Derek Chauvin guilty on all charges.

This is one of those moments that I'm actually shocked that not only was Chauvin, the police officer who was caught on camera kneeling on George Floyd until he lost conscious, was not only found guilty, but found guilty on all charge. But as many people are suggesting online, this doesn't fix anything. The fact that it is all but impossible to get cops fired for or even jailed is something that probably won't change. But the only reason why Chauvin was convicted is because not only did there need to be video evidence of what the man did, but basically the police threw him under the bus. That's it. This was a fluke. I'm happy it happened, but it's not going to change the fact that we all know in the next couple of weeks another officer will gun down another person of color.

As someone who has served, it's insane to me that the military can kick out people for the most tiniest reasons, and yet cops will go above and beyond to ensure that police officers never are held accountable for their actions. It's insane that there are people who seem to be okay with cops acting irrationally, that they are allowed to be scared and "frightened for their lives, but someone like me must perfectly obey; even if I have a gun pointed at my face. This is a police state. Cops are not warriors, they're not infalliable. They work for us, and they're job is to keep the peace. If we can't accept that, then we have to acknowledge that we live in a police state. Where cops are allowed to do whatever they want so long as they keep the riff-raff away from the one percenters.

I'm glad this happened, but there's so much work to be done.

As a Canadian viewing this from afar, I really hope this verdict is the catalyst for some real change, not just in the United States, but everywhere.

@taiterfry: Agreed. More accountability, and an institution that actively pushes out bad apples and leaders who are basically thugs in uniform.

One moral of the story is that cops have guns and everyone else has cameras, but only one of these groups needs to reflexively point and shoot at the other.

The overwhelming evidence was a key factor, and this is a landmark decision that finally sets a much-needed precedent. If you want meaningful change, then don't let this first domino fall without knocking another one over. Do that enough times, and we might have something more to celebrate than basic decency and completely reasonable expectations of justice.

Right? Like I was expecting the manslaughter charge. But the more I think about it, and I think about that video--it's the callous indifference to human life that pushes this to murder. You got a man struggling to say he can't breath, and you have a crowd of people screaming that you are killing this man--and you don't give a shit.

The problem with cops is this "Us vs them" mentality that ensures shit like this happens. That cops are somehow above the concerns of normal humans and everything they do is right and just because the job is "so hard." We need to smash that idea. Cops are not heroes, they are not warriors. They work for the people. If I go an order a sandwich from a baker I expect that sandwich becaus that's their job. Same goes with cops. We need to stop fetishizing Police officers and demand that they are held to a higher standards.

Because at this point, they are no different than the Bloods and the crips. They're a gang that just happens to have the backing of the government.

Fellow Canadian here. Maybe not as afar as we would like to believe.

RCMP racially discriminated against mother, mishandled witnesses, evidence in Colten Boushie case: watchdog

Popping in here to remind everyone of our community rules :)

Please keep the discussion civil. Please don't insult one another. If you feel someone is breaking our rules please flag the post and we'll handle it.

As for Chauvin, he got exactly what he deserved. I hope George Floyd's family can find some kind of peace and hope that out of this tragedy we begin to change. Remember that change doesn't just happen and that this isn't just a US problem either. Get involved locally.

Happy to see the necessary verdict was reached. However, I'll echo what others were saying- this was a fluke, and it does not especially give me hope in the system changing. But we'll see, I guess.

There are countless places that our police system needs change but I'm always drawn to the part where a significant portion of our officers are trained by a man who called his method "Killology".

@efesell: Which is something when you consider that he never actually killed anyone.

Fuckin' Meanwhile..

It was surprising for sure, at least the murder convictions. I just hope people dont put too much of their hopes for change on yesterdays verdicts, Because there WILL be a retrial after appeal. The politicians, as always, have blundered what the people they are supposed to represent were almost able to pull off by themselves.

