There is no way Judges could ignore this permanently.

If they do, it will be a free-for-all for activists to try and get on juries and slip through voir dire.

Then I predict that he walks.  I don’t think after this he would have any chance at a fair trial.  It would be constant appeals.  I figure they will let him plead to some misdemeanor just to make it go way.

Then the Blue cities will burn but I won’t care about that.

And I want to make this clear, I’m not defending what Chauvin did.  I think the manslaughter charge was valid.  I refuse to let the activist Left destroy our judicial system. I’d rather let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted unjustly by an activist mob.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

14 thoughts on “Chauvin will walk on appeal”
  1. “I’d rather let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted unjustly by an activist mob.”

    That’s what the Founders believed, too, which is why we have the system we have. Trial by Media and Trial by Mob need to stop.

  2. I don’t know if Chauvin is guilty of a crime or not, but I do believe he didn’t get a fair trial.

  3. As a former peace officer, who had to work under one of the most oppressive Use of Force Policies in the Nation, I say, NO charge should have EVER been brought. There were only two questions to be asked. Question one is. Did the officer’s actions lead to the suspect’s death? Answer: The medical examiner reported NO injury to the neck, No injury to the trachea, and a boat load of fentanyl and speed in floyd’s blood. So answer to question one, is NO. Second question is, was the officer action within training or accepted Departmental policy for the kneeling on a suspect’s shoulders? The answer during the trial was YES. So, the officer was acting upon training and policy for his Department, AND floyd died of a drug overdose. So,, Where is the basis for manslaughter charge?

  4. I don’t think he’ll walk. The DemonKKKrat mob has already stacked the deck far to high in their favor & the system is f***ed.

    Welcome to the Banana Republic of Amerika.

  5. You’re entitled to your opinion, even when it’s wrong.

    George Floyd died of a drug overdose. The evidence presented at the trial made this very clear.

    He may have even lived were it not for the angry mob that occupied the cop’s attention when they should have been paying attention to Floyd as well as convincing the ambulance crew that the location wasn’t safe and prompting them to drive three blocks away before rendering aid.

    Chauvin acted within department policy and training. Also made clear at the trial.

    The entire prosecution revolved around emotion and opinion, not the facts of the case.

    Chauvin was guilty of nothing more than doing his job. He was using a standard technique he was trained to use in restraining a combative and resisting subject while at the same time keeping a wary eye on a mob of angry, unruly bystanders while waiting for the arrival of the ambulance that they called.

    Unfortunately, in an effort to eat the evidence, while resisting arrest Floyd ingested a lethal amount of fentanyl and succumbed to the overdose while awaiting the arrival of the ambulance.

    As the previous commenter noted, there was no physical damage to Floyd’s body whatsoever that indicated Chauvin ever harmed him or put enough pressure on him to prevent him from breathing.

    Even if you believe that the restraint was unwarranted, excessive, or unnecessary, in light of the lethal levels of fentanyl in Floyd’s system, as well as his extremely fragile health (high blood pressure, enlarged heart, coronary artery disease, etc) there is no way that anyone can prove that the restraint was the cause of Floyd’s death beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That’s the standard, and under that standard, Chauvin should have been acquitted.

    1. My thoughts on the manslaughter charge stem from Floyd being in custody. He was at that point under the protection of the police. Chauvin should have realized he was in distress, even from an OD. You don’t kneel on a man and watch him OD or have a heart attack without applying life saving measures. It was negligent in my opinion.

      1. But if the suspect is non-compliant and combative — and conscious and strong enough to be non-compliant and combative — there’s not a lot of life-saving measures you can safely employ. They’d have to un-cuff him to perform CPR, and even on the ground Floyd was fighting enough to continue needing the cuffs. It’s reasonable to assume that if the suspect is still fighting, then he doesn’t need CPR. (The first thing they tell you in any CPR class, is that you DO NOT perform CPR on a healthy person.)

