[Rancid]

The unfortunate reality is that had this not been a high-profile case, and the Chief of Police not been under such public scrutiny, he likely would have defended Chauvin. That's what the brotherhood of the Thin Blue Line does. Deny, deny, deny. THIS is what needs to change. Destroy the brotherhood, make everyone accountable, even the Chief. Where are you, mayors of America?

I guess this means the Thin Blue Line is breakable then.

[colliric]

I think he should get 30 years with at least 10-15 years until parole.

Doubt he'll get life in prison or death penalty, that's too harsh given that the murder-manslaughter was not significantly premeditated and was nothing like that Charlottesville attack.

[Rich]

Did George Floyd suffer injustice? I couldn't care less.

Did Derek Chauvin get a fair trial? Again I couldn't care less.

Khalid Sheik Mohammad is just one particularly obvious example of the total contempt you Americans show for the rights of non American citizens. The treatment of Julian Assange, yes we know your government was the power behind his persecution, is another. Yes I say to my fellow non Americans, don't fool your self, that being racially European or a non Muslim will save you.

No as long you fail to treat us with the most bare minimum of respect, I will continue to return the contempt. I can assure you Americans got no sympathy from me after 9/11. There's plenty of cucks in my country who are eager to feed your hypocritical narcissistic psychodramas, but I'm not one of them.

[Doug64]

To repeat what I posted in a less active thread, after the riots, threats of more riots, and politicians/activists/etc. calling for more riots if the "wrong" verdict was rendered, on appeal the judge should declare a mistrial ... and then the (properly sequestered) jury should return the same verdict.

As for any calls for police reform based on this trial, the Republicans in the Senate should declare that they are going to filibuster any Democratic bill until the Republican Tim Scott's JUSTICE Act the Democrats filibustered last year is passed and signed into law. After that, we can discuss what else might need to be done.

[Godstud]

Chauvin should get the maximum penalty for his crime, as he is in a position of authority and supposed to be arresting people for crimes, not committing them. His level of responsibility is much higher, as a result.

@Doug64 Still trying to defend a murderer? Do you have any scruples?

[colliric]

Chauvin should get the maximum penalty for his crime, as he is in a position of authority and supposed to be arresting people for crimes, not committing them. His level of responsibility is much higher, as a result.

@Doug64 Still trying to defend a murderer? Do you have any scruples?

No, police officers should be treated the same as every other citizen when they commit a crime. The problem is you Americans fail to view cops as being ordinary citizens on a power trip, so you believe they should be treated with more respect and at the same time be "punished more" if they become criminals, when the main problem is they think they're untouchable because of the initial social respect you give them to begin with.

They should NOT be protected from legal recourse nor be respected as being better than any other citizen. They are meant to be SERVING YOU, not the other way around.

They should be treated the exact same as every other citizen under the law when they commit a crime. Justice should be blind and balanced.

Floyd's family should rightfully get to sue him and the police department that trained him in using that obviously lethal restraint should also be sued. That's where the "extra justice on him due to his job" should come from. The department that trained him in that extremely lethal move, gets off the hook if you don't "share the guilt around".

He was trained to use that lethal "Krav Maga style" restraint.

[Godstud]

No, police officers should be treated the same as every other citizen when they commit a crime.

No, they are in a position of authority. Their level of responsibility is higher than any other citizen.

They should NOT be protected from legal recourse nor be respected as being better than any other citizen. They are meant to be SERVING YOU, not the other way around.

They are given authority to protect people, not to abuse such authority and commit crimes. When you are given extra authority and abuse it, the penalties are normally higher than where you have not. Police are already protected from legal recourse when they follow the rules and don't abuse said authority, as Chauvin did. Justice also means considering the position of responsibility that a person is in. That affects the level of punishment, in a great many crimes.

They should be treated the exact same as every other citizen under the law when they commit a crime. Justice should be blind and balanced.

False. Yes, it should be balanced, but police are not like every other citizen under the law. They are given authority and privileges that normal citizens do not get. eg. Wearing body armour and carrying weapons that most citizens cannot legally carry/wear.

Floyd's family should rightfully get to sue him and the police department that trained him in using that obviously lethal restraint should also be sued. That's where the "extra justice on him due to his job" should come from. The department that trained him in that extremely lethal move, gets off the hook if you don't "share the guilt around".

Yes, but the Nuremberg Defense isn't valid. He did not use his training properly and as such the department isn't on the hook for him doing so.

[colliric]

What if Chauvin hypothetically wasn't doing his job and was in plain clothes when he did this? Say he witnessed a crime in progress and acted using his former police training. Say he was a retired cop, saw a crime happening and decided to commit a citizen's arrest(which is legal in most parts of the world)?

Would his job have any impact on the sentencing? No. Because at the time he was not acting as a police officer on behalf of a police department. You could say "but as a former cop or non-working cop, he shy have known", but he would still be treated like any other citizen.

The restraint is a lethal form of restraint, and shouldn't be used at all. It's basically a slow-motion version of the curb stomp, except with your knees. Cops should be able to be sued when they use restraints like that. Police departments should be trained in using non-lethal methods of restraint and be sued when they don't comply.

[Unthinking Majority]

I guess this means the Thin Blue Line is breakable then.

