Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Chauvin copped a plea? Billy Barr said no
#1


Derek Chauvin agreed to plead guilty to third-degree murder, but Attorney General Barr rejected deal, New York Times says

The federal government's approval was needed because Chauvin, who had asked to serve his time in a federal prison, wanted assurance that he would not face federal civil rights charges.
By Tim Arango New York TimesFebruary 10, 2021 — 7:39pm
MINNEAPOLIS - It was three days after George Floyd died in police custody last May, and businesses in the Twin Cities were on fire. Police officers were shooting rubber bullets and tear gas to hold back protesters, their anger fueled by a cellphone video of Floyd, a Black man, gasping for breath under the knee of a white officer.

As soldiers prepared to take to the streets, the officer, Derek Chauvin, believed that the case against him was so devastating that he agreed to plead guilty to third-degree murder. As part of the deal, officials now say, he was willing to go to prison for more than 10 years. Local officials, scrambling to quell the community's swelling anger, scheduled a news conference to announce the deal.
But at the last minute, according to new details laid out by three law enforcement officials, the deal fell apart after William Barr, the attorney general at the time, rejected the arrangement. The deal was contingent on the federal government's approval because Chauvin, who had asked to serve his time in a federal prison, wanted assurance that he would not face federal civil rights charges.
An official said Barr worried that a plea deal, so early in the process and before a full investigation had concluded, would be perceived as too lenient by the growing number of protesters across America. At the same time, Barr wanted to allow state officials, who were about to take over the case from the county prosecutor who has had tense relations with Minneapolis's Black community, to make their own decisions about how to proceed.
Now, in the lead-up to Chauvin's trial, which is scheduled to begin with jury selection March 8, there is great uncertainty about the outcome and whether the proceedings could provoke more violence.
Some office workers in downtown Minneapolis have already been told not to come to work during the weekslong trial because of heavy security. The National Guard will be deployed, transforming the city center into a military zone, with Humvees and armed soldiers monitoring checkpoints. In his recent budget proposal, Gov. Tim Walz included a special $4.2 million item for security during the trial, as well as a $35 million fund to reimburse local law enforcement agencies that may be called upon to quell unrest. 
"This is the most famous police brutality prosecution in the history of the United States," said Paul Butler, a former prosecutor and professor at Georgetown University and an authority on police brutality.
In a country whose criminal justice system rarely holds police officers accountable for killing on the job — not in Ferguson, Missouri, not in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, not in the case of Eric Garner in New York — the trial of Chauvin is seen as a test of whether anything has changed. Chauvin, in widely seen cellphone video captured by a bystander, kept his knee on the neck of Floyd for more than nine minutes until he took his last breaths pushed against, in the words of a court filing, "the unforgiving concrete of Chicago Avenue."
The trial may yet be delayed. The prosecution has asked an appeals court to put off the proceedings, citing the risk that the trial, with so many demonstrators likely to fill the streets, becomes a superspreader event during the coronavirus pandemic.
"This appeal involves a question of exceptional and unique importance in one of the highest-profile cases in our nation's history," reads the first sentence of the appellate brief filed by Keith Ellison, the state's attorney general, who is leading the prosecution.
The state is also appealing a decision by Judge Peter A. Cahill to separate the trial of Chauvin, who is charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter — the initial charge of third-degree murder was dropped — from the trial of three other former officers involved in Floyd's death, two of whom were rookies with just a few days on the job.
The three ex-officers who were with Chauvin during Floyd's final minutes — Thomas Lane, who held Floyd's legs; J. Alexander Kueng, who was positioned on Floyd's back; and Tou Thao, who held off angry bystanders — are scheduled to face trial on aiding and abetting charges in August.
Legal experts, and lawyers involved in the case, say that Cahill's decision to hold separate trials could benefit Chauvin — whose lawyer had pushed for a separate trial — because he will no longer have to face the possibility of the other three men pointing the blame at him.
In fact, that has already been playing out behind the scenes: Defense attorneys for those former officers have shifted from crafting strategies built on establishing the culpability of Chauvin to offering their help to his defense. If Chauvin were acquitted — a possibility that many officials fear could lead to more upheaval and second-guessing about the failed plea deal — the other three officers would likely not face trial at all.
https://www.startribune.com/derek-chauvin-agreed-to-plead-guilty-to-third-degree-murder-but-attorney-general-barr-rejected-deal/600021615/
Reply

#2
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Reply

#3
Quote: @"Havoc1649" said:
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Agreed,  if that deal had been made Minnesota would still be burning,  and Minneapolis would be like a third world country.
Reply

#4
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Havoc1649" said:
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Agreed,  if that deal had been made Minnesota would still be burning,  and Minneapolis would be like a third world country.

Its not already?
Reply

#5
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Havoc1649" said:
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Agreed,  if that deal had been made Minnesota would still be burning,  and Minneapolis would be like a third world country.

Its not already?
No, I can assure you it isn't...
Reply

#6
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Havoc1649" said:
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Agreed,  if that deal had been made Minnesota would still be burning,  and Minneapolis would be like a third world country.

Its not already?
LOL,  arent you from TN?   :p
Reply

#7
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Havoc1649" said:
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Agreed,  if that deal had been made Minnesota would still be burning,  and Minneapolis would be like a third world country.

Its not already?
LOL,  arent you from TN?   :p

I grew up in MN. 

You get 20-30 miles off the freeway in TN and we have really bad poverty.  Difference between here and there is there is you've already killed off all the poor via hypothermia. 
Reply

#8
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Havoc1649" said:
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Agreed,  if that deal had been made Minnesota would still be burning,  and Minneapolis would be like a third world country.

Its not already?
LOL,  arent you from TN?   :p

You can't wish Viking fandom on someone can you?  Its a life long ailment. 
Reply

#9
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"Havoc1649" said:
I understand Barr’s reasoning at that time, but I would recommend they come to a deal before a trial. Like Barr, at the time I think that sentence would have seemed way too lenient. Now that more facts are known, it may be a different story. 
All I know is I don’t want to see a trial and the circus that will come with it.
Agreed,  if that deal had been made Minnesota would still be burning,  and Minneapolis would be like a third world country.

Its not already?
LOL,  arent you from TN?   :p

I grew up in MN. 

You get 20-30 miles off the freeway in TN and we have really bad poverty.  Difference between here and there is there is you've already killed off all the poor via hypothermia. 
Ive seen it,  but its that way all over the country.   We like to hide our poverty.   Although, where I grew up in SD the 2 main highways that ran through town went right through the worst parts of town,  and the state fair grounds,  which is what most people come to the town for,  is in one of those really run down areas... so of course thats what most people think the whole town is like,  what they see from the high ways.  When I had to go to Chattanooga for work I flew into Nashville and then drove down,  of course me loving BBQ I made it a point to find some off the interstate joints to try and the quality of living really fell off the further away you got from the main thoroughfares.  Have seen the same no matter where I have traveled in this country.
Reply

#10
In LA the poverty isnt very hidden...Villages of tent cities. At least it was like that pre-covid. I haven't visited my kid there in about a year now  :/
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 Melroy van den Berg.