Seemed like the evidence was overwhelming, but sadly that hasn’t mattered all too often in the past.
And REMANDED!!!
Will he be sentenced for each charge or just the most serious one?
oh thank Og
My TV says he will be sentenced for each charge, but because they all relate to the same victim, they will be served concurrently.
So I suppose the impact of the sentences for the less serious charges is that if one of the verdicts were overturned the others might still stand.
Seconded.
I think we can start the suicide watch on Chauvin. Jail would not be fun for him.
Possibly a suicide watch. Or possibly a “suicide” watch.
(ETA: Come to think of it, I don’t think I’m the first to suggest this subtle distinction. I think someone in the other thread wrote something similar already.)
Twarn’t so in the OJ Simpson case.
Hearing “guilty, guilty, guilty” on the news reminded me of this:
I’ve already heard extreme rightist “Blue Lives Matter” types freaking out over this verdict. The thing that gets me is that they fail to recognize that their support of the convict is because they already knew he was wrong. They just didn’t care because the convict’s victim is Black.
And, yes, I will only refer to the recently convicted murderer as convict from here on out.
There was no excuse for what Chauvin did, I dont see how even extreme blue lives matter people can condone that.
Sure, I thought it was just manslaughter, but still- he killed that man without reason.
Anyone know what his minimum possible sentence would be?
Thirded(thats a real thing right?)
Is it common for someone to be convicted of three crimes for what is, essentially, a single incident? It seems to me that Chauvin committed either murder or manslaughter, but not both.
Not uncommon at all, if the facts fit. Last thing you want is to not convict of a lesser crime and then have the greater crime reversed on appeal.
As stated in the poll thread on the outcome, it would actually be very difficult for someone to be guilty of murder 2 and not also be guilty of both murder 3 and manslaughter.
I read somewhere between 12 and 40 years.
I think it’s worth noting that this verdict may not have happened if it wasn’t for somebody videoing the whole incident on their phone from ten feet away.
I am sure that the takeaway for some police is to stop allowing video. One of the positives that could come out of this trial might be that it could be much harder for the police to pass laws restricting recording their actions. Activists will always be able to point to this trial as a win for freedom to record.
nevermind
She was, IIRC, 10 to 12. Somewhere around that age.
Brave kid.