Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, timschochet said:

Unfortunate choice of words on her part. Despite being pretty clearly the best Speaker of the House in our history, she’s not perfect. 

"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 informed and, by extension, least intellectually curious; and most mendacious speaker in recent memory, making her the worst speaker in history. That you can't see that puts you on the left of many people on this board who are very left.

She embodies everything wrong with our political class that we send to Washington. Truly revolting.

Edited by rockaction
Edited so as not to dehumanize, but I feel strongly about her
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 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. 

 

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Unfortunate choice of words on her part. Despite being pretty clearly the best Speaker of the House in our history, she’s not perfect. 

By your logic it's not an unfortunate choice of words by Pelosi.  "Why wouldn't she celebrate Floyd's death for this result?" 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

"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 informed and, by extension, least intellectually curious; and most mendacious speaker in recent memory, making her the worst speaker in history. She's an odious scumbag. That you can't see that puts you on the left of many people on this board who are very left.

She's a vile creature, and embodies everything wrong with our political class that we send to Washington. Truly revolting.

She’s certainly partisan. Whether she’s the most partisan I don’t know. 
But she’s never let partisanship get in the way of her effectiveness. She alone got TARP done; nobody else could have. She’s managed to keep her party together in a way no other politician could. She’s simply amazing. Vile? Not to me. She gets #### done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Unfortunate choice of words on her part. Despite being pretty clearly the best Speaker of the House in our history, she’s not perfect. 

OK, we are going to need to have a fact vs opinion review 😄

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shula-holic said:
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Unfortunate choice of words on her part. Despite being pretty clearly the best Speaker of the House in our history, she’s not perfect. 

OK, we are going to need to have a fact vs opinion review 😄

Take it to the Pelosi thread :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 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. 

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.  Nothing is going to bring back George Floyd.  Chauvin is going to waste away in jail for a senseless act.  

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dickies said:

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.  Nothing is going to bring back George Floyd.  Chauvin is going to waste away in jail for a senseless act.  

Exactly!  I see a lot of rejoicing here and it’s sad.  This place is Reddit Jr aka cesspool.  This forum is disturbing and sorry Joe, after being a subscriber for over 10 years, I’m not giving you any of my money for letting such vile be celebrated.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, urbanhack said:

Great take.  You are pathetic.

I’m tired

 I’m tired of people getting shot at work. I’m tired of people getting killed by police. I’m tired of police getting killed by criminals.

Im REALLY tired of people taking advantage of these situations to steal from and set fire to innocent peoples businesses.

If Chauvin deserved what he got today then I’m glad he got it. If he doesn’t, I hope it gets straightened out on appeal. 
 

Im happy that (I hope) people won’t lose their livelihoods tonight. Obviously many many would have had the verdict been different. 
 

If you don’t think there were a lot of criminals disappointed today that there won’t be riots to night, then I guess we disagree.

Anyway, that’s enough time spent on you, frankly I couldn’t care less what you think of me. 

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, da_budman said:

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?   

Blakely

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1632.ZS.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, da_budman said:

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?   

The word is very likely "Blakely" - which comes from a case where a particular procedural ruling was made that I'll explain. I'm pressed at work right now but will try to answer your question before I leave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

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

It may be unconstitutional if they "stack" the sentences - which i don't anticipate happening here. I'll try to explain more later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dickies said:

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.  Nothing is going to bring back George Floyd.  Chauvin is going to waste away in jail for a senseless act.  

They’re not celebrating Chauvin’s conviction by itself. They’re celebrating what they hope is a new era in which police who mistreat black people are charged and convicted, instead of getting away with it. It’s the changing times that they’re celebrating, and I think it’s justified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, timschochet said:

She’s certainly partisan. Whether she’s the most partisan I don’t know. 
But she’s never let partisanship get in the way of her effectiveness. She alone got TARP done; nobody else could have. She’s managed to keep her party together in a way no other politician could. She’s simply amazing. Vile? Not to me. She gets #### done. 

I remember CNN Anchors asking her why she wouldn't work with Trump to pass a stimulus and she refused to answer the question.  THAT was letting partisanship get in the way of her effectivenss.  But I'm sure that doesn't count.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

NBC saying Biden will speak tonight and call for peaceful protests.  What the hell are they protesting about today’s verdict?

