Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Derek Chauvin trial. Death of George Floyd. Guilty on all counts.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mookie said:

Can he really be convicted of all three when the factual circumstances are the same?  Is there a valid appeal issue here?

@Zowwill have better insight here, but I assume that these charges are internally consistent with one another - the more severe charges requiring a higher degree of intent, but that would not preclude finding the lower levels of intent for the lesser crimes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 938
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As someone who hoped he would be convicted I don't understand why people celebrate convictions or the lack thereof.  I'm glad justice was served, but there is nothing here to celebrate.  It's sad.  No

"We'll have to read the bill to see what's in it. You're gonna like it," and "That's crazy. That's crazy" about the health care mandate indicate that she's actually probably the most partisan; least i

Some thoughts: Police reform is going to be long and hard and fought at every step of the way, especially by the police unions and their political sympathizers, but civilians need control back fr

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Lots of happy celebration. No rioting 

Let's see what happens when the sun sets.   All it takes is one broken window for bad actors to capitalize on the situation

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

@Zowwill have better insight here, but I assume that these charges are internally consistent with one another - the more severe charges requiring a higher degree of intent, but that would not preclude finding the lower levels of intent for the lesser crimes.

Thanks.  They sure seem like lesser included offenses of one another, but perhaps the intent element distinguishes them.  I always thought that you couldn't stack convictions on top of one another if they alleged the same elements - you just went forward with the most serious offense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Whatever you do, do not read the quotes on the Fox News article of the guilty verdicts. Generally a good idea anyway. People are mad.

Meh.  I just read about 20 posts and there’s only a couple of posts pro-Chauvin.  There’s always going to be outliers.  Best yo ignore them and focus on the overwhelming number of people who agreed on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the verdict with watery eyes.

happy that the case broke through the idea that blacks don’t get equal justice

sad as I don’t think chauvin meant to kill him and just made a bad decision

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ekbeats said:

Meh.  I just read about 20 posts and there’s only a couple of posts pro-Chauvin.  There’s always going to be outliers.  Best yo ignore them and focus on the overwhelming number of people who agreed on this.

Yes but there’s some ugly stuff in there

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mookie said:

Can he really be convicted of all three when the factual circumstances are the same?  Is there a valid appeal issue here?

1. Yes, absolutely. There were technically three different theories but they related to his intent and the latter two were arguably lesser includeds of the first. 

2. I don't anticipate the mere fact he was convicted of all three being a valid appeal issue.*

*I don't know whether this was litigated before or during the hearing.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Not my area, but:

Dressed in a gray suit, Chauvin eyes darted left as the judge announced that he was convicted of second- and third-degree murder, as well as second-degree manslaughter. He faces up to 75 years in prison when he returns for sentencing in eight weeks.

Second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 40 years.
Third-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.
Second-degree manslaughter is punishable by up to 10 years.

 

He also tried to plea to 3rd degree murder on federal charges, and serve 10+ years.

 

Even if the judge gave him the max - the sentences would run concurrently - so 40 is the max.

Un-educated guess - he gets 20 years.

 

Based on his criminal record the presumptive time is 12 1/2 years for second-degree murder. I would imagine the judge is feeling a lot of pressure to go above that time

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rockaction said:

TakiToki didn't do anything, though. It was a hypothetical posed to him. He was just predicting and projecting what he would do. He was projecting his own moral failing, one presumes. It was an honest moment.

My take on this, more broadly, is that justice was served today. A man is still dead over passing a bad twenty and the attendant reaction to it. I can't be happy one bit about it. The system worked like we've painstakingly hoped it would -- we have lost many lives to ensure it would function that way; that our way of life was upheld and that the state is accountable for its actions. To me, it's a sobering moment and a time for reflection more than the immediate gratification or condemnation of certain abstract concepts.

As usual, I appreciate your post.  I feel nothing but a small bit of relief, and a ton of sadness.  I just can't relate to folks celebrating.  At the end of the day one man lost his life and a cop is going to prison, and many of his contemporaries are further painted with a broad brush as a result.  There is no joy in any of that.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zow said:

1. Yes, absolutely. There were technically three different theories but they related to his intent and the latter two were arguably lesser includeds of the first. 

2. I don't anticipate the mere fact he was convicted of all three being a valid appeal issue.*

*I don't know whether this was litigated before or during the hearing.

Just as an aside - I saw a blurb that the prosecution had agreed to drop the 3rd charge, but that it was re-instated prior to the trial based on a Minnesota Court ruling.

