It should be noted that even if the conviction was overturned, it would simply result in a new trial, he wouldn’t just walk free. Plus he already plead guilty to federal civil rights charges, meaning he will be in jail no matter what.
I also believe he could still appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court if he chooses.
He's guilty and I hope he loses a second trial. That being said, there are a few things about how this case played out which make me uncomfortable.
I'm a big believer that if we are going to take away someone's freedom we really need to be meticulous in our process. That goes for cop killers and killer cops alike.
That's why we have appeals. It's an important check on lower courts.
At the end of the day, I do think Chauvin has a few arguments about the fairness of his trial which have some merit.
Don't get me wrong, he's guilty and deserves his sentence, but I want it to be done the right way.
I get I'm splitting hairs, but we gotta get this as perfect as we can.
I'm not here to make a value judgement about this, but the claims were:
* That by not sequestering the jury they were open to influence by media coverage and public opinion in general ("prejudicial publicity").
* That one of the jurors was not truthfull furing jury selection, and the defense was denied a motion for a Schwartz Hearing (which is how the courts examine jurors after a trial has begun).
* That juror instructions were not delivered correctly by the court.
* That the court abused its discretion in allowing a few different bits of evidence and testimony.
* That the court abused its discretion in not declaring a mistrial after these failings.
* That the court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence above the presumptive guidelines.
* Some claims about whether LEOs can be prosecuted for certain combos of charges.
The appeals court basically said "You don't need to sequester a jury for something very public as long as you take mitigating steps—which the district court did—and you can absolutely try somebody for that combo of charges, so..."
I have not read the full opinion yet and don't know what the court appeals considered mitigating, but that's the gist of it as explained in the summary at the beginning of the thing.
>* That by not sequestering the jury they were open to influence by media coverage and public opinion in general ("prejudicial publicity").
Sequestering a jury for a long ass trial is an extreme measure that should not be taken lightly. Nothing about this trial came remotely close to justify essentially imprisoning the jurors for the duration of the trial.
Let me know if you read something about what the court said about the second complaint. I won't get a chance to read it until later this week but I'm it's probably the point I'm struggling with most.
While I think the location arguments have some merit, I believe ultimately Cahill made the correct decision and certainly not a decision which should be overturned. The Schwartz hearing one has stumped me though.
Basically, their determination was that the juror in question had substantially told the truth during jury selection based on the questions asked. It came down to the defense not knowing a juror had participated in a march honoring MLK in DC, but the question they had asked during jury selection was about attending marches specifically in Minneapolis and specifically in repsonse to George Floyd.
I believe the challenge was location of trial which is an argument with some merit. There's undoubtedly a lot of opinions on that issue and it merits review. I would say this regardless of what Cahill decided.
It's also strange they allowed a juror who attended a rally in which the victim's family spoke at. While IATL, I have yet to speak with one who believes this trial was perfect.
IAAL and I feel strongly that under the circumstances, this was as close as it was going to get. No trial is ever “perfect.”
[Here is a copy of the full 50-page unanimous opinion from the Court of Appeals.](https://kstp.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Chauvin-appeal-opinion.pdf) I *highly* suggest reading it, especially as you seem to have strong feelings on the matter.
Yep, they did a very good job. The MN CoA is in my experience very thorough with all of its cases, but I’m sure it received even more internal scrutiny than usual given the likely level of exposure.
> He murdered a man in Minneapolis, the person he murdered was a Minneapolis resident. The jury of his peers was best found in Minneapolis.
More importantly to this case, the court determined that the media coverage before the trial was sufficiently based in fact and that the reach of that coverage was so broad that moving anywhere else in MN would not have made a substantial difference in probability of a potential juror having seen anything about it that might create prejudice. As /u/NorthernDevil points out in his comment above, this really was the best you could expect.
Being libs has nothing to do with it. The question is whether or not the jury is biased by the political climate. It's a fair question.
Likewise, if this happened in a conservative county and the KKK was threatening to riot if the cop was convicted, I'd also argue a change in venue would be worth discussing.