Tell Biden that Timscochet says there aren't going to be any and they don't have anything to worry about!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

The statements are always cover-your-### statements and they use the passive voice almost exclusively. Notice how the officers act in a grammatical way that leaves the reader with the inkling that these things were not directly caused by an officer's action, but that they just "happened" to someone or some property. Instead of saying -- and this is when shootings are involved -- that "an officer fired a gun," at best you get "an officer discharged his weapon," at worst, and is often the case, you get "the gun was fired," as if nobody with agency had done the firing. "A gun was fired and hit the suspect. Transported to the hospital, the suspect died of wounds from the bullet," as if the gun had fired itself, and the suspect had died because of an intrusive inanimate object. The police officer, who did the shooting, is often nowhere mentioned around the causal act in an attempt to dissuade the reader from asking questions about his or her agency.

That's what these reports have looked like since at least the aughts. They're designed to be bureaucratic in nature and to give a sense of reasoned and calm decision-making by the officer in question. It's a load of malarkey, as our president might say, and this case was no different. That does not mean every issuance from a police department is inherently suspect, but the dispassionate way in which this was worded, so as to exonerate the officer from any culpability before questions were even asked, is something that puts doubt into people's minds when it comes to the system.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zow said:

The word is very likely "Blakely" - which comes from a case where a particular procedural ruling was made that I'll explain. I'm pressed at work right now but will try to answer your question before I leave. 

So are these Blakely hearings just normal procedure or does this mean the Judge anticipates the possibility of enforcing a sentence outside the norm for this particular crime or set of crimes and he is making sure it doesnt trample Chauvins constitutional rights?  (as you can tell I read the article and understood it just enough to be dangerous)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 from their police forces. There needs to be a reestablishment of political control over the police. These issues of brutality and the oversight of brutality are fundamental issues of citizenry and the state, and shouldn't be won or lost at the bargaining table between state lawyers and union lawyers. Our politicians -- who comprise the state and are represented by their attorneys -- are all too willing to gamble away our rights for comity with the unions and the bloc of voters to which they appeal (and there are many that the law and order agenda appeals to, on both sides, though the voters that support the police unions and the blue line tend to lean much more Republican, or in cities, to moderate Democrats if we're being honest). There needs to be a long effort at state, municipal, city, and town levels of government to re-establish the oversight that many communities have lost to the unions and their voters.

There's also something to be said for individual oversight, namely in the form of protections for those taking video and audio of events. We've seen brutality and property damage happen in situations simply for filming events. People have been arrested, accosted, had their recording devices smashed -- everything under the sun has happened in order that some bad cops may not be caught on video committing heinous acts. What does this mean? On one hand, it means legislatively affirming the right to capture audio and video of police officers. States and localities should have this set in stone in legislation, and should push for police officers, as agents of the law, to undergo compulsory understanding of new legislation so that they cannot feign innocence as to the extent and purpose of these laws.

At the federal level, there needs to be a demilitarization of the police. Full stop. No more tanks, no more SWAT units in small towns. The practice of SWATting in internet lore tells you all you need to know about the level of violence inherent in SWAT units and that which they bring with them. We have nothing short of military actions happening in our homes with the imprimatur of approval from upstanding judges and magistrates. These units are basically standing armies, and the citizen is powerless over their tactical might. The fundamental imbalance of power the individual suffers at the hands of tactical units is akin to that of a subject-state relationship rather than one of a citizen-state. In the name of protection of ourselves we have allowed essentially what is a standing military to invade other citizen's houses and places of work. That must end.

And lastly, this cannot happen without restraint of the citizen, both in deed and in busybodiness. We cannot police those that refuse to act within the Golden Rule. If there is a rejection of violence and civility at the personal level, our democracy will descend into a police state in order to protect that which is precious. Our rights will evaporate if people cannot act with restraint toward other people. As far as property and rights go, we cannot continue to lose our rights because of outside regulations of the self, namely the police apparatus designed to interdict, intercept, and prevent the voluntary ingestion of drugs for recreational purposes. At its fundamental level, The War On Drugs (in addition to being a ####ty band) is a failed war that has resulted in the most insane and anti-Constitutional machinations in the name of "protection" of the self by others who have determined what is right and proper to ingest or partake in. Everything from the right to self-determination regarding one's own life, to the right to property, to the right to counsel, to the right just to be ordinarily left alone by state apparatus is implicated by this war to protect people, at heart, from themselves. The reformer and utopian gaze was set upon bodily integrity and soulful purity, and we have seen with alcohol where that culminates politically; it is time to back up a bit and not look at things so myopically that we sacrifice the values of our country for the sake of an evangelical purity of spirit. Time to end that war, begotten in a borderline religiosity, so long since dramatically enforced.