Don't know the details - and given that any sentence for the 3rd charge will run concurrently with the 1st (and 2nd), I don't think its going to be fertile grounds for an appeal.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

I’m happy justice was served. 
 

@TakiTokiyou are a coward and should be ashamed of yourself. COWARD. Not a man and please dont have children

Honestly, and this is going to sound strange, but he's not. I say this because oftentimes juries are compromised of people who are afraid to speak up and be judged about their opinions and biases. As a result, lawyers are deprived of the necessary information to best use their strikes and we wind up with biased jurors who were too cowardly to share their biases yet still vote in deliberations based on them. That's far more cowardly than a potential juror speaking up. In fact, I'd say it takes strength and honor to be able to say, "hey, I'm biased for X reason." Justice can be served when we are able to flesh out these biases and ensure biased people don't end up on juries. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, facook said:

As usual, I appreciate your post.  I feel nothing but a small bit of relief, and a ton of sadness.  I just can't relate to folks celebrating.  At the end of the day one man lost his life and a cop is going to prison, and many of his contemporaries are further painted with a broad brush as a result.  There is no joy in any of that.

I'm probably less worried about the broad brush than you because I believe the police and their unions are in need of some serious corrective reform, but I feel no joy in any of it. Perhaps our positions in life and our immutable characteristics have something to do with it, but I'm thinking it's more our dispositions. There is a man dead and a man going to prison for a long time for acting inhumanely toward another fellow human. The celebration over the justice of the verdict only soothes our retributive senses, not our better ones.

dkp993 just had a great quote where he didn't know whether he was sadder to see people celebrating because the system is broken but worked for once, or that it it's fine yet people perceive it as broken and that's why they're celebrating.

I wholeheartedly concur. That says a lot about the state of our democracy. Either we're in trouble or we're in trouble.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Thanks.  I would say 20 years sounds about right.  I'm one who thinks we sentence people way too long in this country..

Me too

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, facook said:

As usual, I appreciate your post.  I feel nothing but a small bit of relief, and a ton of sadness.  I just can't relate to folks celebrating.  At the end of the day one man lost his life and a cop is going to prison, and many of his contemporaries are further painted with a broad brush as a result.  There is no joy in any of that.

Justice being served in this cass gives people the hope of a brighter future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I'm probably less worried about the broad brush than you because I believe the police and their unions are in need of some serious corrective reform, but I feel no joy in any of it. Perhaps our positions in life and our immutable characteristics have something to do with it, but I'm thinking it's more our dispositions. There is a man dead and a man going to prison for a long time for acting inhumanely toward another fellow human. The celebration over the justice of the verdict only soothes our retributive senses, not our better ones.

dkp993 just had a great quote where he didn't know whether he was sadder to see people celebrating because the system is broken but worked for once, or that it it's fine yet people perceive it as broken and that's why they're celebrating.

I wholeheartedly concur. That says a lot about the state of our democracy. Either we're in trouble or we're in trouble.

I actually agree wholeheartedly, and in large part due to conversations with friends of mine who are in law enforcement and have been saying the same thing.  Each of them agreed Chauvin was guilty of murder from the day it happened, and said as much regarding reform.  Still, I hurt that a large segment of society sees every cop as an abuser or murderer because I care about my friends and police in general.

and also agree @dkp993's comment was excellent.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cockroach said:

Justice being served in this cass gives people the hope of a brighter future. 

Ok.  I get I've not been oppressed so my reaction is different.  Just can't relate at all to celebrating under the circumstances, even if conviction provides some hope. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Not my area, but:

Dressed in a gray suit, Chauvin eyes darted left as the judge announced that he was convicted of second- and third-degree murder, as well as second-degree manslaughter. He faces up to 75 years in prison when he returns for sentencing in eight weeks.

Second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 40 years.
Third-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of 25 years.
Second-degree manslaughter is punishable by up to 10 years.

 

He also tried to plea to 3rd degree murder on federal charges, and serve 10+ years.

 

Even if the judge gave him the max - the sentences would run concurrently - so 40 is the max.

Un-educated guess - he gets 20 years.

 

I heard an attorney on local NPR station and he said that the two lesser charges go away with him being found guilty of second degree murder. And that he is looking at 12.5 years for that charge (more if the judge decides the facts warrant an above guidelines sentence).  I'll see if I can track that down

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zow said:

Honestly, and this is going to sound strange, but he's not. I say this because oftentimes juries are compromised of people who are afraid to speak up and be judged about their opinions and biases. As a result, lawyers are deprived of the necessary information to best use their strikes and we wind up with biased jurors who were too cowardly to share their biases yet still vote in deliberations based on them. That's far more cowardly than a potential juror speaking up. In fact, I'd say it takes strength and honor to be able to say, "hey, I'm biased for X reason." Justice can be served when we are able to flesh out these biases and ensure biased people don't end up on juries. 

