The trial of Officer Derek Chauvin, accused of murder in the death of George Floyd, streams live on news channels like CNN. Do courtroom cameras provide valuable transparency of our justice system, or merely reinforce foregone conclusions of the people who believe Chauvin should be convicted — and of those who want him released? Do they help or hinder the administration of justice?
Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle create 20 new episodes of Right Angle, thanks to our Members.
Video below hosted at Rumble.
Listen to the Audio Version
27 replies on “Officer Chauvin’s George Floyd Murder Trial Proves We Should Ban Courtroom Cameras Now”
Let me start with this…the sound track was off, at least on my screen. Sounded/looked like a ’60s monster movie from Japan….lol.
Next, was the available video of the incident shot in total. I.e.do we see the entire event start to finish? (I think not).
The anarchist/fascists have a plan. Guilty or not guilty won’t matter. Riots, looting, burning will happen either way to satisfy their lust as they claim ‘long live the dead St. George Floyd. He died for their ’cause’.
And if Floyd said he was having difficulty breathing before they placed him face down on the ground … Chauvin should be completely off the hook. He wasn’t the cause of breathing difficulty.
They will hang him anyway.
25 years of providing first aid, teaching first aid, and development of materials to be taught.
If the man is speaking he is breathing. It requires air to speak. It doesn’t matter how many times George Floyd said “I can’t breathe,” he is breathing. He may have been having difficulty breathing due to the drugs he consumed (likely to hide them from the police) but he was breathing – independent of a leg or knee pressing on his back/neck. Officer Chavin’s contribution toward his death is very minimal. Of course this is all completely beside the point – they are not trying to prove cause of death; that is not the purpose of the camera person or the movement.
They are only showing, even if it is unintentional, validity for burning/destroying America. God help us.
Yeah, I keep trying to make that point, but the intentionally dense choose every time to ignore it. Said the same thing about Eric Garner. If he can tell you he can’t breathe, he’s lying. They claimed the cop used a chokehold on Garner, but he never locked his wrist. He clotheslined him, he did not place him in a chokehold. Garner died because he was taken down and choked on his massive rolls of fat (speaking as someone who is also obese). He died as a result of his choices. Just like Floyd.
You actually think cities won’t burn if he’s found guilty? Have NBA championships taught you nothing? There will be celebratory rioting and looting because it NEVER was about the outrage in the first place.
In a just world, this trial, and the circumstances which led to it, ought to be a local news story.
If it had been, I suspect there would not have been a trial.
But then, this is not a just world.
If the jury votes not on the evidence, but on the prevailing social weather, then that is one more body of The People who have shat on their oath and duty to the nation.
The life Chauvin had, as of that day, is well over regardless.
The late Bible scholar Floyd would quite possibly be here today so he could pass on his vast knowledge to the youth on the street; if only he had followed orders. Actually, had he not tried to pass a phony C-note, chances are I would never have heard of this genius.
Meanwhile Veterans of my persuasion are labeled as home grown terrorists and racists.
We used to believe it was better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent man go to jail, and I suppose that is still true. It is only our evidence level that has changed.
Some talking head said “there is video, why are we even having a trial” which pretty much ignores the out-of-the-frame concerns Bill raised.
Someone, I think elsewhere, pointed out the EMT’s behavior on the stand was a bit attention-getting, as if she wanted the world to know, through the camera, what she thought of the police and the situation in general.
Seems as if this whole filming in the courtroom thing started with OJ Simpson. Total theatrics. Court of public opinion. Cameras were always barred from filming anything in a courtroom until then…which is why there were sketch artists in there. Something for the media to show. This Chauvin trial is a nightmare. The jurors are likely thinking ‘damned if we do, damned if we don’t’ find guilty. On an earlier post, someone said he would likely be found guilty of one or two counts. Then they would be appealed and overturned….quietly. Everyone gets what they want. Except Chauvin. He has to change his name leave the country.
Media cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth. It will be slanted. Then again, they probably want more rioting to show the people’s outrage should there be an acquittal. Wish this anxiety and outrage for a known druggie and felon would be shown for the many police officers who lost their lives just this last year defending the public that defunded them.
Judge Judy. The People’s Court. That is where it started.
“He has to change his name leave the country.”
Exactly. We all remember Michael Brown, but do we remember the cop?
Wilson, I think.
Hands up, let’s lie. The modus vivendi of the Democrat Party
The same conclusions that Scott made apply to our federal election process, and they are the rational justification for the existence of the Electoral College. We cannot expect to have a just system of government if it is solely based upon the whims of the mob.
The Constitution surely doesn’t. It is chock full of counter majoritarian protections.
