As you may have heard, the hero cop who kept that violent nigger thug George Floyd from escaping arrest was convicted on all three counts today. Over at Legal Insurrection, attorney Andrew Branca looks at the trial from a "strictly legal" standard (remember those?) and determines that the only just verdict was Not Guilty por tres.
The bottom line: If the verdict were based solely on the legal merits, the facts and law in this case, were I personally a juror I would have more than enough reasonable doubt to be unable to vote guilty on any of these criminal charges, for all the reasons of fact and law that I detail below.That said, this case left the “facts and law” train station quite some time ago, making where it will end up largely unpredictable in any realistic sense, especially given the political and social dynamics looking to drive this train clear off the rails.
He turned out to be right. Chauvin shamefully found guilty of "Felony Second Degree Murder":
Another way to look at this question is this: If Floyd had fought lawful arrest and placement in the back of squad car 320, but finally been secured in the vehicle, and thus never subject to prone restraint on the street—would he have died anyway? Was the physical struggle with officers, given the fragility of his cardiovascular system and his substantial (even if not acutely fatal) concentration of fentanyl enough to kill him, all by themselves, without any restraint whatever?Can we know that the answer to that question is no, and beyond a reasonable doubt? Because if we can’t, then we can’t conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin’s restraint of Floyd “caused” Floyd’s death—Floyd was already effectively dead before he was ever put on the street—and then we’ve failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that required element of felony murder.
Guilty of Third Degree Murder:
Specifically, third-degree murder requires a reckless disregard of the danger created to the victim by the defendant’s eminently dangerous conduct. If the state has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was eminently dangerous (which bring us back to the issue of causation, above) and that the defendant recklessly (consciously) disregarded that risk, then the state has not proven the crime of third-degree murder.Further, second-degree manslaughter requires that the defendant creates an unreasonable risk, and “consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm.” If the state has not proven that the defendant intentionally engaged in conduct that had a reasonably foreseeable risk of causing death or great bodily harm, then the state has not proven the crime of second-degree manslaughter.Both of these offenses require that the defendant engaged in conduct that was unreasonable, that created a foreseeable risk of deadly force harm, and that the defendant consciously incurred that risk or, alternatively, consciously disregarded that risk. If any of these conditions are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the underlying crime has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
You really should read the whole thing, it was written a few days ago and has (pardon the pun) the fatal knee to the neck shoulder of the innocent man violent thuggish nigger with this:
So given all this—the recent fight with the large and powerful Floyd, the dangers of the street traffic, the apparent danger presented by the hostile and threatening crowd, the unexpected delay in medical professionals arriving on scene—all of this must be considered among the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the officers’ continued restraint of Floyd was reasonable and justified.And to convict on third-degree assault, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that given the totality of the circumstances the continued restraint by Chauvin and the others was not reasonable and justified, either to effect a lawful arrest, or to meet their duty of care to a suspect in their custody.Incidentally, to the extent that the reasonableness of the officers’ continued restraint of Floyd under the totality of the circumstances is not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, that failure would also serve as a perfect defense to all the other criminal charges brought against the officers. If their use of force was not unlawful period, it cannot be the basis for an assault conviction, and therefore not as a predicate for felony murder, but also cannot be the basis for either second-degree manslaughter or third-degree murder.If reasonable, it’s not a crime, period.
What happened in Minnesota today was a politically motivated witch hunt, don't kid yourself: Branca notes in the live "gameday" thread regarding the verdict:
Very surprised no questions from jury at all, even on causation, suggests didn’t really consider the legal merits.
Between that and Mad Maxine Waters demanding a riot unless a conviction for a (not even filed) first degree murder charge took place (while FakePresident Biden says "hold my beer"), it's clear that there was no Justice for Derek Chauvin. When do whites start violent protests until we get our way?
On a related note, look what's happening on our side of the border with another (and even more) innocent white man, Pastor James Coates:
EDMONTON: The Justice Centre today announced that the trial of Pastor James Coates, of Grace Life Church, will proceed on May 3, 2021 at Provincial Court in Stony Plain, however the Court granted the Government’s request that Pastor Coates not be permitted to challenge the constitutional validity of Dr. Deena Hinshaw’s orders at the trial. The government will not be required to produce scientific evidence in support of Dr. Hinshaw’s orders. Government lawyers told the Court that the Alberta Government could not produce any scientific evidence in support of Dr. Hinshaw’s orders in time for the May 3 trial.
At least Chauvin was allowed to challenge the allegations made against him. By what possible argument can the government deny a constitutional challenge to a law on the basis that it's just wayyyyy too much work to try and justify it? Especially to then turn around and the rest of the trial can just go ahead and proceed as planned? If nothing else shouldn't the trial be delayed so that Coates and the JCCF can come up with a new defence?
Bad things come in threes, by the way, so let's go down south again and see how U.S. Sgt. Jonathan Pentland is being railroaded by another angry nigger mob and a corrupt justice system intent on punishing him for the crime of...telling a rapist to get lost?
The video is touted as another horrifying example of racism against an innocent young man who was “walking while black.” “We’re not going to let people be bullies in our community,” Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott told reporters. Many journalists and activists called Sgt. Pentland a bigot.But there’s more to the case. The black man was menacing the neighborhood in the week before the altercation, according to two police reports filed on him. One says he grabbed a woman by the waist and pulled her pants part-way down. Another says he snatched a baby from another woman and tried to run away with it.The sergeant told police he pushed the black man “in fear for his safety and the safety of his wife.” Neighbors reported to police that the alleged victim came up to them “in a threatening manner” and they asked the drill sergeant for help.A member of the black mob that surrounded Sgt. Pentland’s house heard a similar account. Dayterouis Gallmon told local media that a young woman rushed to Sgt. Pentland’s house and begged for his help after the black man assaulted her. Mr. Gallmon said he didn’t believe her.
#BelieveAllWomen is the first casualty when #NiggerLivesMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherfucker gets involved: it's not a coincidence that black men rape more than any other ethnic group on the planet.
Related: Brady White asks why anybody would be interested in going into policing. Stock up on ammo, folks.
