Chauvin Trial

I’ve been following the trial of Derek Chauvin vicariously through Andrew Branca’s posts on Legal Insurrection.

The prosecution is wrapping up their “case” and the defense should start with theirs today or tomorrow. The Judge is apparently expecting closing arguments and deliberation to begin on Monday.

Having followed the “case” of the prosecution, and without even having heard anything but cross examination from the defense, I am convinced at this point that if there is a guilty verdict it is a political one not a legal one. Remember, the standard is “reasonable doubt”. If there is a reasonable doubt that the person accused didn’t commit the crime, they are to be found not guilty. In my humble opinion, the prosecution’s case left huge amorphous blobs of reasonable doubt laying around.

In my opinion, if the jury finds Chauvin guilty of anything, it will be as a result of the jury’s fear of repercussions both in the form of riots in major cities, and the potential of them individually being doxxed and their lives being ruined, if not taken outright.

I’d say the most likely outcome is going to be a hung jury mistrial and we’ll have to do this all over again. I think this will happen because there will be at least one juror willing to stand up for what’s right and say “reasonable doubt exists and Chauvin should be acquitted”, and there will be at least one juror who is fearful enough to demand a guilty verdict even though the evidence doesn’t support it. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the jury does, if those two sides stick to their guns…hung jury.

I also have no doubt that the hung jury announcement will result in violence and riots and will make it even more difficult for Chauvin to achieve a fair trial in the next go-round…partially because, thanks to the media, the rioting crowd will find it inconceivable that anyone would fail to convict Chauvin…it’s GOT to be racist because he’s so obviously guilty right?

Legal Insurrection is also on top of that aspect of the story.

What I can say with confidence is that as with the George Zimmerman trial, the public is being misinformed by the mainstream media that this is an open-and-shut case, and if Chauvin is found not guilty it’s because of systemic racism in society and the judicial system.

So, that’s my prediction: There will be a hung jury in spite of the fact that the evidence does not support a conviction, the media will portray it, and the BLM crowd will react to it, as a huge miscarriage of justice and cities will burn. Again. Then we’ll queue up for a new trial in which it will be even more difficult to find an unbiased jury who will reach a verdict based on the evidence and not on fear and we may end up with another mistrial. Rinse, lather and repeat until the prosecution finally is able to seat a jury who will unanimously vote to avert the riots and Chauvin will be convicted.

Being a prediction, I obviously could be almost correct, or even wildly wrong, but any way you cut it, Chauvin’s life as a productive, happy citizen is over. Even if he’s acquitted, he’s going to be bankrupt, he’ll never be able to work again in any capacity, he’ll be hounded by the media and unable to go out in public likely for decades, etc.

All for following published, established Minneapolis Police procedure in doing the job he was tasked to do.

What rational person would want to be a cop in this environment? What a wonderful career: risk your very life on a daily basis to serve the public, while working terrible hours, dealing with the worst society has to offer, for marginal pay and as a reward, you’ll have the opportunity to win worldwide vilification, the ruin of your life and the possibility of a long prison term as a result of doing the very job they pay you to do.

Sign me up.

People think this is going to make policing better? In what alternate reality do you work very hard to convince every rational human being that “cop” is not a desirable profession and yet get high quality, dedicated candidates to apply?

It’s a feature, not a bug. That’s the only rational conclusion.

If it weren’t for the fact that I have to live here too (not in Minneapolis, but in a relatively liberal city in a relatively liberal state), I’d almost be rooting for these idiots to get what they’re wishing for. In fact, when the purchase of my secret remote hideout is finalized and I’ve had some time to get it prepped for emergency evac, my incentive to root against their success will be greatly reduced. It would be entertaining in a “horrifying train crash” sort of way to watch from a safe distance as they try to live in the dystopian nightmare that seems to be their heart’s desire.


Responding to a comment on the last post

In response to my last “It’s a feature – not a bug” post, Robert said:

Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have gotten a lot of grief from the black community over their use of the words “super predators” which is a law enforcement concept dating to the Clinton administration, and refers to a small number of offenders who commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and property crimes, and that, by locking them up, the overall crime rate is affected in an equally disproportionate manner. Blacks purposely misconstrue “super predators” to refer to black offenders only and use it as a bludgeon to deter politicians from writing laws that put more black men behind bars, deserving or no.

I started this as a reply on that post, but it quickly became a full-blown rant and post-worthy on it’s own so I decided to move it to the main page.

Yes, that was before the democrat party went full leftist and still had some centrist positions.

Of course Bill and Hillary were and are purely political animals, they would have taken any position they needed to in order to get elected, but at the time, crime rates were high and society was getting pretty sick of it, so they took the “tough on crime” tack.

