Author Topic: Chauvin Trial and verdict  (Read 9159 times)

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2021, 11:21:34 AM »
Peter continues:
What is it that makes you think racism had something to do with this situation? Nothing other than the assumption that if a white person mistreats a black person, it is because of skin color.
I comment:
Nope, that’s not the deal, but never mind.

Peter:
The fact that people of all races mistreat each other quite regularly doesn't weigh into it for you. In this case, your default is that if racism could possibly explain it, we should assume racism played a role. But that is still an assumption. You and the antiracist movement constantly demand that people prove a negative.
Me:
Yes, you have to watch out for that terrible “antiracist movement.” The growing “white supremacist” movement, however, is just good ol’ Amurricans lovin' the flag.

Peter:
I have absolutely no reason to believe Chauvin was a racist, and it is uncharitable in the extreme to assume he was. He obviously had his problems and did a terrible thing.
Me:
See above. I do not think racism was a factor in the trial. But in the grander picture….

Peter:
I did not know before today that he had married a Hmong woman, but that would also seem to argue against his having some sort of white supremacy outlook.
Me:
And last year they divorced, according to reports, in an effort to protect their assets, should he be convicted.

Peter:
I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.
Me:
And you, from your distance, your separation from any of the issues of the people or facts of the case or the court testimony, think we should be moved by how you think he should have been charged? Really?

Peter:
You see hints of white nationalism in my posts because you have trained your eyes to see it everywhere you look, again, until the people prove to you that they aren't white nationalists, which they can only do by joining the antiracist mob.
Me:
And there you go again. Assuming you know I look at things. And there is interesting terminology in your quick-response to the situation – “the antiracist mob.” How about those in political office, civic leadership, churches and now in the law enforcement community who are not a “mob”, but concerned about the systemic racism among us?

Peter:
That such a lens leads you to absurd conclusions doesn't deter you. If you think there are hints of white nationalism in my posts, you have been brainwashed or are simply a fool.
Me:
If you were to read Rising Out of Hatred: The Awakening of a Former White Nationalist, by Eli Saslow, you would learn how Derek (yes, that’s the right name) Black, godson of Ku Klux Clan leader David Duke, son of the top leader of the white nationalist movement in this country and the heir apparent to leadership of that movement was led out of that movement by education, experience and careful thinking, you might – probably not, but might – recognize certain threads of that movement in your rhetoric and positions.
Reading that book and Caste by Isabelle Wilkerson, might - probably not, but might - teach you something.

Peter:
The actual statistics, by the way, support my point of view.
Me:
I’ll call a major BS on that one.

Peter:
The media pick and choose which event to hold up as typical and which to ignore to promote your point of view. You can see this at work, for example, when there is a shooting and media jump all over it thinking it was some white nationalists militia member. Then they find out the shooter was nothing of the kind and the story dies.
Me:
But not every story dies, although many of the people in the stories do. Compare arrests, convictions, sentencings, pardons, errors in convictions and related statistics. Or don’t. Others will and I have hopes that changes will be made.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Jeremy Loesch

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2021, 11:28:58 AM »
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy
A Lutheran pastor growing into all sorts of things.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2021, 11:30:33 AM »
Just one comment on Pastor Fienen's one-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand missive. He writes:
Might we have some compassion for and understanding of those who have suffered destruction of their property and livelihoods, suffered injury and even death at the hands of rioters this summer?

I comment:
We might, if that is what actually happened and if it was truly great. Much damage is covered by insurance. I do not recall that anyone suffered death at the hands of the "rioters" last summer. And I think most injuries were inflicted by the police. (But you go ahead and find some.)
Again I say, again I say: I do not approve of destructive demonstrations or "rioting." But I do try to understand the massive and long-standing frustration of people in communities where, for years and years, they have suffered because they were poor, black, immigrant or presumed to be on the "wrong side" of the law.
To cite again the movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s seeking the right for women to vote. It could be said that virtually no progress was made until a major segment of the movement starting doing impolite things.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 7357
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2021, 11:36:25 AM »
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11526
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2021, 11:43:53 AM »
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.

Agreed. His bail was revoked, so he will remain in custody.

