It is to Glenn & John’s immense credit that unlike so many they keep having these conversations and haven’t given in to the audience capture like so many Substackers, despite their most vocal listenership being of the “I don’t care what Ellision says I know he’s lying & Chauvin was lynched, why can’t you just bash the woksters time and time again that’s why I tune in…just asking questions” ilk.
Audience capture is a very real phenomenon and it’s affected people on both the left and right.
I think Glenn & John have navigated it very well. I suspect it’s largely due to both their personal integrity, but also having substantial professional reputations to protect and aren’t concerned if some of their audience can’t deal with hearing a diversity of opinions.
Elison presented himself decently although the defense of the prosecution and conviction of chauvin seemed to amount largely to: the defense got its chance and the jury decided.
I still have not been able to find appellate briefs, because for the life of me i can't see how the trial judge could have allowed the 2nd degree murder charge to be tried and how the appeals courts could have sustained the juries verdict. but i don't know what chauvin's attorneys actually argued and what the appeals court actually answered.
The elements of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree while committing a felony
are: ‘
First Element: The death of George Floyd must be proven.
Second Element: The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd.
Third Element: The Defendant, at the time of causing the death of George Floyd, was
committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of Assault in the Third Degree. It is not
necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must
prove that the Defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of Assault in
the Third Degree.
There are two elements of Assault in the Third Degree:
(l) Defendant assaulted George Floyd.
I
“Assault” is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the
attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of
bodily harm requires proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful
force to another person without that person’s consent and that this act resulted
in bodily harm. I
(2) Defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on George Floyd. It is not
necessary for the State to prove that the Defendant intended to inflict
substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial
bodily harm, only that the Defendant intended to commit the assault and that
George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault.
Fourth Element: The Defendant's act took place on or about May 25, 2020 in Hennepin
County.
the point that Michael was trying to make was that it wasn't necessary for Chavin to have intended to kill Floyd . but there is logical contradiction in that the definition of "assault" at second element (I)(1) the court gave to the jury requires that the defendant "intended to harm" floyd. Then they can proceed to (I)(2) which requires evidence of harm, but soes not require evidence intent. While Elison is quick to say the trial was televised, it is very difficult to get transcripts in the order of trial but I have heard no treatment by either side of this question of "intent to harm". From what I can see of the points in evidence, there could be nothing but reasonable doubt that chauvin intended to harm floyd.
i won't charge you guys with being lawyers and i think it was robust useful conversation and that john asked some decent pointed questions. but I would like to ask not what the jury thought but how did elison think that chauvin "intended to harm" floyd.
the murder 3 is the negligence charge. closer call but reading the instructions I can at lease see making a case for it. i think this was overcharged and elison's answer that the defense got a chance and the jury convicted is not an answer to the appropriateness of the prosecution.
I'm in favor of a continued discussion on a complex issue. State action and citizens rights esp death require full, detailed discussions. I'm for a just conclusion wherever it falls, as far as it can be concluded. Agree that Ellison's comments on the jury conviction being sufficient wasn't the quality of explanation expected from an AG, conservative or liberal, democrat or republican.
First thank you to Glenn for giving AG Ellison the platform to respond to the questions that linger about the facts of Mr Floyd’s death and the subsequent trail of Mr Chauvin. I thought John’s questions were on point and that Glenn created a comfortable space for AG Ellison. Unfortunately, I thought AG Ellison only answered as Politician Ellison, which is to say that he didn’t answer the questions, instead he obfuscated very effectively. I guess my lingering questions are - “given the absence or reasonable persons (Ms Collin’s is conservative, white people are racists, Cop crime is the worst crime, and Republicans are evil), how does the AG expect to get a reasonable person verdict?” “As an attorney not as the AG, would Mr Ellison as the attorney for the other officers have recommended plea deals for reduced sentences given how Mr Chauvin’s trial went?” In the end I feel like we are back in the place we started with “Did Derek Chauvin receive a fair trial?” I still don’t know. I pray he did. I remember talking to a work colleague once and he had family about 2 hours to the west of the city we worked in. I lived about 30 minutes to the west and was familiar with the town he grew up in and the route he would travel. What I was surprised to learn was that he would intentionally stop in the town I lived in to fill his gas tank as he did not want to stop at the towns in between. I think I feel the same way about Minnesota. And that makes me profoundly sad as did my colleagues story.
