The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[Atxracer 797]

Just to be clear, I am very happy with the outcome. IMO, he got what he deserved. But, from a legal defense standpoint, for the criminal law folks out there, why didn’t he take the chance to take the stand and at least try to defend himself?  He had to know this wasn’t going to work out in his favor. He could have gotten up and said something like “I have been working these streets for a long time, they are very dangerous, if you let up for a second you get killed, I was nervous, did not want this to happen, very sorry it did, blah, blah blah”. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Interesting perspective, particularly as you are a plaintiff's lawyer.  His character, Jerome Facher, was supposed to be a great trial lawyer and a pretty decent human being.  At times in the film and the book, it seemed as though he let the lawyer part get in the way of his humanity.

But I think you're right in that Schlichtmann lost sight of everything in that case in pursuit of some vanity or other.

Facher was just doing his job representing his client as portrayed in both the book and the movie and doing it damn well. So long as it’s done reasonably ethically I have no problem with that. It’s an adversarial system for a reason. He knows it’s in everyone interests for them to settle with his client, not necessarily Grace. Travolta and schlictmann never see that. 

The movie portrays schlichtmann as being a little more foolish with the case than he actually was, but not unreasonably so and that’s just holllywood and the nature of a movie. 
 

It’s still the most accurate portrayal of civil litigation on the screen I’ve ever seen. It gets most of the little details right. Like the deposition scene with James Gandolfini. 
 

 

[elfenix 34,332]

3 minutes ago, Atxracer said:

Just to be clear, I am very happy with the outcome. IMO, he got what he deserved. But, from a legal defense standpoint, for the criminal law folks out there, why didn’t he take the chance to take the stand and at least try to defend himself?  He had to know this wasn’t going to work out in his favor. He could have gotten up and said something like “I have been working these streets for a long time, they are very dangerous, if you let up for a second you get killed, I was nervous, did not want this to happen, very sorry it did, blah, blah blah”. 

because 1) you're usually your own worst enemy up there and 2) the prosecution gets to ask you all the questions they want in front of the jury.

[Captainant 27,790]

4 minutes ago, Atxracer said:

But, from a legal defense standpoint, for the criminal law folks out there, why didn’t he take the chance to take the stand and at least try to defend himself?

Because

[Nicole44 22,078]

I am not naive just a hopeful romantic type gal. I’d wager the majority of Americans and those across the world just want to live and peace and focus on their own families and struggles. They don’t want to nor wish to dump shit on other people. I’d also wager that most people yearn for a solution where all people can and are allowed to be the best the can be. That’s the good news. It’s just split on how to achieve that goal among those that want that. As to those who are in opposition to it: time’s up. Figure out a way to contribute and give back or you will quickly become what you dread most: the minority. An ever shrinking one. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but in my opinion the best defense would have been to simply put Chauvin on the stand and apologize for what happened but say he never meant to kill him. Get a manslaughter conviction, a murder acquittal and serve a few years. Not he’s looking at what, forty years? The rest of the defense was BS in my opinion. Who knows. Maybe the client insisted he did nothing wrong and this is the end result.

[Nicole44 22,078]

Oh and most truly good defense attorneys will try their damndest not to allow their client to take the stand.

As has been previously mentioned: if the client doesn’t come across well (no matter their guilt or innocence) it always impacts a jury (he didn’t seem sincere, he cried or smiled or blinked too much). They take that into account. 
Also it allows the prosecution a chance to cross examine and can open up other avenues or doors for them to attack. 
 

Most juries would probably like to hear from a defendant and while they are instructed not to take into account a defendant chooses not to testify (they do) they are also keenly watching everything that defendant does on the stand. Facial expressions. Emotion. Attitude. Posture. It’s a losing proposition in most cases for the defense.  Jmo and from my brief legal/law school career. I wouldn’t recommend. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Nicole44 said:

Oh and most truly good defense attorneys will try their damndest not to allow their client to take the stand.

As has been previously mentioned: if the client doesn’t come across well (no matter their guilt or innocence) it always impacts a jury (he didn’t seem sincere, he cried or smiled or blinked too much). They take that into account. 
Also it allows the prosecution a chance to cross examine and can open up other avenues or doors for them to attack. 
 

Most juries would probably like to hear from a defendant and while they are instructed not to take into account a defendant chooses not to testify (they do) they are also keenly watching everything that defendant does on the stand. Facial expressions. Emotion. Attitude. Posture. It’s a losing proposition in most cases for the defense.  Jmo and from my brief legal/law school career. I wouldn’t recommend. 