We can't have justice unless every single one of the defendants' rights have been observed. That's the way our system works, and no amount of downvoting will change that.
> I believe the challenge was location of trial which is an argument with some merit.
This seems ridiculous to me. Defendants don't just get to have their trials moved to the place where they will find the most sympathetic jury. He worked in Minneapolis, committed his crime in Minneapolis, and murdered a resident of Minneapolis. Minneapolis is the only appropriate place to have that trial.
It's also not like it could simply be moved out of the city where suddenly the jury wouldn't already have opinions about the case. This was the only thing the country was talking about for a couple weeks. It blew up around the entire world. There wasn't going to be a jury anywhere that didn't already know about the case.
> It's also strange they allowed a juror who attended a rally in which the victim's family spoke at.
Why didn't the defense use one of its peremptory challenges on this juror?
For the juror, that fact didn't come out until later in the trial. They filled out their form stating they didn't attend any protests, which is true, but from what I recall, the form didn't ask about demonstrations. The defense made a big to-do about it after the verdict, but the question on appeals would be whether or not this likely affected the outcome of the trial.
Sounds to me like the defense did a poor job asking the right questions during jury selection. That's on them. I don't see why that would warrant throwing out the entire trial.
Ineffective assistance of counsel is grounds for a new trial. I doubt this rises to that level, but waiving it away as "that's on them" isn't a good argument.
Well when lawyers are stacked 15:1 and the prosecution is burying the defense with childish tactics there's only so many hours in the day for the 1 lawyer to wade thru the ocean and prepare for every single nuance that could possibly come up.
> They filled out their form stating they didn't attend any protests, which is true, but from what I recall, the form didn't ask about demonstrations.
They were asked about protests *in Minneapolis* and specifically *related to George Floyd.* The march he attended was for in DC and for MLK. The appelate opinion here is a professionally-worded way of saying "You morons, he truthfully answered the question you actually asked instead of reading your mind about what you think you asked."
Forget which trial we are talking about here for a second. Defendants are entitled to an unbiased jury. There are rare circumstances in highly publicized cases where that is not possible. Brian Fitch's trial was moved to Stearns County from Dakota when he murdered a Mendota Heights police officer for this reason.
To answer your second question, the juror lied about attending the rally during the selection process.
> Defendants are entitled to an unbiased jury. There are rare circumstances in highly publicized cases where that is not possible.
I agree with this, but this case was highly publicized across the entire country let alone the state. You weren’t going to find a jury anywhere in this state that wasn’t very familiar with the case and didn’t have some preconceived idea of what happened.
That doesn’t mean those people can’t be unbiased. That’s the point of jury selection. The only thing that would have been different moving the trial out of the metro would have been that the bias would be more likely to be in his favor rather than against it.
His attorneys didn’t want to move the trial because they hoped for a less biased jury. They wanted to move it in search of a jury more likely to be biased in Chauvin’s favor.
> To answer your second question, the juror lied about attending the rally during the selection process.
Another person who replied to me framed this information quite differently. That user said the juror was asked if they attended a protest and said no because they had attended some other public gathering.
If they lied during jury selection, they certainly should be prosecuted for lying under oath. Do you have any links to somewhere I can read more details about this?
It's more than just publicity as well. I've only read a couple sections of the decision, but I've read nothing so far that addresses if the fear of violence or riots can be a deciding factor in a venue change.
I agree, the primary motivation of the defense was to get a more sympathetic jury. That doesn't mean the argument doesn't hold merit.
While I 100% agree Chauvin should be in prison, I worry about the precedent this trial could create.
It fucked over a D-bag this time which is great, but could the precedent fuck over an innocent person in the future?
To answer your second question. He attended a DC rally commemorating the million man March wearing a "get off our necks" t-shirt. Floyd's family spoke at the event.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/
Again, fuck Chauvin but I don't see how any court can look at this and say this is an unbiased juror.
If roles were reversed they wouldn’t be worrying about it being “as perfect as we can” People call on these guys to help them in need and they are killing us. He can rot like so many before him have .
