Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Derek Chauvin Trial

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The verdict is an implicit admission of guilt of these contemptible allegations.

Or, like, maybe they judged the evidence and came to the conclusion that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course it's conceivable, but you gave no evidence to think that is what happened. What you're talking about is an argument against the jury system, because people are "only human". That's why they will be easily intimidated. The justice system doesn't work because it can be overtaken by violence and threats. All I can ever do is provide the justice that the mob wants.

I'm not saying nothing bad would happen if he was found innocent. I'm saying that your argument amounts to distrusting all juries and that you think trial by jury is bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I, too, am disappointed in the guilty verdict. Providing the epistemic justification requires being able identify and guide others through judicial landscape presented. Thanks for providing the s

This trial was televised. I watched every second of it. I have a better claim than the jury. One, the jury had to remember testimony, they weren't given transcripts, whereas I could watch the testimon

The trial started on Monday. Jerry Blackwell presented opening remarks for the prosecution's case. He argued that Derek Chauvin violated the police oath by using "excessive and unreasonable force" on

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not saying nothing bad would happen if he was found innocent. I'm saying that your argument amounts to distrusting all juries and that you think trial by jury is bad.

How do you manage to put words in my mouth?

Distrusting all juries - no.

Distrusting all mobs and the unsubtle threat of mob action, to get outcomes they want - yes.

Trial by jury, good. Trial in the town square, bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Clarification about my phrasing: I'm trying to say that you shouldn't be disappointed if the verdict was different than the one you thought was best. In a sense, jurors are the experts on the case regarding blame because of the hours upon hours they spent sitting there in the court room listening and thinking - experts are not infallible but what they judge holds more epistemological weight than what you think as a nonexpert. 

I would consider the jurors as a selective group that is somewhat representative of how individuals are taught to think and evaluate things that are typically outside their fields of expertise. The fact that they are subject to a degree of being rejected by the attorneys involved during the process of selection can augment the field within what is available at the time.

Of the four cases that have stood out as having a common theme to me over the years (that I've taken greater interest in anyway), only one of them did not have video taped information to submitted and considered by the jury.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

How do you manage to put words in my mouth?

"Amounts to", which means "implicit". The logical consequence of your belief even if you didn't realize it was the consequence. If you want to talk about intimidation, without any evidence of people being intimidated, you are granting that every single jury is intimidated to come up with any decision other than what the mob wants. By nature, juries have to contend with what the public will think. If you want to say that some juries are intimidated, this would be fine, but then you would have to provide evidence. Not that people might have been intimated, but that they actually were. 

1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

I would consider the jurors as a selective group that is somewhat representative of how individuals are taught to think and evaluate things that are typically outside their fields of expertise.

I don't know why you keep avoiding the question. It's just for discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

I'm not sure what question I'm avoiding.

I asked what you were disappointed about. So assuming you meant disappointed that they disagreed with you, I was just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to be disappointed by any verdict insofar as nothing was fishy about the trial itself. More specifically, what about the trial are you disappointed about? In a way you should be glad about the verdict, that is, there is no reason to think that the justice system functioned improperly. If you were disappointed, then rationally you should have a reason that you don't think justice functioned properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm not going to speculate on the motivations of the jury members. I do know, however, that if I had been on the jury, I would have feared for my life, and I would have been deeply concerned by my vote's potential impact on the mob. Still, I like to think that I would have voted not guilty, because that's what I believe after closely watching the entire trial.

If Chauvin didn't cause Floyd's death, then he's not guilty, plain and simple. And I don't think Chauvin caused the death. At least, I don't think the state proved that he did.

I'm not a pathologist, so to a large degree I must rely on the opinions of the experts. I found Dr. Baker and Dr. Fowler to be the most reliable and trustworthy in terms of the cause of death. Baker, who actually did the autopsy, said that "the law enforcement subdual, restraint and the neck compression was just more than Mr. Floyd could take by virtue of those heart conditions." The prosecution attempted to downplay the role of the heart conditions, but Baker made it clear that when he placed other significant conditions on the death certificate he was saying that he thought they contributed to Floyd's death. "You don't list trivial stuff that didn't play a role."

I was most impressed by Dr. Fowler, who said that "Mr. Floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to his arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease ... during his restraint and subdual by police." I recommend listening to Fowler's testimony if you want to understand what happened.