Normally that is the case. This isn’t the normal case. And the result bears that out. I would have voted for manslaughter and based on limited knowledge, third degree murder. I’d have to have been on the jury to comment on second degree murder. 

[MissingInAction 25,193]

31 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

I mean, who thinks like this?

 

 

Texas nazis.

['stache 21,878]

13 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but in my opinion the best defense would have been to simply put Chauvin on the stand and apologize for what happened but say he never meant to kill him. Get a manslaughter conviction, a murder acquittal and serve a few years. Not he’s looking at what, forty years? The rest of the defense was BS in my opinion. Who knows. Maybe the client insisted he did nothing wrong and this is the end result.

Yeah, that would have been a very bad terrible idea. The prosecution would go through the tape, frame by frame, and ask him repeatedly "at this point in time, what danger were you in?" He'd be asked that at least a dozen times, as the tape plays, and is paused. When he says he can't breath "Why exactly did you not believe him? Why were you unable to handcuff him and proceed with an ordinary arrest?" Then the whole thing is played in full time, 9 and a half minutes. "Having seen this video in full now, unedited, without any pauses, for a full 9 and a half minutes, do you think there is anything you should have done different?" What is his answer? If he says no, he's fucked, because the video is fucked. If he says yes, he's fucked, because he's admitted he fucked up. 

The slam dunk would be "Your expert has testified that Mr. Floyd's health was the reason he died, not these nine minutes of your knee compressing his heart. Do you agree with that assessment?" If he says no, his case is fucked. If he says yes, then why exactly is he apologizing? He can't have it both ways. Either he admits he fucked up and goes to jail, or he goes all in on the "the black druggie died because he's a black druggie" and that would have pissed off some, if not all, of the jurors. If he was willing to admit and apologize, he would have begged for a plea deal. He chose to go full victim blaming, and coming from his mouth, it would not play well with a jury. Even the racist white jurors would start asking "wtf??

[DigglerontheHoof 21,252]

4 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Maybe...JUST FUCKING MAYBE....this will be like a lightning bolt through the entire police force across our nation and show them that they are not above the law.

[boilerhorn 1,399]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Normally that is the case. This isn’t the normal case. And the result bears that out. I would have voted for manslaughter and based on limited knowledge, third degree murder. I’d have to have been on the jury to comment on second degree murder. 

Not a lawyer.  Here is the definition of 2nd degree murder in Minnesota.   I added the italics and BOLD.  The jury must have concluded that Chauvin intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm while Floyd was restrained.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. 

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yeah, that would have been a very bad terrible idea. The prosecution would go through the tape, frame by frame, and ask him repeatedly "at this point in time, what danger were you in?" He'd be asked that at least a dozen times, as the tape plays, and is paused. When he says he can't breath "Why exactly did you not believe him? Why were you unable to handcuff him and proceed with an ordinary arrest?" Then the whole thing is played in full time, 9 and a half minutes. "Having seen this video in full now, unedited, without any pauses, for a full 9 and a half minutes, do you think there is anything you should have done different?" What is his answer? If he says no, he's fucked, because the video is fucked. If he says yes, he's fucked, because he's admitted he fucked up. 

The slam dunk would be "Your expert has testified that Mr. Floyd's health was the reason he died, not these nine minutes of your knee compressing his heart. Do you agree with that assessment?" If he says no, his case is fucked. If he says yes, then why exactly is he apologizing? He can't have it both ways. Either he admits he fucked up and goes to jail, or he goes all in on the "the black druggie died because he's a black druggie" and that would have pissed off some, if not all, of the jurors. If he was willing to admit and apologize, he would have begged for a plea deal. He chose to go full victim blaming, and coming from his mouth, it would not play well with a jury. Even the racist white jurors would start asking "wtf??

Well since he was convicted on all counts anyway without that I’d say then it would not have mattered. Sometimes you got to try the Hail Mary. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26,569]

Imagine having a tweet and this is that tweet

 

[Atxracer 797]

23 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but in my opinion the best defense would have been to simply put Chauvin on the stand and apologize for what happened but say he never meant to kill him. Get a manslaughter conviction, a murder acquittal and serve a few years. Not he’s looking at what, forty years? The rest of the defense was BS in my opinion. Who knows. Maybe the client insisted he did nothing wrong and this is the end result.

This is where I was coming from. 

 

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yeah, that would have been a very bad terrible idea. The prosecution would go through the tape, frame by frame, and ask him repeatedly "at this point in time, what danger were you in?" He'd be asked that at least a dozen times, as the tape plays, and is paused. When he says he can't breath "Why exactly did you not believe him? Why were you unable to handcuff him and proceed with an ordinary arrest?" Then the whole thing is played in full time, 9 and a half minutes. "Having seen this video in full now, unedited, without any pauses, for a full 9 and a half minutes, do you think there is anything you should have done different?" What is his answer? If he says no, he's fucked, because the video is fucked. If he says yes, he's fucked, because he's admitted he fucked up. 

