People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.
The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.
There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.
The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.
The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.
Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.
So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.
Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.
Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.
To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.
In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.
Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.
The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.
The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.
Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.
For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.
Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.
The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.
If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.
You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.