Keith Ellison doesn't care a hoot about George Floyd and has used his unfortunate demise while resisting arrest as a play for political power in Minnesota. You can't trust one word that comes out of this man's mouth. He is Sharpton with a badge and you guys should have pushed him much harder at the interview. The Chauvin trial was no better than a Moscow show trial under Joe Stalin. The verdict was decided before the trial began and Glenn and John and everyone watching this fiasco knew or should have known it including crooked Keith Ellison.
Ellison criticized Collins because she is a conservative; he did not refute the evidence in the documentary. He himself said the trial was not about race. Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd. Yet the narrative persisted even though the trial came down to Chauvin exerted the MRT technique too long and did not perform CPR. Was that the basis for 22 years sentence? The prosecution asked for aggravating factors to extend the sentence, which would normally be about 12 years. Coleman Hughes debate with Balko laid out the case for reasonable doubt. I am disappointed that Glenn and John failed to challenge Ellison on points raised by the Fall that were not "propaganda" such as why wasn't the body cam footage of Floyd's struggles released, why did the DA rush to charge without an investigation? Ellison says the defense was free to present its case, but the prosecution had about 11 attorneys and the defense had 1. Was that fair? I still maintain that this was a rush to judgment and a political prosecution. And I am not a conservative.
PS I must add, I do NOT consider myself a Conservative. Like John, I am a Liberal, through and through, but perhaps not what is considered to be today's Left where reason is flattened so that complex issues become binary.
It was interesting to watch Keith Ellison discredit the movie The Fall of Minneapolis due to the marriage of Liz Collin. Keith Ellison fails to mention his son Jeremiah Ellison, a member of the Minneapolis city council. Of course Jeremiah Ellison is known for a tweet in support of ANTIFA.
“I hereby declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA,” tweeted Jeremiah Ellison.
It was interesting that Keith Ellison went on The Hill https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/500479-keith-ellison-responds-to-sons-antifa-tweet-a-comment-about-the/ to defend his son's tweet. "Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said Monday that his son’s tweet in support of antifa was more a comment about the “absurdity” of President Trump’s remarks blaming proponents of the anti-fascist ideology for violence at recent demonstrations across the country over the police killing of George Floyd." Yes Keith Ellison, everything is Donald Trump's fault, including the statements your son, an elected official, makes in support of leftish extremism.
Of Jeremiah Ellison, the Minneapolis StarTribune says, "Council Member Jeremiah Ellison, who was one of the architects of the defund-the-police pledge — but now says he, and voters, think about the issue in different ways."
So answer me this Keith Ellison, how are we to believe the film with Liz Collin's involvement is biased, while your prosecution of Chauvin is not, in spite of your decided political bias and that of your son?
I am not trying to beat anyone over the head on this point, but the audacity of Keith Ellison is just amazing. Again, Ellison dismisses the documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis because Liz Collin is married to Bob Kroll (in 2019). According to Ellison, Kroll called him a "terrorist" when he took office, representing Minnesota in the US House of Representatives. Kroll's comment had to have been in 2006 or 2007, as Ellison began his term in 2007. More than 17-years before the release of Fall.
By contrast, Jeremiah Ellison was "officially" supporting ANTIFA and his efforts to defund MPD were contemporaneous to the death of George Floyd and the trial of Derek Chauvin.
Other than George Floyd dying, the single most important aspect of everything after, is the tainted autopsy of George Floyd. The autopsy failed to even meet the minimum standards for forensic toxicology, let alone for a designated "homicide" and the controversy around. The autopsy was released in 6-days, not the usual 6-weeks or more. Forensic toxicology is the most independent, scientific process in determining cause of death, and it was largely ignored.
