How many people will die as result of biased coverage of the Chauvin trial?

This is what a BLM activist recently posted:

“If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is gonna break loose. Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire. Just saying,” Echols threatened in a since-deleted video.

Of course a trial in US courts starts with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but I doubt that this what most of the media are telling their viewers/readers.

What responsibility do the media have for deaths and destruction if Ms. Echols predictions come true?

Are the media liable for damages from violence that results from misrepresenting the trial?

Can Chauvin collect damages for defamation?

Or are they free to distort the coverage and fans the flames of violence without any consequence?

For background consider some testimony from yesterday, where the defense attorney got prosecution witnesses to admit that Chauvin’s actions were reasonable given the circumstances. Here are summaries of testimony from MPD Lieutenant Johnny Mercil, Use-of-Force Trainer, that probably did not appear on CNN or the Washington Post:

Dangerous job, being a police officer? Yes. Are people generally unhappy about being arrested? Very rarely are they happy, Mercil answered. Do suspects frequently engage in a wide variety of behaviors to avoid arrest, including fighting, arguing, making excuses? Yes, they do, answered Mercil.

Indeed, when asked if he himself had ever disbelieved a suspect’s claim of a medical emergency as an apparent effort to avoid arrest, Mercil answered that he personally had done so.

All of this, of course, undercuts the part of the prosecution narrative that is relying on Floyd’s purported pleas and excuses about claustrophobia and anxiety and crying out for mama. . .

When asked explicitly if any of the video of the event showed Chauvin placing Floyd in a “choke hold” (in this context meaning a respiratory choke but the term has been used with careless disregard for accuracy) Mercil was obliged to answer that it did not.

When asked if a carotid choke, or what MPD would refer to as an “unconscious neck restraint” required both of the carotid arteries to be compressed, Mercil answered that it did. So much for MMA expert Williams’ testimony to the contrary. . .

To ensure the point: The state’s own use-of-force expert testified on cross that he personally had engaged in use-of-force conduct that the state had been using to demonize Chauvin as an unlawful killer. That’s not a good day for the state.

How many businesses will board their windows up the moment the jurors go into deliberation?

Well at least you posted an opinion from an unbiased source…:roll_eyes:

well this thread is going to be real spicy.

1 Like

35 and Don Lemon will be put on trial for it.

What biased coverage?

What media are you talking about? What has been written or said specifically which is a lie about the trail? I watch multiple cable news networks and they all have been saying the same things that you stated. Presumption of innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. I have not heard one commentator place any blame on anyone. And on multiple networks the trail is being shown live.

Minneapolis will burn if he gets off because he’s so obviously guilty that everyone from his coworkers to his chief threw his ass under the bus.

2 Likes

Hotter than curry flavored wings.

Reading between the lines it would appear that the adoption of the legal principle of sub judice is advisable.

No he’s not. The prosecution can’t even show damage to the neck which would be present in the form of bruising and road rash if the cop was putting so much force on it from one side so as to cut off the airway or blood flow.

Everyone is throwing him under the bus because anyone that doesn’t will then be joining him under the bus. Warped justice.

That said I do fault him/them for not starting aid once he went unresponsive.

What’s your opinion? That BLM will accept a not guilty verdict peacefully?

There ya go … a completely unbiased opinion. :neutral_face:

How will that help when the verdict is read?

No they won’t…They should definitely take to the streets snd protest. And obviously I don’t agree with the burning and looting etc. Hopefully that part doesn’t happen…

Fat chance. BLM doesn’t believe in justice, they only believe in revenge.

1 Like

I added times from the Mercil Cross-Examine video in the link in the OP for the testimony corresponding to the descriptions quoted.

The summary appears to be a fair description of the testimony in the video. Please point to any examples to the contrary if you see any.

Can you point to any mainstream media that have discussed this testimony?

The media have every incentive to heavily bias converge to support the prosecution in my opinion:

  1. Riots are likely to increase ratings so there is no reason to work to reduce the risk of violence.

  2. Biased coverage supports the narrative they have already established; they don’t need to admit they were wrong in earlier reporting.

  3. Biased coverage plays to the bias of their audience; no worries about losing viewers who disagree with alternative views.

From what I see the media have every incentive to fan the flames of violence by failing to report testimony that disagrees with their narrative that Chauvin is obviously guilty of murder.

Do they have any legal or moral responsibility for damages that may result from their biased reporting?

For reference here is a short excerpt of video from the earlier riots that burned Minneapolis:

That BLM activist needs to be charged with terroristic threats.

6 Likes

Predicting the future is not normally considered a threat under the law.