A good article

[Djarum300]

Long article by Coleman Hughes, a writer and an academic. This is a discussion on the Chauvin trial almost 4 years later. His article is a rebuttal to a Wapo columnist about an earlier article in which Coleman Hughes believes there was significant reasonable doubt in the case.

On Derek Chauvin, George Floyd, and Reasonable Doubt

Coleman Hughes wrote a column in these pages that set off a flurry of criticism. Here, he sets the record straight.

www.thefp.com

 

[Djarum300]

Some of the hate the author is getting.

The obvious thing for me was: the more severe rout for Chauvin would have been taser which would have likely killed Floyd anyways, but would have been seen as justified

I do think his defense was subpar and it looks like from the review from other lawyers that his appeals was also subpar.


The fundamental problem I see is the precedent of this case: any interaction with a cop and a suspect dies is instantly the cops fault. Meaning: a jury in this case ignored all evidence that a myriad of reasons outside of the cops control are still his fault. Even when resisting arrest. Even with a mob threatening the cop. Even when following procedure.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

Interesting.

 

[REVerse °]

Dj that entire fiasco still baffles me. Chauvin's body language and facial expression during the event with Floyd was creepy as heck. No sense of emotion or empathy. It was like he wanted Floyd to die. When the ambulance arrived; Chauvin acted like he was loading a slaughtered bull at a butcher shop. The entire thing was strange. I'm not doubting Floyd was under the influence of drugs and would have probably died regardless. Yet, those cops were acting suspicious. There has to be more to the story because something ain't quite right.