This Trial Was A Disgrace
Article by Kurt Schlichter in Townhall
This Trial Was A Disgrace
I don’t pretend to know if Derek Chauvin is guilty in the objective sense – Judge Mom, a conservative who sent a lot of people to jail as a prosecutor before doing it from the bench, made a convincing argument to me for a murder conviction soon after the incident – but I do know one thing. This trial was a travesty, a kangaroo court, and as a country, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
This is not to argue whether he is innocent or guilty. I don’t know. There were arguments both ways, and compelling evidence for both points of view. There was powerful evidence for his guilt. Say what you want about that videotape, but it’s solid evidence. And there was powerful evidence for his innocence – George Floyd was clearly in mid-overdose and, after all, fentanyl does have the side effect of killing you. That’s solid evidence too. This was no slam-dunk. A fair trial required careful thought and sober deliberations. And it required a process where neutral citizens could act as jurors to sort it out try to find the truth based on the evidence and the law, and only that. It required a process free of fear and intimidation. But let’s not pretend we got that here.
From the beginning, we had politicians, media hacks, cultural poohbahs, and Twitter twerps demanding a pound of flesh. This was not outrage over a perceived crime – it was a mob interested in scoring points. A literal mob. People burned down the town where it happened. And a lot of other towns.
So, in an environment of violent chaos, did our glorious establishment stand up to defend the justice system by doubling down on the due process protections every accused is entitled to?
Of course, it did because courage in the face of controversy is the hallmark of our magnificent elite. They are our betters and worthy inheritors of the greatest nation in human history.
I’ll give you a second to stop laughing.
No, instead our elite tossed out the most basic component of our justice system, the idea of due process and a fair trial because to not do so would have led to evil and dumb people calling them “racists” and they couldn’t handle that heat. They folded, joining in the chorus demanding blood – something very different than demanding justice.
A fair trial? What a joke. At every point, they stacked the deck. “Due process is apparently a luxury we can’t afford because BLM will get mad,” went the elite’s gutless reasoning. In fact, like free speech and freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial and due process matters most when defending that right is hard.
When you have to hear words you hate.
When someone rejects your faith (including pagan faiths like the global warming cult) in favor of his own.
When someone you don’t like is on trial.
That’s the thing about rights – the people you like never have to demand their rights, only the people you don’t.
What happened here? Well, they piled appellate issue on the appellate issue in a towering pile of errors that would, by all rights, lead a real court of appeals to toss this case back for a retrial.
The judge refused to change the venue. He made the case be tried in a city whose inhabitants set it aflame. Seems legit.
The judge refused to sequester the jury, making them pinkie swear to ignore the Class 5 hurricane of media attention. That’ll work.
The city council decided to settle the wrongful death case right during the trial. What a coinkydink.
Minneapolis’s goofy mayor demanded a conviction. Great.
Minnesota’s governor did too. Awesome
The loathsome Maxine Waters – as part of the Army, I had to help clean up the mess she made in 1992 in LA with her “No justice, no peace” incitement – decided to encourage violence if her preferred verdict didn’t come down. Spectacular.
The leftist scumbags did their part, splashing pig’s blood on the house of someone they thought had been a defense witness for the crime of giving testimony the mob disliked. Nothing to see here.
And the media did its part, ensuring that the jurors knew they’d be doxed if they got it “wrong” (and praised if they got it “right”). Oh, the media didn’t say it expressly – but the media still made it clear. Do you have any doubt our brave journalists would hesitate to hassle a juror for wrongverdicting? Democracy dies in darkness or something.
Oh, and the media also cheerled the prosecution throughout. Of special note is the genius “legal analyst” – Pro Tip: If the legal analyst is not Harmeet Dillon, Ron Coleman, or me, he/she/xe is probably going to be terrible – who inexplicably chose to say, on purpose, this: “Defense begins the closing by defining reasonable doubt, not with why #DerekChauvin is innocent. Think about that. #DerekChauvinTrial #GeorgeFloyd”
Only an idiot would think about that. I am not going to insult your intelligence by explaining why that’s appalling. She apparently once worked at the Department of Justice, which does explain a lot.
Piled together, this was a towering heap of due process violations that made this trial a farce. Not because of the evidence, but because the establishment decided to tamper with the jury. No, no one overtly told the jurors how they had to vote, but did anyone need to? Do you imagine anyone on that jury was unaware of what was in store for them if they determined the evidence defined the narrative and acquitted?
No, you don’t. But don’t look to any appellate court to have the guts to do the right thing and send it back for a fair trial. Sadly, the smart money is on the jurists getting the message too.
The message was crystal clear, just as it was meant to be. And the jury came through – maybe. Maybe the jury really was convinced by the evidence and thought he was guilty. But maybe it didn’t. Maybe it was scared. And that possibility is unacceptable in a civilized and free society.
Yet, our elite will not just accept it. Our elite will celebrate it.
And that’s a disgrace.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2021/04/22/this-trial-was-a-disgrace-n2588288
Post a Comment