Wednesday, April 21, 2021

Tucker And Turley Weigh In On Chauvin Trial

Tucker Carlson, in his own inimitable way, expressed what took place at the Chauvin trial (via RedState):

The jury in the Derek Chauvin trial came to a unanimous and unequivocal verdict Tuesday afternoon: “Please don’t hurt us.” The jurors spoke for many in this country; everyone understood perfectly well the consequences of an acquittal in this case.

After nearly a year of burning, looting, and murder by BLM, that was never in doubt. Last night, 2,000 miles from Minneapolis, police in Los Angeles preemptively blocked roads. Why? They knew what would happen if Derek Chauvin got off.

But here’s what we can’t debate: no mob has the right to destroy our cities. Not under any circumstances, not for any reason. No politician or media figure has the right to intimidate a jury, and no political party has the right to impose a different standard of justice on its own supporters.

Those things are unacceptable in America, but all of them are happening now. If they continue to happen, decent, productive people will leave. The country as we knew it will be over. So we must stop this current insanity. It’s an attack on civilization.

Here's the full segment:

Law professor Jonathan Turley has an article on Chauvin's prospects on appeal, with extra focus exactly those issues that Tucker was addressing:

The Chauvin Appeal: How The Comments Of The Court & The Prosecutors Could Raise Challenges Going Forward

However, these introductory paragraphs give a good idea of what the issues on appeal will be. Follow the link for more discussion:

Below is my column in the Hill on two issues that arose on the final day of the trial of Derek Chauvin that could now feature prominently in any appeal. There will likely be an array of conventional appellate issues from the elements of the murder counts to the sufficiency of the evidence. Obviously, any appeal will wait until after sentencing, which will take many weeks. However, two issues were highlighted on the final day which could play a role in the appeal.

The first on the denial of a venue change and the sequestering of the jury is very difficult make work on appeal. However, there are strong arguments to be made in this case. I believe Judge Cahill should have granted the venue change and also sequestered this jury. It is not clear if the court polled the jury on trial coverage, particularly after the inflammatory remarks of Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Cal.). However, there are credible grounds for challenging how this jury may have been influenced by the saturation of coverage of the trial as well as rioting in the area.

Thomas Lifson--editor at American Thinker, but I found this article at LifeSite--discusses the Left's tactics going forward:

Signs that 2021 rioters will be attacking and burning wealthy neighborhoods

Once the organized rioters spread to affluent neighborhoods, fear will grip a much wider swath of society than before.

The entire article is worth your time. Here's the conclusion which, if true, is fraught with consequences for this country:

Once the organized rioters spread to affluent neighborhoods, fear will grip a much wider swath of society than before.  My guess is that it will trigger a backlash.  But so pervasive is the propaganda urging white people to feel guilt that I cannot be confident that this will be the net effect.

The summer, AKA riot season, threatens to be even worse than last year.

I found this graphic below particularly telling. White supremacy seems very much in evidence on the Left--due especially to what appears to be a total absence of Hispanics and Asians:


  1. Here's a photo montage of this year's mass shooters:

    Seems to be the opposite races of those pictured


  2. I completely disagree with Lifeson. BLM and Antifa have never once faced organized, armed and willng resistance.

    They are cowards, simple as that.

    "Once the organized rioters spread to affluent neighborhoods, fear will grip a much wider swath of society than before."

    Antifa and BLM are crystal clear where the vast majority of armed citizens reside: its largely why they're skirting suburbia.

    Should it happen, organized rioters hitting the suburbs will result in mass casualties... of organized rioters.

    Where do you think the people live who are emptying shelves of ammo, reloading presses, brass, primers, powder, projectiles of every caliber and gauge, in stores and online?

    ..and have been doing so since JoeBamas first term.

    Get real, Lifeson.

    Because those of us who've worked a lifetime ACTUALLY PRODUCING, working, building and saving for ourselves, our kids and grandchildren, who've served this country, lost loved in service of this country, are not going to cower in the corner and watch.

    I 100% guarantee that.

    If BLM and Antifa are that stupid, they won't survive the first volley.

    1. It's true that most of the attempts to spread their game to the suburbs have met strong resistance. I can think of instances outside Portland and Seattle for starters.

    2. OTOH, he may be right about some of the more liberal and wealthier suburbs.

    3. BLM and Antifa tried to take their nonsense to Camas and Washougal, WA (just east of Vancouver, WA) from Portland.

      They were met with well-armed citizen resistance and left after less than one hour.

      I know a few of those citizens, and they would have used deadly force in order to prevent felonies.

      Despite Washington's reputation for liberalism, private citizens have greater authority in the of deadly force than even law enforcement officers.

      The statute uses those exact words. This statute was in response to the SCOTUS decision in Garner v. Tennessee 1 U.S. 471.

  3. Judge Cahill wanted his 15 minutes of fame.

    No other reason to not grant a change of venue.

  4. > I completely disagree with Lifeson. BLM and Antifa have never once faced organized, armed and willng resistance.

    Lancaster, PA. The "protests" folded after a day in which police, prosecutors and judges DID THEIR JOBS.