Derek Chauvin trial megathread (SENTENCED TO 22.5 YEARS IN PRISON)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Tucker had a pretty normal one last night:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1384688301962141697?s=20

He used to be just annoying when he was on Crossfire, but he's progressed into become totally insane. That aside, these sort of people don't want to hear from the police when they aren't saying what they want to hear. The response that I'm seeing from conservatives is that they are angry about the verdict but too cowardly to admit that.

It's even worse than that; he doesn't even believe any of this crap.  He's just embracing white supremacy as a ratings strategy.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's a damn cartoon.

It's a cartoon with a message that implies that a verdict should be about something other than proving a defendant guilty or innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.  ALL Lives Matter.  ALL Lives Matter EQUALLY.  That's God's view on it.  No, I will not pretend otherwise.

The trial was not about whether or not Black Lives Mattered or not; it was about whether or not Derek Chauvin's actions caused George Floyd's death, and whether or not those actions rose to the level of the crimes he was charged with.  Trials should not be about anything else, period.  

What this trial has is the look of a coerced verdict.  This, of course, does not mean that Chauvin was not guilty, and I am certainly not saying that.  But it is indisputable that the threat of massive violent demonstrations would occur in the event of an unsatisfactory verdict; this threat was never disputed and never downplayed by the media, and there was little reason to believe that this threat would be met with enough resistance to preempt significant damage.  What will happen if, indeed, Derek Chauvin's case IS reversed on appeal, even in part where the most severe charges are thrown out?  

How would YOU feel if it were YOU, or a loved one on trial, and the actions of others caused you to believe that the jury would be at risk for their own well-being, or the well-being of their city, if they returned a factual verdict that was not what a mob threatening violence wanted?  There is no place in a free, open, and honest society for a jury to have to think of the consequences if their proper verdict will be received with violence.  It may well be that in this case, the jury's verdict squared with the facts, but do appearances not matter here?  What happens to actual "justice" when the specter of mob violence is a factor at every significant jury trial?

Appearances matter in criminal justice.  What confidence can anyone have in a Criminal Justice system when the verdicts of juries have the appearance of being influenced by the coercive attempts of mobs?  Once that becomes a norm, there will never be such a thing as closure.  I would pray that those people who are sincerely liberal (in the true sense of the word) will stop enabling those elements in our society that seek not actual justice, but vengeance through coercion.

You're really not very smart, are you?  Black Lives Matter is in no way saying that black lives matter more than other lives.  It's a statement that black lives so often do not seem to matter, and they should matter equally to other lives.  If you don't understand that, no one can help you.

He never ceases to amaze me (in the most negative way possible).
Every chance he gets, he needs to degrade the BLM movement, and in essence dog-on black citizens through-out our nation.

You're absolutely correct.  I will degrade BLM when I get the chance.  They've earned the degradation by their behavior in multiple American cities over the past year.  That you have a noble-sounding name does not mean you are a noble group, and there is nothing noble about BLM.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Matthew 16:25

For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.  Mark 8:35
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.  Mark 8:34

ALL Lives Matter to God.  They should matter to those who claim to be His Children.  Do ALL Lives Matter?  If that is really so, that should be affirmed.  Whatever the original intent of the name "Black Lives Matter", we're WAY beyond that.  There is no reason for me to believe that MY life matters to BLM, or the lives of anyone in my family.  (There is no evidence the previous two posters consider my life to matter, either.)  People who say they are Christians have a choice; to affirm that ALL Lives Matter, or that just some do.

Fuzzy Bear blabbering inanities in bad faith? Must be a day that ends in y.

It's amazing that you're an attorney and you won't even address the real issues of potential jury intimidation (indirectly, if not directly) in this case.

ALL LIves Matter, Badger.  Even yours.

There is no evidence whatsoever of jury tampering nor any reason to think anything like that occurred.  Merely alleging the jury may've been intimidated into convicting a defendant is not itself evidence that what you claim actually occurred nor would such an allegation alone be considered such in court. 

If you have actual evidence that what you claim really occurred then by all means, feel free to share with the class, but otherwise you're just choosing to a random conspiracy theory which lacks any basis in fact.  An attorney like Badger (and myself, for that matter) should know better than most how reckless and dangerous it is to conspiracy-monger like that about jury verdicts just because you don't like the outcome. 

