Even if he was guilty, how could the Chauvin trial possibly be fair?

"The First step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other."

            Bertrand Russell, Freedom and Government (1940)

I've already posted on my thoughts about the summations in the Chauvin case and touched upon some other matters concerning the case, particularly its relationship to the growing fascism in our country. I'm not going to repeat everything I already wrote (pause for applause from the studio audience). Mostly, I've reflected that the defense counsel just wasn't up to the job and missed a lot of stuff. And, I know I've touched on the fact that this could not be a fair trial - and I am going to go over that, because first, more has come out about the trial and second, I think this has to be emphasized. 

You already know if you read some of this blog the last couple of years, not just the last post which was directly about it, that I believe we are already living in a country that has become fascist. It may not be the fascism of Hitler or Mussolini, or the terror of the French Revolution or Stalin, but it is always different. And, as I pointed out in the last two posts, this Chauvin case is a pretty good example of how it is working here. 

Consider this in determining whether this could be a fair trial or not:

• Chauvin was arrested in 4 days of the event, with scarce time for all the investigation the expert witnesses would testify to as to Chauvin's use of force to restrain Floyd. As I pointed out in the last post, they took 3 1/2 months to determine, against all evidence I can see in the video of Ashli Babbitt's slaying, that the officer killing her was justified (it's a lie, of course; for goodness sakes, they are prosecuting Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin just for saving his own life - here's an officer who is not in anymore danger than officers surrounding Ashli and her friends with guns).
• 
  
• Immediately after his death, Minneapolis was subject to a reign of terror lasting days including 150 fires, 1300 vandalizations and resulting in 2 deaths. 
• 
  
• For 10 months after the death of Floyd, there have been riots and protests across America before the trial. That included attempts to intimidate politicians and the police union leader.
• 
  
• Right before the trial the protests started up again. During the jury selection, it was pointed out that the jurors realized they were in an armed camp so that they could feel safe.
• 
  
• Right during jury selection it was announced by Minneapolis that they had settled with Floyd's family for $27,000,000, a number that was remarkably high for any similar case, let alone death case considering that Floyd didn't earn a lot of money (that is the main consideration in these cases), that he had a long criminal record, was a chronic drug user and had a bad heart. It was an astonishing, unrealistic amount. Of course, I can't read minds and say that the powers that be were trying to influence the jury, but it couldn't but help have that effect. If I had to guess, more than influence the jury, the municipality was trying to appease the rioters that could tear apart their city again. It was an appeasement that had as much chance of working if there wasn't a conviction as giving Hitler Czechoslovakia did to stop WWII.
• 
  
• The National Guard in Minneapolis was called out as protesters gathered in Minneapolis in record numbers since WWII.
• 
  
• Two national guardsmen were injured when shot in a drive by.
• 
  
• Maxine Waters made her famous statement in a neighboring city that they needed a conviction or they would have to fight harder (More fires? Deaths?)

All that happened prior to the jury being sequestered. They were not told they could not use computers. The judge thought about granting a motion to stay and move the trial just because of the revelation about the civil case being settled and said that Maxine Waters' statement about the case might get it overturned on appeal (then why didn't he do it).

Although I personally thought Chauvin was guilty of manslaughter II (not murder II or III), he was and we all are entitled to his having a fair trial. Arguably, in light just of the announcement of the civil case settlement, or in light just of Maxine Water's Goebbel's like speech, or in light just of the riots, or just the need for the national guard and the security measures the jury had to live under, and the promise of so much more violence and destruction, if the jury did not do as demanded and convict, was enough to get this case thrown out. It wasn't. Personally, I do not think the judge's on the appellate courts of Minnesota will have the courage to do so on appeal. I hope I'm wrong. Not because punishment would not be just, but because BLM and the fascist movement can't get away with frightening jurors into not fairly and impartially weighing the evidence before they make a determination.

And, it looks like, they did not do it fairly. As the first juror to reveal himself has stated, 11 of the 12 did not even want to go over the evidence in light of the charges. They only did so because the other juror demanded it.

And, we now know that at least one juror seems to have lied or at least been deceptive about his participation in George Floyd protests. When asked on the form if he had been to any George Floyd rallies in Minnesota, he said "no" and otherwise did he or those close to him participate in protests about police use of force or police brutality (the picture that came out was of him in D.C. wearing a tee-shirt saying "Get your knee off our necks" on one side and "BLM" on the other). 

The fact that they found Chauvin guilty of Murder III as well, where it doesn't even make sense in this case, makes me think that the jury acted irrationally.

If you tell yourself, well, I hear what you are saying, but it was okay, ask yourself this -

What if the person being tried was a black cop who had killed a member of the KKK.

Now, imagine, after that happens and before the jury deliberates:

Thousands of members of the KKK rioted through the city, burning buildings, looting stores, destroying homes and assaulting cops, threatening members of the government, rioting throughout the country. Then consider if during jury selection the city settled with the Klan member's family for an unheard of sum of money, that the National Guard had to be called out for the trial in unheard of numbers since WWII and that the KKK was shooting at them. And then imagine some Republican you can't tolerate because you think they are evil - say Donald Trump - makes a speech which incites further violence just before the jury goes into deliberations? And then the jury very quickly finds the defendant guilty?

Or imagine if you find out that one of the jurors who had worn a "white supremacy" tee-shirt at a rally had answered a jury questionnaire at least indicating he hadn't?

Do you think you might find justice hadn't been done then?

I believe you would. You can believe you wouldn't. Until you do face up to what happened in this trial and what we are doing to ourselves in this country, the fascism will continue.