I think the defense should have stressed how Floyd irrationally resisted the police and over-exerted himself by refusing to get in the police car. Floyd then continued his irrational behavior on the ground, kicking and struggling, while saying he couldn't breathe when clearly he was breathing for several minutes on the ground.

What made Floyd act so irrationally and communicate his problem so poorly? I think that's where the drugs and criminality enter the picture. First, he was not sober, and therefore wasn't thinking clearly. Rather than remain calm and think and communicate precisely, he panicked and repeated nonsense. Second, he stupidly concealed his drug use when asked what he was on.

If Floyd had been sober he might have survived by simply sitting in the police car like a rational person would do. And if he had been honest about his drug use, perhaps the police could have known to give him Narcan or some other treatment. A sober Floyd might have also said something about his hypertension and heart issues. But then a sober Floyd probably wouldn't have panicked and resisted in the first place, knowing that he would risk his life by pushing his heart to the extreme.

I think Floyd was responsible for over-exerting his own body and causing his heart to fail. It's very possible that he did not realize what he was doing due to the cocktail of drugs in his system at the time. According to his friends in the car, he had been falling asleep moments before the police arrived, after being quite active and shuffling around in the food store. This suggests that the fentanyl had taken effect and his breathing was being chemically depressed. So when he resisted and struggled with the officers, his half-awake body was in no condition to sustain such a physical effort. To maintain such action would require more oxygen, which would mean faster, effective breathing. But from the experts we know that Floyd was breathing at a normal rate of 22 breaths per minute. He should have been breathing at 30 or more. I submit that 22 was all Floyd could achieve under the depressive influence of fentanyl. He should have been asleep but was compelled into wakefulness by the police interaction.

Many blame Floyd's breathing problem on the police restraint. The prosecution and the jury certainly do. And perhaps being held in the prone position exacerbated the problem, but I think the most reasonable and primary cause was the fentanyl, because Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe even before going to the ground.

Ultimately the police were in a bind of Floyd's own making. Floyd was a criminal who got the police called on him at Cup Foods. He wasn't taking his prescribed medication for hypertension. Instead he was taking illicit fentanyl and passing out in his car when he had just offered to drive his ex-girlfriend home. The police walked into a lose-lose nightmare. They didn't know about Floyd's health and drug problems. Reasonable officers would see a large, muscular man who appeared to be physically healthy apart from probably being on some unknown drug causing him to act strangely. Thinking excited delirium, reasonable officers would attempt to immobilize Floyd for everyone's safety. Obviously they wouldn't want to be kicked or bitten or exhausted themselves. But also there would be the risk of Floyd giving himself a heart attack, which is exactly what the police and one onlooker warned Floyd about while he was resisting.

It looks bad that the police maintained their restraint positions even after Floyd lost consciousness. Obviously the knee placement looks particularly bad from the viral video. But no evidence or testimony has convinced me that Floyd was asphyxiated due to the pressure applied by the police. I believe Dr. Fowler, who said, "Positional asphyxia is an interesting hypothesis unsupported by any experimental data." And I believe Dr. Baker who also didn't see pressure to the back of the neck that would explain asphyxiation.

Given Floyd's heart disease, hypertension, fentanyl intoxication and physical exertion, there is plenty of reasonable doubt to support a conclusion of not guilty. I think the defense blundered by not explaining the physical exertion issue better, but I'm not sure whether it would have mattered to the jury, and I'm not going to speculate.

Edited by MisterSwig
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Or, like, maybe they judged the evidence and came to the conclusion that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course it's conceivable, but you gave no evidence to think that is what happened. What you're talking about is an argument against the jury system, because people are "only human". That's why they will be easily intimidated. The justice system doesn't work because it can be overtaken by violence and threats. All I can ever do is provide the justice that the mob wants.

I'm not saying nothing bad would happen if he was found innocent. I'm saying that your argument amounts to distrusting all juries and that you think trial by jury is bad.

You are totally ignoring that this was no ordinary jury trial. The whole country and abroad were watching and knowing/expecting the potential for violence. There would have been an unprecedented eruption at an unfavorable verdict.

Do you doubt that?

Threat of force, implied, can be worse than the force itself - if you understand human psychology and imagination.

As there was pre-election, street violence and the threat of more of it amounts to mental blackmail. "We" get our way - or else.

But you'd rather turn this to be me against juries. Not even close.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

The whole country and abroad were watching and knowing/expecting the potential for violence. There would have been an unprecedented eruption at an unfavorable verdict.

