DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Chauvin Trial

As usual, no substance.

No, I can't. But I can show you where I posted a tweet from one of our elected officials stating we should get rid of law enforcement and your response was to change the subject to MTG. Pot meet kettle.

My response was that it's only a very few on the fringe that say this. Just like there are people on the opposite end of the spectrum who say crazy things.

I'm not quite sure how you think that's a pot meet kettle issue. It's only trying to show that we can use extremes on both sides to try and push an agenda that they all sound crazy or that the other party promotes what those on their extreme say.

That makes both extremes not representative of their actual parties. That seems quite even handed to me.

It is not hard to find.

per capita shooting by police.

35 to 14 or about 2 1/2 times.

a couple of other citations with the results in text. It looks as though The Washington Post keeps a database that is often the reference.

Washington Post Database

Northeastern Univ.

Yale

Facts are facts and just not emotions. Again the topic is Chavuin and not crime in general.

1. Because of the same reason the majority of Euro Americans die at the hands of other Whites: proximity. There is nothing mystifying about this.

2. Plenty is being done. I don't know of a single metro area that isn't addressing the issue. The fact that you even have this question indicates just how detached and divorced you are from any of this.

Also, I'll let you in on a little secret: we (black/brown citizens) aren't really interested in having this talk with you for 2 main reasons:

1. You will do nothing to address this yourself, because the talking is is the only thing you're really interested in.

2. We aren't interested in providing you with your porn.

. Bad cops have been trying to fix that by playing judge, jury, and executioner. Time for a new approach.

Derek Chauvin sentencing: Ex-Minneapolis cop sentenced to 22.5 years in prison in murder of George Floyd

(CNN)Derek Chauvin, the former police officer who killed George Floyd on a Minneapolis street last year, was sentenced Friday to 22 and half years in prison.

Chauvin, in a light gray suit and tie and white shirt, spoke briefly before the sentence was imposed, offering his "condolences to the Floyd family."
Under Minnesota law, Chauvin will have to serve two-thirds of his sentence, or 15 years -- and he will be eligible for supervised release for the remaining seven and a half years.
Chauvin, 45, was convicted in April on charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter for his role in Floyd's death.

Story continues here...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/us/derek-chauvin-sentencing-george-floyd/index.html

That seems about right.

I understand why you made that assessment, and have no issue whatsoever with what you said. That said, I'd like to use Chauvin's sentence and your assessment of it as a jumping-off point to ask the entire board:

If the roles were reversed, and it was George Floyd who was on trial for the murder of Derek Chauvin, would 22.5 years seem about right?

I don't really have an opinion about how much is enough. It's kind of why I bring it up as I do.

I honestly have no idea.... my first thought was it felt light... but honestly I have no idea what's normal for 2nd degree, 3rd degree, and manslaughter... thought I read the max could have been 75 but was more likely going to be around 29 years...

if roles were reversed I'd still have no idea what the recommendation would be but feel that my initial thoughts would be 22 seems light...

You mean totally reversed? Like, Floyd is an officer and Chauvin is resisting arrest... Floyd kills Chauvin? I think the 22.5 seems right in either scenario. Caveat being, I have no idea what the "eligible for parole" situation is. Not really sure what your angle is in this case, other than the obvious black / white improprieties our society seems to have.

If you mean perp kills cop, society has always dished out more severe punishment when a cop is killed in the line of duty, justifiably so imo.

no... Floyd the citizen murders Chauvin the LEO.

thanks for answering both scenarios.

The sentence guideline for a first offender person convicted of second degree murder was 12.5 to 15 years. There were 4 adders for Chauvin. He was an authority figure, the crime was brutal, children saw it and the crime was committed by a group. So no way was it going to be 15, the prosecutors wanted 30 and the judge split it down the middle.

And I agree that if it would have been Floyd killing a officer, the sentence would be more. But that is a hypothetical that does not apply.

Those who kill officers in the line of duty generally never see the light of day. I have no problem with that.

In the current political environment where blacks are labeled as oppressed victims held down by systemic rascism, I'd guess Floyd would get the minimum sentence possible and parole in 3 years.

thank you for your input.

The query continues.


All feel free to weigh in.

I think we all know the answer is probably not. At least in so far as to what would have happened. It may sound screwed up, but deterrent against government officials is always swifter and more severe. Should it be? I suppose probably so because the people breaking laws outnumber the people trying to enforce. The line between lawlessness and the rule of law is fairly fragile.

A good example can be viewed in recent event. A few days ago the President was talking about the 2nd amendment and how people having some weapons wouldn't do anything if the people wanted to rise against the government(rule of law) which is partly the reason for the amendment in the first place. He said they might need F-15's and a few nukes, which people can't get. Backtrack a few months and the President and others were comparing a few hundred rioters at the capitol into the greatest threat to American liberty and security since the war between the states.

I don't say that as some political statement against the President. I simply say that to highlight my earlier point that actions against the government or it's officials is always going to be viewed differently and dealt with in a manner some may view as a double standard.

All that said, I think the 22 years is just. That is a long time.

Nothing will bring Mr. Floyd back. I will also say I think we sometimes get carried away with prison terms. My feeling is if Mr. Floyd, or some John Doe can never be brought back, what good would giving somebody 100 years do to correct the problem? I wouldn't or can't.

If it can be shown that a person will remain a threat to society, then there is no choice but to imprison them for the remainder of their life. In this case I don't think that Chauvin poses that level of threat.

He now gets to ponder is actions for the next 22 years. OK, maybe knock off 5 or so for good behavior, yada,yada.

