Derek Chauvin trial

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by SOUTHGATE EAGLE

'Justice' is a concept that we are past agreeing upon these days. There's 'racial' justice and 'social' justice and other 'justices' which depend on Identity and ideology. Since morality, truth, fact and everything else, on top of 'justice' is now nothing more than an ego-related viewpoint, there's no hope of any agreement of what 'justice' construes..

I think it would be rather strange to think that this wasnt ever the case. Justice has always been defined by people in relation to ideas about what is and is not fair and been an ever changing field. There never has been a fixed concept of what is justice.

Its always been a conflicting series of discourses.

Morality, Truth and Facts are themselves largely defined by context and perspective. The idea that these things exist as anything other than subjective ideas is frankly absurdly out of step with Philosophical discourse

[SOUTHGATE EAGLE]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

I think it would be rather strange to think that this wasnt ever the case. Justice has always been defined by people in relation to ideas about what is and is not fair and been an ever changing field. There never has been a fixed concept of what is justice.

Its always been a conflicting series of discourses.

Morality, Truth and Facts are themselves largely defined by context and perspective. The idea that these things exist as anything other than subjective ideas is frankly absurdly out of step with Philosophical discourse

There's a difference between the wide and natural variety of individual opinion, flavoured by experience, upbringing, community, education and identity and what I was referring to; Identity Politics / Critical Race Theory, which believes all morality for all human individuals can be predicted by their various, immutable group characteristics and also views the world as a direct schism between those automatically condemned to oppression and those automatically clad in the sin of being oppressors, based solely on such immutable identifiable characteristics. One is a natural consequence of human individuality while the other is a catch-all, cultish invention which denies human individualism in the first place.

[mushroom]

Originally Posted by Skin Up

All 12 jurors must agree so a mistrial isn't out of the question but a not guilty verdict would be very surprising.

I can't see how any human can't see that he contributed to that man's death. It is really a case of how long he will get.

[Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by mushroom

I can't see how any human can't see that he contributed to that man's death. It is really a case of how long he will get.

Chauvin himself had already offered to plead 3rd Degree murder prior to the trial. (This maybe hearsay, as I can't say I've seen this anywhere)

I hope the Attorney General didn't screw up pushing for 2nd Degree.

[Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by Hedgehog

Chauvin himself had already offered to plead 3rd Degree murder prior to the trial. (This maybe hearsay, as I can't say I've seen this anywhere)

I hope the Attorney General didn't screw up pushing for 2nd Degree.

Looks like I read it in Skin Up's post:

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by SOUTHGATE EAGLE

There's a difference between the wide and natural variety of individual opinion, flavoured by experience, upbringing, community, education and identity and what I was referring to; Identity Politics / Critical Race Theory, which believes all morality for all human individuals can be predicted by their various, immutable group characteristics and also views the world as a direct schism between those automatically condemned to oppression and those automatically clad in the sin of being oppressors, based solely on such immutable identifiable characteristics. One is a natural consequence of human individuality while the other is a catch-all, cultish invention which denies human individualism in the first place.

Really? Having studied both Gender Theory and Social Constructionism I'd dispute that this is anything close to an accurate interpretation of Gender or Identity theory in common usage, except in a few of the fringe extremist movements.

It also pretty much entirely flies in the face of Critical Social Psychology / Theory which posits that individuals exists and are constructed in society through their social interactions on a continual basis, and that looking for individual senses of truth outside of these social and linguistic interactions is meaningless because you're effectively rooting around into entirely subjective and hypothetical concepts, the existence of which is predicated on the researchers on bias.

That the individual isn't 'included' isn't because individuals do not exist, but that they are essentially unknowable except through their actions and behaviours.

You might be referring to Cognitive Social Theory such as Tajfel who do identify that group identity and interaction, at its core operates on a self identification group selective bias, however that's far to complex to simply reduce down to 'Gender Identity'.

Its also a very poor, myopic interpretation of the political movement of Critical Race Theory and the mainstream influential views of Identity Politics - both of which celebrate the concept of the individual identity in opposition to the inherently flawed social scientific concept of observer-participant social science approaches.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

except in a few of the fringe extremist movements

A most apt description of Southgate's garbage far right shilling dressed up as faux intellectualism.

Reality is America was founded explicitly on the notions that only wealthy, white men were to be trusted with power whilst people of colour were intrinsically violent and possessions to be controlled and exploited. A sizeable minority of mostly white Americans still consider this to be true and hence see Chauvin as having done nothing wrong.

[Maz]

Originally Posted by hong_kong_hg

A most apt description of Southgate's garbage far right shilling dressed up as faux intellectualism.

