What it will look like for us if history repeats itself

With but minor changes adapting it to the situation, the Derek Chauvin trial is reprising the George Zimmerman dramatic production trial. Chauvin plugs in as Zimmerman, while George Floyd takes Trayvon Martin's place. We're wearily familiar with the script; there will be riots no matter what's decided, with the same people rioting. The lamestream media will pronounce Chauvin guilty with minimal regard for evidence, law, or common sense. In the court of public opinion, Chauvin will ultimately be judged not on what he actually did, but on the narrative that somebody white has to pay for George Floyd's death.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis police shot and killed another black lawbreaker Sunday, bringing BLM rioters into the streets again. These had been waiting for a spark to ignite another conflagration. They probably were anticipating the decision in the Chauvin case, but pretty much any old spark would have served the purpose. Neither justice nor black lives matter to these thugs; they won't get paid if they don't break some windows or hurt a few people. After all, it's something to do. It's fun.

Lest we oldsters confuse "social justice" with "wilding," BLM is doing here what the Reds did in the years leading up to the 1917 Russian rebolooshun and what the Brownshirts did in the years leading up to Hitler. Comparisons to today are instructive. In Russia and Germany, many non-rioters sympathized with the rioters. Many in the media in Russia and later Germany played stooge for the string-pullers. In Germany, major corporations would throw in on the side of the thugs. BLM leadership today even seems to be going out of its way to mimic the behavior of communists everywhere once they think themselves untouchable, enjoying luxuries denied the rabble in ruined Communist economies.

>>The lamestream media will pronounce Chauvin guilty with minimal regard for evidence, law, or common sense.

They already have.

The main commentator on the Chauvin trial at Legal Insurrection, Andrew Branca, had some great commentary on the topic of media malpractice in his Day Six summary:

“STATE’S WITNESS: DR. BRADFORD WANKHEDE LANGENFELD

The day started with the testimony of Dr. Bradford Wankhede Langenfeld, who was the emergency room physician who treated Floyd upon arrival at Hennepin County Medical Center, delivered by ambulance by paramedic Derek Smith and driver.

The testimony of Dr. Langenfeld has followed what has become a common pattern in this case. The (carefully prepared?) state’s witness is carefully questioned by the state to illicit headline worthy quotes, but it’s ultimately revealed on cross-examination that those quoted opinions were based on extremely limited information, lacked context of the full circumstances, and were gutted on cross-examination as a result.

This pattern actually raises a very interesting, and alarming, public policy danger, based on the media’s coverage of this case. From what I’ve seen of media coverage, which for me occurs only when the case recesses during the day and the talking heads pop up during the break, is that the media effectively only covers the direct questioning of the state’s witnesses. As a result, the public only hears the state’s version of the facts.

Well, just like if you only hear one side of any argument, it’s natural for the public to conclude that the state is KILLING IT!!!! in this trial, and that it’s SUPER OBVIOUS!!!! that Chauvin is a RACIST POLICE MURDERER!!!! You NAZI!!!!

There’s a reason that our legal system is adversarial in nature, however, and that’s for the obvious reason that there’s always two sides to every story. It’s only by listening to both sides, with their individual strengths and weaknesses, that one can have an overall informed opinion about what likely happened.

The jury in this trial will get both sides, and hopefully arrive at a verdict based on both sides.

The public, especially the public willing to riot, loot, and arson (arson must be a verb by now, right?), is however hearing only the narrative of guilt in this case. That means that anything other than a guilty verdict can only come as a complete shock to their sense of justice, and therefore a complete justification of any terror they wish to bring to bear to the public generally.

And who is responsible for this? Well, the rioters, looters, and arsonists are responsible for their own conduct, for certain. It’s kind of hard to not also assign blame to the media pouring out the gasoline across the public square and sparking the matches.”

The above from here:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/210405-li-show-chauvin-trial-day-5-wrap-up-chief-says-neck-restraint-not-trained-but-does-it-matter-not-trained-doesnt-mean-wrongful-and-even-wrongful-doesnt-mean-cause-of-death/

And this weekend’s incident involved a cop shouting “taser taser taser” before pulling a firearm out. How does that even happen accidentally?!

“Whoops, I must’ve accidentally confused my totally different holsters as I was getting dressed this morning, and just my luck I ran into a black kid. LOL, I’m such a ditz!”

When there’s a trial going on because a cop knelt on a suspect face-down on tarmac for several minutes in front of God knows how many cameras and witnesses, and tensions are running high, you’d like to think other cops might take more care when getting dressed so as not to make any unforced error that might result in weeks of rioting.

BLM and Antifa may be opportunists but let’s face it, they’d have a much tougher sell if white cops didn’t turn the “shoot first, ask questions later” dial up to 11 every time they stop a white kid but do it when there’s a non-white suspect involved and a camera is rolling.

If a male cop thinks he has to kneel on an unconscious suspect to demonstrate his authoritaah when nobody else is posing any threat, he’s a crap cop. If a female cop really can’t tell the difference between a firearm and a taser, she’s a crap cop.

We still haven’t had a good answer for the Capitol shooter. If we think he had no justification for shooting an advancing protester then we’re arguing the same thing that BLM do. Totally excessive, unnecessary use of deadly force against a “victim” who posed a negligible threat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.