• The Sietch will shortly be brought offline for HPG systems maintenance. Please remain calm and do not start any interstellar wars while ComStar is busy. May the Peace of Blake be with you. Precentor Dune
  • Hey (name)! This is a general announcement to all of our members that we have a growing Alternate History and Creative Writing section that is increasingly seeing new content. If you haven't taken a look lately, please do so and perhaps leave a comment or reaction if you read something you like! Let's support our writers!
  • For those of you who would like to support the Sietch financially, subscriptions are BACK. Simply click on Account Upgrades and you will be able to upgrade your account!
  • The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)
  • Your beloved Boot here with a confession. The Boot tangled its laces and failed to properly set up the new Comrade user title. Thanks to the kind intercession of Emperor Tippy this failure has been corrected and the new user title is now actually on sale to everybody.

Derek Chauvin Trial: summer 2020 electric boogaloo

Prince Ire

Section XIII
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Reaction score
210
Location
USA
Yikes, a guilty verdict on all three? That's almost surely going to be a successful appeal...
From what I hear its perfectly possible to convict for all three under Minnesota law. So a successful appeal on that would mean a judge striking down that entire section of Minnesota law being struck down.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Reaction score
249
There are procedures in place to follow, and hell, the people who *wrote* the procedures were saying "He violated them."
You mean the people who would be liable for putting out jacked up procedures? I can't imagine that they would have a reason for throwing Chauvin under the bus. /s

There are training documents showing Chauvin employed procedures put forth by the department.
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2020
Reaction score
1,128
Did you watch the trial? Because use of force trainers said 'Actually, he would have been justified to use more force here.'

There's also the whole fact that nothing indicated what Chauvin did killed Floyd, and he had lethal levels of Fentanyl in his system. That might have a thing or two to do with it as well.

Certainly enough to create a 'reasonable doubt.'

There's some ambiguity over whether or not there's more that Chauvin could have done to try to help Floyd, but that's not enough for Murder 2.
Except based on his reactions, and in the video that was played in court with an extra 45 seconds, it came off as him on a power trip.

The issue with Floyd's physiology is that, while he had those issues, the cops waited two minutes before calling paramedics, and four before actually doing anything. Maybe it's just me, but if a guy is unresponsive and I can't find a pulse, my immediate reaction is going to be "oh shit, there's a problem" and try to render aid. Something that is a duty when you take someone into custody, actually.

And considering the vast majority of cops and FOP lodges are going "yes, justice was done" I'd say that I'm more inclined to trust them, as opposed to a guy who got hit pretty hard on cross examination over use of force and ended up less convincing, not more.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Reaction score
249
There is always someone willing to take money to enforce policy. All that’s changing is which stated and unstated policies.
Not always. Just talking to a local police training officer with over 20 years experience in a suburb, an area which you'd think wouldn't have much of a hiring issue, they've have massive problems hiring and retaining people. He said it has been a problem for at least 10 years and it's a major national problem that is only getting worse. So no, there isn't always someone willing to do that job for the pay.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
11,032
Not always. Just talking to a local police training officer with over 20 years experience in a suburb, an area which you'd think wouldn't have much of a hiring issue, they've have massive problems hiring and retaining people. He said it has been a problem for at least 10 years and it's a major national problem that is only getting worse. So no, there isn't always someone willing to do that job for the pay.
That's while the standards are high. If the standards get dropped to 'willing to beat people up at the order of politicians,' there'll be lots more eligible applicants.

Standards don't shift to that all at once, but they can end up there.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Reaction score
249
That's while the standards are high. If the standards get dropped to 'willing to beat people up at the order of politicians,' there'll be lots more eligible applicants.

Standards don't shift to that all at once, but they can end up there.
I highly doubt that it would get to that point for official law enforcement. Not even the Nazis got away with that. Unofficial thugs though...we are already there.
If anything it is more likely that the police have more and more gaps, private security becomes a bigger thing for those who can afford it, and it's the Purge for the average person.
 