Weather i agree or not (in this case, I wholeheartedly do), it just troubling to me to see a President address comments to the American people imploring "impartial" jurors to make the "RIGHT" decision. Whatever a jury decides IS the right decision, for them. That's the whole point of our Justice system. Even though it isn't quite usually as acerbic, comments like the President and Maxine Waters made yesterday and the days preceding show just as much contempt for our justice system as the previous administration. Just because I agree with the verdicts, doesn't mean I'm thrilled with everything surrounding it.

Anyways, any guilty verdict delivered yesterday was damn near guaranteed to be remanded on appeal the second Maxine opened her mouth Monday, So yes, this was a positive step, but FAR from a path that's completed.

@cornfed40: There's no guarantee that an appeal will lead to a retrial. For one thing the trial judge ruled against a mistrial based on Waters' statements, so it's not like it's a new issue, and for another it will be very hard to prove that those statements were actually prejudicial. This case was one of the most discussed cases in American history and it strains credulity to believe that the remarks of one random congresswoman amid a sea of endless discussion would actually be prejudicial. It's not impossible that a court would rule that way, but it's very far from a sure thing.

Biden's comments were made after the jury had been sequestered and he specifically waited for that to happen before he made them. I'm not sure what your beef with him is because he wasn't imploring anyone to do anything, since the jurors wouldn't know what he said. Instead he was stating his personal preference for how the case would turn out, specifically timed so the jury wouldn't know it. He seems to have been cautious and entirely appropriate about it, unlike his predecessor who said whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.

Saying he has as much contempt for the justice system as Trump did is completely ludicrous. It's barely even worth addressing.

There is always a chance that any verdict can be overturned on appeal but this is very far from a sure thing. The Waters statement is extremely thin gruel and for the Biden statement to be relevant you'd have to prove that the jury was actually aware of it, and even then it is also extremely thin grounds to overturn this verdict.

The evidence against Chauvin is overwhelming and he got a fair trial.

@bigsocrates: I will keep this short in an effort to remain civil. I know what im talking about, for a number of reasons, and I am 100% correct. This WILL be overturned on appeal. Not a question in anyones mind. Having "common sense" is the exact opposite of wondering how the law works. I think Chauvin is guilty. I dont think the jury was influenced by anything but the trial. But it doesnt matter if they were or not. They could have been. Thats all that matters. Facts don't need 8 paragraph posts. You either know them or you dont. Nothing im saying is my opinion.

Just saying whats going to happen, and its disgraceful that its going to, but it is what it is.

@cornfed40: Facts may not need 8 paragraphs but it probably needs more than "I'm right, trust me"..

Spoken like someone weighing the nuance of an issue and acknowledging that, even if you're sure, this could go a lot of ways.

@efesell: Completely agree! I dont want people to agree with or like it, just dont tell me im "wrong". Just sharing my thoughts on the matter. I sincerely hope the second trial has the exact same outcome. The actual trial itself and verdict yesterday was such an amazing feeling of catharsis for so many people.

@cornfed40: Funny how all the actual lawyers, legal experts, academics, journalists and others who have spent their lives studying the law have neglected to mention this "fact" in their thousands of hours of coverage of the case.

Anyone who tells you they can predict the outcome of an appellate case perfectly without even knowing what judges are assigned to the appeal is just talking silly unless the facts are so overwhelming that the case is not even in question, in which case you'd think the trial judge would have just declared a mistrial rather than setting himself up to be overturned (which trial judges absolutely hate.)

On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog so it doesn't matter what expertise I claim on an anonymous message board (and I am not an expert on Minnesota appellate practice by any stretch of the imagination) but the vast majority of legal experts who are putting their names on their statements are saying that a successful appeal is unlikely, and my own knowledge and experience tells me that it's far from a sure thing.

You'll excuse me if I take their word for it and my own over that of an anonymous stranger who hasn't even put forth any claimed credentials.

@bigsocrates: Again, I don't need a blog post about why you are right. I dont care who's word you take, honestly. I stated my truth. Thats it, and thats the whole point of this board. Im sorry you disagree with me. And im even more sorry that this douche has a chance to walk away completely free after the judge, prosecution, and jury all did an amazing job despite the pressure.