Of course there is that potential, but that potential always exists. Jury tampering is a thing. You need evidence, not some general statements that people are capable of being intimidated. (Isn't the mob of society always there to intimidate you into submission? Or at least, if there is a constant mob present in society as with the Jim Crow South, then the jury system is dead and the mob rules the justice system)

The presumption here is just cynicism that no one on the jury would have the courage to enact what they think is justice. That's what you need evidence for. 

Swig said for example that he would feel fearful, but would have the courage enough to vote his conscience. This is sensible to me, but perhaps I am less cynical than you about the courage the average American has. Even historically, in any country, people are usually pretty resistant to the mob... Giving into the mob is usually something that people do if they agree with the mob (social metaphysics and all that). Threats of force don't often get people to go against their sense of justice. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Of course there is that potential, but that potential always exists. Jury tampering is a thing. You need evidence, not some general statements that people are capable of being intimidated. 

The presumption here is just cynicism that no one on the jury would have the courage to enact what they think is justice. That's what you need evidence for. 

Swig said for example that he would feel fearful, but would have the courage enough to vote his conscience. This is sensible to me, but perhaps I am less cynical than you about the courage the average American has. Even historically, in any country, people are usually pretty resistant to the mob... Giving into the mob is usually something that people do if they agree with the mob (social metaphysics and all that). Threats of force don't often get people to go against their sense of justice. 

I am more concerned with the ramifications than with the trial. The courage an average American has would have been better displayed if they'd returned the popularly unfavorable verdict. That didn't happen, in deserved justice, or not.

Are you unmindful of the fact of this -particular - jury trial being the most fraught in anyone's memory?

Do you realize the implications?

The scale of retributive retaliation by these Antifa-organized mobs would have been ... off the wall. They have already shown their character, while to a lesser degree. But you insist, that this is same old, same old - something all juries always have to face. Wow.

On the one hand, there's possible harm to jury members for life, living in constant fear when eventually being named on media for "one of Those sell-outs", loss of their social standing, possibly having to go into hiding - not to add upheaval for the country; on the other hand hand, they get mass kudos and adulation from everyone, celebs and top people including the President, and the likely financial inducements when they return a populist verdict. That would require immense courage and integrity to withstand.

"Pretty resistant to the mob" does not enter. These are extraordinary circumstances. 

I don't recall you being so blase when you analyzed the Capitol mob's intimidation tactics and destructive nihilism. Well, consider the potential of these circumstances as a greatly extended, more violently destructive, version of that event.

This trial was prejudiced by the threat of force from the get-go, holding rule of law to ransom and the jurists were put on the spot to take the heat.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I don't recall you being so blase when you analyzed the Capitol mob's intimidation tactics and destructive nihilism. Well, consider the potential of these circumstances as a greatly extended, more violently destructive, version of that event.

I mean, one is speculation about what could happen, the other is something that did happen. 

26 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

The courage an average American has would have been better displayed if they'd returned the popularly unfavorable verdict.

You are contending that no one would have the courage if they did believe the unfavorable verdict was the correct verdict. But I don't think America is dead yet where I need to worry about no one having the courage to do what they think is the right thing. 

30 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

But you insist, that this is same old, same old - something all juries always have to face. Wow.

To some minimal degree. Ultimately, and I think it's historically true, that in the US, most people don't give a damn about the possible threats (unless there was really a mob that superseded the government as in the Jim Crow South). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

You are contending that no one would have the courage if they did believe the unfavorable verdict was the correct verdict. But I don't think America is dead yet where I need to worry about no one having the courage to do what they think is the right thing. 

 

"No one"? And once again, I did not contend that. I have ¬implied¬ it would be a rare person to stand against his fellow jurors - and all the others and everything else, I mentioned - when the stakes, personal and national, are so high.

It's the false dichotomy between cynicism about all one's fellow men and fantastical belief in their inherent goodness and honesty.

Many, if not most people "go along to get along". They are pragmatists who won't rock the boat for the sake of principles. You only have to see political outcomes to know this reality.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I asked what you were disappointed about. So assuming you meant disappointed that they disagreed with you, I was just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to be disappointed by any verdict insofar as nothing was fishy about the trial itself. More specifically, what about the trial are you disappointed about? In a way you should be glad about the verdict, that is, there is no reason to think that the justice system functioned improperly. If you were disappointed, then rationally you should have a reason that you don't think justice functioned properly.