I sincerely doubt Andrew Baker, the only independent party in the prosecution of Derek Chauvin, disregarded his training and forensic standards, of his own volition. Pressure was applied from somewhere higher up. While it may not have been Keith Ellison alone, I firmly believe he was involved.
Ellison is lawyer. He is paid to take sides. He is paid to prosecute. His career revolves around keeping citizens happy, even more than it revolves around respect for blind justice. Actually, FAR more than it revolves around blind justice.
The justifications he makes have no moral basis; he presents only legal basis. Is that adequate? Hell, no. Cultures can not survive and thrive on mere law. They must be centered on honesty, integrity and compassion, NONE of which is evident in Ellison's defense of his actions. Remember, Nazi Germany had laws. Those laws were used to persecute Jews and other minorities. Mr. Ellison, you'll need a lot more than 'law' to convince me you are a good and Just man.
I have ever decreasing faith in our judicial system, and politics in general. We have a cop who never acted violently or indicated any racial animosity who has been convicted of murder, when the coroner's report indicates no such thing. On the other hand, we have just had a cop brutally murdered, and nobody cares. Most have probably never even heard about it, never mind that, on average, one cop per week is murdered. How many even know THAT?
So, Mr. Ellison, what prosecutions have you pursued in an effort to PROTECT cops?
There is NO VALID DEFENSE!!! To be honest I did not get all the way through this but not to hear mention of the massive levels of drugs in Floyds body takes away ANY CREDIBILITY to this argument. And to say that having the trial in Minneapolis was not a factor ?? Credible defense of the prosecution includes ALL THE EVIDENCE!! Not just Democrats talking points!!
Why do black men commit more murders? It sells. It sells records, video games, movies. It’s popular. The fact it exists in reality is an unfortunate side effect of the escapism most people feel playing with this culture. This applies to gun culture writ large btw.
These were concerns I was thinking the entire time I watched the “What Really Killed George Floyd” episode. The courts don’t always get it right, and the question is worth asking, especially for this show, but this counter episode needed to happen for overall harmony.
He was gushing towards Glenn and John at the end. Not out of respect but because he basically was given an hour with very little push back. I guarantee if he was pressed it wouldn’t have gonna so well for him. But cudoos to you for letting him have his time to make his bed. Both sides should be told. Nothing he said influenced what I already learned from listening from hearing those sides previously.
It is utterly embarrassing to me as a Minnesotan that Keith Ellison, a misogynist anti-semite, is the attorney general for the state . He was inarticulate. defensive, and ill-informed. THe things that he claimed as factual were merely his opinions, e g to say that this was a fair trial with an unbiased jury is just one example. If this was a debate about facts and Truth Keith Ellison fell flat on his face. At the end it became apparent that he came on to maybe sell his book so he said some nice things to a conservative audience to up his sales that was my takeaway
Keith Ellison never did answer John and Glenn's questions. Complete dishonesty. Since Keith is the one that asked for this interview, I wish that Glenn and John would have been more assertive with him, pressed him more and called him out for not answering the questions before him.
It's depressing that Keith Ellison is the norm and as such, the drastic change that is needed among blacks in the lower classes is all the more elusive.
I lost respect for both of you for exhibiting a known phenomenon. Another black comes along and bingo, they all agree.
It is to Glenn & John’s immense credit that unlike so many they keep having these conversations and haven’t given in to the audience capture like so many Substackers, despite their most vocal listenership being of the “I don’t care what Ellision says I know he’s lying & Chauvin was lynched, why can’t you just bash the woksters time and time again that’s why I tune in…just asking questions” ilk.
Fantastic conversation, a credit to all three.
Couldn't agree more. But I really loved this part:
"why can’t you just bash the woksters time and time again that’s why I tune in"
That's *exactly* what it sounds like!
"How DARE you gentlemen veer from the script??"🤣
Neither John nor Glenn have ever presented themselves as partisan hacks, and even when they seem that way, they are a LONG way from dependable.
Audience capture is a very real phenomenon and it’s affected people on both the left and right.