With all due respect, this is really one of those put up or shut up situations: either you somehow have real, concrete evidence that jury tampering occurred or there's no reason anyone should pay attention to your allegations of so-called "real issues of potential jury intimidation."  If you're going to make that sort of allegation, the burden is on you to back it up and if you can't, then shouldn't be surprised when folks don't take what you're saying seriously.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Make an example of him, he deserves the max for his callous brutality.

No.

Sentencing an individual defendant should never be about making an example of a defendant.  Never.  Criminal penalties should be sufficient to deter others, but they should not be handed out to make an example of someone.

Is Derek Chauvin's more callously brutal than the shooting of 3 year old Mekhi James in Chicago?  Or 1 year old Darrell Gardner in Brooklyn?  When we find their killers should we make national examples of them,, and then sentence them to Life Imprisonment (even if they turn out to be under age 18)?  Were the actions of whomever killed these infants not callously brutal?

Chauvin deserves to be sentenced to whatever his conviction merits.  Aggravating and mitigating factors ought to be considered, and the judge ought to sentence him as the facts say.  He should not, however, receive "the max" just because lawless mobs demand it and allow the implicit threat of violence in the event that the sentence is not sufficient for the lawless mob.  (Indeed, mobs who engage in violence at the result of this sentencing, or any other, should be met with the full force of law enforcement at the FIRST act of illegal violence, but that's another story.)  Derek Chauvin has the right to be judged and sentenced in the same manner as any other defendant.  Those of you who do not believe that are unfit for public office, and I hope that those of you that believe this are never elected or appointed to any political or governmental position in America.  Making an example out of people is a wrong concept, period.

Couldn’t agree more!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Make an example of him, he deserves the max for his callous brutality.

No.

Sentencing an individual defendant should never be about making an example of a defendant.  Never.  Criminal penalties should be sufficient to deter others, but they should not be handed out to make an example of someone.

Is Derek Chauvin's more callously brutal than the shooting of 3 year old Mekhi James in Chicago?  Or 1 year old Darrell Gardner in Brooklyn?  When we find their killers should we make national examples of them,, and then sentence them to Life Imprisonment (even if they turn out to be under age 18)?  Were the actions of whomever killed these infants not callously brutal?

Chauvin deserves to be sentenced to whatever his conviction merits.  Aggravating and mitigating factors ought to be considered, and the judge ought to sentence him as the facts say.  He should not, however, receive "the max" just because lawless mobs demand it and allow the implicit threat of violence in the event that the sentence is not sufficient for the lawless mob.  (Indeed, mobs who engage in violence at the result of this sentencing, or any other, should be met with the full force of law enforcement at the FIRST act of illegal violence, but that's another story.)  Derek Chauvin has the right to be judged and sentenced in the same manner as any other defendant.  Those of you who do not believe that are unfit for public office, and I hope that those of you that believe this are never elected or appointed to any political or governmental position in America.  Making an example out of people is a wrong concept, period.

Couldn’t agree more!

Thing is though there are A TON of aggravating factors that could apply to increase Chauvin's sentence. Here's a full list I saw someone compile of all applicable factors under Minnesota law.

- crime was committed with three or more active co-participants

- crime was committed in presence of children, and the child(ren) witnessed the crime

- defendant acted as a police officer and used his police license to facilitate the crime

- defendant displayed particular cruelty (knowing victim was handcuffed and in physical and emotional distress)

- defendant knew or should have known that Floyd was unable to breathe and then went unconscious

- defendant committed crime despite pleas from eyewitnesses that he was killing the victim

- defendant continued with the crime after victim went unconscious

- defendant showed disregard for Floyd's life

- defendant impeded efforts by others to provide medical assistance

Sure, but you can give him 10-19 years just on the merits of the case.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One thing I will say is that 10-15 for Chauvin is probably more "punishing" than a normal person recieving this sentence as he has to spend it all in solitary in all likelyhood.

Aren't there prisons/prison modules for "low level/low security" offenders? The kinds that are fairly chill (by prison standards) and have people in jail for stuff like political corruption, low level drug dealing, and the kinds of people that are well on their track to reinsertation? (and where beating up Chauvin would set them back by an amount that they can't afford, so they'll restrict themselves).

Like I can think of a ton of other criminals who would be high profile and at similar risks, like say corrupt polticians, famous people and stuff.

To be honest a 10-15 year solitary punishment should qualify as "cruel and unusual punishment".

Any time you put a cop behind bars, they either need to be put in de facto solitary or a special cell bloc housing only other cops convicted of crimes.  In a high-profile, racially-charged case like this, putting Chauvin in general population would arguably be a de facto be a death sentence.