And that's about all for now. Thanks for reading if you did.

Edited by rockaction
  • Like 11
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Unfortunate choice of words on her part. Despite being pretty clearly the best Speaker of the House in our history, she’s not perfect. 

Come on man, I don’t even believe that you believe this.

And strictly in terms of achievements and influence over the country as Speaker, I’ll easily take Henry Clay and Sam Rayburn over Pelosi, amongst others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:
2 hours ago, Dickies said:

Those who are familiar with this stuff, what kind of sentence is he looking at here?

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'm coming in way late, but:

Sinn Fein seems to be on the money here. On another board, several lawyers have been discussing this case (like here). One pointed out that the average sentence for Murder 2 for a defendant with no priors is 12.5 years -- then made the comment that extenuating circumstances would likely make the sentence longer than average. 20 years seems about right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Shawnky said:

Pot meet kettle 

He literally claimed there was nothing wrong with himself, simultaneously misspelling the word wrong.  I mean you couldn't set it up better than that on purpose.  :lmao:

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, timschochet said:

They’re not celebrating Chauvin’s conviction by itself. They’re celebrating what they hope is a new era in which police who mistreat black people are charged and convicted, instead of getting away with it. It’s the changing times that they’re celebrating, and I think it’s justified. 

Sadly, I do not think we are there yet.  After George Floyd's death the police issued their usual statement.  It wasn't until cell phone video was posted that they changed their tune.  If not for cell phones and 99% of society having video recorders on them at all times, I don't think anything would have changed.  We'd still be hearing from the black community that they are being abused by police, and suburban whites who cannot relate to their experience will bury their heads and dismiss it all.  

I say this as one of those suburban whites.  It's been eye-opening and horrifying watching some of these videos

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug B said:

I'm coming in way late, but:

Sinn Fein seems to be on the money here. On another board, several lawyers have been discussing this case (like here). One pointed out that the average sentence for Murder 2 for a defendant with no priors is 12.5 years -- then made the comment that extenuating circumstances would likely make the sentence longer than average. 20 years seems about right.

Maybe relative increases don't matter but going from 12.5 to 20 is on the order of 75% increase...not a lawyer but would assume 15 would be a more logical step up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rockaction said:

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 from their police forces. There needs to be a reestablishment of political control over the police. These issues of brutality and the oversight of brutality are fundamental issues of citizenry and the state, and shouldn't be won or lost at the bargaining table between state lawyers and union lawyers. Our politicians -- who comprise the state and are represented by their attorneys -- are all too willing to gamble away our rights for comity with the unions and the bloc of voters to which they appeal (and there are many that the law and order agenda appeals to, on both sides, though the voters that support the police unions and the blue line tend to lean much more Republican, or in cities, to moderate Democrats if we're being honest). There needs to be a long effort at state, municipal, city, and town levels of government to re-establish the oversight that many communities have lost to the unions and their voters.

There's also something to be said for individual oversight, namely in the form of protections for those taking video and audio of events. We've seen brutality and property damage happen in situations simply for filming events. People have been arrested, accosted, had their recording devices smashed, everything under the sun has happened in order that some bad cops may not be caught on video committing heinous acts. What does this mean? On one hand, it means legislatively affirming the right to capture audio and video of police officers. States and localities should have this set in stone in legislation, and should push for police officers, as agents of the law, to undergo compulsory understanding of new legislation so that they cannot feign innocence as to the extent and purpose of these laws.

At the federal level, there needs to be a demilitarization of the police. Full stop. No more tanks, no more SWAT units in small towns. The practice of SWATting in internet lore tells you all you need to know about the level of violence inherent in SWAT units and that which they bring with them. We have nothing short of military actions happening in our homes with the imprimatur of approval from upstanding judges and magistrates. These units are basically standing armies, and the citizen is powerless over their tactical might. The fundamental imbalance of power the individual suffers at the hands of tactical units is akin to that of a subject-state relationship rather than one of a citizen-state. In the name of protection of ourselves we have allowed essentially what is a standing military to invade other citizen's houses and places of work. That must end.