I agree that its better that he says hes biased, but thats not what he said. He said he would still send a non guilty person to jail.

That is not a person who can be trusted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

How many people NOT committing arson, vandalism, burglary, and grand theft tonight will it take for you to say that you were wrong and unfairly made assumptions?

Honestly if there is no rioting/looting/arson I'll be damn happy.

I was just asking those who have supported the riots (there were several) where they stood now. I don't think that's an unreasonable question given the past year. 
 

But yes, hopefully that tone has changed and the wave of destructive criminal behavior is over on both sides.

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, facook said:

Still, I hurt that a large segment of society sees every cop as an abuser or murderer because I care about my friends and police in general.

Yeah, there's definitely a potential for good guys to get painted all sorts of wrong. I've dealt with a lot of policemen in both my studies and my sort of non-violent criminal life, and most cops are okay. But when you catch a bad one, or corrupt one, or one that doesn't care about fundamental rights granted by the Constitution, you've got a problem.

I have two cousins that are policemen, so I'm not unfamiliar with it being close to me in a familial sense. One of them actually deserves the sort of bad rep that cops get among polite folk. He's a little too gung-ho about it and is very easily into the "them-us" mentality when it comes to the citizenry and their transgressions. The other cousin is cool, but I remember his wedding and the older cops not being cool at all in a relaxed setting.

In short, I used to care about good cops getting bad names, but I see too many bad actors today.

Edited by rockaction
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:

I agree that its better that he says hes biased, but thats not what he said. He said he would still send a non guilty person to jail.

That is not a person who can be trusted. 

I agree. But a cowardly person would be somebody afraid to admit and/or notify others of their untrustworthiness. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cjw_55106 said:

Based on his criminal record the presumptive time is 12 1/2 years for second-degree murder. I would imagine the judge is feeling a lot of pressure to go above that time

I don't know if you heard the word Blakely being thrown around at all (Chauvin waived his Blakely rights to aggravation factors by jury), but the aggravating factors that may or may not be present are what will decide the length of his sentence. The biggest issue now is the aggravating factor of the crime being committed in the presence of a minor. There were two 17 year olds and an 8 or 9 year old present when Floyd died. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the moops said:

I heard an attorney on local NPR station and he said that the two lesser charges go away with him being found guilty of second degree murder. And that he is looking at 12.5 years for that charge (more if the judge decides the facts warrant an above guidelines sentence).  I'll see if I can track that down

Not sure they'd "go away" (as in dismissed) but more likely will run concurrent with the more serious offense and, but for some unlikely future circumstances, be totally moot. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Yeah, there's definitely a potential for good guys to get painted all sorts of wrong. I've dealt with a lot of policemen in both my studies and my sort of non-violent criminal life, and most cops are okay. But when you catch a bad one, or corrupt one, or one that doesn't care about fundamental rights enforced by the Constitution, you've got a problem.

I have two cousins that are policemen, so I'm not unfamiliar with it being close to me in a familial sense. One of them actually deserves the sort of bad rep that cops get among polite folk. He's a little too gung-ho about it and is very easily into the "them-us" mentality when it comes to the citizenry and their transgressions. The other cousin is cool, but I remember his wedding and the older cops not being cool at all in a relaxed setting.

In short, I used to care about good cops getting bad names, but I see too many bad actors today.

Interesting.  Helps me see where my "nothing but a good time" experiences with cops color my thinking.  Thanks for the food for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, facook said:

I actually agree wholeheartedly, and in large part due to conversations with friends of mine who are in law enforcement and have been saying the same thing.  Each of them agreed Chauvin was guilty of murder from the day it happened, and said as much regarding reform.  Still, I hurt that a large segment of society sees every cop as an abuser or murderer because I care about my friends and police in general.

and also agree @dkp993's comment was excellent.

I don't follow these racially charged police cases super closely to be honest but it seemed there was on full display zero "thin blue line" going on here. His colleagues and bosses buried Chauvin. Big, big progress there. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mookie said:

Can he really be convicted of all three when the factual circumstances are the same?  Is there a valid appeal issue here?

Seems odd.  Seems like double jeopardy. He undoubtedly deserved conviction, but stacking convictions for the same crime seems unconstitutional.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zow said:

Not sure they'd "go away" (as in dismissed) but more likely will run concurrent with the more serious offense and, but for some unlikely future circumstances, be totally moot. 