Reality is America was founded explicitly on the notions that only wealthy, white men were to be trusted with power whilst people of colour were intrinsically violent and possessions to be controlled and exploited. A sizeable minority of mostly white Americans still consider this to be true and hence see Chauvin as having done nothing wrong.

Is that true? That many Americans see Chauvin as having done nothing wrong ?

[Another Oxted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Maz

Is that true? That many Americans see Chauvin as having done nothing wrong ?

I can imagine the second assumption being closer to the truth than the first

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by Maz

Is that true? That many Americans see Chauvin as having done nothing wrong ?

Sure is. I am not going to propagate their hate-filled garbage here, but plenty of far right figures with huge social media followings like Jack Posobiec and Andy Ngo loudly proclaim Chauvin is innocent (with every b*llocks conspiracy theory going), project that the left is using Floyd to start a race war (which is what they want of course) and some saying there will be "civil war" if Chauvin is not found innocent.

[hong_kong_hg]

A substantial minority of the US population gets their "news" from white supremacist hate-mongers like Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro.

To view the link you have to Register or Login

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[Eagle Black]

If he's found not guilty it's gonna kick off big time all over the states.

[917L]

Originally Posted by hong_kong_hg

A substantial minority of the US population gets their "news" from white supremacist hate-mongers like Alex Jones and Ben Shapiro.

To view the link you have to Register or Login

To view the link you have to Register or Login

Irrespective of where that came from, it's almost certainly accurate in its prediction

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by Maz

Is that true? That many Americans see Chauvin as having done nothing wrong ?

I think most people wouldn't really know what right or wrong actually is in this case, and are more politically motivated than interested in Jurisprudence or evidence.

I think anyone publicly claiming the 'man has done nothing wrong are f**king dangerous'. Its pretty clear from just an overview of the case that the entire trial will hinge on legal definitions of reasonable force and the degree to which the police are culpable for those detained and the methods of detention.

I can't see how anyone can even be remotely familiar with even the most facile elements of the case and not consider that it should be down to a jury to determine whether his actions were reasonable or not.

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by hong_kong_hg

Sure is. I am not going to propagate their hate-filled garbage here, but plenty of far right figures with huge social media followings like Jack Posobiec and Andy Ngo loudly proclaim Chauvin is innocent (with every b*llocks conspiracy theory going), project that the left is using Floyd to start a race war (which is what they want of course) and some saying there will be "civil war" if Chauvin is not found innocent.

I'm curious as to the idea of a race war, that somehow started by the left. How is it going to be an actual war along racially devised lines, if the white left and liberals are on the same side as Black, Latinos and Asian groups.

Isn't it just going to be the Racist war (in which everyone else sides against the Racists).

The Right and Racist F**knuckles supreme among them aren't even capable of seeing that even in their 'Racial Holy War' the divisions are pretty much going to be 'them' vs everyone else. They always assume that any group with a race based title is just like them (exclusionist, rather than seeking equal inclusion for all).

So you know what, anyone who uses that term Racial War - is actually really showing their colours, they're f**king racist white c**ts.

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by Eagle Black

If he's found not guilty it's gonna kick off big time all over the states.

It would appear to be quite a likely outcome, given the historical precedence, and in fairness, it'll take some impressive summing up to get around the idea that it was 'based on the evidence' unless there's some really compelling evidence by the defence that it was just coincidence that the guy died at the same time as being purposefully asphyxiated for nine minutes, whilst complaining to his restrainer that he cannot breathe.

Even his own Police force aren't standing by him. Because that is as close to a definition of unreasonable force as you'll ever see. I doubt that in many other countries it would even have gone to trial (the defendant would be pleading guilty and hoping for a lighter sentence).

Because he did it. Everyone knows that, he knows it, the police know it, his lawyers know it, the judge knows it, the jury know it, even those defending him as blameless know he did it. Alex Jones knows he did it - and that if anyone else other than a cop was on trial it'd be bang to rights (and that even if it was a cop with a white guy dead, that he'd be sent down).

So yeah, its quite likely that if he gets off, with a not guilty on a reasonable doubt defence, that its going to kick off big time in the US. The entire concept of the Justice and Judical system is on trial here (like it was with Rodney King).

The only thing that isn't going to kick off is 'White People' if he's found guilty, because most white people can probably live with it. Its only the nutterbutter neckbeard and looney tunes that are going to kick off.

[Vince Hilaire's Afro]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

I think most people wouldn't really know what right or wrong actually is in this case, and are more politically motivated than interested in Jurisprudence or evidence.

