Floyd Murder Trial

[Guest]

I actually feared that Maxine Waters shooting her mouth off before the verdict would endanger the legitimacy of the trial, as she was urging people to stay in the streets if Chauvin wasn't found guilty.  A couple of legal analysts on a local radio show mentioned that she could have sabotaged the case.

I'm no lawyer, but I was concerned to hear that.  Apparently, it wasn't an issue.

[Guest]

@"Nichelle" said:
Almost half of Republicans say Chauvin jury reached wrong verdict: poll (msn.com)

That's pretty much all you need to know about today's GOP.

[Guest]

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Nichelle" said:
Almost half of Republicans say Chauvin jury reached wrong verdict: poll (msn.com)

That's pretty much all you need to know about today's GOP.

Meh...MSN is hardly neutral, themselves.  I've yet to speak to anyone, including members of my largely right-wing family, that didn't want Chauvin found guilty.

EDIT: just looked them up in terms of bias, and yep...left leaning, with most stories coming from left sources.

[Guest]

@"Zanary" said:
I actually feared that Maxine Waters shooting her mouth off before the verdict would endanger the legitimacy of the trial, as she was urging people to stay in the streets if Chauvin wasn't found guilty.  A couple of legal analysts on a local radio show mentioned that she could have sabotaged the case.

I'm no lawyer, but I was concerned to hear that.  Apparently, it wasn't an issue.

Legal analysts were saying Ellison and the prosecutors were pretty flawless. Some of the jurors (who are staying un-named for now) are being quoted as saying they could have reached their final verdict in under an hour. And keep in mind, there was only 1 black male on that jury too. 

Now with the Feds involved, Chauvin and the other 3 lives aren't about to get any easier. 

[Guest]

Derek Chauvin, three other ex-Minneapolis officers indicted by Justice Department on civil rights charges in killing of George FloydThe former officers face federal charges in connection to George Floyd's death. Chauvin faces additional charges for allegedly assaulting a 14-year-old during a previous arrest.

A federal grand jury has indicted four ex-Minneapolis police officers on civil rights charges in connection to the killing of George Floyd.
The new charges, unsealed Friday morning, allege Derek Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao abused their positions of power to deprive Floyd of his constitutional rights when Chauvin pinned him down on May 25 and the other three failed to intervene.
"[Chauvin], while acting under color of law, and while aided and abetted by officers known to the grand jury, willfully deprived George Floyd of the right, secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, to be free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer," the charges state. "This offense resulted in bodily injury to, and the death of George Floyd."
Chauvin faces a separate two-count indictment alleging he willfully deprived a 14-year-old Minneapolis resident of his civil rights during a 2017 arrest. Chauvin pinned the teenager down for 9 and a half minutes and struck the teen on the head with his flashlight, then grabbed him by the throat and hit him again, according to court documents.
The Justice Department charges come 11 months after the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office promised a robust investigation into whether the officers violated federal laws in Floyd's death. On April 20, a Hennepin County jury found Chauvin guilty on two counts of murder and one of manslaughter. The other three former officers are scheduled for a trial in August in state court for aiding and abetting murder and manslaughter.
The federal charges come in addition to the state's cases, meaning all four could face new trials in federal court.
The Justice Department investigation has run parallel to the state's cases. Sources told the Star Tribune that leading up to Chauvin's murder trial in state court, federal prosecutors believed they had enough evidence to charge Chauvin, but they feared publicity around indictments would disrupt the other trial. If Chauvin were found not guilty on all counts or the case ended in a mistrial, the Justice Department planned to arrest him at the courthouse on the federal charges, according to multiple sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record. The plan would turn out not be necessary when Chauvin was found guilty on all charges


https://www.startribune.com/derek-chauvi...600054594/

[Guest]

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"Nichelle" said:
Almost half of Republicans say Chauvin jury reached wrong verdict: poll (msn.com)

That's pretty much all you need to know about today's GOP.

That their opinion differs from yours?  Imagine that.

[Guest]

Judge backs aggravating factors in Chauvin trial, clearing way for longer prison termJudge Peter Cahill finds that former officer Derek Chauvin abused authority, treated George Floyd "with particular cruelty."

The judge in the Derek Chauvin murder trial has found there are "beyond a reasonable doubt" aggravating factors in connection with the killing of George Floyd last year that clear the way to sentence the fired Minneapolis police officer to a term above state guidelines.
In a ruling filed Wednesday morning, Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill cited four aggravating factors that will be considered when he sentences Chauvin on June 25.
The factors cited by Cahill are that Chauvin "abused a position of trust and authority" as a police officer, that he "treated George Floyd with particular cruelty," that children were present when Floyd was pinned to the pavement at 38th and Chicago for more than 9 minutes until he died, and that he committed the crime with "active participation" of others, namely three fellow officers.
Chauvin was convicted three weeks ago on charges of second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Defense attorney Eric Nelson declined to comment about Cahill's rulings.
Regarding abuse of trust and authority, the judge wrote, "The prolonged use of this technique was particularly egregious in that George Floyd made it clear he was unable to breathe and expressed the view that he was dying as a result of the officers' restraint."
As far as his treatment of Floyd, Cahill explained, "The slow death of George Floyd occurring over approximately six minutes of his positional asphyxia was particularly cruel in that Mr. Floyd was begging for his life and obviously terrified by the knowledge that he was likely to die but during which the Defendant objectively remained indifferent to Mr. Floyd's pleas."
Not proven as an aggravating factor was that Floyd was "particularly vulnerable," because although he was handcuffed, he was able to resist arrest before he was placed in the prone position, nor was his drug intoxication a factor.
"Restraining George Floyd in the prone position with the weight of three police officers on him for a prolonged period did not create a vulnerability that was exploited to cause death," Cahill wrote. "It was the actual mechanism causing death."
Now that Cahill accepts the prosecution's contention that aggravating factors should be applied at sentencing, the maximum term the 45-year-old Chauvin could receive would be 30 years, according to Ted Sampsell-Jones, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law and an appellate criminal defense attorney. The first 20 years would be served in prison and the balance on supervised release, if Chauvin qualifies.
Chauvin had also been out on bond during his trial. But upon the jurors finding him guilty, Chauvin had his bond revoked, and is in the Oak Park Heights Prison until sentencing.
https://www.startribune.com/judge-backs-...600056317/

[Guest]

Cahill is a no-nonsense, no bs, by-the-book judge.

It's pretty clear on how he saw this and ultimately, how it will be written in the history books.

[Guest]

@"purplefaithful" said:
Cahill is a no-nonsense, no bs, by-the-book judge.

It's pretty clear on how he saw this and ultimately, how it will be written in the history books.

It seems pretty straightforward. But it begs the question: why do almost half republicans disagree with the verdict?

[Guest]

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"purplefaithful" said:
Cahill is a no-nonsense, no bs, by-the-book judge.

It's pretty clear on how he saw this and ultimately, how it will be written in the history books.

It seems pretty straightforward. But it begs the question: why do almost half republicans disagree with the verdict?

I live in one of the most conservative states in the nation... I have not heard anybody claiming his innocence or disagreeing with the verdict.