Derek Chauvin....guilty on three charges.

A US jury has found a former police officer guilty of murder over the death of African-American George Floyd on a Minneapolis street last year.

Derek Chauvin, 45, was filmed kneeling on Mr Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes during his arrest last May.

The widely watched footage sparked worldwide protests against racism and excessive use of force by police.

Chauvin was found guilty on three charges: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.

He will remain in custody until he is sentenced and could spend decades in jail.







https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56818766

Syl wrote:A US jury has found a former police officer guilty of murder over the death of African-American George Floyd on a Minneapolis street last year.

Derek Chauvin, 45, was filmed kneeling on Mr Floyd's neck for more than nine minutes during his arrest last May.

The widely watched footage sparked worldwide protests against racism and excessive use of force by police.

Chauvin was found guilty on three charges: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.

He will remain in custody until he is sentenced and could spend decades in jail.







https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56818766

He's damn sure guilty of something. Be interesting to see what the sentence is.

Hopefully, there will be some changes in police training and mentality.

I'm not really all that hopeful because the problem is being addressed as a racial one, as opposed to one that is a product of bad laws and bad public service.

I dont know how many people have died after having that holding technique used on them, but obviously it's a deadly one if a big strong man like Floyd is killed by it.

Had this only been captured on police cam instead of bystander cam, those cops would still be on the streets, just like TonyTimpa's killer cops are.

Syl wrote:I dont know how many people have died after having that holding technique used on them, but obviously it's a deadly one if a big strong man like Floyd is killed by it.

Had this only been captured on police cam instead of bystander cam, those cops would still be on the streets, just like TonyTimpa's killer cops are.

And Ryan Whittakers, Daniel Shavers, Duncan Lemp's and Kelley Thomas'.

The party of principle has spoken.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont know how many people have died after having that holding technique used on them, but obviously it's a deadly one if a big strong man like Floyd is killed by it.

Had this only been captured on police cam instead of bystander cam, those cops would still be on the streets, just like TonyTimpa's killer cops are.

And Ryan Whittakers, Daniel Shavers, Duncan Lemp's and Kelley Thomas'.

I will look the others up Maddog, tbh I have never heard of them, which is probably the very point you are making.

Maddog wrote:

The party of principle has spoken.

I am not saying our police force is totally without prejudice and racism, but we certainly don't have the divide like you seem to have.

People go on about police shootings in the US, but as we see, police don't need a gun to kill, they can do it with a police approved manoeuvre like the one that killed Floyd.

No doubt it's a good holding technique when used to cuff someone, or temporarily restrain them, but when it's done by cops who obviously have no regard towards the people they are preventing breathing, be that because they are racist or just lacking in humanity, like has been said, the police force and the police training methods should be overhauled.

Will the verdict get 100% support on this forum?

Possibly not, I will have to have a think about it a bit more, for one.
Although I will very likely agree with the verdict, possibly not the decades sentence, if that's what happens.

Interesting. We are all, always and forever, criticizing Anglo and American courts for their light sentences, seemingly with a wink and a nod. When it’s Muslim rapists, or black Americans, we should throw the book at ‘em.

But then when one of our own gets up in the dock, it's all...wait a minute, whoa, whoa, just a second, hold on, now!

It all boils down to whose ox is getting gored, I guess.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And Ryan Whittakers, Daniel Shavers, Duncan Lemp's and Kelley Thomas'.

I will look the others up Maddog, tbh I have never heard of them, which is probably the very point you are making.

Precisely.

Victims have different political and media value.

Andy wrote:Will the verdict get 100% support on this forum?

Probably.

Sentencing might have a lot of disagreement.

I don't even know how long this guy should serve. Glad it's not my decision.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-minneapolis-officer-who-killed-justine-damond-sentenced-12-5-n1013926

Not identical crimes but pretty close.

Will Chauvin get more than 12.5 years?

I'm betting yes.

Even though the jury found Chauvin guilty of all three charges, he can only be convicted of one.  Chauvin has been convicted of (highest charge) second-degree unintentional murder.  That carries a maximum of 40-years, but under sentencing guidelines, a recommended 12.5 years.

The prosecution has requested sentencing enhancements, which asks the judge (Chauvin has waived a jury on enhancements) to raise the sentence.  The prosecution cited at least five grounds for enhancement.  Those five grounds are:

That Floyd “was particularly vulnerable because officers had already handcuffed him behind his back and then placed him chest down on the pavement; and...

...that Floyd clearly and repeatedly told the officers he could not breathe”; and...

...that Floyd “was treated with particular cruelty”; and...

...that Chauvin “abused a position of authority” because he was a police officer; that he committed a crime as a group of “three or more offenders”; and...

...and that the crime was committed in the presence of multiple children.

