This is Sue’s idea of justice:

[liberty]

This is Sue’s idea of justice: He’ll get a trial; he’ll get a chance to prove he didn’t do what we know he did. I can’t remember who said that, but it was a BLM activist, and I thanks Sue agrees.

This is not my writing, but I find it interesting. Do you agree or disagree?

Opinion: Derek Chauvin Did Not Receive A Fair Trial – The Liberty Champion

OPINION: DEREK CHAUVIN DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL
April 26, 2021 Peyton MacKenzie 32 comments

Derek Chauvin was convicted on three charges on April 21st 2021 for the death of George Floyd. In my opinion, Chauvin was not given a fair trial as promised in the sixth amendment to the U.S. constitution. If he was, he would not have been found guilty on two out of three of the charges.

I am in no way defending the actions of Derek Chauvin or saying he deserved to be acquitted of the conviction. I am not here to pick the side of George Floyd or Derek Chauvin, but simply the side of our constitutional protections. My opinion is that if Chauvin received a fair trial, the outcome would have been different.

Chauvin was convicted of second-degree murder, third degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. I fully believe it is not possible to come to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt as required in a criminal trial that Chauvin was guilty of second and third-degree murder.

I do believe a case could be made for involuntary manslaughter, however.
Third degree murder is essentially a charge for what is called depraved heart murder. An example of third degree murder would be shooting a gun into a crowd with no targeted person in mind, killing someone in the end. They are unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt Chauvin’s intentions were to kill.

Second-degree murder is felony assault that turns into murder. An example would be you robbed a bank and your gun goes off unintentionally, consequently killing someone. This would mean there was a burden on proving Chauvin intended to commit a felony against George Floyd.

Involuntary manslaughter is the only charge that should have been on the docket. Involuntary manslaughter is reckless disregard. They could argue that even if Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd, by not getting up sooner than he did, his recklessness led to Floyd’s death.

Causation is the common denominator in all three charges, and although it is hard to argue across the board, the elements were clearly not met to convict Chauvin of second and third-degree murder. Was Floyd’s death a direct cause of Chauvin’s actions? There was no trauma to Floyd’s trachea, nor any trauma to his arteries that would have cut oxygen to the brain. There were signs of asphyxia, but Floyd’s system had three times the deadly level of Fentanyl as well as 75% arterial blockage which can cause chemical asphyxia (drug overdose).

With all of this in mind, causation is extremely hard to prove with a fair trial. However, when given a bias jury, it is very easy. This is what I believe happened. This case reached national recognition. President Biden and Maxine Waters felt it was appropriate to comment on this case before a verdict was reached, yet somehow, we believe this wouldn’t sway the jury’s opinion?

People were threatening to riot if Chauvin was not convicted. The jury was fully aware if they did not convict Chauvin, there would be an uproar, and their names could be leaked, threatening their safety. The jury only had one option: to declare Chauvin guilty. Therefore, Chauvin did not receive a fair trial on the two counts.

Peyton MacKenzie is an Opinion Writer. Follow her on Twitter at @PeytMacK.

[Joe Guy]

That is the opinion of someone who didn't talk to the jurors.

and an opinion shared by racists....

[Sue U]

I have no idea who Peyton MacKenzie is or why anyone should give a fig about his/her opinion. This reads like a mediocre high school writing assignment. There is no quotation of the actual elements of second or third degree murder under Minnesota law. The general characterization of the charges is not helpful. The state statutes set out specific elements of the offense that must be met to convict. Not specifying what they are is at best sloppy if not intended to obfuscate or mislead.

As to causation, there is no question Chauvin's acts caused Floyd's death. The mechanism was disputed, but the prosecution's expert witnesses presented medical evidence that death was caused by oxygen deprivation leading to cardiopulmonary arrest, not by arterial blockage or drug use, as the defense argued. The jury obviously found the prosecution's theory and evidence more convincing.

Finally, based on absolutely nothing whatsoever, the writer engages in sheer speculation that the jury was biased (despite an extensive voir dire process in which the defense also participated), or influenced by Joe Biden and Maxine Waters (but not by the incessant chorus of excessive-force apologists in the mass media), or fearful of riots, or fearful for their own safety. I don't know why it is so inconceivable to this writer that a jury specifically selected in a process to root out bias and which heard all the evidence over a 6-week trial could come to the conclusion that the guy charged actually did it.

