• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

George Floyd murderer's trial

What Do You Think The Jury Will Do?

  • Murder in the 2nd Degree

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Manslaughter

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Hung Jury

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Murder in the 3rd Degree

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Total voters
    13
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?

Under MN sentencing guidelines, Chauvin could be considered for the lower end of the sentencing guidelines (150-180 months) because he (almost certainly) has no felonies on his record. As Loren explained above, he would be sentenced for the most serious offense since all 3 convictions were for the same act rather than 3 separate homicides.

The prosecution could argue that he deserves a harsher sentence because he was acting as a police officer with a duty to protect and serve, which he violated. In other words, Chauvin was a professional and should be held to a higher standard.
 
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?

Under MN sentencing guidelines, Chauvin could be considered for the lower end of the sentencing guidelines (150-180 months) because he (almost certainly) has no felonies on his record. As Loren explained above, he would be sentenced for the most serious offense since all 3 convictions were for the same act rather than 3 separate homicides.

The prosecution could argue that he deserves a harsher sentence because he was acting as a police officer with a duty to protect and serve, which he violated. In other words, Chauvin was a professional and should be held to a higher standard.


I mean: why does

  • Unintentional second-degree murder
  • Third-degree murder
which have very different maximum sentences (40 vs 25), have the same 'guideline' sentence as each other? The maximum sentence implies they are crimes of quite different severity.
 
Under MN sentencing guidelines, Chauvin could be considered for the lower end of the sentencing guidelines (150-180 months) because he (almost certainly) has no felonies on his record. As Loren explained above, he would be sentenced for the most serious offense since all 3 convictions were for the same act rather than 3 separate homicides.

The prosecution could argue that he deserves a harsher sentence because he was acting as a police officer with a duty to protect and serve, which he violated. In other words, Chauvin was a professional and should be held to a higher standard.


I mean: why does

  • Unintentional second-degree murder
  • Third-degree murder
which have very different maximum sentences (40 vs 25), have the same 'guideline' sentence as each other? The maximum sentence implies they are crimes of quite different severity.

I don't know that they do. The sentencing will be for the highest charge, in this case, 2nd degree unintentional murder. Other convictions for the same act are considered concurrent and do not add additional time to the sentence. So, the highest charge is the only one that matters (unless it is overturned, in which case, as Loren points out above), the lower charge would kick in.

Because Chauvin (almost certainly) has no other felony convictions, Minnesota sentencing guidelines would go to the lower range of the highest charge. But it is expected that they will argue for harsher sentencing than the guidelines indicate.
 
I'm going to call this whole paranoid charade a red herring. We have facts and reason. Facts and reason led to the 3 convictions. We all know this because the facts and reasons have been examined by all of us.
 
The Recount on Twitter: "@AlexNBCNews @SpeakerPelosi Speaker Pelosi: "Thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice ... Because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice." (vid link)" / Twitter
She seems very mixed up about him.
Lauren Ashcraft ☀️ on Twitter: "Honestly, resign." / Twitter

Rebecca "Get a Fucking Vaccine" Watson on Twitter: "Q: What do you call a cop going to prison for murder?
A: A good start." / Twitter


Ayanna Pressley on Twitter: "Black men, I love you, and you deserve to grow old." / Twitter


Derek Chauvin found guilty on all counts in death of George Floyd - ABC News
Chauvin sentencing hearing will be in eight weeks.

The maximum sentence for second-degree murder is 40 years in prison, but Minnesota sentencing guidelines suggest he's more likely to receive up to 15 years.

However, the state is permitted to ask for the full 40 years.
then
ABC News on Twitter: "BREAKING: Derek Chauvin found guilty on all three counts in the death of George Floyd. (links)" / Twitter
  • COUNT I Second-Degree Murder GUILTY Unintentional killing while committing a felony
  • COUNT II Third-Degree Murder GUILTY Perpetrating an eminently dangerous act and evincing a depraved mind
  • COUNT III Second-Degree Manslaughter GUILTY Culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk
I like this response:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "That a family had to lose a son, brother and father; that a teenage girl had to film and post a murder, that millions across the country had to organize and march just for George Floyd to be seen and valued is not justice.

And this verdict is not a substitute for policy change." / Twitter

But it's nevertheless nice to have a little victory.
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.

Unsurprisingly, you are in good company.

So predictable. It's not like they weren't saying stuff like this before the verdict, but I bet if he was acquitted none of them would have been shocked, they'd be focusing on the riot & how bad the people are, and how Floyd's death was justified and how we should all get over it. They can kick rocks with that influenced Jury rigamarole.

Edit: Besides there is no precedent that supports such a claim so it's just a rabbit they've pulled out of their asses.
 
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.