I think Glenn & John have navigated it very well. I suspect it’s largely due to both their personal integrity, but also having substantial professional reputations to protect and aren’t concerned if some of their audience can’t deal with hearing a diversity of opinions.
All of that.
Elison presented himself decently although the defense of the prosecution and conviction of chauvin seemed to amount largely to: the defense got its chance and the jury decided.
I still have not been able to find appellate briefs, because for the life of me i can't see how the trial judge could have allowed the 2nd degree murder charge to be tried and how the appeals courts could have sustained the juries verdict. but i don't know what chauvin's attorneys actually argued and what the appeals court actually answered.
hattip to @Michael who responded to a comment from @Victoria Chandler ( https://glennloury.substack.com/p/what-derek-chauvins-trial-didnt-show/comment/45846291 ) on an earlier thread with a link to the jury charges ( https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/JuryInstructions04192021.pdf ) from which I quote the jury instructions on 2nd degree murder:
The elements of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree while committing a felony
are: ‘
First Element: The death of George Floyd must be proven.
Second Element: The Defendant caused the death of George Floyd.
Third Element: The Defendant, at the time of causing the death of George Floyd, was
committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of Assault in the Third Degree. It is not
necessary for the State to prove the Defendant had an intent to kill George Floyd, but it must
prove that the Defendant committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony of Assault in
the Third Degree.
There are two elements of Assault in the Third Degree:
(l) Defendant assaulted George Floyd.
I
“Assault” is the intentional infliction of bodily harm upon another or the
attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another. The intentional infliction of
bodily harm requires proof that the Defendant intentionally applied unlawful
force to another person without that person’s consent and that this act resulted
in bodily harm. I
(2) Defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on George Floyd. It is not
necessary for the State to prove that the Defendant intended to inflict
substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial
bodily harm, only that the Defendant intended to commit the assault and that
George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm as a result of the assault.
Fourth Element: The Defendant's act took place on or about May 25, 2020 in Hennepin
County.
the point that Michael was trying to make was that it wasn't necessary for Chavin to have intended to kill Floyd . but there is logical contradiction in that the definition of "assault" at second element (I)(1) the court gave to the jury requires that the defendant "intended to harm" floyd. Then they can proceed to (I)(2) which requires evidence of harm, but soes not require evidence intent. While Elison is quick to say the trial was televised, it is very difficult to get transcripts in the order of trial but I have heard no treatment by either side of this question of "intent to harm". From what I can see of the points in evidence, there could be nothing but reasonable doubt that chauvin intended to harm floyd.
i won't charge you guys with being lawyers and i think it was robust useful conversation and that john asked some decent pointed questions. but I would like to ask not what the jury thought but how did elison think that chauvin "intended to harm" floyd.
the murder 3 is the negligence charge. closer call but reading the instructions I can at lease see making a case for it. i think this was overcharged and elison's answer that the defense got a chance and the jury convicted is not an answer to the appropriateness of the prosecution.
Chauvin truthers remind me of the anti vaxxers who claim they’ve ‘done their own research’.
what a compliment. i'm honored to be placed amongst the ranks of prasad and bhattacharya.
I'm in favor of a continued discussion on a complex issue. State action and citizens rights esp death require full, detailed discussions. I'm for a just conclusion wherever it falls, as far as it can be concluded. Agree that Ellison's comments on the jury conviction being sufficient wasn't the quality of explanation expected from an AG, conservative or liberal, democrat or republican.
