Derek Chauvin sentenced to 22.5 years in jail for killing George Floyd

So glad that this piece of crap is going to rot for a long time behind bars

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

The sentence exceeds the Minnesota sentencing guideline range of 10 years and eight months to 15 years for the crime. Floyd's death sparked massive protests across the nation over police brutality.

Judge Peter Cahill said the sentence was not based on emotion or public opinion. He wanted to "acknowledge the deep and tremendous pain that all of the families are feeling, especially the Floyd family," the judge said.

In a 22 page memorandum, Cahill wrote that two aggravating factors warranted a harsher sentence -- that Chauvin "abused his position of trust or authority" and treated Floyd with "particular cruelty." Chauvin, the judge wrote, treated Floyd "without respect and denied him the dignity owed to all human beings."

Cahill said the former officer "objectively remained indifferent to Mr. Floyd's pleas' even as Mr. Floyd was begging for his life and obviously terrified by the knowledge that he was likely to die."

"Mr. Chauvin's prolonged restraint of Mr. Floyd was also much longer and more painful than the typical scenario in a second-degree or third-degree murder or second-degree manslaughter case," the judge wrote.

It's frustrating that they weren't able to include any mention of the previous incident where Chauvin attacked a 14 year old boy. He should have received a longer sentence IMO. He is a menace to the public.

At least they did SOMETHING though. I guess beggers can't be choosers in a corrupt legal system.

Good he's in jail, he deserves it. He is a racist, egotistical jerk. He took a hard-working man's life, and he is paying the price for that.

Floyd had a lot of drugs in his system also heart disease and Covid.
Still shouldn't be kneeling on someone's neck.
Here's the Autopsy and Toxicology report.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I’d say I’m fairly satisfied with the verdict.Just wish we could have gotten there without dozens of deaths,and billions of dollars worth of property damage to our towns,cities,and historical monuments.

Employer_Square wrote:

I’d say I’m fairly satisfied with the verdict.Just wish we could have gotten there without dozens of deaths,and billions of dollars worth of property damage to our towns,cities,and historical monuments.

What 'historical monuments' are you referring to? The statues of confederate soldiers and slave owners? Historical? Yes. Important or necessary? Absolutely not.

distant99 wrote:

Employer_Square wrote:

I’d say I’m fairly satisfied with the verdict.Just wish we could have gotten there without dozens of deaths,and billions of dollars worth of property damage to our towns,cities,and historical monuments.

What 'historical monuments' are you referring to? The statues of confederate soldiers and slave owners? Historical? Yes. Important or necessary? Absolutely not.

I was more referring to the non-confederate ones,of which there were many,though I don’t think tearing down and destroying any of them is a good way to show your solidarity for black lives and the fight against police brutality,.Also,putting everyone who happened to owned slaves at one point in time in our country under the same banner as simply “slave owners” and ignoring everything else they achieved and accomplished seems pretty unfair and a bit ignorant considering how much many of those people contributed to our country.And completely disregarding all of that,quite a few of the monuments damaged/destroyed by rioters were dedicated to people such as Abraham Lincoln,Frederick Douglas,Jesus frickin Christ,the Virgin Mary,Ronald Reagan,Ulysses S. Grant,Kit Carson,as well as several memorials to hundreds of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty,including one dedicated to 9/11 first responders.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

None of this was legal,justifiable,or contained a shred of common sense or logic if you consider the actual motivation behind these actions.

Employer_Square wrote:

distant99 wrote:

Employer_Square wrote:

I’d say I’m fairly satisfied with the verdict.Just wish we could have gotten there without dozens of deaths,and billions of dollars worth of property damage to our towns,cities,and historical monuments.

What 'historical monuments' are you referring to? The statues of confederate soldiers and slave owners? Historical? Yes. Important or necessary? Absolutely not.

I was more referring to the non-confederate ones,of which there were many,though I don’t think tearing down and destroying any of them is a good way to show your solidarity for black lives and the fight against police brutality,.Also,putting everyone who happened to owned slaves at one point in time in our country under the same banner as simply “slave owners” and ignoring everything else they achieved and accomplished seems pretty unfair and a bit ignorant considering how much many of those people contributed to our country.And completely disregarding all of that,quite a few of the monuments damaged/destroyed by rioters were dedicated to people such as Abraham Lincoln,Frederick Douglas,Jesus frickin Christ,the Virgin Mary,Ronald Reagan,Ulysses S. Grant,Kit Carson,as well as several memorials to hundreds of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty,including one dedicated to 9/11 first responders.

None of this was legal,justifiable,or contained a shred of common sense or logic if you consider the actual motivation behind these actions.

Keeping a statue up and on display is a celebration of the person. Keeping a statue up of a slave owner or confederate soldier is celebrating and promoting those things, regardless of which way you want to view it. It's effectively saying that their harmful actions don't matter that much, when they really do.

