04-20-2021, 12:49 AM
deckeda wrote:
[quote=PeterB]
... only because of reasonable doubt. ...
What's interesting about reasonable doubt is that it opens the door to #whataboutism. Where that's countered is by the instruction to consider only evidence, not endless supposition.
Still, the defense clearly asked the jury to consider Chauvin's actions as being a reasonable officer ... quite specific in okaying his actions, and not really inviting the jury to dream up doubts at all.
They keep saying that police are not on trial, it's just this one guy, but of course they all are on trial here.
I don't think it even requires whataboutism to say -- "police officers are people too" and "how can any of you say that, had you had been in that same situation, you might not have made the same mistake" ... which might have been a reasonable argument, had the police officer in this case not stood on George Floyd's neck for 9-1/2 minutes. Still, it only requires one juror to be irrational or empathetic to Chauvin, to result in a mistrial or an acquittal.