Since we now have the technology and the cost is relatively low, I would advocate for filming almost all trials, from two or more angles/viewpoints, just so we have a “decent” record beyond the trial transcript, should reviewing such a film ever be wise, necessary, or justified. Reasons might include:
1) to show the demeanor of a witness, lawyer, judge, bailiff, or ???; perhaps for an appeal.
2) as a backup should the transcript ever be lost;
3) as a means to show a restive public that real honest and rigorous due process was performed (since very few would bother to actually review the transcript or try to extract the feelings and emotions present during testimony).
Does anyone know if court recorders are allowed to or are supposed to add comments such as “witness broke down and started crying at this point” ??
But that does not mean this filing would have to be broadcast, especially in real time, if the expected reaction is violent rioting and property damage. Reporters would still give their version and interpretation of events and testimony, and would probably bias their reporting as they do now, but the visual impact would be lessened. But rioters don’t really need any “reason” to do what they do, as it clearly never solves the “problem” they supposedly want to be addressed. [Well, maybe the protests at the 1968 Democrat Convention are finally showing results in our country today?]
I think that violates one of the intents of the courtroom, which is to remove as much human emotion from the process as possible. Having only a written transcript for the record accomplishes that to some degree.
To achieve justice, the courtroom needs to be devoid of emotion to the point of appearing callous and completely dispassionate.
There is a nearly zero chance there will be an acquittal. With the media talking heads whipping up emotions on a minute by minute basis, the jury will be under immense pressure to render the “correct” verdict. If for no other reason than to prevent another Rodney King, not to mention the pressure of retribution by the rage mob on their homes, jobs and family.
And yet the mob will seek out the homes and businesses and family of the jurors and the defense attorney, even perhaps of the judge, but not those of the biased reporters who helped convey a false or overly emotional version of events.
Which led me to wonder if a legal jurisdiction should or would eventually have to offer jurors, et al., some form of property (or even life) insurance against rioting and insurrection, as normal insurance policies usually exclude such claims. In theory the police are there to provide such protection, but in this and similar cases of public “wokeness” and public servant weaseling, the police might not be as active or supportive as needed, even if they managed to arrive in time to prevent any serious damage or loss of life.
And there is a likelihood (or at least the possibility) that the jury might acquit on one or two of the more serious charges and only convict on the lessor or least of them. That will also probably not satisfy the “mob”, so there will probably be protests (maybe with damages and injuries) no matter what happens at the trial. Does not say much about the people of Minneapolis, or of the activist crowd that would come in to cause trouble.
#1, jurors are compelled under penalty to present for duty. And you think offering them insurance–that they would have to buy–to cover the fallout and damage is somehow a compensation?
I lived in California in ’92 with the Rodney King trial. The cameras show the scene but not the story. During the trial I had a co-worker who at the beginning of the trial told all of us that regardless of the verdict a riot was planned. When the verdict was mostly acquittal they blamed the jury for the riots not looking at facts presented to jury. The facts I have heard in the Floyd case along with the images we have seen leave a lot of doubt, images may say 1000 words but they are not the whole story
I think that the cameras should be allowed in, MSM as we have all witnessed do not report fairly, they only tell you what they want you to know. If these facts are important to you watch the trial, but never go to MSM and expect to be given the truth if it does not fit their narrative.
And like Los Angeles I expect a riot regardless of the outcome. But if the jury votes the way MSM wants them to at least the jury won’t be tormented by the press.
I too lived in LA during these times, and I have a story to tell of how scary it was to live in that area. To protect myself I kept a 9mm Glock under my seat, and almost had to use it at a gas station while filling up my car. A group of people where hanging around the corner of this station, and when they saw me they started yelling and coming towards me in a very threatening manner. I jumped back into my car, locked it and was reaching for my Glock when two large utility trucks pulled in with about ten workers, who got out, surrounded my car and told them to get back and leave. They ran away, and I was so thankful for their help and getting me out of this situation. I too agree that no matter the outcome of this trial, there will be violence on the streets, because this is what they do.
Thank the Lord for those utility workers, without them this would have had a different ending. And yes this too will end in a riot regardless of the trial outcome. I feel sorry for the jury, if they decide on any form of acquittal the press will make them into bad guys.
All the more reason to not bother with an appeasement conviction. Floyd is no victim, and Chauvin no villain.
I rather suspect the utility workers saved them. As you say, you were reaching for your Glock.
He will be acquitted. Because he did nothing wrong.
The jury can nullify guilt if they so choose. See also the Louisiana man who waited for the confessed killer and rapist of his little boy at the airport upon his extradition back to Louisiana, calmly walked up to him, blew him away and dropped his gun. Though, now that I think of it, that may have been the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Regardless, you can nullify guilt. You can’t nullify innocence.
This case should never have been brought.
That said, I’d stock up on marshmallows and hotdogs. Get ready for one hell of a weeny roast