The Derek Chauvin Trial

This subject is for people who are far smarter than you are. I advise you to go find a simpler topic that you can follow more easily.

Once you started lying about the US, your false accusations became a topic of conversation.



You mean your silly claims about how the truth is whatever you want it to be? I understand your nonsense claims perfectly well.

But once you start making false accusations against innocent parties, I'm going to focus on defending those innocent parties.



You are wrong about the cause of the loop. It is caused by the collision of "your false accusations against the innocent" with "my defense of the innocent".

Voila, just as I predicted.

Did you expect anything less? Sorry, redundant question🙄😁👍

Not what I was talking about. Below is read as a whole, and not as parts:

- many people don't know themselves very well (hence psychologists)
- many people don't even know the reasons why they do things (hence psychologists)
- many people lie to themselves (hence therapy)
- people have multiple reasons for what they do (rarely just one)

- when a group of people work on a thing, they usually have slightly differing reasons for wha they do

- people focus on what matters to them, and talk about that
- a person on the other side of the fence focuses on different aspects that matter to them, and focus on that
- very few people see the whole of a thing

- we all tend to put a good face on our reasons (leaving out the bad reasons)
- many lie about their reasons (and you can only tell if it is reasonable or not, as you can't read their mind) to get people onside
- politicians put a favourable face on history (leaving out the things that make them look bad)
- politicians engage in propaganda / PR / Spin

Written history is inevitably flawed. There is usually some truth to a lot of truth...but also truth missing. Particularly when it comes to the why. You can't truly know the why of another person. You can only say if you think it is correct, or not, and from there - if you believe it, or not, or what type of credibility you give to it (the % chance you give it to be true)

That is read inside the context of how people percieve events, and motivations for events (which requires its own lengthy discussion, but not in this post)

And like I originally said, we know exactly why justice bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The reason was because Japan had not yet surrendered.

Notice how we stopped bombing Japan as soon as they surrendered?

Understanding Historical Perspective

All historians bring to their works their own historical perspective. That perspective might be determined by his or her political bent or by the use of social theories in the analysis.
------------------------------------------------
Perspective is the 'point of view' from which the creator of a source described historical events.

Every person sees and understands events differently depending on their age, gender, social position, beliefs and values. Even modern historians have their own perspectives which can influence how they interpret the past.
-----------------------------------------------
3. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

One of the most common problems in helping students to become thoughtful readers of historical narrative is the compulsion students feel to find the one right answer, the one essential fact, the one authoritative interpretation.

Students need to realize that historians may differ on the facts they incorporate in the development of their narratives and disagree as well on how those facts are to be interpreted. Thus, “history” is usually taken to mean what happened in the past; but written history is a dialogue among historians, not only about what happened but about why and how events unfolded. The study of history is not only remembering answers. It requires following and evaluating arguments and arriving at usable, even if tentative, conclusions based on the available evidence.
------------------------------------------
Developing understanding of historical perspectives

The story of the past can be understood from multiple perspectives.
-------------------------------------------------
In history, it is rare that we are completely sure that sources are 100% reliable.
------------------------------------------------
Most of us rely on "tertiary" sources like textbooks and "The History Channel" for our information. Those sources are clearly biased and should not be trusted. I recommend James Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" on this subject.
-----------------------------------------------
But as purveyors of the past, historians recognize that the bedrock is really quicksand, that bits of each story are yet untold, and that what has been told is colored by the conditions of today.

W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman
"History is not what you thought. It is what you remember. All other history defeats itself." (1066 and All That)

James Joyce
"History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." (Ulysses)

Voltaire
"History is nothing but a pack of tricks we play on the dead."

Ambrose Bierce
"HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools: Of Roman history, great Niebuhr's shown 'Tis nine-tenths lying. Faith, I wish 'twere known, Ere we accept great Niebuhr as a guide, Wherein he blundered and how much he lied." (Devil's Dictionary)

Plutarch
"So very difficult a matter it is to trace and find out the truth of anything by history." (Plutarch's Lives)

There may be some questions that history can not find sound answers for.

But it is wrong to say that all of history can never be trusted. It is possible for historians to arrive at the truth of some matters.

The discussion started with a perspective relating to recent history - critical race theory.

