Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward64
Odds were high there would be "rioting" if it came back not guilty.
Also true if there wasn't video evidence that odds increased in Chauvin's favor (but not absolute).
I generally trust the justice system and think the jury did the best they could, with the evidence presented, and the rules they had to work with (e.g. definitions of 2nd and 3rd degrees) etc. It may have occurred to the jury that violence could erupt but don't think that was a factor (nor should it have been) in their decision making.
An argument can be made for using force to stop someone from resisting or being a danger to someone else. But it was obvious that at a certain point he stopped resisting, he was cuffed, there were additional cops to assist if needed etc. There other methods to control Floyd then.
|
If there's no video, there's almost no chance of a guilty verdict. Not absolute but it went from like 5% guilty to 80% guilty.
EDIT: Cynically, I suspect it's also a reason why body cameras "malfunction" so darn often when it looks really suspicious for the cops but whenever they have some justification, that footage is released immediately 99.9% of the time
SI