        The cops did — according to testimony — recognize Floyd was high and possibly overdosing, but they don’t carry Norcan and didn’t have it available (and probably aren’t trained to administer it). The EMTs do, but the crowd was making it unsafe for them to get there. Additionally, the cops believed — because they were told by dispatch — that the EMTs were en route and just a few minutes out; they had no way of knowing it would be upwards of 10 minutes for EMTs to arrive, and another several minutes for them to move to a safer location (“load and scoot”) before starting treatment.

        Could the cops have done better? Probably; in hindsight there were errors, mostly caused by breakdowns in communications. But the law doesn’t demand they be perfect — only reasonable — and in my opinion, in that moment, based on what they observed and were told at the time, they acted reasonably and did what they could.

        And even if it was negligent, that’s only the manslaughter charge. Chauvin was found guilty of all three charges — including two murders — for just the one death. That defies logic and reason.

      2. I second Archer’s reply below and add one additional thought:

        Is it reasonable to expect the cops to provide first aid to a suspect in the face of an angry and potentially violent mob?

        I know that were I in that situation, I’d be reluctant to put all my attention on first aid, when I could be attacked by a mob at any second.

        That’s the same reason the Ambulance crew did the mentioned “load and scoot” that further delayed treatment for Floyd. You think it reasonable that the Ambulance crew deemed it too dangerous to provide aid right then and there…even though there were police officers there to back them up, but unreasonable for the police, who WERE the backup and had no one else to watch their backs, to make the same determination? On what grounds is the the same decision under the same circumstances reasonable for one group but unreasonable for another?

        One more point…something else that came out in the trial: Chauvin was restraining Floyd using a (sanctioned and trained) knee restraint, but was paying most of his attention to the angry mob. There is bodycam video of when the other officer (I believe it was Kueng) checked Floyd’s pulse and reported he couldn’t find one, the audio makes it clear that Chauvin didn’t understand him and it was never clarified.

        I can’t find the transcript of the audio now, but from what I remember it went something like:

        Kueng: “I just checked his pulse and I can’t find one”

        Chauvin: “What?”

        Kueng: “I was checking his pulse”

        Chauvin: “OK”

        So, it is not certain that Chauvin was ever aware that Floyd had no pulse.

        Again, this audio was played during the trial so the jury was well aware of it. They just chose to ignore it, as they ignored every other item of exculpatory evidence that undeniably led to reasonable doubt.

  6. Echoing what others have commented, I’d have had a hard time voting to convict of ANY of the charges. Even the manslaughter charge. The drugs in Floyd’s system and the unruly crowd — making an unsafe situation which delayed medical care — both contributed to Floyd’s death more than any of the officers’ actions. Plus, those actions were standard protocol for non-compliant, drugged/intoxicated suspects.

    Based on the multiple angles of photos and video, it’s my considered, experienced-but-not-expert opinion that Chauvin was kneeling over Floyd, not on him. It’s a restraint/control technique, using his body weight to limit Floyd’s movements; it’s not necessary to hold him down, just hover to prevent him getting up. Like handcuffs, they don’t need to so tight they cut off circulation, just tight enough to not come over the hands.

    (As evidence, video shows Chauvin “shifting his weight” to “stay on top of Floyd” as the latter was wiggling. If Chauvin were actually kneeling with his weight on Floyd, Floyd wouldn’t have been able to wiggle, and Chauvin would have less need to shift. But Floyd could wiggle, and Chauvin did need to continually adjust to stay over him.)

    So other than being an @$$hole — which he arguably was — Chauvin didn’t do anything illegal or against accepted-at-the-time protocol. Being an @$$hole isn’t a crime.

    I concede it’s possible that even that low-pressure restraint contributed to Floyd’s demise, but with all the other factors at play it’s impossible to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Without proving beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict should have been “Not guilty”.

    Just my $0.02.

Login or register to comment.