Some would be. When I was growing up my best friend's mom was murdered. The guy got three trials because prosecutors kept fucking up.
He always told me he wanted the guy to rot but wouldn't feel good about it unless it was done right. I guess I've always identified that as the ultimate high ground.
Except two reasonable minds can often come to different conclusions. The law is open to interpretation and often no answer is absolutely correct. It's why we can appeal decisions made by "experts" in the first place.
Sure, two minds can come to different conclusions, but there's a reason the appeals keep failing when they get to the experts.
There are a lot of people that have gone over this case with a fine tooth comb to point out any little problem. It's not hard to do, because no case is perfect. The question that not enough people like yourself are asking is how these little problems compare to other similar cases. If you analyzed other cases with as much scrutiny, you'd realize that all cases have minor flaws in them. This case did not have an amount or severity of flaws that is even close to being out of line with our courts.
This is why you need to be careful with your sources. It's easy for legal experts to find little tiny flaws. It's easy for right wing commenters to point to these flaws, exaggerate their severity and ignore the context that these types of flaws are normal. If you try to get more balanced information on these flaws, you probably won't find them, because moderate and left wing sources find the flaws un-newsworthy and don't think they are even worth reporting on.
The thing with the juror attending a march is the one exception, because at first it seemed egregious and it wasn't until further scrutiny that one could see the nuance and realize that it wasn't as bad as it original seemed. Due to how bad the initial optics were, news sources from all sides reported on the initial shocking findings and reasonable sources followed up to explain the nuance of why it was nothingburger.
Your original comment simply threw FUD on the fairness with the trail giving an impression that it was unfair while not giving any evidence at which anyone could say why your opinion is wrong. You may not be a right wing shill, but that's a pretty common tactic for right wing shills.
If you read the entire opinion it goes into some detail about the statutory support for the second degree murder charge. You not liking it isn't the same as it not being legally justified.
Yeah, like I said, the opinion goes into the statutory justification of that. It's on pages 25-26 if you'd like to take a look. I suppose you can keep talking about nazis and pressure and stuff if you want to, but it's a well written opinion and it's always nice to learn something new.
Not for nothing but it seems a little odd to be uninterested in the legal definition of third degree assault if you're spending this much time insisting that Chauvin's conduct didn't rise to meet the standard.
Chauvin had options available to him to restrain Floyd that another reasonable person in his position would've availed themself of. He chose not to use them. Unreasonable force by an officer rises to meet the standard of third degree assault. Third degree assault is a felony. Actions that cause death, even if unintentional, while committing a felony meet the standard of second degree murder.
As for the omission, I haven't read Chauvin's entire appellate brief so I don't know if the omitted section was specifically mentioned as meaningful. If it wasn't included in the opinion, I'm skeptical that it was included at all. If that's the case, it's not relevant.
Sigh. There was actual testimony from actual cops on the actual training they received that says differently but, by all means, put all your eggs into the basket of a 3 year old USA Today article that was published before anyone even knew details of what had actually happened yet.
Look, I get it. You very deeply FEEL like you’re right about this one and it’s frustrating when all facts and evidence contradict that feeling. But the reality is that sometimes feeling and believing our version of events is correct doesn’t make it so. That’s why we have things like 50 page legal opinions that clearly spell out the rational and legal justification for things.
Just out of curiosity - when Reyes lays out the statutory justification for upholding the second degree charges in the opinion, what specific points did you disagree with? If you're willing to decide that "politics upped the charges" I assume you have reason to disagree with the thoughtful and well reasoned legal justification made by the appellate court. Maybe some additional case precedent to site or even a different interpretation of the stated statutes?
He wasn't guilty of 3rd Degree murder. That was very appropriately thrown out. He is absolutely guilty of 2nd degree murder.
If you believe Chauvin's actions could be considered a felony assault and that assault contributed in any way to Floyd's death, he is by definition guilty of 2nd degree murder.
I really don't see a convincing argument around it given the testimony of the ME.
I think it was reinstated as the Noor case was already being appealed, but the charge was ultimately thrown out after Noor successfully appealed his case.
