George Floyd murderer's trial

[Trausti]

The best thing? Not having to worry about a pardon from the White House.

That could never have happened. These weren’t federal charges.

 

[Derec]

Bail revoked. He's going to the pokey.

Prison abolition activists make an exception and still rejoice...

 

[Derec]

I guess you have a low opinion of the jury selection process and other people in general.

The jury system is a very flawed system to obtain justice, which is why most developed countries either abandoned it outright or modified it heavily from its traditional form.

 

[southernhybrid]

I guess you have a low opinion of the jury selection process and other people in general.

The jury system is a very flawed system to obtain justice, which is why most developed countries either abandoned it outright or modified it heavily from its traditional form.

Maybe, but thankfully, justice was served this time.

 

[Trausti]

I guess you have a low opinion of the jury selection process and other people in general.

The jury system is a very flawed system to obtain justice, which is why most developed countries either abandoned it outright or modified it heavily from its traditional form.

And this verdict is a clear example of systemic racism/White Supremacy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The jury system, the judge system, the plea bargain system, the escaping to another country system--they are all imperfect as most things in the Universe are, but Chauvin took his chances with the system that gave him the optimal chances at beating his murder charge and he lost because the jury saw reason and evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 33040

"Vagina-drying".
I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro does not have a duty to be sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

 

[Patooka]

View attachment 33040

"Vagina-drying".
I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro does not have a duty to be sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

No one said he does. Just that he is unsatisfying, which isn't the same thing.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 33040

"Vagina-drying".
I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro does not have a duty to be sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

No one said he does. Just that he is unsatisfying, which isn't the same thing.

I think "James Fell" shouldn't speak for all people with vaginas, whether he has one or not.

 

[Gospel]

Ok. I'm shocked, pouring myself a glass of rum, blasting music, turning on both my bubble & smoke machine shocked.

Edit: And strobe lights beaming at the disco ball shocked.

 

[marc]

View attachment 33040

"Vagina-drying".
I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro does not have a duty to be sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

No one said he does. Just that he is unsatisfying, which isn't the same thing.

It is a reference to Ben’s tirade against the song WAP. He is apparently not a fan of vaginal lubrication

 

[laughing dog]

I guess you have a low opinion of the jury selection process and other people in general.

The jury system is a very flawed system to obtain justice, which is why most developed countries either abandoned it outright or modified it heavily from its traditional form.

So The victim in this murder trial was also a victim of a very flawed system of justice ?

 

[blastula]

View attachment 33040

"Vagina-drying".
I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro does not have a duty to be sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

Just like your opinion on Trump impeachment, this is clueless.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 33040

"Vagina-drying".
I'm pretty sure Ben Shapiro does not have a duty to be sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

Just like your opinion on Trump impeachment, this is clueless.

Thank you for your opinion on my opinion. We've all been enriched by knowing it.

 

[blastula]

Yeah, I feel good about it.

 

[Elixir]

I guess you have a low opinion of the jury selection process and other people in general.

The jury system is a very flawed system to obtain justice, which is why most developed countries either abandoned it outright or modified it heavily from its traditional form.

So The victim in this murder trial was also a victim of a very flawed system of justice ?

This was as good as it gets. A murderer got convicted of murder.
The bad news is that absent ten minutes of footage by multiple cameras plus a handful of eyewitnesses, the murderer would likely have gone free.
So yeah, Derec is right. It is a deeply flawed system. But it happened to work this time.
I am interested though, in just exactly what Derec's "most developed countries" did to make their systems "obtain justice". Force trial by judge? That sounds pretty iffy, considering who has been appointing judges, and what the ABA thinks of most of them.

 

[Rhea]

I am relieved (and admittedly surprised) at the verdict. I had less than complete faith in the system. But it worked.

I am glad this case now exists as precedent when other authority figures break the law and can be held accountable.
And another precedent that helps is cops testifying against cops, especially the instructors and chief. That precedent is important, too.

I think the prosecution make a very critical choice to clarify that Chauvin was wrong because he was policing wrong, not because he was police. I am inclined to think this was a big part of the jury’s thought process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I understand filing multiple charges in such cases but I’m not sure why/how one can be found culpable 3 times in the same death.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m glad they found him guilty. I just am not sure I understand the particulars of being found guilty of multiple counts of murder of the same individual.

I believe you only get sentenced based on the highest charge in a situation like this.

However, the multiple convictions are still relevant--if something happens down the line that tosses the highest charge the others remain.

 

[Toni]

I understand filing multiple charges in such cases but I’m not sure why/how one can be found culpable 3 times in the same death.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m glad they found him guilty. I just am not sure I understand the particulars of being found guilty of multiple counts of murder of the same individual.

I believe you only get sentenced based on the highest charge in a situation like this.

However, the multiple convictions are still relevant--if something happens down the line that tosses the highest charge the others remain.

Thanks.

 

[Metaphor]

The multiple counts explained...sort of

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04...r-manslaugher-george-floyd-sentence/100083494

Derek Chauvin has been found guilty of murdering George Floyd, or — more precisely — he's been found guilty of two counts of murder and one count of manslaughter.

But how can someone be convicted of both murder and manslaughter for the same killing?

Trial judge Peter Cahill's instructions to the jury demonstrate how the system works in Minnesota.

The former police officer faced three charges relating to his decision to pin George Floyd by the neck until he died:

• Unintentional second-degree murder
• Third-degree murder
• Second-degree manslaughter

It was open to the jury to convict Chauvin of all, some or none of the above because they were instructed by Judge Cahill to consider each charge as a "separate and distinct" offence.

...Each count he has been found guilty of carries its own maximum sentence.

• Second-degree unintentional murder: 40 years
• Third-degree murder: 25 years
• Second-degree manslaughter: 10 years

But Minnesota's sentencing guidelines suggest far less as a starting point.

They list a presumptive sentence of 150 months for each of the murder counts — or 12 years and six months — if a person has no prior criminal history.
But the state is expected to argue Chauvin should face a harsher sentence than the guidelines recommend, because of aggravating factors.

The sentencing guidelines also include a presumption that multiple sentences arising from "current offences" should be served concurrently.
That means they'd be served alongside each other at the same time, instead of stacked end to end.

Regardless of the final sentence, in Minnesota, defendants typically serve two-thirds of their penalty in prison, with the rest on parole.

I'm confused by the guidelines. The article has suggested 12.5 years (something I've read elsewhere) as a guideline sentence for either of the murder charges (with manslaughter presumably less), but why would the guideline sentences be the same for the two murder charges?