Sentencing will be in eight weeks.  Chauvin’s bail was revoked and Chauvin was remanded into the custody of the Hennepin County Sheriff.

He should stay in jail for a very long time. He knew the severity of what he was doing and he did it anyway.

Racism is a proven element in police brutality. Not necessarily the racism of someone who's grown up deriding and hating people of a different race, because I think the real problem in most of these cases is the racism of not treating everyone as though they're equally apt to be safe or a danger.

In general, though, the police in America would be greatly improved by an approach that aims to incapacitate first and kill only when there's no other option. Obviously the public would be greatly helped as well.

Andy wrote:Will the verdict get 100% support on this forum?

Certainly, from me, the answer is an unequivocal “aye”, but........(and here’s one for mi’ learned friend Quill:).

In the U.K. at least the verdict would, in my submission, be wide open to an appeal on at least two grounds.

Firstly, the civil case by the victim’s family for compensation from the city authorities was conceded by the defendants. I’m not sure whether the hearing was actually before a judge, but so far as I can recall the civil court hearing, and almost certainly judgment, would have been deferred until after the hearing by the criminal court in view of the seriousness of the charge and the “not guilty” plea already entered.

It could therefore be held that publicity given to the civil case might tend to influence jurors at the criminal trial.

Secondly, the strange intervention by the President of the United States and another constitutional lawmaker, a Congresswoman, both of whom pre-judged the case by clearly stating the considered opinion that Chauvin was guilty as charged could again be held as illegally influencing jurors, whether or not they had been sequestrated. No form of isolation can ever be regarded as being utterly reliable in preventing news somehow getting to jury accommodation.

So, watch this space. And in the meantime, Quill, any thoughts from a true expert on my submission?

And the guy who should be our next president said this.

The guy who wants to let companies pollute our drinking water and wants dog fighting to be legal should not be anywhere near the presidency.

Ben Reilly wrote:The guy who wants to let companies pollute our drinking water and wants dog fighting to be legal should not be anywhere near the presidency.

Justin Amash said that?

Ben Reilly wrote:The guy who wants to let companies pollute our drinking water and wants dog fighting to be legal should not be anywhere near the presidency.

What about cocks? Can they fight.

You constantly misrepresent libertarians.

Just because he doesn't believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to stop something doesn't mean he approves, nor that the states or local governments can't ban it.

That's the constant sidestep of libertarians -- "It's not that I agree with letting people pollute the drinking water or make dogs fight each other, I just think that's a decision that should be made at the local government level, and the federal government should stay the hell out of it!"

That way you appease (or try to appease) the whackos and the sane, to boot.

But also that way, the next time a big corporation poisons the water supply and sickens hundreds of people, they face not the United States government in court, but rather the Board of Aldermen of Windfart, Arkansas. Much easier battle to win!

Ben Reilly wrote:That's the constant sidestep of libertarians -- "It's not that I agree with letting people pollute the drinking water or make dogs fight each other, I just think that's a decision that should be made at the local government level, and the federal government should stay the hell out of it!"

That way you appease (or try to appease) the whackos and the sane, to boot.

But also that way, the next time a big corporation poisons the water supply and sickens hundreds of people, they face not the United States government in court, but rather the Town Assembly of Windfart, Arkansas. Much easier battle to win!

Wrong again. Any corporation that harms a citizen can be tried in federal court.

Of course that won't be necessary in most cases. George Floyd's family was compensated for his wrongful death at the hands of local government.

Ben, do you understand that the Constitution is designed to limit, not grant federal power?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Andy wrote:Will the verdict get 100% support on this forum?

Certainly, from me, the answer is an unequivocal “aye”, but........(and here’s one for mi’ learned friend Quill:).

In the U.K. at least the verdict would, in my submission, be wide open to an appeal on at least two grounds.

Firstly, the civil case by the victim’s family for compensation from the city authorities was conceded by the defendants. I’m not sure whether the hearing was actually before a judge, but so far as I can recall the civil court hearing, and almost certainly judgment, would have been deferred until after the hearing by the criminal court in view of the seriousness of the charge and the “not guilty” plea already entered.

It could therefore be held that publicity given to the civil case might tend to influence jurors at the criminal trial.

There is a rule, in all courts, that criminal matters get tried before civil matters based on the same facts.  To try a civil matter first would force the defendant to violate his own constitutional rights.  So civil trials are put on hold.

But that doesn’t mean the City can’t settle out of court.  The City is no more than a private party in a civil suit.  The City officials are free to do what they want.  A settlement is an action by parties not before the court, and the court has no jurisdiction.