@cornfed40: ...it's not a blog post, it's a couple paragraphs. Also, didn't you just say "I don't want people to agree with or like it, just don't tell me I'm 'wrong?'" At the time I thought you just meant "give a reason instead of just saying I'm wrong," but now it's sounding like you mean "literally do not disagree with me even for well stated reasons." Eesh.

Random video game opinions on the GB forum may be about "stating your truth" (paraphrase) but real world current events? Naw, son.

@lapsariangiraff: Your personal reasons for disagreements are fine. "Someone else told me something else and i dont know who you are" is not valid. Im not going to post my CV in a video game forum, no lol. But for the sake of harmony, everything yesterday was great, and i refer to you fine people. Bowing out.

@lapsariangiraff: also, "naw girl" would be more appropriate

All I'll say is that I'll be watching for this same energy when everything is said and done.

@cornfed40: The reason that I responded to you wasn't even that you claimed this would be overturned on appeal but because you made a manifestly false claim about Biden. You said he urged jurors to find Chauvin guilty and showed disrespect for the legal process even though he specifically waited until the jurors were sequestered to make his statements.

That was my main issue with what you said.

Nonetheless you have provided no reasons for your opinion except that you're sure of it. I've provided several reasons why I don't think an appeal is likely to succeed.

1) Legal experts on Minnesota law and the Minnesota courts generally do not believe an appeal is likely to succeed.

2) Biden's statements were not, to our knowledge, heard by the jury so would provide no grounds. Waters' statements were not prejudicial, so do not provide grounds for a successful appeal under the legal standard.

3) Even if you believed that some judges would ignore 2 and find for Chauvin anyway, we don't know which judges will hear the appeal, which has not even been filed. Minnesota appellate judges are elected and the verdict is popular so the idea that all of them would be willing to chuck the law in the wastepaper basket to pursue their own agenda while damaging their electoral prospects stretches credulity without even identifying which people we're talking about.

The claim that I haven't provided any reasoning but you have is false.

And even if Chauvin won his appeal he would be tried again and it would be even harder to win this time because everyone knows he was convicted the first time and almost everyone has approved of the conviction. So his walking free is even less likely.

But you're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe in terms of predictions of the legal process.

Your statements about Biden were just wrong.

Agreed. This should be the moment of real police reform, but it probably won't. People will always need cops. Cops always need to be really fucking good. You cannot half-arse it as firefighter. Why half-arse it as a cop?

@shindig: "People will always need cops" is why I don't have a lot of hope for genuine reform. It is something people are ingrained to believe and balk at taking actual productive steps because they don't want to consider alternatives.

It's a bad defense anyways, one that would require Chauvin's appeal team to prove without a shadow of a doubt that BLM, Maxine Water, the general mood of America, and the media contributed to the conviction. Which they really can't. And if they were going to overturn the conviction, the time to have done it would have been when the judge admonished Waters for what she said. But he still allowed the trial to go through anyways. At best his "you might have something for an appeal" comment suggests that: a case. But not necessarily one that could actually be won. Because if that were the case, then the judge would have declared a mistrial right there and then.

Yep. Plus it'll take decades to shift the distrust of police. It requires a concerted, persistent effort forever.

@efesell: But that misunderstands what "Defund the police" actually means. It's not about getting rid of cops. It's about understanding that America has completely mishandled how we react to crime and punishment by having both political parties push "tough on crime policies" that devastate communities and creating a financial incentive for cops to become increasingly militarized. Ironically the stuff we're seeing now is due to a crime bill that was written by Joe Biden himself.

The fact is, we expect cops to do "everything," despite them having little training in dealing with specific social issues such as mental health. We need no acknowledge that a lot of that money that we give to the police, can be given to other institutions that focus on rehabilitation.

@kemuri07: The movement shot itself in the foot with its "abolish the police" rhetoric, which many of the drivers literally do want. Unfortunately they tend to have idealistic views around human nature and society and believe that we don't need law enforcement. I'm sympathetic to some of their views but it's not a popular position among the population and doesn't really make sense when you probe them on what it means.