I think anyone publicly claiming the 'man has done nothing wrong are f**king dangerous'. Its pretty clear from just an overview of the case that the entire trial will hinge on legal definitions of reasonable force and the degree to which the police are culpable for those detained and the methods of detention.

I can't see how anyone can even be remotely familiar with even the most facile elements of the case and not consider that it should be down to a jury to determine whether his actions were reasonable or not.

Yes, it will be very difficult for a jury to look beyond the huge ranging wider issues of this case and apply fair and logical reasoning. On the one hand, you have people simply clinging to the symbolic 'I can't breathe' utterance and using that as a cast iron proof of deliberate intent by the police to cause harm through their failure to react. One wonders how many times police are told by suspects they are trying to restrain that they are in some degree of difficulty in an attempt to evade justice, and what the official response in those situations is.

On the other hand you have people who will go to great pains to describe the difficulties that the police face on a daily basis against people that can basically act like loose cannons in life or death situations, and of course the inevitable smear campaign against the victim's lifestyle habits.

The last thing anyone needs is another case swept under the carpet by the justice system. That would be a small victory indeed for the police if the evidence points to a conviction but Chauvin escapes with the standard failure to adequately punish an errant police officer. A win this time, but all it would do is reinforce the resentment towards them and foster yet more.

We also need to be guarded against a situation in which people feel they can act with impunity against a neutered police force scared to act in situations where the public needs protection. It's that ever swinging pendulum between human rights and order and control.

A delicate situation for the jury, and a heavy burden on their shoulders. A 'compromise' verdict is surely going to be the most likely outcome.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

I'm curious as to the idea of a race war, that somehow started by the left. How is it going to be an actual war along racially devised lines, if the white left and liberals are on the same side as Black, Latinos and Asian groups.

Isn't it just going to be the Racist war (in which everyone else sides against the Racists).

The Right and Racist F**knuckles supreme among them aren't even capable of seeing that even in their 'Racial Holy War' the divisions are pretty much going to be 'them' vs everyone else. They always assume that any group with a race based title is just like them (exclusionist, rather than seeking equal inclusion for all).

So you know what, anyone who uses that term Racial War - is actually really showing their colours, they're f**king racist white c**ts.

Couldn't agree more. The whole thing is a con to funnel money from the poor and middle class to the rich under the guise of "patriotism". The GOP is now just a party of racist grievance and grift, whilst millions of Americans buy the fear of "socialism" and non-whites and "libs" to be to blame for everything so continue to vote for them.

[hong_kong_hg]

Originally Posted by dogstar721

It would appear to be quite a likely outcome, given the historical precedence, and in fairness, it'll take some impressive summing up to get around the idea that it was 'based on the evidence' unless there's some really compelling evidence by the defence that it was just coincidence that the guy died at the same time as being purposefully asphyxiated for nine minutes, whilst complaining to his restrainer that he cannot breathe.

Even his own Police force aren't standing by him. Because that is as close to a definition of unreasonable force as you'll ever see. I doubt that in many other countries it would even have gone to trial (the defendant would be pleading guilty and hoping for a lighter sentence).

Because he did it. Everyone knows that, he knows it, the police know it, his lawyers know it, the judge knows it, the jury know it, even those defending him as blameless know he did it. Alex Jones knows he did it - and that if anyone else other than a cop was on trial it'd be bang to rights (and that even if it was a cop with a white guy dead, that he'd be sent down).

So yeah, its quite likely that if he gets off, with a not guilty on a reasonable doubt defence, that its going to kick off big time in the US. The entire concept of the Justice and Judical system is on trial here (like it was with Rodney King).

The only thing that isn't going to kick off is 'White People' if he's found guilty, because most white people can probably live with it. Its only the nutterbutter neckbeard and looney tunes that are going to kick off.

As I understand it, it will require a 12-0 unanimous verdict to convict. So only 1 juror needs to say 'not guilty' and Chauvin will walk free.

The right has demonstrated it needs very little persuading to become murderously violent and insurrectionist - indeed it did so on Jan 6 based on a pack of lies. The same people that radicalised millions are still at it, and it's a dead cert that whatever the verdict the right wing disinfo bandwagon will weaponise it to suit its agenda and radicalise people still further - it won't stop until it succeeds in otherthrowing democracy and installing minority, white supremacist autocracy.

[Hedgehog]

There is no way he is going to be found not guilty. The only question is to what degree of murder will he be found guilty of.

This is not like the OJ Simpson case where it was all forensics and reasonable doubt. This case is there for all to see and it comes down to what was going through Chauvin's head at the time.