a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  588 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Derek Chauvin found guilty of George Floyd’s murder

    The defence

Does anyone know if this is a British thing, or just an error? It's from the copypasta'd source, not steve.

The defense also tried to argue that, hey, since Chauvin and Floyd were near a running cop car, maybe Floyd died of carbon monoxide poisoning since his mouth was held at the ground level. Sorry, why does it matter how Chauvin murdered Floyd?

There was no defending what Chauvin did. We've all seen the footage. It's so weird to see people feel the need to excuse away an obvious murder, or even side with Chauvin. "Weird" being "racist" just about 100% of the time.

Consider White America's opioid "crisis", litigated with class action lawsuits, and treated as "just tragic" vs. "Well, I guess Floyd had it coming. Deserved it, really".

This time, justice prevailed. Maybe it requires this level of national scrutiny to, um, incentivize the jury to put their biases aside. Hopefully not.

kleinbl00  ·  588 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Does anyone know if this is a British thing, or just an error? It's from the copypasta'd source, not steve.

You are now aware that Noah Webster decided British spelling was bullshit and set about to make American less phonetically tortuous:

    Noah Webster was struck by the inconsistencies of English spelling and the obstacles it presented to learners (young and old alike) and resented that American classrooms were filled only with British textbooks. The spelling reform featured in his first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, was based on the author's combined vision of logic and aesthetics. He changed the –ce in words like defence, offence, and pretence to –se; abandoned the second, silent "l" in verbs such as travel and cancel when forming the past tense; dropped the "u" from words such as humour and colour; and dropped the "k" from words such as publick and musick. The "publick" readily accepted many of these changes and just as readily rejected some of the others.

As to the meat of your observations:

    Sorry, why does it matter how Chauvin murdered Floyd?

Because extenuating circumstances impact what crimes Chauvin was charged with and what he could be convicted of. Meanwhile, the American legal system is predicated on every defendant being able to avail themselves of a vigorous defense. Which leads to the following observation:

    There was no defending what Chauvin did. We've all seen the footage.

Right - which means a "vigorous defense" is reliant on some pretty left-field jiggery pokery in order to instill a "reasonable doubt." I mean, mental exercise: you have to defend Derek Chauvin in a court of law. He is not pleading. He's either going to be an example for the Left for the next 10 years or an example for the Right for the next 20. You swore an oath. Your professional and ethical obligation is to do your level fuckin' best to get Derek Chauvin acquitted. What's your play?

If that's not Kobayashi Maru enough for you, let's presume you're a thinking, feeling human being with an awareness of the stakes, of the emotions, of the symbolism and of the importance of this trial. That vigorous defense you're presenting - can you do it in such a way that you're not going to inflame things further? You defend Derek Chauvin in just the wrong direction and he's suddenly Stacey Koon.

I've seen a number of people point out what a horrific thing it is that such an obvious verdict was ever in doubt. As it is, things didn't get worse today, which is about the best we could hope for, I think.

b_b  ·  588 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Beside the point, but the only other person I've ever come across to use the phrase "jiggery pokery" was Antonin Scalia. Exclusive company.

kleinbl00  ·  587 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Halfway to embarrassed about that. Scalia couldn't die soon enough.

My only defense is that my memory is highly contextual and that the ornate machinations necessary to make a ridiculous legal gambit into a strategy triggered whatever neuronal pathways my Scalia references dwell within.

b_b  ·  587 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Say what you want about him. He was a monster. But...he also had rhetorical flourish that is very rare among his crowd, and I respect that about him.

user-inactivated  ·  587 days ago  ·  link  ·  

For shame, about the Noah Webster stuff. If you would stop being better than Google, I would ask you less questions. (don't stop)

But yeh, any agreement between the American judicial system and the not-too-radical sects of the social justice movement is also fine by me.