First thank you to Glenn for giving AG Ellison the platform to respond to the questions that linger about the facts of Mr Floyd’s death and the subsequent trail of Mr Chauvin. I thought John’s questions were on point and that Glenn created a comfortable space for AG Ellison. Unfortunately, I thought AG Ellison only answered as Politician Ellison, which is to say that he didn’t answer the questions, instead he obfuscated very effectively. I guess my lingering questions are - “given the absence or reasonable persons (Ms Collin’s is conservative, white people are racists, Cop crime is the worst crime, and Republicans are evil), how does the AG expect to get a reasonable person verdict?” “As an attorney not as the AG, would Mr Ellison as the attorney for the other officers have recommended plea deals for reduced sentences given how Mr Chauvin’s trial went?” In the end I feel like we are back in the place we started with “Did Derek Chauvin receive a fair trial?” I still don’t know. I pray he did. I remember talking to a work colleague once and he had family about 2 hours to the west of the city we worked in. I lived about 30 minutes to the west and was familiar with the town he grew up in and the route he would travel. What I was surprised to learn was that he would intentionally stop in the town I lived in to fill his gas tank as he did not want to stop at the towns in between. I think I feel the same way about Minnesota. And that makes me profoundly sad as did my colleagues story.
Keith Ellison doesn't care a hoot about George Floyd and has used his unfortunate demise while resisting arrest as a play for political power in Minnesota. You can't trust one word that comes out of this man's mouth. He is Sharpton with a badge and you guys should have pushed him much harder at the interview. The Chauvin trial was no better than a Moscow show trial under Joe Stalin. The verdict was decided before the trial began and Glenn and John and everyone watching this fiasco knew or should have known it including crooked Keith Ellison.
Ellison criticized Collins because she is a conservative; he did not refute the evidence in the documentary. He himself said the trial was not about race. Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd. Yet the narrative persisted even though the trial came down to Chauvin exerted the MRT technique too long and did not perform CPR. Was that the basis for 22 years sentence? The prosecution asked for aggravating factors to extend the sentence, which would normally be about 12 years. Coleman Hughes debate with Balko laid out the case for reasonable doubt. I am disappointed that Glenn and John failed to challenge Ellison on points raised by the Fall that were not "propaganda" such as why wasn't the body cam footage of Floyd's struggles released, why did the DA rush to charge without an investigation? Ellison says the defense was free to present its case, but the prosecution had about 11 attorneys and the defense had 1. Was that fair? I still maintain that this was a rush to judgment and a political prosecution. And I am not a conservative.
PS I must add, I do NOT consider myself a Conservative. Like John, I am a Liberal, through and through, but perhaps not what is considered to be today's Left where reason is flattened so that complex issues become binary.
It was interesting to watch Keith Ellison discredit the movie The Fall of Minneapolis due to the marriage of Liz Collin. Keith Ellison fails to mention his son Jeremiah Ellison, a member of the Minneapolis city council. Of course Jeremiah Ellison is known for a tweet in support of ANTIFA.
“I hereby declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA,” tweeted Jeremiah Ellison.
It was interesting that Keith Ellison went on The Hill https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/500479-keith-ellison-responds-to-sons-antifa-tweet-a-comment-about-the/ to defend his son's tweet. "Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) said Monday that his son’s tweet in support of antifa was more a comment about the “absurdity” of President Trump’s remarks blaming proponents of the anti-fascist ideology for violence at recent demonstrations across the country over the police killing of George Floyd." Yes Keith Ellison, everything is Donald Trump's fault, including the statements your son, an elected official, makes in support of leftish extremism.
Of Jeremiah Ellison, the Minneapolis StarTribune says, "Council Member Jeremiah Ellison, who was one of the architects of the defund-the-police pledge — but now says he, and voters, think about the issue in different ways."
So answer me this Keith Ellison, how are we to believe the film with Liz Collin's involvement is biased, while your prosecution of Chauvin is not, in spite of your decided political bias and that of your son?
I am not trying to beat anyone over the head on this point, but the audacity of Keith Ellison is just amazing. Again, Ellison dismisses the documentary, The Fall of Minneapolis because Liz Collin is married to Bob Kroll (in 2019). According to Ellison, Kroll called him a "terrorist" when he took office, representing Minnesota in the US House of Representatives. Kroll's comment had to have been in 2006 or 2007, as Ellison began his term in 2007. More than 17-years before the release of Fall.
By contrast, Jeremiah Ellison was "officially" supporting ANTIFA and his efforts to defund MPD were contemporaneous to the death of George Floyd and the trial of Derek Chauvin.