Hey everyone, Derek Chauvin (‘member him?) is scheduled to be sentenced in six days.

I don’t have a feel for what’s likely to happen, and I haven’t seen any speculation about it yet.

But from what I understand of the prevailing sentencing guidelines, the maximum he could get is forty years. In Minnesota, prisoners must serve two-thirds of their sentence before being eligible for parole.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-many-years-will-derek-chauvin-be-prison-after-guilty-n1264839

This isn't an outright I'm going to stab you to death type of homicide, or a I'm going to hunt you down; or a I really want to kill you type of homicide. Without having seen the trial, and with no other considerations, I would have said a quarter of the maximum sentence.

But with other coniderations:
- If legal, I'd also be surprised if his excessive use of force complaint list isn't brought into consideration, which would up that sentence.
- they may give more because he is a police officer, could be argued that he be held to higher standard, that he broke his oath of service etc. So that too may up it.
- they may give more for deterance factor

That's a pretty broad range...which means I've got no idea how small or big the sentence will be.

There is not a lot of precedent here.

The judge has not been a whole lot enamored with Derek's defense or his actions in perpetrating the crime (during and after). A possible indication of not being lenient. There are also "aggravating circumstances" and Chauvin acted with "particular cruelty".

Funny, I was just refreshing myself on the verdict in this trial to bring this thread back on point.

I just came back online because of this thread. Too often attention queens try to make a topic all about themselves, and somebody or a nobody managed to distract for a few posts. I don't know what the sentence is going to be, but if it doesn't adequately punish that knuckle-dragger to the max I'm going to be royally pissed. Chauvin killed a man in broad daylight and dared everyone to stop him, and no one did....not the other policemen, and the civilians were powerless and we all know it.

I want to know what kind of country I live in. My husband will get his 50 year pin next Tuesday for his DOD service, which includes his time in the Army and the 46 years starting as a Russian Linguist. I often wonder if I didn't just piss my life away working for NSA all those years. Assignments overseas, studying languages, enduring the routine polygraphs and the constant scrutiny so I could serve my country. You God damn right I want to know what we stand for, and if that brutal ape doesn't get sent away for life, all is lost. The Stupids (and they know who they are) will run this country into the ground and we will be easy pickings for our enemies.

While I think that Americans should be rightly angry at Chauvin - what he did was a grave betrayal of what he was supposed to stand for as a police officer - his sentence must be compared to the sentence of other killings, to come to a just sentence.

There may or may not be a precedent of a similar police killing, but there will be precedents regarding the scales for:
- pre-meditation
- calculatedness
- remorse
- brutality
- etc

- I doubt anyone could successfully argue it was pre-meditated (I very much doubt he actually meant to kill him - for he'd know he would go to prison).
- I would put Chauvin at a reckless killing with an element of callousness
- Remorse: I didn't see the trial - I'm guessing there was none, and so that will be right up there
- It doesn't compare in brutality to to rage driven knife attacks etc. This one is different in how cold it was - that could make it worse; while the lower level of force suggests it was less than brutal murders. Of course it could be compared to suffocating a person with a pillow - but that goes back to whether or not it was a pre-meditated killing (which I don't think it was)

Ie. other than remorse (which I'm guessing is at the high end), the other comparable elements are at the lower end of murder comparisons. But what sort of price does one put on the betrayal of trust? And deterance?

If anyone has different perspective on grounds for a sentence, feel free to jump in.

Gosh. You falsely accuse me of racism when I point out things like this.

It's depraved indifference. Chauvin sullied the uniform, he pissed all over decency and moderation and just showed us what he is willing to do. What he showed us was the banality of evil as he squeezed the life out of a man who had done no physical harm to anyone. We still don't know if the money he used in the store was really counterfeit....so please don't tell me this needs to be compared to other killings.....Chauvin showed America what he is willing to do in broad daylight over lightweight charges.....what has he done while wearing the uniform when no one could see him?

I accuse you of racism because you always support white people over black people when they are in conflict.

Hi Glitterbag - what other killings (or aspects of killings) would you compare the points you raised, in order to come to a just sentence?

No, you falsely accuse me of racism as a crutch because you can't support your position with facts or logic.

I don't always support white people. I do, however, always support the side that is in the right. And sometimes that is the white person despite your falsehoods and personal attacks.