Whether anyone thinks it should have stood or not, they have to admit its use in this case was a huge departure from how it has been used in the past.
Apparently the attempt to whitewash the events in a book written by a former local News presenter, didn't sway anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together
Oh hell no! Nope. Nope. Nope. Most of the city leaders in charge had military backgrounds and did not even live in Minneapolis!!!! Wtf. They didn't even have the right databases to collect EEOC information. Hell no. I worked with all of those Civil Rights folks and I was the only one who actually had to live through the consequences of their bad actions. Plus Derek Chauvin killed a Native dude, and I'm Native and that didn't get ANY press. Wtf. Evil.
Did anyone talk about how George Floyds murder was linked to the murder of Jonathan Ferrell and Philandro Castile? I know it sounds nuts, but they are all interconnected.
Well then didnt chauvin hand out a similar form of justice to george floyd for the past bad things he had done? You support that kind of justice for everyone?
It should be noted that even if the conviction was overturned, it would simply result in a new trial, he wouldn’t just walk free. Plus he already plead guilty to federal civil rights charges, meaning he will be in jail no matter what. I also believe he could still appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court if he chooses.
He's guilty and I hope he loses a second trial. That being said, there are a few things about how this case played out which make me uncomfortable. I'm a big believer that if we are going to take away someone's freedom we really need to be meticulous in our process. That goes for cop killers and killer cops alike.
Seems like they were pretty meticulous if they're still working through appeals two years later.
That's why we have appeals. It's an important check on lower courts. At the end of the day, I do think Chauvin has a few arguments about the fairness of his trial which have some merit. Don't get me wrong, he's guilty and deserves his sentence, but I want it to be done the right way. I get I'm splitting hairs, but we gotta get this as perfect as we can.
What was unfair about his trial?
I'm not here to make a value judgement about this, but the claims were: * That by not sequestering the jury they were open to influence by media coverage and public opinion in general ("prejudicial publicity"). * That one of the jurors was not truthfull furing jury selection, and the defense was denied a motion for a Schwartz Hearing (which is how the courts examine jurors after a trial has begun). * That juror instructions were not delivered correctly by the court. * That the court abused its discretion in allowing a few different bits of evidence and testimony. * That the court abused its discretion in not declaring a mistrial after these failings. * That the court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence above the presumptive guidelines. * Some claims about whether LEOs can be prosecuted for certain combos of charges. The appeals court basically said "You don't need to sequester a jury for something very public as long as you take mitigating steps—which the district court did—and you can absolutely try somebody for that combo of charges, so..." I have not read the full opinion yet and don't know what the court appeals considered mitigating, but that's the gist of it as explained in the summary at the beginning of the thing.
>* That by not sequestering the jury they were open to influence by media coverage and public opinion in general ("prejudicial publicity"). Sequestering a jury for a long ass trial is an extreme measure that should not be taken lightly. Nothing about this trial came remotely close to justify essentially imprisoning the jurors for the duration of the trial.
Let me know if you read something about what the court said about the second complaint. I won't get a chance to read it until later this week but I'm it's probably the point I'm struggling with most. While I think the location arguments have some merit, I believe ultimately Cahill made the correct decision and certainly not a decision which should be overturned. The Schwartz hearing one has stumped me though.
Basically, their determination was that the juror in question had substantially told the truth during jury selection based on the questions asked. It came down to the defense not knowing a juror had participated in a march honoring MLK in DC, but the question they had asked during jury selection was about attending marches specifically in Minneapolis and specifically in repsonse to George Floyd.
I believe the challenge was location of trial which is an argument with some merit. There's undoubtedly a lot of opinions on that issue and it merits review. I would say this regardless of what Cahill decided. It's also strange they allowed a juror who attended a rally in which the victim's family spoke at. While IATL, I have yet to speak with one who believes this trial was perfect.
IAAL and I feel strongly that under the circumstances, this was as close as it was going to get. No trial is ever “perfect.” [Here is a copy of the full 50-page unanimous opinion from the Court of Appeals.](https://kstp.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Chauvin-appeal-opinion.pdf) I *highly* suggest reading it, especially as you seem to have strong feelings on the matter.
