1/ As we move toward this evening's verdict, I wanted to finalize a few of my observations from watching most of the trial from the very beginning. #DerekChauvinTrial
2/ For me, there was really no debate about anything that happened before George Floyd was taken to the ground. Both sides essentially agreed that the use of force prior to this part of the confrontation was lawful. #DerekChauvinTrial
3/ The focus, then, was on what the prosecution had to prove regarding the prone restraint and what the defense could do to cast doubts on the prosecution's theory of the case. #DerekChauvinTrial
4/ The second degree felony murder charge gave the prosecution the greatest degree of flexibility because they only had to show that the use of force was unreasonable, and thus constituted a (third degree felony) assault. #DerekChauvinTrial
5/ The prosecution made a handful of unforced errors, but the structure of the case and charges gave them the latitude such that these errors did not really impact the end result. #DerekChauvinTrial
6/ Eric Nelson provided Derek Chauvin with a solid defense. I'm not sure anyone else, acting alone, could have done what he did. Every defendant deserves an Eric Nelson. But he did not have the latitude to make any mistakes. #DerekChauvinTrial
7/ In the end, in my mind, the prosecution proved the use of force was unreasonable; that Derek Chauvin assaulted George Floyd; and that it resulted in his death. The defense was not able to do enough to cast doubt on this story. #DerekChauvinTrial
8/ If I were a juror, I would likely have deliberated with the strong belief that the evidence proved that Derek Chauvin was guilty of second degree murder. We will find out in an hour if that is the case. #DerekChauvinTrial
9/ Given the relatively short time for deliberations, I don't think it would be going out on a limb to predict that Derek Chauvin will be guilty of second degree murder. I've been leaning that way for a while now despite the defense's strong effort. #DerekChauvinTrial
10/ It is either that obvious, or the jury will make a fool out of my prediction. Either way, I'll be back here for reactions as the verdict is read. See you then. #DerekChauvinTrial
1/ A few observations and takeaways from the #DerekChauvinTrial and the media coverage of it as well as the surrounding events:
2/ Despite the intense media pressure, the jury got it right based upon the evidence. #DerekChauvinTrial
3/ Speaking of media pressure, the media coverage was predictably over-the-top and was ready-set to inflame tensions even more if the verdict was "not guilty." Linking other incidents to George Floyd serve no purpose but to intensify. apnews.com/article/columb…#DerekChauvinTrial
Barry Brodd, a use of force expert, is now testifying for the defense. Of note is that he was previously retained by the City Attorney's Office in Minneapolis. #DerekChauvinTrial
Brodd is testifying that Derek Chauvin's conduct was objectively reasonable. His testimony is meant to directly contradict the state's experts, and ultimately, raise reasonable doubt as to guilt. #DerekChauvinTrial
Brodd has consulted on many civil and criminal cases involving the use of force (including the trial of Jason Van Dyke in Chicago). His testimony thus far comes across as knowledgeable and confident. The state will want to undermine his analysis. #DerekChauvinTrial
1/ The public freakout over Justice Thomas's suggestion that Internet companies might be subject to common carrier status is rich considering the entire premise of net neutrality was based upon the very same legal principle.
2/ It is true that net neutrality was focused on internet service providers and the current debate is on companies such as Facebook and Google and Twitter, but you should not be surprised when existing legal principles are advanced in ways you didn't anticipate.
3/ The extant case is a perfect example. If Twitter comments are a "public forum" that prevents public officials such as former President Trump from blocking users, then First Amendment law is already creeping into social media.
Reading comments about vaccine passports shows me just how many people don't mind, and even desire, to be ruled by a corporatist-government partnership.
Many people may not directly state that they want authoritarian government, but they reveal it in the way they talk about issues like this.
What would ordinarily be at least mildly surprising (although it's not given the current state of polarization and tribalism) is that many on the left have little concern for the shared control of power between government and corporate America.
It's notable, but not surprising, that the most vocal defenders of lockdowns, travel restrictions, vaccine passports, and other harsh measures are academics, public officials, and others safe in their jobs, who can work remotely, or aren't impacted by the measure they support.
Those who have been out of work without pay for months on end don't have the time to debate on Twitter the pros and cons of ending restrictions. They just want to be able to find a job and get back to work.
Politicians enact (illegal) eviction moratoriums as if landlords don't exist. They don't care that their policies to help some people are hurting others. And then when that problem becomes too difficult to hide, they'll propose something new to fix the problem they just created.
1/ I was reading through a thread last night that debated the certainty of either Republicans or Democrats being "right" on any given position. Predictably, tribalism won out as those on their respective sides were more certain that they were "right."
2/ This seems to me to be a rather narrow prism to view the world or any given political issue. In reality, both major political parties have sought to wield the power of the state for their own partisan advantages.
3/ Republicans or Democrats may be marginally "better" on one particular issue or another (depending upon how you define "better"), but fundamentally these are both statist parties.