by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:
Burn, Loot and Murder are gassing up the bottles, I suspect.
I’ve not watched the entire trial thus far, but have seen a decent part of it. It hasn’t gone well for the prosecution.
Normally what you see in a trial that is headed for a guilty verdict is a prosecution case that has few to no real holes blown in it. Then the defense gets its turn and tries to salvage what is a pretty nasty set of facts established in court.
That’s not what’s going on this time around, and it bodes ill for those expecting a conviction.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Just as a reminder you don’t have to win “by weight of the evidence” in a criminal trial; you have to win beyond a reasonable doubt.
You can kill a man who is about to die anyway and it’s still murder but to be found guilty you have to be the actual agent of the death, even if only a few minutes before it would have otherwise happened. You can’t just be there and dereliction of duty isn’t murder either. Indeed with few exceptions (e.g. under admiralty law) that’s not even manslaughter, and civil money in settlement has already been paid.
Of course I cannot predict how the threat to burn cities to the ground plays into the jury’s mind, especially when its reinforced with a riot right in the middle of the trial when another black man, this one wanted on open warrants, gets shot after attempting to flee. It’s not supposed to matter but we live in reality, not fantasyland, and anyone who thinks that’s not something they’re contemplating has rocks in their head. We also have no idea what the defense is going to put on for a case, because we haven’t seen it yet.
As for the newest shooting that’s as much of a cluster**** as I’ve seen in a good long while. The cops originally claimed it was an “accidental” shooting, in that the officer drew a gun while intending to draw a taser. Well, there is no such thing as an “accidental” shooting unless the gun malfunctions, which it did not. If you draw something other than you intend that’s negligence, not an accident. If you fire, that is, you press the trigger when you should not, that is also negligence. Whether the person in question who got shot was reasonably shot under the circumstances ceases to be the question once it is admitted that the discharge of the firearm was not intended. This is something anyone who has ever carried a weapon knows. What sort of stupid **** is going on up there in Minnesota when it comes to the cops?
But back to the Chauvin trial: Perhaps the most-damning of all when it comes to reasonable doubt is Floyd’s “friend” and apparently dope dealer refusing to testify, invoking his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. He has every right to do that, but it’s problematic for the prosecution in a big way. His claim: He might wind up charged with murder. Wait, what? How can that happen unless he is concerned he might have killed the guy with the dope he supplied him?
Again, the defense does not have to prove that happened; they only need establish that it might have.
What’s the threshold on percentages? That’s up to the jury, when you get down to it, but there is a fair bit of agreement. It cannot be purely speculative; there must be either some set of evidence or lack of evidence.
A refusal to testify because one is concerned they may implicate themselves in the death as the causative factor is an example of something that meets the test, and that’s not the only piece of evidence in question. It just happens to be one of those ugly little fact patterns that has developed in this specific case.
We shall see how the remainder unfolds but my handicapping of things at this point is that the prosecution is not having a good time of it.