deliberation.
I have no idea if that rule of thumb bears out if you look at past trials.
Reality = there is no telling how long they will deliberate
According to the NYTimes Biden has publicly said the evidence against Chauvin is overwhelming. Biden has said that it’s ok to make the statement because the jury has been sequestered (is that true?). I’m still not a fan of the remarks (even though I agree with him) but if the jury is sequestered then that shouldn’t have any bearing on a mistrial.
Unless OJ Simpson is on trial. 
That’s pretty much it.
There’s a long history of public figures and political public figures saying stuff about ongoing trials. Sometimes stupid stuff, sometimes inflammatory stuff, sometimes not so stupid or inflammatory. Especially during the past four years.
And what Rep. Waters said wasn’t actually all that bad. If Chauvin is acquitted, yes, goddamn right there needs to be some confrontation. And that isn’t inherently a call to violence.
And, in any even, do we know the jury heard it? I expect they were told not to watch the news or read the papers. Or online news, whatever.