The slam dunk would be "Your expert has testified that Mr. Floyd's health was the reason he died, not these nine minutes of your knee compressing his heart. Do you agree with that assessment?" If he says no, his case is fucked. If he says yes, then why exactly is he apologizing? He can't have it both ways. Either he admits he fucked up and goes to jail, or he goes all in on the "the black druggie died because he's a black druggie" and that would have pissed off some, if not all, of the jurors. If he was willing to admit and apologize, he would have begged for a plea deal. He chose to go full victim blaming, and coming from his mouth, it would not play well with a jury. Even the racist white jurors would start asking "wtf??

This answered it. While a lawyer, I do corporate insurance shit and know jack shit about criminal law.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

3 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Not a lawyer.  Here is the definition of 2nd degree murder in Minnesota.   I added the italics and BOLD.  The jury must have concluded that Chauvin intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm while Floyd was restrained.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. 

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

Maybe I read the jury charge wrong then as this was not the language I saw. 

[Guest Lobo]

So who is Barabbas in the Minneapolis scenario?  

[boilerhorn 1,399]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Maybe I read the jury charge wrong then as this was not the language I saw. 

Thanks - I should go back and read the jury charge.  I lazily did a cut-paste of the statutes from the MN gov't website.

I also did not include this - which is another variant.  I think *this* was what the jury was directed.  My mistake.  The other felony was 3rd degree assault.

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

I

[boilerhorn 1,399]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Imagine having a tweet and this is that tweet

 

That's a comment he should have just kept to himself.  What a moron.  Aggy...

https://texasscorecard.com/author/ccheshire/

Cary Cheshire is the Vice President of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. A 6th Generation Texan, Cary attended Texas A&M University was active in a number of conservative causes including Ted Cruz's Senate campaign. He has also worked on campaigns to elect conservatives to Congress and the Texas Legislature. Cary enjoys college football, genealogy research, and the occasional craft beer.

 

[Brisketexan 105,373]

So who is Barabbas in the Minneapolis scenario?  

Pretty sure it’s Prince. Very popular in the Cities.

[Nicole44 22,078]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well since he was convicted on all counts anyway without that I’d say then it would not have mattered. Sometimes you got to try the Hail Mary. 

Basically it is the 9:29 that Chauvin can never fully explain to anyone’s satisfaction without being found guilty of at least one charge. No defense attorney would allow their client to go on the stand with that almost certainty.

the defense attorney’s options:  Plea out or go to trial and hope for hung jury, mistrial, acquittal or guilty of lesser charge.
No defense attorney wants to be the reason for an appeal by allowing their client to take the stand where they have zero chance of explaining away a crime that their client will be found guilty. 
 

Chauvin could never explain the full 9:29 without being found guilty of some crime. So it’s malpractice in a way to allow him up there without arguing before a judge that your client is going rogue on you despite your attempts otherwise. also Chauvin and Floyd knew each other prior and given that the prosecution may have been reluctant to mention that (keep the case simple) Chauvin’s mere being on the stand would have opened a door to that. 

[TwiceHorn 31,539]

23 minutes ago, boilerhorn said:

Not a lawyer.  Here is the definition of 2nd degree murder in Minnesota.   I added the italics and BOLD.  The jury must have concluded that Chauvin intentionally inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm while Floyd was restrained.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. 

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

That's not what the bolded means.  It means the perp is under a what tends to be more commonly called a restraining order, most often entered in domestic violence cases, an order to stay away from someone.

He was convicted under either Sub 1(1) or Sub 2(1), in the latter case the "predicate" felony being assault.  I think it was sub 2(1).

Edited April 21, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Orale 1,087]

 

[Lechuza 31]

Glad this prick got what he deserved. In listening to the commentary after the verdict by some of the leaders in the black community, it would be nice if they would at least suggest that people better themselves also in addition to pleading for reform. Let’s be frank, a very high percentage of the people who have killed by police in recent times have been shitbags. Should they have been killed because of it?  No.  Can they at least plead with people not to act like fucksticks when they have interactions with police?  It’s really not that hard to do.  A lot of reform is needed and it’s not just with policing these days. 