Just to clarify a minor point, the jury did not disagree with me. Those jurors are most likely blissfully ignorant of my existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Just to clarify a minor point, the jury did not disagree with me.

So you agree that he is not guilty. Then what are you disappointed about? If you are trying to say that "they don't disagree with me, they don't even know who I am!" you don't need to act like this is "who's on first".

11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

it would be a rare person to stand against his fellow jurors - and all the others and everything else, I mentioned - when the stakes, personal and national, are so high.

You don't know if it would be rare or not, unless you think that doing the right thing is rare. I'm saying it is cynical to think it is rare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

 

You don't know if it would be rare or not, unless you think that doing the right thing is rare. I'm saying it is cynical to think it is rare.

And the 'right thing' was, conveniently, to return a maximum guilty verdict? In spite of real uncertainty to the contrary about the cop's intention to murder. Are you asserting that nobody in the jury was - even slightly-  intimidated, by the potential of outside events, into making their decision?  

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

And the 'right thing' was, conveniently, to return a maximum guilty verdict? In spite of real evidence to the contrary about the cop's intention to murder.

I think so, but the wonder about the jury system is that people will disagree about the "right thing", and that this is supposed to happen. And I gave reasons before to think that the jury should have a better claim to knowing what the right thing is then the people who were not in the courtroom. If you trust the jury system, then you must trust that the jury made the best decision that they could (leaving aside demonstrable evidence that they are utterly incompetent or that you have evidence that somebody was legitimately intimidated by specific people to change their mind). 

My assertion is that I have no reason to think that anyone was intimidated. 

By the way, he was not found guilty of intention to murder. That would be first degree murder. He was convicted of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second degree manslaughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

By the way, he was not found guilty of intention to murder. That would be first degree murder.

First degree is premeditated. Second degree, in Minnesota, can be intentional or unintentional. Chauvin was charged with unintentional murder but with intent to cause bodily harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

And I gave reasons before to think that the jury should have a better claim to knowing what the right thing is then the people who were not in the courtroom.

This trial was televised. I watched every second of it. I have a better claim than the jury. One, the jury had to remember testimony, they weren't given transcripts, whereas I could watch the testimony repeatedly on YouTube and also pause it to facilitate copious note taking. And two, statistically I'm probably more intelligent than most of those jurors, though I don't put much weight in statistics, so mostly my objective advantage comes from point one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

One, the jury had to remember testimony

This is not a valid point, at least as far as the jury being in a worse position. If you agree with Rand about thinking in essentials, then you should agree that the volume of details you remember are not critical to knowledge. While it is a good thing that you took extensive notes and are able to pause so that you get the details perfect, that ability does not reflect your ability to distill those notes into essentials that qualify as knowledge. I'm not saying that the jury knows anything about thinking in essentials explicitly, but that it's not disadvantageous to use memory. 

15 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

copious note taking

As a secondary point, I think this lends one to over focusing on a great volume of details, many of which are inessential, ending up thinking like a skeptic because there simply too many variables to consider. In fact, copious note taking could be considered an error of thinking. It puts your mind in a state of over focus on details. 

To me, the more important point is that being in the courtroom is an essential difference. The jury was asked to do this as a job of sorts. You are doing it as a personal interest for your own analysis. That expectation puts a different pressure to be careful to make the right decision. Also, they're looking at the witnesses themselves, able to put themselves in a frame of mind to consider the individuals directly. The judge himself grants the context an air of authority that demands proper judgment. Being there truly makes a difference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

If you agree with Rand about thinking in essentials, then you should agree that the volume of details you remember are not critical to knowledge.

Knowledge of what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not critical to developing knowledge of anything. It's which details, not the volume of details, that matters most. Maybe were great about essentials even still, but I don't think it puts you at an advantage epistemologically speaking. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this isn't the context to get into that, but your point is similar to someone who is skeptical about induction. "What if you missed a detail that you didn't realize was important?" "What if you find an additional detail tomorrow that will undermine your beliefs today?" "How can I be sure I have the essentials unless I observe every possible relevant consideration?" Some variation of those. Any inductive method that operates through finding essentials doesn't even require all the details, especially because induction through enumeration is not the only form of induction. Note taking is fine, I'm just referring to "copious" notetaking. 

Paying attention should be enough, where you say essentially say to yourself (without nearly so many words) "doesn't sound relevant or important, so I'm not going to commit myself to remember this detail ". If notes work for you though to pay attention, then it is perfectly fine as a strategy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...