 "A criminal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody “in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.” Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. (B). It makes no difference for concurrent jail credit purposes if time spent in custody is pretrial, served as sentenced time or related to other charges. State v. Morales, 532 N.W.2d 268, 270 (Minn.App. 1995). State v. Fritzke, 529 N.W.2d 859, 862 (Minn.App.1994)."

https://blogpendleton.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pendleton12-10-jail_credit_manual.pdf
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17522
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2021, 12:20:19 PM »
... I simply look at the facts of the case, not the larger sociological forces represented by the main players. And in this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on different charges. Unlike you, I do not think he was a monster or had any intent to kill anyone.

Well, it certainly has been a cold spring! Hell hath frozen over again. For the most part, in this thread I have to go with Charles as to the trial itself, not necessarily the social aspects of the case. Speaking of assumptions, yours are erroneous, Peter, and manifest an ignorance of the law and the judicial system. A few examples:

As Charles has told you at least once, Chauvin was not charged with intentional murder. He was charged with unintentional murder. So, the State did not have to show that he had an intent to kill.

You also manifest a misunderstanding of the legal definition of "depraved heart." It does not require showing that the defendant is a monster. So, the jury did not find that Chauvin is "a monster of depraved heart."

As it is, the adrenaline that comes from resisting arrest coupled with his heart condition and massive amounts of drugs in his system likely would have killed [Floyd] even if Chauvin had left him in the back seat of the car.

So what? The State had to prove that Chauvin's actions were a "substantial" cause of death.

I can't prove it, but I can say that there is at least reasonable doubt that Chauvin killed Floyd.

Well, the burden was on the State to prove it. A jury of 12 citizens who actually heard all of the evidence determined that the State did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Peter, above you wrote:  "The trial seemingly wasn't about Chauvin and Floyd but about the historic sociological problems the two men represent. Had the exact same thing happened to a white victim, we probably wouldn't even be aware of the case."

Your words are pure wisdom!

You both demean the criminal justice system. I know Peter Cahill. He was a fine practicing lawyer and is an excellent judge. The trial was about justice, holding defendants accountable for their criminal actions, and it appears that justice was served. As Mr. Garner stated, Chauvin had a good defense lawyer (Although, given my experience trying criminal cases as a defense attorney, I believe that a closing argument should never go longer than an hour,) and the prosecution did an excellent job. That the media and some commentators used the trial to serve other purposes does not detract from the fact that the trial was about Floyd and Chauvin's actions that caused his death. The system worked.

I think there will be an appeal, and Chauvin will have at least a fighting chance of acquittal on the most serious charge.

I'm not sure how that  works. An appellate court does not "acquit" anyone. They can overturn a verdict, but the prosecution has the right to retry the defendant, although they must do so in light of whatever issues the appeals court relied upon in overturning the conviction.

Of course, there will be an appeal, and the appellate court could overturn the verdict due to publicity, a failure to sequester, and the like. But an appellate court rarely attempts to second-guess the triers of fact who heard all the evidence, saw the demeanor of witnesses, etc.

I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

Again, the 12 who actually heard all of the evidence and were actually able to assess the facts determined otherwise. And when you get your law degree and become a prosecutor, you will be able to charge defendants as you see fit.

But, thank God that we live in a country where folks can opine and pop off about things they know little or nothing about on online boards like this one, in public, and in the media.

I realize that it's CNN, but the below link gives a very good explanation of charges, terms, etc as addressed above.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/us/derek-chauvin-charges-explain/index.html
Simmer down, Don. Lawyers know the law like theologians know theology-- they disagree a lot, and even layman can have their opinions. There are plenty of lawyers who know a lot more about it than you (even given your credentials) who happen to agree with me that the more serious charges were a stretch. The "monster" terminology was not intended as a legal definition. It was a response to Charles's assertion in response to me that Chauvin was monster. I know that 12 jurors found him guilty, and if jury verdicts were infallible, that would end the matter definitively. But you know that they are not. If it were as cut and dried as you suggest and the system worked as well as you suggest, the trial would not be the subject of so much analysis everywhere in the media and there would have been no suspense as to the outcome.

When I said what the trial was about (and Tom agreed with me), I was talking about the trial as a topic of national conversation. I stand by my statement that if Floyd had been white we probably wouldn't even be aware the trial was happening. I didn't say the trial would have ended with a different verdict. Charles says that is because this sort of thing doesn't happen to white people, which is nonsense. We weren't demeaning the legal system. If anyone is demeaning the legal system it is those who say that this case was somehow exceptional for getting it right despite the racism woven into the system.