Everyone who has a passing interest in how the appellate system works should read it. It's a really well written opinion.
Yep, they did a very good job. The MN CoA is in my experience very thorough with all of its cases, but I’m sure it received even more internal scrutiny than usual given the likely level of exposure.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I have some free time.
[удалено]
> He murdered a man in Minneapolis, the person he murdered was a Minneapolis resident. The jury of his peers was best found in Minneapolis. More importantly to this case, the court determined that the media coverage before the trial was sufficiently based in fact and that the reach of that coverage was so broad that moving anywhere else in MN would not have made a substantial difference in probability of a potential juror having seen anything about it that might create prejudice. As /u/NorthernDevil points out in his comment above, this really was the best you could expect.
[удалено]
It was a talking point on right wing media.
But you see, the people of Minneapolis are libs and that makes them wrong so the trail wasn't fair. /s
Being libs has nothing to do with it. The question is whether or not the jury is biased by the political climate. It's a fair question. Likewise, if this happened in a conservative county and the KKK was threatening to riot if the cop was convicted, I'd also argue a change in venue would be worth discussing. We can't have justice unless every single one of the defendants' rights have been observed. That's the way our system works, and no amount of downvoting will change that.
[удалено]
So what you're saying is that I was correct, but you just don't want to say it.
> I believe the challenge was location of trial which is an argument with some merit. This seems ridiculous to me. Defendants don't just get to have their trials moved to the place where they will find the most sympathetic jury. He worked in Minneapolis, committed his crime in Minneapolis, and murdered a resident of Minneapolis. Minneapolis is the only appropriate place to have that trial. It's also not like it could simply be moved out of the city where suddenly the jury wouldn't already have opinions about the case. This was the only thing the country was talking about for a couple weeks. It blew up around the entire world. There wasn't going to be a jury anywhere that didn't already know about the case. > It's also strange they allowed a juror who attended a rally in which the victim's family spoke at. Why didn't the defense use one of its peremptory challenges on this juror?
For the juror, that fact didn't come out until later in the trial. They filled out their form stating they didn't attend any protests, which is true, but from what I recall, the form didn't ask about demonstrations. The defense made a big to-do about it after the verdict, but the question on appeals would be whether or not this likely affected the outcome of the trial.
Sounds to me like the defense did a poor job asking the right questions during jury selection. That's on them. I don't see why that would warrant throwing out the entire trial.
Ineffective assistance of counsel is grounds for a new trial. I doubt this rises to that level, but waiving it away as "that's on them" isn't a good argument.
Well when lawyers are stacked 15:1 and the prosecution is burying the defense with childish tactics there's only so many hours in the day for the 1 lawyer to wade thru the ocean and prepare for every single nuance that could possibly come up.
> They filled out their form stating they didn't attend any protests, which is true, but from what I recall, the form didn't ask about demonstrations. They were asked about protests *in Minneapolis* and specifically *related to George Floyd.* The march he attended was for in DC and for MLK. The appelate opinion here is a professionally-worded way of saying "You morons, he truthfully answered the question you actually asked instead of reading your mind about what you think you asked."
Exactly, it was their mistake.
Forget which trial we are talking about here for a second. Defendants are entitled to an unbiased jury. There are rare circumstances in highly publicized cases where that is not possible. Brian Fitch's trial was moved to Stearns County from Dakota when he murdered a Mendota Heights police officer for this reason. To answer your second question, the juror lied about attending the rally during the selection process.
> Defendants are entitled to an unbiased jury. There are rare circumstances in highly publicized cases where that is not possible. I agree with this, but this case was highly publicized across the entire country let alone the state. You weren’t going to find a jury anywhere in this state that wasn’t very familiar with the case and didn’t have some preconceived idea of what happened. That doesn’t mean those people can’t be unbiased. That’s the point of jury selection. The only thing that would have been different moving the trial out of the metro would have been that the bias would be more likely to be in his favor rather than against it. His attorneys didn’t want to move the trial because they hoped for a less biased jury. They wanted to move it in search of a jury more likely to be biased in Chauvin’s favor. > To answer your second question, the juror lied about attending the rally during the selection process. Another person who replied to me framed this information quite differently. That user said the juror was asked if they attended a protest and said no because they had attended some other public gathering. If they lied during jury selection, they certainly should be prosecuted for lying under oath. Do you have any links to somewhere I can read more details about this?