LordsFire

Internet Wizard
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
11,032
I highly doubt that it would get to that point for official law enforcement. Not even the Nazis got away with that. Unofficial thugs though...we are already there.
If anything it is more likely that the police have more and more gaps, private security becomes a bigger thing for those who can afford it, and it's the Purge for the average person.
I agree that is quite a bit more plausible.
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Reaction score
2,576
I get the feeling that at this rate somebody is going to suffer what Napoleon called a whiff of grapeshot although the question becomes who.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Sotnik
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Reaction score
3,354
Did you watch the trial? Because use of force trainers said 'Actually, he would have been justified to use more force here.'
And officers from Chauvin's own department testified that it was a blatant violation of policy and procedure.

So here's my point of view.

For EMTs and firefighters, professional immunity for liability (both criminal and civil) hinges on whether or not we followed our training and procedures. If we did what we were trained to do and remained within our scope of practice, we are not legally responsible for a negative patient outcome. We can still be sued for it, but showing that we followed proper procedures and best practices provides an affirmative defense. This is one of the biggest reasons that we are taught that is is important to properly document everything we do; we can reference our patient care forms and field notes to show exactly what we did, and then we can show that this exactly matches our training and the standing patient care protocols.

Professional immunity for police officers legally rests on the same basis, but historically police officers have been granted tremendous deference by the courts in a way which EMTs and firefighters have not. As a result, there has been a dramatic judicial expansion of police immunity from, "You are not liable if you followed proper procedure." to, "You are not liable unless it can be shown that you acted with malicious bad faith." Whereas EMTs and firefighters who are accused of misconduct must raise an affirmative defense at trial with facts and evidence, police who are accused of misconduct can simply have the case dismissed before reaching actual trial unless the prosecution presents sufficient evidence to build a case for actual malice.

Note that the argument that police are being considered "guilty until proven innocent" if any other standard of defense is used does not fly, because qualified immunity does not work that way for anyone but the police. Affirmative defenses as a whole require a demonstrated basis in fact; that's literally what makes an affirmative defense different than a "regular" defense.

More importantly, police being treated this way is a matter of judicial fiat and not actual black-letter law. By black-letter law, qualified immunity for police officers is not fundamentally different from qualified immunity for other professions, and this case (apparently) pushing back to the procedural standard is not a violation of Chauvin's rights; it is simply the court sticking to the actual law and not giving him the traditional but extralegal deference which police are normally granted by the justice system.

I believe this is the just and proper outcome. The way judges and prosecutors regard police officers as colleagues and habitually grant them not only maximum benefit of discretion but also unofficial privileges far beyond what the law actually says, is an absolute blight upon the justice system.
 

What's the sitch?

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2019
Reaction score
467
I was like 90% sure he was gonna get convicted of everything. Due to social media and internet there is no way they did not know of the case or had already been tainted for weeks before they were selected as jurors. The veiled or outright threats and such did nothing to help either.

BLM was allowed to riot, unhindered for much of last year, so could any juror really expect any protection?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also for better and worse he is a cop. Everyone has been fucked over by a cop before in some degree often by some quota making ticket writer stealing several days or a weeks worth of pay, so even the ones that didn't blindly drink the koolaid and believe he was a monster had to weigh their own safety, their families safety, the chance the blm wouldn't riot more vs some cop/former cop who carries the baggage of being a cop.
 
Last edited:

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Joined
Feb 21, 2020
Reaction score
3,871
So she admits she was talking to people on Social Media about the case?

That alone is pretty much grounds for an overturn.
Now she is claiming it was a mock trial for school.

Which is rather..odd given the phrasing. Could very well be given how histrionic and stupid those kind of people are but who knows.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Reaction score
5,996
Location
Before the Ninth Gate
Now she is claiming it was a mock trial for school.

Which is rather..odd given the phrasing. Could very well be given how histrionic and stupid those kind of people are but who knows.
We will know. The juror names are (probably) going to be public info soon. Juror names are actually public info in the US with some exceptions (usually organized crime trials).
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Reaction score
325
it's a joke
I personally feel that spreading misinformation in the context of this particular trial is bad, as a joke or otherwise.

If you take the position that no one seeing that could possibly think that the underlying criticism pointed to in the text is accurate despite the joking nature of the tweet ... you're wrong.
 
Top Bottom