The "substantial cause of death" is an area where I think I disagree with jury. I've read/listened to several explanations of what the term means and how it applied in this case. Imagine this: lawyers who seemed to know a lot about the law-- perhaps even more about it than you-- were disagreeing with each other. Granted you are a lawyer and can use more precise legal terminology, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions layman who speak more generally.     

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2021, 12:38:25 PM »
Peter writes;
Granted you are a lawyer and can use more precise legal terminology, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions layman who speak more generally.
I comment:
It most certainly does, or at least you must admit but what is expressed by the laymen  are “opinions,“ not necessarily an accurate assessment of the law.
I find it almost hilarious that a conservative Lutheran theologian would claim that his opinion of the law is as good as that of a lawyer’s.
What would you say, Peter, if one of your members contended that his or her opinion of the theology surrounding the sacrament were as valid as yours?
And there is now to be a justice department investigation into whether the police in our beloved city make excessive use of force a standard practice especially in certain situations. It has also been reported that there were at least 16 complaints about Chauvin using excessive force over his career.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 12:41:44 PM by Charles Austin »
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43160
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2021, 01:01:53 PM »
You seem to know quite a lot about what I think. And you are wrong on almost every point.
But it serves your purpose to believe I think certain ways.
I don’t think the officer had any intent to kill anyone, and that was not part of the trial.
And if you refuse to see that racism, whether systemic or incidental, had something to do with the situation, then I really don’t know what to say to you. Do you reject all the statistics that have been collected regarding interactions between African-Americans and the police? Do you reject all the comparisons of those interactions with similar inter-actions between police and white Americans? What about the differentials in sentencing?
You have not quite gone this far, Peter, but the more comments you make, the more I am seeing evidence of a certain kind of white nationalism.
What is it that makes you think racism had something to do with this situation? Nothing other than the assumption that if a white person mistreats a black person, it is because of skin color. The fact that people of all races mistreat each other quite regularly doesn't weigh into it for you. In this case, your default is that if racism could possibly explain it, we should assume racism played a role. But that is still an assumption. You and the antiracist movement constantly demand that people prove a negative. The starting point is that they are racist until they prove otherwise. My starting point is to assume they are not racist until they prove otherwise. And the only way to prove you are not a racist is to admit to having been one and repented, then prove you've moved past it by decrying it somewhere else. Thus, the constant rush to find racism everywhere-- in math and physics, in grammar, in schedules and clocks, everywhere. It is an effort to establish that the people doing the decrying are on the good side.

That isn't how Christians ought to proceed. I have absolutely no reason to believe Chauvin was a racist, and it is uncharitable in the extreme to assume he was. He obviously had his problems and did a terrible thing. I did not know before today that he had married a Hmong woman, but that would also seem to argue against his having some sort of white supremacy outlook. I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

You see hints of white nationalism in my posts because you have trained your eyes to see it everywhere you look, again, until the people prove to you that they aren't white nationalists, which they can only do by joining the antiracist mob. That such a lens leads you to absurd conclusions doesn't deter you. If you think there are hints of white nationalism in my posts, you have been brainwashed or are simply a fool.

The actual statistics, by the way, support my point of view. The media pick and choose which event to hold up as typical and which to ignore to promote your point of view. You can see this at work, for example, when there is a shooting and media jump all over it thinking it was some white nationalists militia member. Then they find out the shooter was nothing of the kind and the story dies.


I think racism has something to do with the actions because I suppose (but can't prove,) that if George Floyd had been a white man, his treatment and the outcome of his arrest would have been different. This is based on my numerous friendly interactions with law enforcement and the numerous reports I've heard of the negative interactions between people of color and law enforcement. One example: a friend, a light-skinned Mexican-American talks about how he has been treated better by law enforcement officers than his brother, a darker-skinned Mexican-American.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2021, 01:05:32 PM »
Just one comment on Pastor Fienen's one-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand missive. He writes:
Might we have some compassion for and understanding of those who have suffered destruction of their property and livelihoods, suffered injury and even death at the hands of rioters this summer?

I comment:
We might, if that is what actually happened and if it was truly great. Much damage is covered by insurance.

So damage doesn't count if it "is covered by insurance"?  If my house is burned by rioters, do I not suffer?  Am I not terrorized?