Oh wait, yes I do.

[Scooter]

I did not vote because "the village idiot is a moron" was not an option.

[Sue U]

I went and looked at the statutes; also looked up "Opinion Writer" Peyton MacKenzie. She has no idea what she's talking about and there is absolutely no reason her opinion should merit any consideration.

Contrary to her claim, third degree murder does not require any proof whatsoever of "inten[t] to kill," either specifically or generally. It is in fact exactly the opposite:

"(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree."

I have no problem saying kneeling on someone's neck for nine and a half minutes until he stops breathing meets that definition in every respect.

Likewise, second degree murder requires no intent to kill nor, as MacKenzie misstates it, "inten[t] to commit a felony against George Floyd." It is sufficient that the perpetrator "causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense ... with force or violence." Chauvin's acts constituted aggravated assault and battery (a felony committed with force or violence) when he killed George Floyd. It doesn't matter what his "intent" may have been, although I'm pretty sure he intended to be never charged with any crime at all. He was after all a cop.

In summary and in conclusion yes this is my idea of justice and yes liberty is still A Idiot and no this woman's opinion is not interesting but ill-informed and dumb but you know what they say about opinions: every asshole has one.

[Econoline]

also looked up "Opinion Writer" Peyton MacKenzie. She has no idea what she's talking about and there is absolutely no reason her opinion should merit any consideration.

Opinion: Derek Chauvin Did Not Receive A Fair Trial – The Liberty Champion

OPINION: DEREK CHAUVIN DID NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL
April 26, 2021 Peyton MacKenzie 32 comments

Also...The Liberty Champion??? ("The official student newspaper of Liberty University")

[Sue U]

Also...The Liberty Champion??? ("The official student newspaper of Liberty University")

Hey, she has opinions! And she writes them! That's good enough for the journalism department at Liberty U! They have standards! Very low ones, apparently, but still!

As a former news writer myself, this is a truly cringe-worthy piece. If I had submitted something like this, even to my student newspaper, I would hope the managing editor would save me (and the paper) from the public humiliation it would bring.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The jury was fully aware if they did not convict Chauvin, there would be an uproar, and their names could be leaked, threatening their safety.

Apparently this dumb-ass doesn't know that leaking names/addresses of jurors, judges and innocent people is entirely the province of rabid pseudo-christian Trumpistas.

I know two teenage girls attending Liberty (children of old family friends), neither of them a 'Peyton'. I do hope that they are not learning to sidestep learning. The quality of the writing in the linked article is abysmal and 'interesting' only as a prime example of lock-step stupidity.

[liberty]

I have no idea who Peyton MacKenzie is or why anyone should give a fig about his/her opinion. This reads like a mediocre high school writing assignment. There is no quotation of the actual elements of second or third degree murder under Minnesota law. The general characterization of the charges is not helpful. The state statutes set out specific elements of the offense that must be met to convict. Not specifying what they are is at best sloppy if not intended to obfuscate or mislead.

As to causation, there is no question Chauvin's acts caused Floyd's death. The mechanism was disputed, but the prosecution's expert witnesses presented medical evidence that death was caused by oxygen deprivation leading to cardiopulmonary arrest, not by arterial blockage or drug use, as the defense argued. The jury obviously found the prosecution's theory and evidence more convincing.

Finally, based on absolutely nothing whatsoever, the writer engages in sheer speculation that the jury was biased (despite an extensive voir dire process in which the defense also participated), or influenced by Joe Biden and Maxine Waters (but not by the incessant chorus of excessive-force apologists in the mass media), or fearful of riots, or fearful for their own safety. I don't know why it is so inconceivable to this writer that a jury specifically selected in a process to root out bias and which heard all the evidence over a 6-week trial could come to the conclusion that the guy charged actually did it.

Oh wait, yes I do.

As far as I can see you appear to be right about 3rd degree murder and wrong about second degree murder. Assuming that what I found on the Internet is valid Minnesota law and hasn’t been changed since the conviction.