It’s almost funny because part of the reason they even came up with the term “Super Predators” was an attempt to downplay the fact that the crime rate among blacks is significantly higher than any other demographic group in the US. They were basically saying “yes, it’s true that blacks commit a disproportionate number of the crimes in this country, but it’s not ALL blacks, it’s just a few of these ‘super predators’ that commit most of the crimes and give the black community a bad name.”

At the time, that was a popular sentiment even amongst blacks. But in this day and age where everything you say is taken out of context and applied in ways it was never intended to be so, it’s a major scandal that they would have said such terrible things.

Of course, that’s part of the leftist’s game plan as well and it’s still all about engendering fear in the populace. That’s pretty much what it all boils down to: generating fear. They claim to want “diversity” but what they really want is everyone concentrating on things like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc to the point where society is stratified along those lines. They’ve pretty much succeeded in that stratification and now they’re pitting those groups against each other. Women against men, blacks against whites, hispanics against blacks, blacks against asians, everyone against jews, straights against gays, transgenders against lesbians, etc etc etc etc….it never ends. They foment hatred amongst the groups and hatred breeds fear.

Look at what’s going on with the Asian attacks. It’s leftists and blacks that are attacking Asians…look where those attacks are happening: not in Mayberry. But the leftist media is blaming “white supremacists” even though they’ve had nothing to do with it. Stoking anger, fomenting hatred, engendering fear. That’s what they do because that’s how they seize and maintain power.

And then, ironically, they project all those tactics and traits onto the right.


As I’ve said many times before…

It’s a feature, not a bug:

While anti-gun politicians are clamoring for new gun control legislation, a case out of New York City is proving to be the latest example of lack of enforcement when it comes to laws that are already on the books. 19-year old Raquan Wilson was back in court on Monday on yet another gun-related charge after police discovered a loaded handgun in a bag on the floor of an Uber where Wilson was a passenger.

As the New York Post reports, Wilson already has five open gun-related cases against him, including an armed robbery charge, but none of those cases resulted in Wilson heading to jail.

The left rules by fear. You cannot convince a secure, safe, prosperous people to voluntarily surrender their liberty. Therefore, you must create fear. There are examples of how this is done, global warming alarmism, abject terror of a virus with a 98+ percent survivability rate, elevating isolated incidents of police misconduct (and even, in some case, perfectly acceptable conduct) into a national crisis.

This is just one more in the same vein: Keep violent criminals out in society where they can create mayhem and fear, while at the same time working to restrict the ability of the law abiding to defend against them.

I’m starting a new category for this type of post.


It’s not about crime

Another entry in defining the left.

Democrats this week:
– Voted FOR stripping gun rights from law-abiding citizens
– Voted AGAINST requiring ICE to be notified if an illegal immigrant tries to buy a gun

As I’ve mentioned before, they constantly do things that don’t seem to make sense, but make perfect sense when you understand their goal is to destabilize society, engender fear and force the general public into dependency.

Their gun law proposals aren’t about reducing crime. They CLAIM that gun control is about reducing crime, but that’s a lie. If they were really about reducing crime would they also support releasing convicted criminals early? Reduced or eliminated bail? Wouldn’t they be more up in arms about the 40% reduction in prosecution for violation of existing gun laws that happened under Obama?

No, gun laws are not a method of reducing crime…criminals ignore those laws and are not punished for it…they are a method of controlling the law abiding. Of preventing law abiding citizens from the ability to defend themselves and their families both against criminals and against a criminal government.

Why? Because citizens who are secure, capable and equipped to defend themselves are self-reliant and confident. They don’t need the government to take care of them. They aren’t dependent. The left NEEDS people to be dependent on the government; that’s how they exercise control. So, make them insecure and dependent: take away their ability to defend themselves. Encourage violent criminals to continue terrorizing their communities. Keep the criminals out of jail and on the streets where they can do the most harm. Prevent the deportation of illegal aliens who are gang members and criminals.

There are symptoms of this in other areas of life as well, but the place that I think it’s the most stark is their blatant and seemingly contradictory stances regarding lenient treatment of criminals while simultaneously eliminating the right of citizens to defend themselves against those criminals.

As I said, it only seems contradictory when you don’t understand what the left is about.

Gun control is not about crime. It’s not even about guns. It’s about control.


It’s a feature, not a bug

Bearing Arms seems surprised to discover:

With anti-gun politicians and gun control activists pouncing on the shootings in Boulder as their stated justification for new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, it’s worth pointing out yet again that the criminal justice system isn’t exactly doing a bang-up job of enforcing the laws that are currently on the books.

The fact is the left loves these types of incidents. That’s why I characterize the exploitation of them as “Dancing in Blood”, they obviously celebrate every time one of these incidents happens because it gives them cover to plea to the emotions of people who are justifiably horrified by terrible tragedies.