I do not recall that anyone suffered death at the hands of the "rioters" last summer. And I think most injuries were inflicted by the police. (But you go ahead and find some.)

Death Toll Grows in National Protests
A federal law enforcement officer was providing security at the federal courthouse in Oakland during a protest when someone fired shots from a vehicle.
Dave Patrick Underwood, 53, died and another officer was critically injured in the shooting.

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2021, 01:11:39 PM »
I believe both the president and VP in their remarks following the verdict yesterday encouraged passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, passed in the House and now at the Senate.

A summary of the bill's contents is here in this pdf "fact sheet" provided by the government:
https://judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fact_sheet_for_justice_in_policing_2020.pdf

Democrats are fully supportive of the bill, but Republicans have expressed concern over its provision changing qualified immunity. According to CBS News, they "argue that overhauling qualified immunity would harm law enforcement officers acting in good faith, as it would make it easier to pursue litigation against them."

It does open up a wider discussion of law enforcement today.  I work in a different area of emergency services, but I can see how this bill and other proposed actions could have an impact on future law enforcement recruitment and on how they carry out their work in highly dangerous and volatile situations.  If litigation against officers is made considerably easier, one wonders how this might dampen or even discourage responses and impact the safety of others.  As with the massive reallocation of funds occurring in some metro areas, as well as the desire to shift certain responsibilities to non-law enforcement, it will be interesting, if implemented, how crime rates and other factors pan out. 

For me, I think hanging out in the country a bit longer is desirable....
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Norman Teigen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
  • I intend to persuade no one.
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2021, 01:11:49 PM »
The Mississippi River is a geographic thread that ties together Dred Scott and George Floyd.  In St. Louis, the United States Supreme Court said that Dred Scott was not a legal person, that as a black man he wasn't entitled to the full protection of law. In Minneapolis,  the Chauvin v. State of Minnesota trial  affirmed that a black man did have importance, that black lives do matter, that George Floyd, as a human being, mattered.
Norman Teigen

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2021, 01:15:57 PM »
You seem to know quite a lot about what I think. And you are wrong on almost every point.
But it serves your purpose to believe I think certain ways.
I don’t think the officer had any intent to kill anyone, and that was not part of the trial.
And if you refuse to see that racism, whether systemic or incidental, had something to do with the situation, then I really don’t know what to say to you. Do you reject all the statistics that have been collected regarding interactions between African-Americans and the police? Do you reject all the comparisons of those interactions with similar inter-actions between police and white Americans? What about the differentials in sentencing?
You have not quite gone this far, Peter, but the more comments you make, the more I am seeing evidence of a certain kind of white nationalism.
What is it that makes you think racism had something to do with this situation? Nothing other than the assumption that if a white person mistreats a black person, it is because of skin color. The fact that people of all races mistreat each other quite regularly doesn't weigh into it for you. In this case, your default is that if racism could possibly explain it, we should assume racism played a role. But that is still an assumption. You and the antiracist movement constantly demand that people prove a negative. The starting point is that they are racist until they prove otherwise. My starting point is to assume they are not racist until they prove otherwise. And the only way to prove you are not a racist is to admit to having been one and repented, then prove you've moved past it by decrying it somewhere else. Thus, the constant rush to find racism everywhere-- in math and physics, in grammar, in schedules and clocks, everywhere. It is an effort to establish that the people doing the decrying are on the good side.

That isn't how Christians ought to proceed. I have absolutely no reason to believe Chauvin was a racist, and it is uncharitable in the extreme to assume he was. He obviously had his problems and did a terrible thing. I did not know before today that he had married a Hmong woman, but that would also seem to argue against his having some sort of white supremacy outlook. I also don't happen to think he was the primary cause of Floyd's death, but that is not a moral judgment, it is an assessment of the facts of the case about which reasonable people might disagree. In this case, I think Chauvin should have been tried on the lesser charges but not the most serious charges.

You see hints of white nationalism in my posts because you have trained your eyes to see it everywhere you look, again, until the people prove to you that they aren't white nationalists, which they can only do by joining the antiracist mob. That such a lens leads you to absurd conclusions doesn't deter you. If you think there are hints of white nationalism in my posts, you have been brainwashed or are simply a fool.

The actual statistics, by the way, support my point of view. The media pick and choose which event to hold up as typical and which to ignore to promote your point of view. You can see this at work, for example, when there is a shooting and media jump all over it thinking it was some white nationalists militia member. Then they find out the shooter was nothing of the kind and the story dies.