Defund the Police is a better slogan but is attached to the Abolish the Police movement so it's also misunderstood.

It will take time to explain that what (at least some portions of) the movement want(s) at this point is to reduce funding for police and channel it into other social services, many of which can help reduce crime through non-punitive interventions.

I think that it's good to use concrete examples of what this means. Like when someone is having a mental health crisis but not directly threatening anyone else it's not necessary to send an officer armed with a gun to confront them. Other people with other training could do much more to help. And the war on drugs has failed and needs radical rethinking.

More people agree with that stuff than with the broad and imprecise "defund" or "abolish" the police.

But at the very least the police must be held accountable when they commit crimes, whether they be murder or something less extreme.

Its been echoed here but I'm hopeful that this is the start of a long journey to real police reform. Get fucked Chauvin, RIP George Floyd.

Watching this whole thing unfold from Germany I don't think many Americans realize how fucking crazy this whole situation is. That there is any question at all that Chauvin (and his fellow officers) are guilty of murdering Floyd is baffling to me. Don't get me wrong, this is no "stupid european tells us how bad we are" situation, Germany is a shitshow right now ^^ ... but man, the policing in the US is really really really fucked.

@bigsocrates: For the record, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the President's comments had an effect on the verdict. I applaud him for at least consciously waiting until sequestering to speak. Its the "right" verdict comment. There is no "right" verdict other than the one the jury comes up with. You and I agreeing that homeboy D-Wreck needs to go away for a long, long time wouldn't invalidate the educated opinion of a juror who determined otherwise. The world is a better place with Chauvin off the streets, in any capacity. I just hope, beyond what I actually believe and expect, that it lasts and sends a damn message.

@cornfed40: Look Dudetter, I'm not really interested in engaging in hostilities. To me it read like you were saying Biden was trying to influence the jury but if you say that's not what you intended then fine, I accept that it was a miscommunication.

I think it's a little strange that you believe that Chauvin was properly convicted but think that there is no "right" verdict but whatever the jury finds. Obviously there have been wrong verdicts in the past, such as the verdict in the trial of Emmett Till's murderers, but maybe you believe that a sitting president should not comment on court cases under any circumstances, which I don't agree with but can understand.

Regardless, I understand your cynicism about the American justice system, which is broken, and obviously hope that Chauvin faces a long prison term as an object lesson to other officers. So I think we can find find common ground in those areas.

"Black People Don’t Need Reminders That Chauvin’s Guilty Verdict Doesn’t Mean the Fight Is Over. It’s OK to Celebrate Small Victories"

Here.

@bigsocrates: But that's not really on progressives/BLM; that's on right wing media that make bad faith arguments. But I'd also lay the blame on the American people themselves: There's a stunning lack of education among the voting populace, and a lack of accessibility to the very resources that we could educate ourselves. The reason why populism is so attractive because it runs on incredibly simple ideas: There's too much crime! So we need more cops! We need Jobs! So give businesses tax cuts! Also immigration is bad! It runs entirely on emotion, where people are angry or scared and they vote against their best interests.

The uphill struggle that Progressives find themselves in is that nearly all of the solutions are incredibly complex and more importantly--they take time. Which is why it's important for a large majority of Americans to understand that and allow change to transpire. But that's hard to do when you have bad faith actors doing everything they can to ensure that never happens.

@sweep: THANK YOU. I understand change is a restless task, but I've been trying to tell everyone that, still, this should be a celebration.

I only watched a few key parts of the trial, but I think there is very little change this will be overturned. The testimony of firefighters, paramedics, other officers, bystanders, and shop owners was that Chauvin was using excessive force and that they did not think what was happening looked right. Even the police trainers say that kneeling was not the SOP that they trained for that department.

If Chauvin and his attenonies retry the case on appeal - okay. However, the testimony from most of they experts does not change. And, from that I saw this case it would be extremely unlikely to be overturned.