Derek Chauvin pled guilty on December 15 to federal charges of violating the civil rights of St. George Floyd. He could be sentenced to 25 years in federal prison. This is on top of the Minnesota state sentence he already received of 22 1/2 years. The guilty plea means that he waives all rights to an appeal. Derek Chauvin pleads guilty in George Floyd civil rights case, sentencing still undetermined | Fox News Yeah, so whatever happened to "double jeopardy" and not being tried for the same crime twice? Even if he proved his innocence in one court, he could be tried for the same crime in a different court all over again. (And it's not just a matter of innocence. If one court does not think his sentence from the other court was long enough, they will sentence him again. It's as if two different courts are deciding the length of punishment and he will get whatever one is the longest) This whole 14th Amendment and "civil rights violations" opened up a whole can of worms. That law was originally passed for situations where the state refused to enforce its own laws, so that the federal government could come in and offer people protections. This is NOT the sort of situation that those who passed the 14th Amendment long ago originally envisioned. In my opinion, Chauvin is not even obviously guilty of murder and his sentence should be far less. I mean like under 6 years, maybe less then 3. (see this thread for details about that: an argument in defense of Chauvin ) But they are going after him with full force because this is viewed as another incident of "police murdering a black man", so there are tonalities of "systematic oppression" and "racism", which the media and Left are really playing up. What is happening to Chauvin is inevitably going to affect how police across the country deal with situations, and not entirely in a good way. Police are afraid (which is the whole intention), and this is even leading many to quit, some to relocate, and for others it may likely lead them to make bad decisions which might even get people hurt. They're not just punishing Chauvin, they are treating him like any ordinary murderer. (Which he is not. Or at least there are many who believe he is not)
Court docs reveal 'extreme' public pressure on prosecutors in George Floyd case According to the deposition of a former Hennepin County prosecutor, the county's medical examiner told her in a phone call that there "were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation." New court documents expose the "extreme pressure" prosecutors faced in Hennepin County to charge Derek Chauvin and three other former Minneapolis police officers in the death of George Floyd. Several attorneys opposed charging the "other three" officers and withdrew from the case due to "professional and ethical rules." Now, hundreds of pages of sworn testimony of Hennepin County attorneys and other county employees that took place this summer have been made public. He (Dr. Baker: medical examiner called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd's neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation," Sweasy said, according to the transcript. "He said to me, 'Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn't match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?' And then he said, 'This is the kind of case that ends careers.'" Court docs reveal 'extreme' public pressure on prosecutors in George Floyd case, Liz Collin, Alpha News, October 17, 2023 We already had strong indications and suspicions that this was true. But now more documents have been released and we can see things more clearly, the picture gets a little clearer. One of the main points in the trial, the main reason it is believed the jury probably voted guilty, was because of the testimony of the medical examiner who said that Floyd's cause of the death was the pressure applied to his neck, rather than the drugs (opioids are well known to cause respiratory depression), Covid virus (caused fluid build-up in the lungs, trouble breathing), Floyd being hysterical and hyperventilating (including 'excited delirium', an interaction between the psychological state and the drugs), and heart attack (which of course was triggered by oxygen being restricted but likely would not have happened if it were not for the interplay of the drugs). But the thing is, that testimony was an opinion and perspective, not a "fact". What could be called one expert's personal interpretation of the known facts. The jury seems to have taken it as a fact (as if medical science told them logically and scientifically that Chauvin's actions were the thing that killed Floyd). Never mind that the medical examination found so many drugs in Floyd's body (opioids, methamphetamine, THC from marijuana) that it could have killed someone who was smaller than Floyd's muscular big built 6 foot 4 inch 223 pound body. (Just the THC levels alone indicated he was pretty "high" at the time, and it would be dangerous for him to be behind the steering wheel of a car, which he was) Chauvin, who got a little too zealous and made a mistake, rots in prison, sentenced to 22.5 years in prison (in both state and federal courts). In my opinion Chauvin only deserved between 9 months and 4 years. If the suspect who died hadn't been black, he most likely would never have even got criminally charged. What Chauvin did may have been an error in judgement and a mistake, but what most people don't understand, there did exist numerous reasons for him to do what he did. Reasons that (in my opinion) partially justify it, if not entirely. (Which is another long topic) I would not say it should have been totally obvious to him that what he did was a mistake. Most people don't understand how easy it can be for a normal person in certain types of situations to make a mistake. There is no indication that Chauvin thought what he was doing might kill the suspect, and from Chauvin's point of view Floyd was just being manipulative and couldn't be trusted because he was high on drugs and acting hysterically and crazy, and the level of force had to be upped because the suspect was making things very difficult. If it had been up to me, I might even have allowed Chauvin to return to police duty after a probationary period of 2 to 4 years. No, I wouldn't say Chauvin was "totally completely innocent", but the "justice" that ended up being meted out was a travesty. It would have been more fair for him to have gotten no prison time whatsoever than the absurdly high amount of time he got sentenced to.
related thread: Derek Chauvin stabbed by inmate in federal prison, seriously injured (posted by Egoboy , in Current Events, November 24, 2023 ) " an argument in defense of Chauvin ", posted by kazenatsu , in Political Opinions & Beliefs, May 3, 2021 (link is in the first post)
Chauvin was not the only officer at the scene who was charged and sentenced in federal court. Three other officers were given excessive prison sentences just for standing by and not intervening. J. Alexander Kueng was sentenced to three years in prison. Tou Thao was sentenced to three and a half years. Thomas Lane was sentenced to three years in state court, and separately two and a half years in prison by a federal court. I notice something unconstitutional about how they were charged. They were convicted of "violating Floyd's rights", presumably under an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But they were being criminally charged not for what they did do, but for what they did not do. I do not see how the U.S. Constitution could appropriately and justifiably allow those other officers to be charged in a federal court like this. Even charging Chauvin in federal court was a very questionable stretch of the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, since he had already been found guilty in state court and was going to get a very long prison sentence. The provision in the Fourteenth Amendment is there to allow the federal government to intervene if the state does not protect an individual's rights with consistent protection of the law. The relevant provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment (sections 1 and 5 ) say: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Since "the State" (Minnesota) was already prosecuting, and it is difficult to argue that "the State" was denying "equal protection of the laws", I do not see how the Fourteenth Amendment should have given the federal level of government authority to prosecute. I can only conclude that federal judges are not bothering to think about the U.S. Constitution, or are viewing the federalism in the Constitution and "separation of powers" as irrelevant.
