The Derek Chauvin Trial

I’ve not been able to find the scheduled date for Chauvin’s next appearance in Federal Court to face Civil Rights charges.

He had an initial appearance in early June while still awaiting his state sentencing (which ended up being 22.5 years).

Chauvin will face the charges of depriving George Floyd of his civil rights while he held him handcuffed, face down and prone with his knee to his upper back and neck.

Chauvin will also face Federal Civil Rights charges for holding a 14 year old black teenager in that same face-down-knee-to-neck position, and also striking him in the head with a flashlight causing injuries that required stitches.

Records show seven complaints of Chauvin using that same restraint on persons past the point of any resistance.

Chauvin’s actual time in prison is estimated to possibly only end up being about 15 years - 2/3 of the entire sentence with time off for good behavior.

If convicted and sentenced for federal civil rights violations, that sentence would not be added on to the end of his state time, but served concurrently. So for instance if he received 25 years for federal charges, he would still owe 2.5 years after serving his 22.5 for his state conviction.

https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-sentencing-23c52021812168c579b3886f8139c73d

He is working on a plea deal with the feds again.

The part about serving federal and state sentences concurrently would be part of the plea deal.

Another part of the plea deal will be serving all of his time in a federal prison.

Geez, the other three officers won’t even go to trial until March 2022. For the life of me, I can’t understand what the benefit is in that long a delay.

agree

I think it has to be in the defendants’ interests. As Chauvin has already been sentenced it won’t get as much publicity and the officers in question can use the intervening time to do something to help mitigate sentencing.

They could go on a course, do some voluntary work, something like that to give the appearance they’ve learned their lessons.

I’m not saying it’s genuine, but it still might soften any future sentencing.

My guess is that it's simply a scheduling issue. There's counsel (×3) that may already be seized with other matters, never mind the judge who could also be seized, or have retreats and holidays scheduled, too. The date has to be agreed upon. There's a trial coordinator? Must be. You gotta have a free courtroom, too.

Yeah, I suppose if there is benefit to anyone, it would be the defense. Besides what you said, they might also be counting on the subsiding of all the clamor from the Chauvin trial to make them be viewed more favorably by the public.

I think that’s what they’re hoping for. The only thing that could damage them further are revelations about similar behaviour in the past and I think if there was anything like that we would have heard about it.

They are also not the perpetrator. However, I feel the most need change in policing is for these 2nd and 3rd tier officer at a crime scene to call off the perpetrator even if he/she is the superior. Do some time and maybe it will change some minds!

Except, some of these cops did challenge the guy. They are being prosecuted anyway despite their challenge.

The lesson here is not to challenge wrongdoing, as we can see that these cops are being prosecuted anyway.

The lesson here is to cover up wrongdoing so that no one ever gets caught.

You might want to restate that, you seem to be making excuses for criminal activity.

Well, he also said that Amy Cooper should have shot and buried Christian Cooper.
---------------------------------

Unless there was specific training on positional asphyxiation for the rookies, I expect that the rookie police officers will get off - it is very hard to argue that they knew beyond reasonable doubt Floyd would die or even at risk of dying, when they had an experienced training officer (ie. to them an expert) saying it was alright, showing no signs of concern - including no concerns for his breathing. Prosecutors are only meant to charge if there is a likelihood of success - I think it likely they were charged due to public pressure regarding this matter. So for the rookies - I don't think they should have been charged.

The other officer (if I have it right) had his back to Floyd - I think he is 55/45 to get convicted, because he had more experience, should know what is safe and what is not, and was told by people that Floyd couldn't breathe (and was the one who asked to check his pulse?). The issue here is proving 'beyond reasonable doubt', as he had his back to both Chauvin & Floyd for most of the time (and that will be argued as necessary for officer safety from a hostile crowd).

Wrong. I did not say she should bury him. I said that she should slip away unnoticed before the police showed up to investigate the shooting. Let them chalk the death up to "gang violence".

I don't have any urban experience, but I don't imagine that people in cities have time to spirit bodies off to a covert gravesite in the interval between "when gunfire rings out" and "when police cars start showing up".

This is in relation to the Coopers discussion, where Christian Cooper offered Amy Coopers dog a treat (after saying 'you won't like the outcome):

-They do have the right to kill people who try to murder their pets.

-White people have every right to protect themselves when black people try to murder them.

-That thug attacked her pet and she should have shot him in self defense and then walked away.

-There is also nothing wrong with gunning him down and slipping away undetected so that your life isn't destroyed by deranged progressives.

-She made the wrong choice. The correct option when a minority threatens you is to kill them and then slip away before the police arrive.

-White people have the right to protect themselves when black people try to rape or murder them.

-This is why the proper way for white people to protect themselves when they feel threatened by a minority is to practice the three S's instead of calling the police.

You mentioned the 3 x S's multiple times in the Coopers discussion - though I only located the one in a skim through (but the others make it obvious what you support). And you did in that thread detail the 3 x S's as 'Shoot, Shovel and Shutup' - Shovel obviously being a reference to burying a person. But as I can't be bothered finding exactly where that it thread - instead, here is it from another of your posts that show up on a google search:

People out here in the countryside don't have to worry much about black people attacking us. And in the unlikely event that we are ever forced to defend ourselves in order to save our lives, we can just Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up.

Do you notice in that last link how you make it about race? Not about dangerous person - but about race, with you talking only about:
- the white race protecting itself from black people; and not
- people (ie regardless of race) protecting themselves from dangerous people (ie no race identifitied)

...just white people protecting themselves from black people

...based specifically on racial lines

Of course you reinforce this racial lines view of yours when said virtually the same thing in the Coopers discussion when you discussed how to treat a minority (2 x links above) when you feel threatened by them.

You are correct to note that it involves race.

You are lying when you say that I am the person who made it about race.

Progressives are the ones who made it about race.

Shoot, Shovel, Shut Up is a rural term.

Obviously the situation in cities is different, and the strategy will not work quite in the same way in cities as it does out in the countryside.

It'll be up to people in urban areas to work out the exact details of how to protect themselves. One tactic that people in cities might adopt is to set up vigilante gangs to kill people who they suspect of being dangerous criminals. It'll be interesting to see how it ultimately turns out.

It'll also be interesting to see how people in the suburbs react to the left's attempts to impose their economic mismanagement onto the suburbs and transform them into urban slums. I suppose if they succeed, those with the wealth to move will be heading out to the countryside, but it will be worth the attempt to just defeat the left and prevent them from doing it in the first place.

And what if these vigilantes were wrong and the suspects were entirely innocent? Real life is not like the Death Wish films, where one can simply circumvent law enforcement and due process.

And to save time, I'll write O's response.

You should take responsibility for your own words - you, by the reality of saying the words, made race the specific issue. Others may say similar things - which would only mean both parties have similar issues. Ie. it doesn't absolve you of making it about race - you, and only you, are responsible for your own words.

You are lying when you say that I was the one who made it about race. I merely addressed the issue after progressives (you included) made it about race.