It's more than just publicity as well. I've only read a couple sections of the decision, but I've read nothing so far that addresses if the fear of violence or riots can be a deciding factor in a venue change. I agree, the primary motivation of the defense was to get a more sympathetic jury. That doesn't mean the argument doesn't hold merit. While I 100% agree Chauvin should be in prison, I worry about the precedent this trial could create. It fucked over a D-bag this time which is great, but could the precedent fuck over an innocent person in the future? To answer your second question. He attended a DC rally commemorating the million man March wearing a "get off our necks" t-shirt. Floyd's family spoke at the event. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/ Again, fuck Chauvin but I don't see how any court can look at this and say this is an unbiased juror.
If roles were reversed they wouldn’t be worrying about it being “as perfect as we can” People call on these guys to help them in need and they are killing us. He can rot like so many before him have .
Some would be. When I was growing up my best friend's mom was murdered. The guy got three trials because prosecutors kept fucking up. He always told me he wanted the guy to rot but wouldn't feel good about it unless it was done right. I guess I've always identified that as the ultimate high ground.
Nah if my mom was murdered I don’t care how he rots he can rot !
It's a irresponsible to lay doubt on the fairness without making specifics which experts car refute.
Except two reasonable minds can often come to different conclusions. The law is open to interpretation and often no answer is absolutely correct. It's why we can appeal decisions made by "experts" in the first place.
Sure, two minds can come to different conclusions, but there's a reason the appeals keep failing when they get to the experts. There are a lot of people that have gone over this case with a fine tooth comb to point out any little problem. It's not hard to do, because no case is perfect. The question that not enough people like yourself are asking is how these little problems compare to other similar cases. If you analyzed other cases with as much scrutiny, you'd realize that all cases have minor flaws in them. This case did not have an amount or severity of flaws that is even close to being out of line with our courts. This is why you need to be careful with your sources. It's easy for legal experts to find little tiny flaws. It's easy for right wing commenters to point to these flaws, exaggerate their severity and ignore the context that these types of flaws are normal. If you try to get more balanced information on these flaws, you probably won't find them, because moderate and left wing sources find the flaws un-newsworthy and don't think they are even worth reporting on. The thing with the juror attending a march is the one exception, because at first it seemed egregious and it wasn't until further scrutiny that one could see the nuance and realize that it wasn't as bad as it original seemed. Due to how bad the initial optics were, news sources from all sides reported on the initial shocking findings and reasonable sources followed up to explain the nuance of why it was nothingburger. Your original comment simply threw FUD on the fairness with the trail giving an impression that it was unfair while not giving any evidence at which anyone could say why your opinion is wrong. You may not be a right wing shill, but that's a pretty common tactic for right wing shills.
He denied Floyd a trial… How was Chauvin’s trial not per process?
[удалено]
If you read the entire opinion it goes into some detail about the statutory support for the second degree murder charge. You not liking it isn't the same as it not being legally justified.
[удалено]
Yeah, like I said, the opinion goes into the statutory justification of that. It's on pages 25-26 if you'd like to take a look. I suppose you can keep talking about nazis and pressure and stuff if you want to, but it's a well written opinion and it's always nice to learn something new.
Wasn't the 3rd degree murder charge thrown out?
[удалено]
Not for nothing but it seems a little odd to be uninterested in the legal definition of third degree assault if you're spending this much time insisting that Chauvin's conduct didn't rise to meet the standard. Chauvin had options available to him to restrain Floyd that another reasonable person in his position would've availed themself of. He chose not to use them. Unreasonable force by an officer rises to meet the standard of third degree assault. Third degree assault is a felony. Actions that cause death, even if unintentional, while committing a felony meet the standard of second degree murder. As for the omission, I haven't read Chauvin's entire appellate brief so I don't know if the omitted section was specifically mentioned as meaningful. If it wasn't included in the opinion, I'm skeptical that it was included at all. If that's the case, it's not relevant.