I think racism has something to do with the actions because I suppose (but can't prove,) that if George Floyd had been a white man, his treatment and the outcome of his arrest would have been different. This is based on my numerous friendly interactions with law enforcement and the numerous reports I've heard of the negative interactions between people of color and law enforcement. One example: a friend, a light-skinned Mexican-American talks about how he has been treated better by law enforcement officers than his brother, a darker-skinned Mexican-American.

It is difficult to prove racism based on personal anecdotal evidence.  It may, indeed, be present, but whether it is inherently "systemic" throughout law enforcement and the judicial system is a question that needs to be answered by actual studies. 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11526
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2021, 01:38:58 PM »
David or Don, I have a question that I think you can answer...

Sentencing for Derek Chauvin will take place sometime in June.  Where is Mr. Chauvin in the meantime?  Does he remain in custody of the sheriff's department?  Is he allowed to be at home until sentencing?  Is this one of those situations where Mr. So and So is sentenced to X years in prison minus time already served.  If he is in custody of the sheriff's department until the time of his sentencing, would this be considered the time already served?

Thanks.

Jeremy

He was remanded to the custody of the state at the time of the verdict yesterday.  He will receive time served for the months between now and his sentencing, and my best guess is he will be in a county facility until he is sentenced, at which point they will move him to a state prison.

FOX News reports:

“The Minnesota Department of Corrections said Tuesday night that Chauvin was at the state's maximum-security prison in Oak Park Heights, due to an arrangement with the county sheriff and the Department of Corrections. That's the same prison where Chauvin was moved after his arrest for security reasons.”
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17522
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2021, 01:40:43 PM »
Peter writes;
Granted you are a lawyer and can use more precise legal terminology, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions layman who speak more generally.
I comment:
It most certainly does, or at least you must admit but what is expressed by the laymen  are “opinions,“ not necessarily an accurate assessment of the law.
I find it almost hilarious that a conservative Lutheran theologian would claim that his opinion of the law is as good as that of a lawyer’s.
What would you say, Peter, if one of your members contended that his or her opinion of the theology surrounding the sacrament were as valid as yours?
And there is now to be a justice department investigation into whether the police in our beloved city make excessive use of force a standard practice especially in certain situations. It has also been reported that there were at least 16 complaints about Chauvin using excessive force over his career.
When did I say my opinion was as good as a lawyer's? I said lawyers differ in their opinions, the point being that every opinion is in disagreement with at least some lawyers just as every theological opinion disagrees with at least some theologians. You seem to be agreeing with me while being struck with hilarity about how wrong I am.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12583
    • View Profile
Re: Chauvin Trial and verdict
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2021, 02:02:32 PM »
I think racism has something to do with the actions because I suppose (but can't prove,) that if George Floyd had been a white man, his treatment and the outcome of his arrest would have been different. This is based on my numerous friendly interactions with law enforcement and the numerous reports I've heard of the negative interactions between people of color and law enforcement. One example: a friend, a light-skinned Mexican-American talks about how he has been treated better by law enforcement officers than his brother, a darker-skinned Mexican-American.
You argue from the specific to the general and then back from the general to the specific, which does not always hold true. You cite the experience of your friend and his brother and their experiences in, I presume, Arizona, not Minnesota. Is the only difference between the brothers the color of their skin or do they respond to law enforcement differently which could account for some of the difference in their interactions with the law. Then you generalize from their specific experiences in their specific locales to a generalized observation that police interactions with people are conditioned by their race. From that observation you then decide that race must have been involved in the incident with Officer Chauvin and George Floyd, because, well, White Officers always treat Black suspects badly.


Even if it could be established with more than anecdotal evidence that on the average, White Officers tend to treat Blacks more poorly than Whites, that does not establish that it always happens that way. Even if it can be established that something generally happens in a particular way, that does not determine that in every case it does. Generally speaking, in almost all cases, when people buy a lottery ticket, they do not win the big prize. By your generalization then it would follow that nobody ever wins the big prize. But they do. Similarly, your generalization drawn from anecdotal evidence without other evidence does not establish that Chauvin's actions were racially motivated.


But conviction by generalization is must easier and support prejudices more readily than actually examining what happened in a particular case.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS