Do you think the judge should find Derek Chauvin guilty, even if the jury doesn't? It's his duty because otherwise there will be more riots?

"We the Jury find (defendant's name) (guilty/not guilty)"

Pretty much sums it up.

The Jury is about the most powerful entity in this country.

See 'Jury Nullification' as an example.

No, I thought we were supposed to have a jury of our peers to make such decisions? Are we now willing to convict people because jackasses might riot? How pathetic are Democrats?!

No due process must be allowed to take place how the unruly mob may act must not be allowed to dictate the process of this case.

No I don't because the news didn't report the whole story and an officer intending to murder someone they didn't even plan on restraining on camera with people arguing doesn't make logical sense.Do I think he should have killed him? No but I'm not sure that he thought he was and the other guy was berating him loudly while he was trying to restrain him. I'm not with the whole f@ck the white cops movement. I mean my friend was an NYPD captains son and we use to listen to Wu tang in HS for music not for a reference on how I feel on individual police officers.

He's guilty of murder.  Only thing he wasn't expecting was the video proof and the amount of attention it garnered.   I honestly believe it wasn't the first time he pulled something like this.  Unfortunately some LEOs feel above the law and this MUST change.   Until the system of union and arbitration backing up cops who commit crimes is changed drastically our country is going to see more and more of these incidents.  

What Chauvin did was illegal.  That's why the police fired him and arrested him.

Don't worry justice will be done. The video speaks volumes to me and others who believe in truth. The Defense suddenly made up the crap about Chauvin knee being on the shoulder. Very obvious they planted doubt. However, my eyes witnessed it. The reason why people are choosing to see otherwise is obvious.

Judges do not have the choice to overturn a, "not guilty," verdict only a guilty one.

I don’t think the judge can do that. Sometimes the judge can acquit a defendant that the jury found guilty but that’s very rare. It has to be a situation where the judge thought there was hardly any evidence to convict the defendant on whatever the charges were. Judges generally don’t like to interfere with juries decisions unless there’s really a glaring lack of evidence to convict the defendant but the jury found the defendant guilty anyway

I’m still trying to figure how it’s murder when it was fentanyl and meth that killed George.