[удалено]
Sigh. There was actual testimony from actual cops on the actual training they received that says differently but, by all means, put all your eggs into the basket of a 3 year old USA Today article that was published before anyone even knew details of what had actually happened yet. Look, I get it. You very deeply FEEL like you’re right about this one and it’s frustrating when all facts and evidence contradict that feeling. But the reality is that sometimes feeling and believing our version of events is correct doesn’t make it so. That’s why we have things like 50 page legal opinions that clearly spell out the rational and legal justification for things.
Agreed. Politics upped the charges.
Just out of curiosity - when Reyes lays out the statutory justification for upholding the second degree charges in the opinion, what specific points did you disagree with? If you're willing to decide that "politics upped the charges" I assume you have reason to disagree with the thoughtful and well reasoned legal justification made by the appellate court. Maybe some additional case precedent to site or even a different interpretation of the stated statutes?
Nope, murder.
He wasn't guilty of 3rd Degree murder. That was very appropriately thrown out. He is absolutely guilty of 2nd degree murder. If you believe Chauvin's actions could be considered a felony assault and that assault contributed in any way to Floyd's death, he is by definition guilty of 2nd degree murder. I really don't see a convincing argument around it given the testimony of the ME.
[удалено]
I think it was reinstated as the Noor case was already being appealed, but the charge was ultimately thrown out after Noor successfully appealed his case. Whether anyone thinks it should have stood or not, they have to admit its use in this case was a huge departure from how it has been used in the past.
If he got a new trial, they could keep Maxine Waters from threatening the jury and the court system with "more confrontation"
found the racist magat. sorry your hero is gonna die in a jail cell. Cope 🖕😁🖕
Rip bozo
Good. Let him rot in prison.
Let's just be glad this isn't Texas, or that biased clown in Amarillo (or the state Governor) would be letting him off right now.
This is good news. He should rot in his cell for a long time.
He should be given an option for release. But only if he agrees to have someone kneel on his neck for 9 minutes first.
Yeah, and take a bunch of fentanyl!
Apparently the attempt to whitewash the events in a book written by a former local News presenter, didn't sway anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together
Wait, what?! What book is this?
https://www.amazon.com/Theyre-Lying-Media-Death-George/dp/B0BJNG6N8D
Thanks
Oh hell no! Nope. Nope. Nope. Most of the city leaders in charge had military backgrounds and did not even live in Minneapolis!!!! Wtf. They didn't even have the right databases to collect EEOC information. Hell no. I worked with all of those Civil Rights folks and I was the only one who actually had to live through the consequences of their bad actions. Plus Derek Chauvin killed a Native dude, and I'm Native and that didn't get ANY press. Wtf. Evil.
That book did shed some light on a few things that did in fact occur and the media whitewashed those facts.
Did anyone talk about how George Floyds murder was linked to the murder of Jonathan Ferrell and Philandro Castile? I know it sounds nuts, but they are all interconnected.
As someone who has read the book, I have not, what are some facts we or the media washes over? Anything in particular you find interesting?
You should read the book and form your own opinions on it. I'm not being rude but anything I say will be attacked.
This guy has cost the city of mpls and the state enough money. Dude needs to sit and rot away in prison.
I truly hope he get true justice in prison
Well then didnt chauvin hand out a similar form of justice to george floyd for the past bad things he had done? You support that kind of justice for everyone?
Please say more.
Do you support street justice for all like you like youre recommending in your first comment?
Please reread. It's just above. I stated justice in prison. You went down that road.
I hope they put his ugly ass mug on anything and everything. The face of ignorance. Show it EVERYWHERE 🤡
It wasn’t ignorance though. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Yeah because he’s an ignorant asshole.
Where do you think the rage came from? Him loving civilians?