And lastly, this cannot happen without restraint of the citizen, both in deed and in busybodiness. We cannot police those that refuse to act within the Golden Rule. If there is a rejection of violence and civility at the personal level, our democracy will descend into a police state in order to protect that which is precious. Our rights will evaporate if people cannot act with restraint toward other people. As far as property and rights go, we cannot continue to lose our rights over own our protections of the self, namely the police apparatus designed to interdict, intercept, and prevent the voluntary ingestion of drugs for recreational purposes. At its fundamental level, The War On Drugs (is a ####ty band) is a failed war that has resulted in the most insane and anti-Constitutional legislation and "protection" of the self by others who have determined what is right and proper to ingest or partake in. Everything from the right to self-determination with one's own life, to the right to property, to the right to counsel, to the right just to be ordinarily left alone by state apparatus in implicated by this war to protect people, at heart, from themselves. The reformer and utopian gaze was set upon bodily integrity and soul purity, and we have seen with alcohol where that culminates politically; it is time to back up a bit and not look at things so myopically that we sacrifice the values of our country for the sake of an evangelical purity of spirit. Time to end that war, begotten in a borderline religiosity, so long since dramatically enforced.

And that's about all for now. Thanks for reading if you did.

Really good stuff.  Can't like this enough.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pantherclub said:

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

I think the fact that there is justice and our judicial system came to the right conclusion there is cause for a sigh of relief on that front. I am thinking there are many that want to see a similar verdict against Potter for Wright but I think second degree manslaughter is all that Potter should be charged with but we need to to wait for all the evidence.
 

I won’t be celebrating until there are better relations between the community and law enforcement. And I am not holding my breath for that to happen

Edited by lazyike
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tonydead said:

He literally claimed there was nothing wrong with himself, simultaneously misspelling the word wrong.  I mean you couldn't set it up better than that on purpose.  :lmao:

Oh look, the neocons are out and about to troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

They’re not celebrating Chauvin’s conviction by itself. They’re celebrating what they hope is a new era in which police who mistreat black people are charged and convicted, instead of getting away with it. It’s the changing times that they’re celebrating, and I think it’s justified. 

So, hypothetically: if OJ had been convicted, and those of us who are not uber-rich had celebrated that justice was served and there was hope the uber-rich could no longer get away with murder willy-nilly would we have been justified?  Nope.  Two people would have been dead and the man who killed them on his way to prison.  Nothing to celebrate.

 

 

23 minutes ago, seahawk 17 said:

See Portland Oregon and get back to me in the morning.

It's going to be an S-show in PDX tonight.  For the 340th night in a row.  Ish.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is odd to me is this idea that trial by jury (particularly for police) has sort of fundamentally changed today.

I saw in the Rittenhouse thread someone saying that todays verdict increased the likelihood Rittenhouse is convicted.

I get the perception here that this proves something around police officers being convicted beyond just this case.

#1.  I think overall there will be at least some, hopefully more than some, focus on positive changes to law enforcement.  But I don't see that as correlated to todays trial result.  Or is it?

#2.  Do people think this is something other than an independent jury hearing the facts and ending with a verdict?  This outcome fundamentally changes the next trial?  Is it about that police were not-defensive of Chauvin in this case and the thought is that it isn't just the specifics of this case and about more broadly the blue wall showing cracks?  If yes, why now and why the next one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

They’re not celebrating Chauvin’s conviction by itself. They’re celebrating what they hope is a new era in which police who mistreat black people are charged and convicted, instead of getting away with it. It’s the changing times that they’re celebrating, and I think it’s justified. 

I agree with this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, facook said:

So, hypothetically: if OJ had been convicted, and those of us who are not uber-rich had celebrated that justice was served and there was hope the uber-rich could no longer get away with murder willy-nilly would we have been justified?  Nope.  Two people would have been dead and the man who killed them on his way to prison.  Nothing to celebrate.

 

 

 

These type of discussions IMO, tend to always divide between those who recognize how badly the police have treated black people in this country, and those who pretend that they get treated like everyone else. The examples you’re offering are not relevant. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, djmich said:

One thing that is odd to me is this idea that trial by jury (particularly for police) has sort of fundamentally changed today.

I saw in the Rittenhouse thread someone saying that todays verdict increased the likelihood Rittenhouse is convicted.

I get the perception here that this proves something around police officers being convicted beyond just this case.

#1.  I think overall there will be at least some, hopefully more than some, focus on positive changes to law enforcement.  But I don't see that as correlated to todays trial result.  Or is it?

#2.  Do people think this is something other than an independent jury hearing the facts and ending with a verdict?  This outcome fundamentally changes the next trial?  Is it about that police were not-defensive of Chauvin in this case and the thought is that it isn't just the specifics of this case and about more broadly the blue wall showing cracks?  If yes, why now and why the next one.

I don't see how this relates to the Rittenhouse dude's trial but this was what stood out to me about this trial.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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...