I guess all you need is 300+ million people staring at you on national television ready to burn your house down if you defend am obvious murderer.

[Unthinking Majority]

Most people form their opinions about pretty much everything without examining any evidence. They just go with their "gut feeling". That doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, of course. She turned out to be right, in this case. But humans are rationalising animals rather than rational animals.

It's frightening to think there's billions of people who believe the Bible or Koran is the word of God without a shred of evidence. Looks like FOX News and CNN etc are the modern day preacher's pulpit.

[Potemkin]

It's frightening to think there's billions of people who believe the Bible or Koran is the word of God without a shred of evidence. Looks like FOX News and CNN etc are the modern day preacher's pulpit.

Indeed. But it has always been thus, and likely always will be.

[Saeko]

@Unthinking Majority

The jury is anonymous. Your points are nonsense.

[Godstud]

What if Chauvin hypothetically wasn't doing his job and was in plain clothes when he did this? Say he witnessed a crime in progress and acted using his former police training. Say he was a retired cop, saw a crime happening and decided to commit a citizen's arrest(which is legal in most parts of the world)?

Yes, it would matter, as he wouldn't be in that position of power any longer. He wouldn't hold the same authority as he would if he was a police officer. His legal rights to a citizen's arrest would be the same as anyone else's.

Would his job have any impact on the sentencing? No. Because at the time he was not acting as a police officer on behalf of a police department. You could say "but as a former cop or non-working cop, he shy have known", but he would still be treated like any other citizen.

It would matter. he wouldn't have the powers of a police officer who was on duty and working. You, or I, cannot act on behalf of the police department, except in an extremely limited way.

The restraint is a lethal form of restraint, and shouldn't be used at all. It's basically a slow-motion version of the curb stomp, except with your knees. Cops should be able to be sued when they use restraints like that. Police departments should be trained in using non-lethal methods of restraint and be sued when they don't comply.

That restrain was only to be when against a person exhibiting extreme resistance. That was the police force's policy. That places the onus upon the police officer employing it. It was excessive force, given that George Floyd was handcuffed, and face down on the ground. His resistance could not be deemed "extreme".

They can be sued, of course, and many police forces in the USA had actually banned that type of restraint, years earlier, and then 62% banned it after June.

Some of the biggest police departments in the country have already instituted bans on chokeholds. The Los Angeles Police Department banned what's called the "bar-arm chokehold" in 1982. The New York Police Department banned chokeholds in November 1993 — except when an officer's life is in danger. And the Chicago Police Department did the same in May 2012. Philadelphia and Houston have similar policies.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/16/87752797 ... 20policies.

We've seen the police's version of non-lethal restraint when a police officer shot a man with her "taser" recently.

[SpecialOlympian]

To repeat what I posted in a less active thread, after the riots, threats of more riots, and politicians/activists/etc. calling for more riots if the "wrong" verdict was rendered, on appeal the judge should declare a mistrial ... and then the (properly sequestered) jury should return the same verdict.

I think this would be a waste of time pandering to bad faith actors who will never respect the results anyway, but somehow this is more sensible than your view on the election.

[jimjam]

Let us not confuse the situation with the usual same ole, same ole divide and conquer bullshit about republicans, democrats, liberals or conservatives. A psychopathic killer was dealt justice. A rotten broken system worked as it should for once. Nice to see.

[Rancid]

I think this would be a waste of time pandering to bad faith actors who will never respect the results anyway, but somehow this is more sensible than your view on the election.

Indeed. Even if all the things @Doug64 is complaining about didn't happen. They'd simply find something else to point at.

When there's a right wing loney capitol riot, it's the will of the people. Anything else... no no no, we can't have that!

[wat0n]

...But it's a legitimate complaint this time around, even if it won't really change anything.

[Pants-of-dog]

To repeat what I posted in a less active thread, after the riots, threats of more riots, and politicians/activists/etc. calling for more riots if the "wrong" verdict was rendered, on appeal the judge should declare a mistrial ... and then the (properly sequestered) jury should return the same verdict.

I have not seen this.

I have seen one person say that people should take to the streets if there was going to be a guilty verdict, but that could easily be a summons to protest. To characterize it as calling for riots seems to assume something that the speaker may not have intended.

Can you provide quotes of people asking for riots?

As for any calls for police reform based on this trial, the Republicans in the Senate should declare that they are going to filibuster any Democratic bill until the Republican Tim Scott's JUSTICE Act the Democrats filibustered last year is passed and signed into law. After that, we can discuss what else might need to be done.

That is illogical. It has nothing to do with Democrats versus Republicans.

Unless you think that blacks do not deserve equality because Democrats ostensibly argue for said equality. Is that what you think?

[Istanbuller]

Biden and some congresswoman intervened and pressed the court. It is a violation of rule of the law. I think this can be classified as an impeachable offense.

This fucking man is the one who is trying to lecture other countries on rule of the law. More reasons why Russians and Chinese should not care about US criticisms.

[jimjam]

When there's a right wing loney capitol riot, it's the will of the people

Free speech ……………… Anything else is cunt liberal socialism.
It's interesting to speculate what Goebbels could have done with today's instantaneous and all pervasive media .