First of all, I don't know how the jury could have found other than it did, given the intense pressure from the lickspittle media and all correct-thinking Americans, up to and including Sleepy Joe hisself. A prudent president might have said "Let the courts do their work." The incumbent said "I hope we get the right verdict, and I'll be calling Mr Floyd's family as soon as Chauvin is found guilty."
And don't tell me the jury was unaware of the demands being made on them by all and sundry, including the likes of Mad Maxine Waters, who stopped just short of calling for rioting and looting if Mr Chauvin wasn't convicted. Isn't that what "taking it to the streets" means, to people of the coloured persuasion? "Reparations shopping", anyone?
What surprised me was the conviction of Mr Chauvin on all three counts. My legal advisor, Agent 3, practised in another jurisdiction, where typically the state makea a practice of "overcharging" -- throwing two or more charges at an accused and hoping that one will stick, or that the accused will plead to the lighter charge rather than take a chance.
In the Chauvin case, the defence did offer to pleade to third-degree murder, but the state went ahead with all three.
Was the fix in, already? I don't understand how someone can be guilty of three distinct offences arising out of the same occurrence. I can almost understand the distinction between Murder 2 and Murder 3, but I always thought murder and manslaughter, requiring a finding of the intention of the accused, could not be the same thing. I would expect that to be one of the ground of the upcoming appeal.
The main ground, to my mind, will be that the jury was prejudiced by the intensely anti-cop, pro-BLM coverage of the lickspittle media, as well as a settlement in the civil case brought by George Floyd's family.
Two weeks before testimony in the Chauvin trial began, but while jury selection was in progress, the city of Minneapolis agreed to pay $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit brought by the Floyd family over Saint George's death, making him worth a helluva lot more in death than he ever was or would have been in life. [By rights they ought to give part of the money to Mr Chauvin! Ed.].
Mr Chauvin's attorney said the settlement had an "incredible propensity to taint a jury pool," but Judge Peter Cahill rejected the defence request to delay the trial because of the settlement.
The defence may also argue, on appeal, that Judge Cahill's decision to hold the trial in Minneapolis was wrong, and virtually ensured a conviction. The defence had argued it was impossible to find an impartial jury in the city, which was rocked by "mostly peaceful protests" over Mr Floyd's death. Judge Cahill thought that since the case was already one of the most scrutinized in American history, moving it wouldn't make much of a difference.
But wait (as Vince Offer used to say), there's more.... Late in the trial, another case of what the lickspittle media called "white police murder of a black p0erson" occurred in a suburb of Minneapolis. Brooklyn Center MN cops shot and killed Daunte Wright, a motorist stopped (the meeja says) for DWB (Driving While Black).
Mad Maxine Waters (D-CA) flew to Brooklyn Center [on her broom? Ed.] over the weekend -- the weekend before jury deliberations were to start! -- and urged protesters "to get more confrontational" if Derek Chauvin was found not guilty. On Monday, Judge Cahill called her comments "abhorrent", but denied a defence request for a mistrial.
"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result on this whole trial being overturned." Let us hope so!
Meanwhile, in Columbis OH, just as the Chauvin verdict was being announced, police held a presser at which they released bodycam footage of a white cop shooting a black girl who, it appeaered, was trying to stab two people with a knife.
A black-handled blade resembling a kitchen knife or steak knife was in clear view lying on the sidewalk next to her immediately after she was shot. She was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.
While we wait for the next act in the evil white cops vs saintly BIPOCs drama, Walt has a suggestion which might accomplish... peacefully... the "complete change in politicing in America" called for by Michael Moore [Who he? Ed.] and other leftist paragons of virtue. The idea sprang into my mind when Mrs Walt asked how many white people had been killed by black cops -- a question for which I have no answer.
My idea is this. Since all the trouble seems to arise in interracial "interactions" -- everything in the Excited States of America comes down to race -- why not establish separate (but equal!) police forces for separate (but absolutely equal!) races?
According to my brilliant plan, a caller to 9-1-1 would be asked if the persons involved are Persons of Colour (POCs). If the answer is yes, POCs (Policepersons of Colour) would be despatched. That way, any tragic deaths which might ensue could not be put down to racism.
But wait... there's a bonus. My plan would require the hiring of many ore POCs (Policepersons of Colour), thus putting paid to complaints that POCs (People of Colour) are under-represented in America's police forces. Black cops for black communities! It's an inspired idea, the real beauty party being that the Al Sharptons and AOCs of this world can't argue against it without admitting that People of Colour are incapable of policing themselves!
Further reading: "Joe Biden and Maxine Waters Deliberately Sought Mistrial in Derek Chauvin Case", by John Nolte, in Breitbart News, 21/4/21.
Footnote: You think the idea of segregated communities policing themselves is crazy or racist or both? Well, they already do that in parts of Canada, where First Nations (Americans read: Native Indian) reserves (Americans read: reservations) are policed by First Nations police. You could look it up.
