So you think that their supposed knowledge affected their view of the evidence. Jury Foreman: "Before we start, let me suggest that we better vote to convict the guy despite our real belief that he was obviously innocent, because there will be riots if we don't?" And what narrative did they buy into? The false evidence of their eyes, the lying testimony of medical experts and other cops? Or were those witnesses victimized by the same false narrative? Face facts: Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck and caused his death in violation of procedure, common sense and, the jury decided, the law. What's your narrative? Floyd would have died that day, at that precise time, anyway? The knee in the neck was just a coincidence?
It would seem that a bad faith reading of the other person's opinion is nearly a requirement for a dialog...or one would suppose from your response.
First, there is no "supposed" about it. All of us are aware of the prolonged rioting, arson, and violence initiated upon George Floyd's death, and the last year of threats and periodic violence there and elsewhere. Sequestering a jury over a few weeks (even if successful) does not wipe out the jury knowledge of the year of BLM rage and violence from their memory.
Second, your theatrical strawman quoting the presumed words of a jury foreman is a obvious strawman. None of us have speculated on what the foreman said or did not say, nor if anyone on the jury conversed about their fears. However, given the quick judgement and feckless examination of the evidence and the nuances of causality in the law, wrapped up in a mere 10 hrs., it is clear that consciously or unconsciously at least some of them didn't want to arrive at any conclusion that would expose them or the city to more arson and rioting.
Third, the narrative that they bought into after a year of incessantly emotional and violent messaging was that Chauvin was an appalling monster and implicit racist, and that is enough to punish him.
Four, I have no trouble facing facts, but I do have a problem believing narratives and social tropes that refuse to use the facts. For example you stated,
"
Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck and caused his death in violation of procedure, common sense and, the jury decided, the law. What's your narrative? Floyd would have died that day, at that precise time, anyway? The knee in the neck was just a coincidence?".
Except that Chauvin mostly knelt on Floyd's back and shoulder area, and as the trial proceeded that became so clear the prosecution changed from saying "the neck" and referring to the placement as "neck area" rather than neck per se'. And while there was testimony that Chauvin should have put Floyd on his side after being in a facedown prone position, it is ambiguous as to exactly when that is supposed to occur when it is a matter of subjective judgement over mitigating reasons.
So no, my narrative is not that Floyd would have died that day. My narrative is that it is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt that he could have died from all the other major health threats Floyd had, in combination with his large (and potentially lethal) fentanyl level combined with the 20 minutes of his fighting and resisting to stay out of the police car. It is my narrative that he could have expired in the police car itself, as (I recall) he started complaining about his breathing at the conclusion of that struggle.
After reviewing the evidence, as well as some studies, it is clear that Floyd was a ticking time bomb for a stroke, heart attack, or arrhythmia. It is also clear that it is rare for anyone to die from being restrained face down, as the Canadian study demonstrated. And when there are conflicting peer studies on positional asphyxia even being a likely threat, then there is room for reasonable doubt about the whole thesis of the prosecution.
Finally, the greatest evidence of the indifference of the jury to fair application of the law is in their conviction for 2nd and 3rd degree murder. That simply does not fit the "proven" facts as had to be based on either fear or emotional animosity.
mercatornet.com
over and over I've said I saw no evidence of racism from Chauvin but the video and his actions clearly showed murder. How am I bigoted or making it about racism?