There's nothing wrong with preserving those monuments in museums or gallerys. History shouldn't be erased, no matter how dark. But showing history and celebrating it is a different thing. People may have been able to look past the slave owning part when the statue was built, but not anymore. I see no reason why they should be displayed. As for monuments of random people that were destroyed or defaced, I obviously disagree with that, however judging by the videos I've seen anyone who was defacing random buildings or statues was a random who wasn't a part of the general crowd. People always do dumb shit during protests, it isn't a representation of the movement itself.

And I don't personally care about 'jesus fucking christ' or any statues of him. The bible encourages rape and slavery so I don't really care.

distant99 wrote:

Employer_Square wrote:

distant99 wrote:

Employer_Square wrote:

I’d say I’m fairly satisfied with the verdict.Just wish we could have gotten there without dozens of deaths,and billions of dollars worth of property damage to our towns,cities,and historical monuments.

What 'historical monuments' are you referring to? The statues of confederate soldiers and slave owners? Historical? Yes. Important or necessary? Absolutely not.

I was more referring to the non-confederate ones,of which there were many,though I don’t think tearing down and destroying any of them is a good way to show your solidarity for black lives and the fight against police brutality,.Also,putting everyone who happened to owned slaves at one point in time in our country under the same banner as simply “slave owners” and ignoring everything else they achieved and accomplished seems pretty unfair and a bit ignorant considering how much many of those people contributed to our country.And completely disregarding all of that,quite a few of the monuments damaged/destroyed by rioters were dedicated to people such as Abraham Lincoln,Frederick Douglas,Jesus frickin Christ,the Virgin Mary,Ronald Reagan,Ulysses S. Grant,Kit Carson,as well as several memorials to hundreds of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty,including one dedicated to 9/11 first responders.

None of this was legal,justifiable,or contained a shred of common sense or logic if you consider the actual motivation behind these actions.

Keeping a statue up and on display is a celebration of the person. Keeping a statue up of a slave owner or confederate soldier is celebrating and promoting those things, regardless of which way you want to view it. It's effectively saying that their harmful actions don't matter that much, when they really do.

There's nothing wrong with preserving those monuments in museums or gallerys. History shouldn't be erased, no matter how dark. But showing history and celebrating it is a different thing. People may have been able to look past the slave owning part when the statue was built, but not anymore. I see no reason why they should be displayed. As for monuments of random people that were destroyed or defaced, I obviously disagree with that, however judging by the videos I've seen anyone who was defacing random buildings or statues was a random who wasn't a part of the general crowd. People always do dumb shit during protests, it isn't a representation of the movement itself.

And I don't personally care about 'jesus fucking christ' or any statues of him. The bible encourages rape and slavery so I don't really care.

You're just saying remove all statues of slave owners ie Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson regardless if they were good person or not. I think History should be preserved no matter what same with statues, some of them are quite old.

Quote :

You're just saying remove all statues of slave owners ie Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson regardless if they were good person or not. I think History should be preserved no matter what same with statues, some of them are quite old.

Does the statue glorify or celebrate slavery? Did the person gain their status and notoriety through owning slaves or committing racist acts? We obviously can't hold every single historical famous person to modern standards, and I don't claim we should - but I think there's a difference between having a statue up of someone who made some remarks or did a few things that would be considered wrong nowadays, and having a statue of someone who enslaved and killed hundreds.
I went to a protest last year and people there pulled down the statue of Edward Colston, a guy who made the city what it is today. Half the city is named after him. He also shipped thousands across the world to become slaves and killed similar numbers. His statue was rightfully rolled to the harbor and dumped in the water.

History should be preserved. But not proudly displayed with admiration. Hitler was a great leader when it came to his planning and his leadership. He did great things for non-Jewish Germans. But he wasn't a good leader for all the other reasons. We can open a WW2 museum and explain who he was, what he did and his motives, but displaying a statue of him wouldn't be appropriate. I think we have to think of the other perspective here - to most people, a statue of a confederate soldier may not be worth thinking much about. But if you were a black person with enslaved ancestors and you lived near that statue, every time you went outside you'd see a reminder that the man they were glorifying with the statue wanted your ancestors to belong to him. That perspective rarely seems to be mentioned. It's not just a statue reminding them of history, it's a statue reminding them that the government believes it's okay to promote and glorify the people who did those things - essentially saying that they care more about the history and tourism than they do about avoiding glorifying racism.

I'd actually argue that the best way to preserve history is to remove the statues likely to be vandalised and protect them in a museum so that it doesn't happen.

Koltin wrote:

You're just saying remove all statues of slave owners ie Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson regardless if they were good person or not. I think History should be preserved no matter what same with statues, some of them are quite old.

I was about to agree with you, then I remembered that my country was once littered with statues of communist leaders and the idea of preserving history suddenly became less attractive. It’s not that I disagree now, I’m just desperately trying to think of a convincing explanation why tearing down those particular statues was okay.

that was an interesting read