So the verdict went mostly as I expected it to go. I didn't expect murder charges to stick and that may change on appeal. If that was it I'd have nothing to post on. However; this post is really about those, particularly on the right who are apparently shocked at the outcome. Apparently, they thought that Chauvin would be found not guilty on all charges. I don't know what trial they were watching but there is no way you could have watched the proceedings and think acquittal across the board.
One reason I think these individuals thought Chauvin was going to get off was that in general the general differences in attitudes towards criminals and criminal behavior in white America vs that in black America. Generally speaking, white Americans are not very sympathetic to their criminal class. Whites as a group commit very few violent crimes relative to whites and thus are far less likely to not only HAVE a criminal in the family but are also far less likely to actually KNOW a criminal personally. This allows that community to have a "well if you involve yourself in criminal activity then what happens to you is your fault" attitude towards crime. Hence if you die during the commission of or resisting arrest due to committing a crime it's YOUR fault and responsibility due to decisions you made.
This is the gist of the commentary I've seen on the [white] right. Mind you this used to be THE attitude across America left OR right as recently as perhaps the early to mid-80s. When we look at the Chauvin trial from this lens you can understand why they thought Chauvin should be let off. Chauvin was enforcing the law. Floyd was allegedly engaged not only in criminal behavior (possibly knowingly passing along fake currency) but had consumed illegal controlled substances and was resisting police. Had he NOT passed the fake bill and had cooperated with the police, he may have actually gone home since it is entirely possible that he did not know he had been passed a fake bill. In the end, in this view, Floyd died due to Floyd's decisions.
While one may agree with this argument it isn't a legal standard.
The other argument in favor of Chauvin was that the mobs of people had undermined the process and the jurors were not only intimidated by the threat of more violence should they not give the "right" verdict but they also were affected by a member of congress commentary.
I'm not totally dismissive of these concerns. I think we've seen enough press and ANTIFA activities which have included doxxing people to think that would be a concern. How much, I cannot say. That all said, I don't think it matters because the state made a strong argument AND the defense made an epic own-goal.
The state's argument was that Chauvin's knee was THE factor, not A factor, in Floyd's death. They repeatedly showed the video of Chauvin and his knee on Floyd. I said earlier that it would be a huge ask to think the jury was going to ignore the thing they saw multiple times for a theory they have to imagine in their heads. But this was made worse by the defense.
I didn't actually catch it when they first made the argument but I did catch it in the closing arguments. The defense said that Floyd had a prior run-in with police. He was apparently taken to the hospital where he had a VERY high blood pressure reading. My understanding was that he was in bad shape.
And yet he lived.
I think the defense thought that by presenting that encounter that the jury would conclude that Floyd "got lucky" that time and that THIS time the drugs got the better of his system. However; they either didn't realize or calculated a small risk that the jury could ALSO use that prior incident of proof that had Chauvin not put his knee on Floyd that Floyd would be alive.
I would put cold hard cash..well given the money printer is going "brrrrrrr" at the moment, I'll put up gold that the jury came to the latter conclusion.
And thus the jury came to a reasonable conclusion (even if I think the murder charge remains unproven). I don't think an appeal will change any charge that involves negligence. I don't see arguments about mob violence and congresspersons having an effect because as I understand it, such an argument would have to show that the jury would come to a different decision absent these things and as I've laid out, that would not be the case.
So for those on the right who are shell shocked about the verdict I suggest self-reflection. It is likely your own biases and emotions are blocking clear thinking on this subject.