In addition, The Hill tweeted about Keith Ellison's defense of his son's tweet on June 1, 2020. On that same day, the autopsy of George Floyd was signed by Andrew Baker, medical examiner for Hennepin County. https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/medical-examiner/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf Ellison's is a lie of omission.
Other than George Floyd dying, the single most important aspect of everything after, is the tainted autopsy of George Floyd. The autopsy failed to even meet the minimum standards for forensic toxicology, let alone for a designated "homicide" and the controversy around. The autopsy was released in 6-days, not the usual 6-weeks or more. Forensic toxicology is the most independent, scientific process in determining cause of death, and it was largely ignored.
I sincerely doubt Andrew Baker, the only independent party in the prosecution of Derek Chauvin, disregarded his training and forensic standards, of his own volition. Pressure was applied from somewhere higher up. While it may not have been Keith Ellison alone, I firmly believe he was involved.
Ellison is lawyer. He is paid to take sides. He is paid to prosecute. His career revolves around keeping citizens happy, even more than it revolves around respect for blind justice. Actually, FAR more than it revolves around blind justice.
The justifications he makes have no moral basis; he presents only legal basis. Is that adequate? Hell, no. Cultures can not survive and thrive on mere law. They must be centered on honesty, integrity and compassion, NONE of which is evident in Ellison's defense of his actions. Remember, Nazi Germany had laws. Those laws were used to persecute Jews and other minorities. Mr. Ellison, you'll need a lot more than 'law' to convince me you are a good and Just man.
I have ever decreasing faith in our judicial system, and politics in general. We have a cop who never acted violently or indicated any racial animosity who has been convicted of murder, when the coroner's report indicates no such thing. On the other hand, we have just had a cop brutally murdered, and nobody cares. Most have probably never even heard about it, never mind that, on average, one cop per week is murdered. How many even know THAT?
So, Mr. Ellison, what prosecutions have you pursued in an effort to PROTECT cops?
https://nypost.com/2024/03/25/us-news/nypd-cop-shot-in-chest-in-queens-rushed-to-hospital-sources/
There is NO VALID DEFENSE!!! To be honest I did not get all the way through this but not to hear mention of the massive levels of drugs in Floyds body takes away ANY CREDIBILITY to this argument. And to say that having the trial in Minneapolis was not a factor ?? Credible defense of the prosecution includes ALL THE EVIDENCE!! Not just Democrats talking points!!
Why do black men commit more murders? It sells. It sells records, video games, movies. It’s popular. The fact it exists in reality is an unfortunate side effect of the escapism most people feel playing with this culture. This applies to gun culture writ large btw.
These were concerns I was thinking the entire time I watched the “What Really Killed George Floyd” episode. The courts don’t always get it right, and the question is worth asking, especially for this show, but this counter episode needed to happen for overall harmony.
He was gushing towards Glenn and John at the end. Not out of respect but because he basically was given an hour with very little push back. I guarantee if he was pressed it wouldn’t have gonna so well for him. But cudoos to you for letting him have his time to make his bed. Both sides should be told. Nothing he said influenced what I already learned from listening from hearing those sides previously.
It is utterly embarrassing to me as a Minnesotan that Keith Ellison, a misogynist anti-semite, is the attorney general for the state . He was inarticulate. defensive, and ill-informed. THe things that he claimed as factual were merely his opinions, e g to say that this was a fair trial with an unbiased jury is just one example. If this was a debate about facts and Truth Keith Ellison fell flat on his face. At the end it became apparent that he came on to maybe sell his book so he said some nice things to a conservative audience to up his sales that was my takeaway
Keith Ellison never did answer John and Glenn's questions. Complete dishonesty. Since Keith is the one that asked for this interview, I wish that Glenn and John would have been more assertive with him, pressed him more and called him out for not answering the questions before him.
It's depressing that Keith Ellison is the norm and as such, the drastic change that is needed among blacks in the lower classes is all the more elusive.
Follow the Scott Adams rule.
More like Follow Scott Adams the fool.