You commented on it on the quality of the posters writing and a general discussion that is irrelevant the only thing that really matters is the truth. And lawyers have a poor reputation when it comes to the truth. I’ve heard it said that lawyers are paid liars; of course like all generalizations it is wrong ,but I know lying lawyers must exist and I suspect liberals are the worst based on liberal Supreme Court rulings.

MacKenzie post:

Third degree murder is essentially a charge for what is called depraved heart murder. An example of third degree murder would be shooting a gun into a crowd with no targeted person in mind, killing someone in the end. They are unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt Chauvin’s intentions were to kill.

1986 Mobile
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE. (a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years

MacKenzie post:

Second-degree murder is felony assault that turns into murder. An example would be you robbed a bank and your gun goes off unintentionally, consequently killing someone. This would mean there was a burden on proving Chauvin intended to commit a felony against George Floyd.

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
§
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

[liberty]

Apparently, this is also Shit Head's idea of justice: He’ll get a trial; he’ll get a chance to prove he didn’t do what we know he did. That seems about right for a son of a bitch that would murder someone by giving them aids just because he didn't like their political thinking.

[Scooter]

To whom did I "give aids [sic]"? Name names.

This coming from the guy who passed the genes for all manner of mental disorders to his children.

[Sue U]

As far as I can see you appear to be right about 3rd degree murder and wrong about second degree murder. Assuming that what I found on the Internet is valid Minnesota law and hasn’t been changed since the conviction.

No, I'm not wrong about second degree murder. As you yourself posted:

MacKenzie post:

Second-degree murder is felony assault that turns into murder. An example would be you robbed a bank and your gun goes off unintentionally, consequently killing someone. This would mean there was a burden on proving Chauvin intended to commit a felony against George Floyd.

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

***

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

Under the plain language of the statute, there was no burden on the State to prove Chauvin's "intent" to do anything. MacKenzie even contradicts herself in her description of second degree murder. She uses as "an example" a bank robber whose "gun goes off unintentionally" resulting in a death, and somehow leaps to the erroneous conclusion that this requires the prosecution to prove a defendant "intended to commit a felony." (I will give her description the most generous reading and omit the part about committing a felony against a particular individual, chalking that up to sloppy writing rather than sloppy thinking or sloppy research, although there's plenty of room for that as well.)

You commented on it on the quality of the posters writing and a general discussion that is irrelevant the only thing that really matters is the truth. And lawyers have a poor reputation when it comes to the truth. I’ve heard it said that lawyers are paid liars; of course like all generalizations it is wrong ,but I know lying lawyers must exist and I suspect liberals are the worst based on liberal Supreme Court rulings.

I have no idea what the first sentence of the paragraph above means but the second and third seem clearly meant to call me a lair. Go ahead and point out any lie in any of my posts. (True, I'm technically not a "liberal" but you don't understand the difference anyway.) What "liberal Supreme Court rulings" are you talking about and how do they demonstrate that "liberals are the worst [lying lawyers]"? Because so far you're still batting zero when it comes to facts.

ETA:

For purposes of accuracy I need to correct my previous post saying "Chauvin's acts constituted aggravated assault and battery (a felony committed with force or violence) when he killed George Floyd." Minnesota law classifies assaults somewhat differently, so a better statement would be "Chauvin's acts constituted either first degree ("great bodily harm") or third-degree ("substantial bodily harm") assault (both being felonies committed with force or violence) when he killed George Floyd." Regardless, there is no element of "intent" necessary to prove either charge; the act and the result are all that matters under the law.

[Jarlaxle]

He absolutely did not get a fair trial. Jurors knew they would be in mortal danger if they did not convict.

The venue should have been changed. That way, he could get a fair trial, then hang.

[BoSoxGal]

Hard to believe the US government was ever able to convict a member of organized crime - how did those jurors overcome the fear of retaliation?

[Jarlaxle]

They wouldn't risk being known to the entire country the day after the verdict, for one thing.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In terms of a juror being influenced I think you pay too much attention to personal consequence.

Seems to me (if I was on a jury) that I might well be influenced in my decision by consideration of societal consequences. If I knew that a not guilty verdict would most likely lead to riot, destruction, looting, injury and death, then I my vote may well be influenced toward guilty.

In the case of Chauvin, I would happily vote 'guilty' because what I saw on video was an assault with reckless (and deadly) disregard for the victim's life. The prosecution proved its case. Whilst being aware that to vote 'not guilty' would most likely engender riots, that wouldn't guide my decision.