That makes more sense for me. Thanks for explaining that.
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.

No surprise that racist right wing extremists wish the murderer was set free, since his victim was the "wrong color".
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.

Yeah, you nailed it, no question. I can hear the foreman:
"Okay, folks. You know and I know that Chauvin was applying first aid for a possible wound. You find a pressure point, you stay on it 'til an ambulance arrives. But if we don't convict, this town will be Maxined up the yingyang. And they'll come after us, too. I don't know about you, but I just got replacement windows, and they're Pellas. Chauvin gotta take one for the team."
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.

Yeah, you nailed it, no question. I can hear the foreman:
"Okay, folks. You know and I know that Chauvin was applying first aid for a possible wound. You find a pressure point, you stay on it 'til an ambulance arrives. But if we don't convict, this town will be Maxined up the yingyang. And they'll come after us, too. I don't know about you, but I just got replacement windows, and they're Pellas. Chauvin gotta take one for the team."

Perhaps the local jury just didn't want someone who murdered someone for 9 minutes on camera to be walking free... It was really a no-brainer.

But I guess we just get to add another tally mark next to "hills Derec dies on"
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.

No surprise that racist right wing extremists wish the murderer was set free, since his victim was the "wrong color".

I definitely think that there is some significant racism here but I also think that there is some not insignificant need to believe that police are always right, that they DO serve and protect and that if they are FORCED to use force, then it is justified. Because if we believe that police (sometimes) act in fear and in violence and commit despicable acts, then how can we trust the police? And we must be able to trust the police or else society fails.

The reality is that police are human beings and as full of prejudices and fears and insecurities as the rest of us. But they are armed as a part of their jobs and over the past 20 years or so, have become increasingly militarized both in terms of equipment and in their training. Troops deployed to combat zones are taught that those they fight are less than human and it seems that cops are taught to think of their beats as war zones.

There's a whole lotta de-escalation that needs to happen.
 
I don't completely disagree that a comparison can be made... in the case of Trump, it was the insurrection attempt. In Water's case it was.... wait, what was incited?

Incitement is the act of encouraging somebody to commit a crime. Waters made her comments in the context of multiple nights of illegal violence having already transpired.

What crime was committed in response to her comment? Or are you suggesting it was "attempted incitement".. which is not actually a "thing".

Look, if someone with lots of social influence says "fight like hell" to a group of angry, armed people, and then that very group of angry armed people proceed to murder 5 cops while "fighting like hell" to overthrow the capital building, and that someone is not convicted of incitement, then you are going to have an extremely hard time convincing anyone that what you are referring to is anything in the same universe as "incitement".
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.
You have told us that repeatedly. Of course, you have not produced any actual evidence to support your fear-mongering whines.
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.

Unsurprisingly, you are in good company.
Yeah, it is all a conspiracy if the outcome isn't what I like. Floyd did nothing to deserve dying. He wasn't the shining citizen of Minnesota, but that isn't the standard of not being restrained to death. The force used against him was reckless. Officers testified to that.
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.
You have told us that repeatedly. Of course, you have not produced any actual evidence to support your fear-mongering whines.

I suspect he only gets his information from the headlines on right wing sputterings. He is likely unaware that the entire trial was broadcast live, providing MORE coverage and insight than the Jury even got (we saw the bench arguments on procedure and such that the jury did not get to see). Any interested party with sufficient time on their hands, such as myself, was able to put themselves in the Jury seat with every bit of information they had and more.

If by "the fix" Derek is speaking of, he means "it was plain to see from the evidence that he is at least "very guilty" of the charges, and "totally and completely as guilty as possible" at most.

you merely need to see what the Jury saw to easily understand why the triple conviction was handed down. The Defense didn't even TRY to claim he wasn't guilty of murder... they focused on other factors to mitigate the degree of his contribution to his death.
 
No fix.

Murder. Kneeling for three minutes on his neck after the man was unconscious.

A jury got one right.

But that sadistic cop should have been recognized and removed before this happened. That would have saved him from jail and saved a man's life who should not have been killed.
 
I hope he drops the soap.
And I hope “the fix” remains in, every time another cop murders another person.
 
Told you guys the fix was in. The local jury did not want their city to burn down because #BLMers and Antifas got mad at the verdict.

Unsurprisingly, you are in good company.
Yeah, it is all a conspiracy if the outcome isn't what I like. Floyd did nothing to deserve dying. He wasn't the shining citizen of Minnesota, but that isn't the standard of not being restrained to death. The force used against him was reckless. Officers testified to that.

Tucker Carlson is literally the only person towing that line. Whatever he does not like is a result of a conspiracy. As I understand it, his viewership is dwindling. It's getting old and tired.
 
Back
Top Bottom