Yea I dont know. The host asked if they would run concurrently or consecutively and the attorney clearly said that no, it would just be the 2nd degree murder charge. Maybe he was taking liberty with that wording though. And then went on to talk about how the judge will have to determine whether there were special circumstances of the crime that would justify a lengthier sentence than the guidelines

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Seems odd.  Seems like double jeopardy. He undoubtedly deserved conviction, but stacking convictions for the same crime seems unconstitutional.  

In what way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Seems odd.  Seems like double jeopardy. He undoubtedly deserved conviction, but stacking convictions for the same crime seems unconstitutional.  

That's why the sentences will run concurrently, but I don't understand why people think this is a big deal. Just had a women on drugs hit and kill a motorcyclist. She's charged with speeding, reckless driving, OUI, leaving the scene and vehicular homicide. All from the same incident. If, for some reason, the jury finds that she wasn't impaired, that doesn't mean she didn't speed.

Just as if the jury found that Chauvin wasn't guilty of second degree, he may still be guilty of third degree. As Woz pointed out, prosecutors may be reluctant to have lesser includeds presented because of the risk the jury will opt for a compromise, but there's zero wrong with doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol...what the heck?   Link

Quote

Speaker Pelosi: "Thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice ... Because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice."

 

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cockroach said:

Justice being served in this cass gives people the hope of a brighter future. 

And that’s why there is happy celebration. I honestly don’t understand the people here who believe there shouldn’t be celebration. Of course there should be. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

And that’s why there is happy celebration. I honestly don’t understand the people here who believe there shouldn’t be celebration. Of course there should be. 

I dont think celebration is the word you are looking for here

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, djmich said:

lol...what the heck?   Link

 

Good lord that's awful.  She acts like he voluntarily stuck his neck under Chauvin's knee for the good of the rest of the country.  It's amazing people defend and vote for this lady

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Why not? What word am I looking for? 

why are we celebrating 2 lives completely ruined and both parties are blatantly to blame?

 

I think you should be saying, "yeah lets get this behind us and both sides need to work on things"

 

The word should be tragedy

Edited by pantherclub
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, killface said:

again, what do you think people have to face in actual criminal trials where they are threatened with murder?  

It's how people need to function if the system is going to work.

You can be too scared but again thankfully most people aren't like you

Wanting to protect my family isn't about my testosterone. And there's no way to prove this but I think if put in that situation, more people would think like me than you think. So we can just agree to disagree on this subject. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gawain said:

That's why the sentences will run concurrently, but I don't understand why people think this is a big deal. Just had a women on drugs hit and kill a motorcyclist. She's charged with speeding, reckless driving, OUI, leaving the scene and vehicular homicide. All from the same incident. If, for some reason, the jury finds that she wasn't impaired, that doesn't mean she didn't speed.

Just as if the jury found that Chauvin wasn't guilty of second degree, he may still be guilty of third degree. As Woz pointed out, prosecutors may be reluctant to have lesser includeds presented because of the risk the jury will opt for a compromise, but there's zero wrong with doing so.

Most of those are distinct separate acts.  Doing drugs...speeding....hitting someone...the leaving the scene.  This was one act.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a step in the right direction, but it’s a shame George Floyd had to die to set it in motion. I’d still like to see police departments undergo retraining to try to keep this from happening more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zow said:

1. Yes, absolutely. There were technically three different theories but they related to his intent and the latter two were arguably lesser includeds of the first. 

2. I don't anticipate the mere fact he was convicted of all three being a valid appeal issue.*

*I don't know whether this was litigated before or during the hearing.

Quick quesion about the sentencing.  After the trial but before the verdict in the court room the judge held a motion that I inerpreted to be about agravated circumstances whereby Chauvin waived his abiliy for a jury to decide that matter and instead let the judge decide.  I was brought up again today for scheduling reasons.  It was a 1 word "name" if that helps you understand what Im even talking about.  My quesion is am I misunderstanding what that is about and if not how can that hearing affect the senence Chauvin will get?   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching that verdict was surreal. Theres a lot to process from them getting it right to this guy's lifebeingoverto people cheering that the right decision was actually made. Its really a picture of a broken system when that sort of celebration is more than a nod to the right thing happening

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Why wouldn’t it be? Who is angry? 

It's not a polarity tim.  Read the other posts and you'll find the answer to your first question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • NorvilleBarnes changed the title to Derek Chauvin trial. Death of George Floyd. Guilty on all counts.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...