Their “catch and release” practices in regards to actual criminals is another element of the same thing. As I’ve mentioned many times before, the left gains power through fear. It’s very difficult to get safe, secure, happy people to voluntarily surrender freedom to nanny government. In order to get people to voluntarily surrender their liberty, you have to make them afraid.

The Chinese Wuhan Flu Virus has been a prime example of that.

The Catch and Release criminal justice system is another. It’s a well known fact that the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a tiny percentage of the population. Keeping those people in prison, where there restricted to visiting their violence upon other criminals doesn’t engender fear in the populace. The obvious solution is to keep the out of jail. That way they’re out among the populace perpetrating mayhem and engendering fear. Fear which the left can then use to advance their agenda…part of which is the disarmament of the people.

The policies of the left only seem illogical or counterintuitive if you don’t understand their goals. If you assume that, like you, the left just wants to improve people’s lives and make the world a better, safer, happier place, then their policies make no sense.

If you really want blacks and other minorities to have a better life, why would you promote policies that do nothing more than make them dependent, break up their families and encourage the murder of tens of millions of them before they’re even born? Why would you encourage policies that prevent the Police from enforcing the laws in high crime minority communities and insist that “equality” demands that the Police spend more time patrolling places with low crime rates?

If you really want people to be safe from crime, why would you insist on releasing known criminals back into the public? Why would you work so diligently to make it more difficult if not outright impossible for law abiding citizens to own and carry the best tools available to defend themselves from those violent criminals?

Simple…because those aren’t their goals. Their goals are to oppress the minority community, keep them dependent, and poor and “on the reservation”. Their goals are to engender fear in the populace and to use that fear to expand their power. When you have those goals in mind, the utility of their policy positions come perfectly into focus.


The left’s game plan re crime and gun control

Bearing Arms this morning, has a post up about the Chicago Tribune publishing a story about rising black gun ownership that isn’t completely derogatory.

As surprising as that is, there is one line in the story that sparked my interest:

Many of the same Democrats who support criminal justice and policing reform because they see systemic bias inherent in the criminal justice system are eager to put more gun control laws on the books, even if that means they’ll be disproportionately enforced against minorities.

On the surface that may seem ironic but it’s really not counterintuitive at all when you think about what the left wants. This is true about many of their policies that, to any logical, rational, fact based analysis seems counterproductive or even hypocritical…think high minimum wage that increase unemployment, unfettered immigration that floods the market with cheap (below minimum wage) labor, “entitlements” that discourage self-improvement, and policies that discourage nuclear families.

The left wants the populace dependent on the government. That is the bottom line of their entire worldview. Leftism is their religion and the government is their god…everyone must be subservient to their god. Virtually everything they do is oriented toward that end. The problem is: how can they force independent, successful, self-reliant people to submit their will to government?

One of the most effective means is fear. You don’t really think all this China Virus madness is really just to protect us from a virus that almost exclusively affects the old and infirm and has a 99.7 percent survivability rate do you? It’s to instill fear and condition us to just mindlessly follow along with government edicts no matter how illogical or oppressive.

Same thing with their lax policies on crime combined with their determination to reduce the effectiveness of police and policing. How can they possibly get a strong, secure, confident people to bend the knee to big daddy government? The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by a very small percentage of society and they tend to be the same people committing violent crimes over and over again. How are they to ply their trade if we have an effective police force and firm punishment? They can’t terrorize their communities from behind bars now can they? So…eviscerate the Police, falsely accuse them of systemic racism, demonize them and sometimes criminalize them for doing their jobs. You end up with an ineffective Police department made up primarily of people who have no other job prospects.

At the same time, eliminate pre-trial incarceration, release violent offenders early, reduce sentencing guidelines, do everything possible to get the small percentage of the population who have the tendency toward violent crime out in the public where they can “do their thing”.

The result? Violent criminals freely roaming the streets and empowered by the knowledge that the Police department can and will do little to stop them.

Why? To instill fear of course. A confident, secure and successful populace doesn’t cry out to god government for help. You need the people to feel fearful, insecure and vulnerable to get them to do that.

But, what happens when the people don’t start turning to the government, but start equipping themselves to handle business? When, instead of becoming fearful, they become defiant and even more self-reliant?

We can’t have that…so…make it increasingly difficult for the non-violent to properly equip themselves to defend their families. The end goal is to eliminate completely the ability of the people to resist and force them to prostate themselves before the feet of almighty god government.

On the one hand, they’re freeing criminals from prisons, reducing sentencing, raising them up on pedestals if they are killed by the Police and reducing the ability of the Police to enforce the laws, on the other hand, they’re vilifying anyone who has ever committed even the most minor of offenses as untrustworthy and unsuitable to ever own the proper tools to resist evil.

Contradictory? Hypocritical? Illogical? Or just part of the plan.