On the one hand, George Floyd may have died from an overdose, and I have heard that the kind of restraint Chauvin was using is police policy for people in an agitated state. On the other hand, despite all that, it certainly seems obsessive, and it seems as if Chauvin is trying to “teach him a lesson.” So I can’t say whether Chauvin is guilty, or if so, what he’s guilty of.
I am pretty certain Chauvin can’t get a fair trial in the present environment. The jury knows that if they do not convict him, there will be riots, and that will certainly influence their deliberations. It seems likely that any decision to convict will have an easy appeal.
OTOH, did Floyd get a fair trial?
Have read other cops say that once Floyd was cuffed, then the force Chauvin used was inappropriate–especially for minutes after he passed out.
What happened to Floyd was a tragedy, no matter what else there is to say. I read an article today about his struggles with addiction, and that’s a very hard thing. You get some back pain, you get prescribed an opioid, and some people get addicted.
And it does seem that once someone is in cuffs, you can back off.
No murder victim has ever died as a result of a “fair trial.” But using that as a reason to undermine the accused’s right to fair trial is just throwing even a chance at justice right out the window, for all of us.
Defending Chauvin’s right to a fair trial is not defending Chauvin, it’s defending civil society.
The trial meets all the criteria for fairness that have been stated in the law. That is the best that the civil authorities can do. Surely they can’t simply withdraw the charges because some people predict civil unrest in the event of a verdict of “not guilty.”