It’s impossible to believe that members of the jury that rendered the verdicts in Derek Chauvin’s trial weren’t intimidated. From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:
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.