3 3
airdvr

The Trial of Derek Chauvin

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, jakee said:

Meanwhile the Chauvin defense is arguing that because he was in the general vicinity of a car exhaust it's more likely that he died of carbon monoxide poisoning than anything that scumbag did. Wow.

It comes across as absurd, but it's important to appreciate that the accused is entitled to a trial, and their counsel is obligated to make the strongest case possible. If this is the best they can come up with, that's a reflection on how weak their case is and not necessarily on the competence of their counsel or some kind of problem with our system. If it sounds absurd to you, it probably does to the jury as well. It's okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, nwt said:

It comes across as absurd, but it's important to appreciate that the accused is entitled to a trial, and their counsel is obligated to make the strongest case possible. If this is the best they can come up with, that's a reflection on how weak their case is and not necessarily on the competence of their counsel or some kind of problem with our system. If it sounds absurd to you, it probably does to the jury as well. It's okay.

In all fairness the poor dears are treading new ground. Previously this sort of thing could be handled at the level of the Police union. Now, just like the rest of 2020, it's all fucked up. Ah, the good old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilty on all counts. Even as a white person from a different country, there’s a feeling of relief that finally such an obvious crime is not brushed off simply because the perpetrator was a cop. I can’t imagine what it must feel like for black people in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rifleman said:

The only real danger now is that the sentence when it comes isn't commensurate with the severity of the offence.

I hope that part goes ok. If they were federal charges I’d have put money on him being pardoned during the next Republican Presidential term though. He’d have fit right in with the parade of abhorrent and unrepentant scum that Trump chose to fete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rifleman said:

The only real danger now is that the sentence when it comes isn't commensurate with the severity of the offence.

He may well only get sentenced on one charge.

If someone is convicted of theft and armed robbery as two charges, for example, they only get charged for the armed robbery one as theft is a subset of that and you can’t be charged twice for the same crime. Double jeopardy and all. At least that’s how a lawyer friend explained it to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yoink said:

He may well only get sentenced on one charge.

If someone is convicted of theft and armed robbery as two charges, for example, they only get charged for the armed robbery one as theft is a subset of that and you can’t be charged twice for the same crime. Double jeopardy and all. At least that’s how a lawyer friend explained it to me.

 

Hi Will,

Get a different 'lawyer friend.'

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yoink said:

they only get charged for the armed robbery one as theft is a subset of that and you can’t be charged twice for the same crime. Double jeopardy and all. At least that’s how a lawyer friend explained it to me.

Your friend is incorrect. Robbery and theft are two separate commissions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I'm no lawyer.

He said it was the 'Merger' doctrine? I'm looking at the message now and he says ' he may or may not get sentenced on all three charges' and 'if one offense is essentially a lesser included offense of another, you can't be sentenced on both' and that it comes down to the statutory elements of the charges which may be something the lawyers and judge hash out during sentencing.

 

If you know the details of why he's wrong let me know and I'll pass it on, but I'm not just going to say 'some dudes on the internet say you're wrong' to him.

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, yoink said:

I'm no lawyer.

He said it was the 'Merger' doctrine? I'm looking at the message now and he says ' he may or may not get sentenced on all three charges' and 'if one offense is essentially a lesser included offense of another, you can't be sentenced on both' and that it comes down to the statutory elements of the charges which may be something the lawyers and judge hash out during sentencing.

 

If you know the details of why he's wrong let me know and I'll pass it on, but I'm not just going to say 'some dudes on the internet say you're wrong' to him.

Hi Will,

The sentencing laws very with each state.  As do the actual laws vary with each state.

Depending upon what state, your lawyer friend may be correct.

Here in Oregon we have Measure 15.  This was enacted about 15+ yrs ago & took almost all discretion away from any judge during sentencing.  I was against this measure & now there is an effort to change it.  I am hoping for a success.

Usually, sentences for more than one crime are consecutively or concurrently.  Let's say you have been convicted of robbery & car-jacking.  For the robbery you get 15 yrs & for the car-jacking, you get 10 yrs.  Consecutively means the judge sentences you to a total of 25 yrs.  Concurrently, means you get a sentence of 15 yrs, the 10-yr sentence in within/at the same time as the 15-yr sentence.

Does that make sense to you?

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Let us not forget how close this came to being covered up from the get go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkenuXkgfyk

That is a very good point, especially when the flip side to the welcome suprise of having the police testify against Chauvin is that they depicted him as someone completely unrepresentative of the department as a whole. There were three other officers there and they all lacked either the morality or the courage to try and stop what was happening.

 

How many police officers would have had to be in attendance before even one of them was able to stand up to the peer pressure coming from two veterans with a history of violence and thuggery, and display the same sense of justice and the same bravery shown by some random passers by on the street?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, yoink said:

He may well only get sentenced on one charge.

If someone is convicted of theft and armed robbery as two charges, for example, they only get charged for the armed robbery one as theft is a subset of that and you can’t be charged twice for the same crime. Double jeopardy and all. At least that’s how a lawyer friend explained it to me.

 

I was actually referring to the possibility that the sentencing will be a "Brock Turner" and completely derisory given the fact that Chauvin murdered George Floyd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jakee said:

How many police officers would have had to be in attendance before even one of them was able to stand up to the peer pressure coming from two veterans with a history of violence and thuggery, and display the same sense of justice and the same bravery shown by some random passers by on the street?

Wouldn't have made a difference. Case in point: Kawaski Trawick shooting.

Link to story

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Your friend is incorrect. Robbery and theft are two separate commissions. 

The least he can get is 12.5 years sentences to run concurrently. In Minnesota he'll serve 2/3rds before being eligible for parole. Without focusing on right or wrong we need to understand this is new ground. This is societal change underway. In a very real sense this is baby step number one. I hope the judge tosses the police a bone at a time they must know the past is no longer prologue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The least he can get is 12.5 years sentences to run concurrently. In Minnesota he'll serve 2/3rds before being eligible for parole. Without focusing on right or wrong we need to understand this is new ground. This is societal change underway. In a very real sense this is baby step number one. I hope the judge tosses the police a bone at a time they must know the past is no longer prologue.

He'll never make it out of prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3