I think the real reason why the City wanted to dispose of the civil lawsuit even before criminal trial, is because the City was going to take the position that the actions of Chauvin were improper and unlawful.  Three officials of the City were going to testify against Chauvin in the criminal trial.  You wouldn't want to be still fighting a civil matter, while in the criminal matter your own officials were saying you were wrong.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Secondly, the strange intervention by the President of the United States and another constitutional lawmaker, a Congresswoman, both of whom pre-judged the case by clearly stating the considered opinion that Chauvin was guilty as charged could again be held as illegally influencing jurors, whether or not they had been sequestrated. No form of isolation can ever be regarded as being utterly reliable in preventing news somehow getting to jury accommodation.

So, watch this space. And in the meantime, Quill, any thoughts from a true expert on my submission?

First point: wrong jurisdiction.  President Biden and Congresswoman Maxine Waters are federal officials.  The State of Minnesota was trying Mr. Chauvin.  Neither the state, nor the Minnesota Court have jurisdiction to order federal officials to shut up...quite the contrary.

Why would the opinion of someone not even involved in the state government affect the outcome of the trial, anyway?  Suppose actor Matthew McConaughey offered up his opinion; would that affect the trial?

Second point: The President and Rep. Waters are also private citizens, and the First Amendment of the Constitution grants them freedom of speech.  

There used to be an unspoken rule about any official, federal or state, not commenting on a criminal matter before a verdict.  But Trump blew that away with his "I'll pay your attorney fees" comment.  Once Trump broke the bubble, it's everyone in the water and have fun!

As for what powers the appellate court does have, the normal remedy for pre-trial, or any publicity is to shift the venue.  But if the noise comes from the federal government, where are you going to move the trial to in order to avoid the President and a popular Congresswoman?  Canada?  It has to be in the US.

Has Trump commented on the verdict?
On previous form, he will still be banging the drum for Chauvin.

I guess a number of the 181 black people killed by US cops since Floyd's  murder were justified, but I doubt whether all of them were.

181 black people killed by cops since George Floyd murder as US hopes for change

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/181-black-people-killed-cops-23958105#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

The federal authorities are entering the scene, by investigating Chauvin for possible civil rights violations under 42 USC 1981, et seq.

The feds have the death penalty, as Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVey found out, to his chagrin.     I doubt they will use that, but they could add to the sentence that Judge Cahill hands down in June.

Incidentally, the feds have also announced a sweeping investigation of the entire Milwaukee Police Department, for violent practices.  Shit >>> fan.

Original Quill wrote:As for what powers the appellate court does have, the normal remedy for pre-trial, or any publicity is to shift the venue. But if the noise comes from the federal government, where are you going to move the trial to in order to avoid the President and a popular Congresswoman? Canada? It has to be in the US.

Correction: Of course the appellate court can always reverse and/or remand to the trial court...but, for what? Dismissal? Retrial? How do you remedy outside publicity?

The American Bar Association has this to say about that:

American Bar Association wrote:The appellate court determines whether errors occurred in applying the law at the lower court level. It generally will reverse a trial court only for an error of law. Not every error of law, however, is cause for a reversal. Some are harmless errors that did not prejudice the rights of the parties to a fair trial. For example, in a criminal case a higher court may conclude that the trial judge gave a legally improper instruction to the jury, but if the mistake were minor and in the opinion of the appellate court had no bearing on the jury's finding, the appellate court may hold it a harmless error and let a guilty verdict stand. However, an error of law, such as admitting improper evidence, may be determined to be harmful and therefore reversible error.

* * * *

If the appeals court affirms the lower court's judgment, the case ends, unless the losing party appeals to a higher court. The lower court decision also stands if the appeals court simply dismisses the appeal (usually for reasons of jurisdiction).

If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court will usually send the case back to a lower court (remand it) and order the trial court to take further action. It may order that

* a new trial be held,

* the trial court's judgment be modified or corrected,

* the trial court reconsider the facts, take additional evidence, or consider the case in light of a recent decision by the appellate court.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals/

How to remedy outside influence, which may well happen again? To let the defendant go is an admission that certain laws cannot be enforced—in this case, that law is murder. All you have to do is get someone important enough, to be loud enough, and voilà!

Actually, Judge Cahill dealt with this in the comments of Rep. Waters. Defense moved for a mistrial, and Judge denied the motion, but commented that the issue could be raised on appeal. That’s called: kicking it upstairs.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:The guy who wants to let companies pollute our drinking water and wants dog fighting to be legal should not be anywhere near the presidency.

Justin Amash said that?

No.

Should we discuss what he did say, or something he never said?

Maddog wrote:Ben, do you understand that the Constitution is designed to limit, not grant federal power?

It's designed to define federal power -- neither to grant or limit anything, but merely to define it.

Now, a question for you -- do you understand that the Constitution is not a divine document and that it's totally fine to question whether the system that now exists under it is best for the American people?

The Commerce Clause gives the affirmative power, with some exceptions.