Oddly, the kinds of case these days that might cause me pause, are those in which voting guilty bring a personal risk. It is well-known that Trump-suckers are the ones who disseminate juror (and judge) names, addresses and phone numbers in vengeance for some guilty Trumpista being treated properly and fairly in a court of law.

It is not a fear of voting not-guilty that creates a concern for personal safety.

[Sue U]

Every juror serving on that panel knew what they were getting into (there had been nearly a year of public outcry) and if any had any fear for their personal safety they could have easily been excused, because that kind of fear would be considered a factor in a juror's ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. The court used a 14-page questionnaire for potential jurors as a preliminary screen for biases and other personal issues with jury service that is now considered a model by the National Center for State Courts. And rather than just making shit up about what the jurors "knew," you could take 6 seconds to type "george floyd jury" into the Google and find the CNN interview with seven of the jurors and see what they said about their deliberations:

“I absolutely wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same page,” Belton Hardeman said. “I wanted to make sure that we were doing due diligence and that we actually understood what our task was. There was no room for error at all.”

None of them mentioned any kind of consideration for their personal safety or the broader societal reactions to a verdict either way. All said they were focused exclusively on the facts and whether they sufficiently matched up to the crimes charged to prove the state's case.

[liberty]

No, I was not calling you a liar; I don’t know enough about you to know if you do lie, but I do know that liberals lie. The left said that George Bush lied about WMD‘s in Iraq. However, the Bush administration wasn’t the only people that thought Iraq had WMDs; other governments and security services believed the same thing. A lie is an intentional attempt to deceive; so, to say that George Bush lied about WMD‘s is in itself a lie. Also, liberals say that Clinton did not lie about having sex with his intern that is also a lie. And they also claim The Rosenbergs were not Soviet spies; that is a lie too.

You say that you’re not a Liberal well if you’re not a liberal what are you? A communist, you don’t have to be a card carrying member of the Communist Party to be a communist. If you are a communist you’re guilty of mass murder by proxy for all the millions of people the communist murdered around the world.

Let me make this clear I am not saying Chauvin is not guilty he is clearly guilty of something. He used a prohibited procedure to subdue a unruly detainee that resulted in an individual’s death, so he’s guilty of at least some form of negligence. Anytime an individual is in the custody of the state the Government and its officials are responsible for his well-being; it doesn’t matter if it’s an arrest, or in prison, or in social services. Government is dangerous in all its functions; liberals do not believe that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

However, the Bush administration wasn’t the only people that thought Iraq had WMDs; other governments and security services believed the same thing.

In the UK it was Tony Bliar. That's the well-known left-wing prime minister. As in "left" of the liberals.

In recent years, the 2003 invasion has become increasingly shunned by Republican leaders, particularly after Donald Trump instigated his populist America First takeover of the party. Many of Trump's congressional allies have cited the war in their denunciations of old-guard Republicans.

It's those liberal Republican leaders in March 2023 who were re-assessing the false data presented to and by the Bush and Bliar administrations. Rather more than the 6 Republicans (obviously commies) who voted against the WMD fiasco in the first place.

I think liberals rent space in your cranium

[Sue U]

Also, liberals say that Clinton did not lie about having sex with his intern

Who exactly are these "liberals" you keep talking about? Literally all the "liberals" I know say his biggest mistake was lying about it. And he got disbarred for lying under oath -- as he should have been. And FYI Bill Clinton is not a liberal, if you were confused about that and you obviously are

And they also claim The Rosenbergs were not Soviet spies; that is a lie too.

Again, they who? The "liberals" in your head? And what relevance is it here?

You say that you’re not a Liberal well if you’re not a liberal what are you? A communist, you don’t have to be a card carrying member of the Communist Party to be a communist. If you are a communist you’re guilty of mass murder by proxy for all the millions of people the communist murdered around the world.

You are completely deranged.

Let me make this clear I am not saying Chauvin is not guilty he is clearly guilty of something.

Yes, second degree and third degree murder and manslaughter. As determined by a jury at trial. That's how we do things in America. Your opinion of his guilt or innocence does not actually matter.

I think liberals rent space in your cranium

No no, Meade, they live there rent free!