That is basically 25% of a persons life. I'd say that is a strong message to police to use whatever means necessary to apprehend the individual, but once in secure custody, the job is complete. You don't continue the process, I don't care who they are or what they have done. Once the person is in cuff and secured, the job of the police is over.

My hope is we all can learn from this and move on down the road. A better road.

Could you troll any harder?

You are pretty quick to call people out as trolls.

When people make a statement that is super inflammatory with evidence that points to the exact opposite as to what was stated, then yes, they are trolling. Eve's statement has no evidence in any history of sentences. In fact, black people are much more likely to be convicted of crimes, and much more likely to receive longer sentences for the same crimes.

I am not a person who thinks that all black people have been oppressed, or that all white people are racist, but there are plenty of times that that is the case.

The other day I asked you if you were trolling simply because I feel you have been making statements that are similar, but not quite as bad as Eve's here. Apparently you were making a very poor joke, so if so, it's not "trolling" but still a very inciting "joke."

Yes.
You've been here long enough to be able to answer your own question.

It's obvious she's not a racist, she doesn't even know how to spell it.

Hey Eve, isn't RaScIsM acting like a rascal? You are definitely a RASCist.

Statistics have already proven the answer to your question. It would have been more. A lot more. No matter who actually instigated it.

JMHO, damn you're cold....a man lost his life for a fake $20 and you have the stones to make fun of it. Bless you.

I'm not making fun of it. Have you listened to the narrative put out by the liberal media lately? Or, actually, listen to any race related crap spewed by libtards.

People think Im trolling because they cant even look at themselves in the mirror.

Here's the spew. The man was murdered. On camera. And the murderer was convicted by a jury of 12 people. That's how the justice system is supposed to work..... for everyone.

Also remember how it would have went down if it wasn’t on camera.

"Man Dies After Medical Incident During Police Interaction."

That says everything that you need to know, the video was the smoking gun that brought the justice that was deserved. Otherwise it would have been swept under the rug.

I have no doubt that you are 100% correct about that.

I was thinking something similar when I heard his sentence. I think as the years to be behind bars go up, each additional year loses its imapct.

Chauvin is 45 years old. That means when he gets out he'll have to figure out the remainder of his life when he's coming up on 70. It's not sympathy to point out that that's gonna suck.

Someone threw 30 years out there. Would his punishment really be that much worse if he were behind bars for that additional time?

My view is the cop committed murder. The vic doesn't get his life back. Neither should the cop.

That gets back to a point I made earlier.

I think prison terms are out of whack.

I am all for law and order, but I don't think we need to be vindictive in the way we set those terms. As someone(Oober?) said, when you get down to it, what is the difference between 20 years and 30 years Yes, it is 10 years, but will that make any real difference when as you say the other person is gone forever? Maybe we should just kill them and be done with it.

Is that 10 extra years going to be the time it takes for a light to come on in that persons head that in 20 years already hasn't? I'd be willing to bet that light comes on, if there is any light at all to come on happens in about 5 days. Maybe 5 minutes once the bars slam.

No doubt there needs to be some bite in the punishment, but at some point it is simply punitive in nature and serves no real purpose. Has administrating out 30-40 year prison terms for the last 100 years done any good?

I do want to say my comments are assuming a one time deal. Once people start repeating criminal acts, my attitude changes. Now you are dealing with people who don't have a glimmer of light in them and they simply don't care. The ballgame changes at that point.

The person going to jail is NOT the victim... I don't care about rehab... He has to pay. So yeah, the 10 extra years matter to the true victims...

Nobody said Chauvin was the victim. Not a single person. Don't twist an attempt at productive conversation into something ridiculous.

You say he "has to pay". What do you mean by 'pay'? Honest question? I assume you DON'T mean that his prison term (as long or short as it is) is going to somehow make up for murder, so that leaves him being punished for his crime. How does sitting in a cell, essentially being babysat, for a pre-determined amount of time (that no group of people will agree upon) constitute a just punishment for murder? IMO, that's the real crux of this conversation. Or does the real punishment start after he leaves jail, and has to try to scratch out a life as a convicted murderer (and a famous one, at that)?

At the average cost of just over $30k a year to incarcerate, I'd rather see him be released under supervision at the end, and try to support himself, as a registered felon nearing retirement.

Life will be difficult for him, and it will save tax payers money.

Not to mention when he does get released it will not be done quietly. So he will have to go through media hell on release and who knows how society will treat him wherever he goes.

Did I say the person going to jail was the victim?? Did you even read what was said? If retorting that the person going to jail isn't the victim is all you can say... oh well.

I agree with you when it comes to non violent crimes. Too many people are serving very long sentences for criminal acts that do not involve violence.

But murder is a different animal. You not only have the victim that was murdered, you have his or her entire family as victims. It's odd that until now I haven't seen that kind of sentiment on this board involving such an egregious, violent act as murder.

J/c

Here is an option: the 'biblical solution'... eye for an eye.

1. Bind his hands behind his back
2. Lay him face down on the pavement in public
3. Pay someone to kneel on his neck for 9+ minutes.

Let the punishment fit the crime.

Amen.

But he’d have to have drugs in his system or he obviously wouldn’t die. Right?

[quote=Clemdawg]J/c

Here is an option: the 'biblical solution'... eye for an eye.

1. Bind his hands behind his back
2. Lay him face down on the pavement in public
3. Pay someone to kneel on his neck for 9+ minutes.

Let the punishment fit the crime.

At least you have had the time to formulate and share an opinion.

Many people feel that way. I understand why some do.