[Orale 1,087]

1 minute ago, Lechuza said:

Glad this prick got what he deserved. In listening to the commentary after the verdict by some of the leaders in the black community, it would be nice if they would at least suggest that people better themselves also in addition to pleading for reform. Let’s be frank, a very high percentage of the people who have killed by police in recent times have been shitbags. Should they have been killed because of it?  No.  Can they at least plead with people not to act like fucksticks when they have interactions with police?  It’s really not that hard to do.  A lot of reform is needed and it’s not just with policing these days. 

"Sorry he got murdered by the police, but maybe if he would have been a better person the murderous police wouldn't have been so murderous." Yeah, that's what any human would say right after this verdict. Dumb ass.  

[SKJ 1,311]

4 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Not sure what he'll eventually get but it looks like about 15 years.  Gonna be difficult stretch of time for him to complete if he's released into Gen Pop.

 

15 years is 10 in MN, and 10 years in general population is a thousand times better time than 10 years in AdSeg.

He might get killed in GenPop, but it's a long,  slow, painful decade in the bucket. 

4 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

Even in gen pop he will be protected by the nazis until they use him as a bargaining chip.

Not likely... they couldn't protect him and keep their car. 

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I thought ex-cops were always kept segregated from gen pop. That doesn't mean he won't receive specially treated meals from the gen pop inmates.

This.  It's called AdSeg... administrative segregation. Cops,  especially high profile cops,  do their time basically in a cell.  It's a special kind of torture.

[WhatTheBuck 28,800]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

because 1) you're usually your own worst enemy up there and 2) the prosecution gets to ask you all the questions they want in front of the jury.

Yeah, there’s no way that could’ve gone well for him.

[Guest Lobo]

Derek Chauvin was so worried about prison violence that he didn't take a single shower during his first whole year in genpop.  /jeselnik

[SKJ 1,311]

4 hours ago, WillUSAF said:

i have an ex-gf and her first husband was a cop and got caught banging a 16 yr old girl. He got 20 yrs in federal prison and is in general pop

Is he in GenPop on a yard that's not in good standing? there are 3 or 4 in the feds... those are the yards they send all the molesters,  rapists,  high profile snitches,  and cops  to...

 

In the feds they have the resources to develop yards like that,  for gang dropouts, check-ins and such. 

Trust me,  he's not walking a main line above low security being both a skin beef and a cop

[TexasEd 8,077]

4 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

That honestly reads like they had it queued up for a not guilty verdict and sent the wrong tweet. 

my take is that the next time a cop is acquitted they can point to this one and say, "Hey, the system works"

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,800]

35 minutes ago, Lobo said:

So who is Barabbas in the Minneapolis scenario?  

This is real life, not fiction. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,349]

Willie D posted this, lol:

[Lurch 5,931]

Glad this prick got what he deserved. In listening to the commentary after the verdict by some of the leaders in the black community, it would be nice if they would at least suggest that people better themselves also in addition to pleading for reform. Let’s be frank, a very high percentage of the people who have killed by police in recent times have been shitbags. Should they have been killed because of it?  No.  Can they at least plead with people not to act like fucksticks when they have interactions with police?  It’s really not that hard to do.  A lot of reform is needed and it’s not just with policing these days. 

Both sides!

[TexasEd 8,077]

2 hours ago, Deej said:

All the guys playing fake army could go play fake cop. 

All we need is more Kyle Rittenhouse wannabes

 

[Huckleberry 33,100]

27 minutes ago, Lechuza said:

Glad this prick got what he deserved. In listening to the commentary after the verdict by some of the leaders in the black community, it would be nice if they would at least suggest that people better themselves also in addition to pleading for reform. Let’s be frank, a very high percentage of the people who have killed by police in recent times have been shitbags. Should they have been killed because of it?  No.  Can they at least plead with people not to act like fucksticks when they have interactions with police?  It’s really not that hard to do.  A lot of reform is needed and it’s not just with policing these days. 

That's very interesting that you believe no leaders in the black community suggest that members of their community should better themselves or behave legally. Can you cite your research that led you to this conclusion?

[TexasEd 8,077]

1 hour ago, Atxracer said:

But, from a legal defense standpoint, for the criminal law folks out there, why didn’t he take the chance to take the stand and at least try to defend himself?  

Because he isn't a blonde white girl.

[bolverk 29,727]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's very interesting that you believe no leaders in the black community suggest that members of their community should better themselves or behave legally. Can you cite your research that led you to this conclusion?

He's not a very wise owl.

[tx 3 putt 77,449]

micheal berry call in today was greatness :

 

caller : why didn't his defense ask or bring up that there was no weight on his knee pressing down on that thug ??? you can see it in the video !!!!

caller : sad day in america when an officer can't apprehend a horrible gangster without being convicted of murder

caller : chauvin is a hero 

caller :  he was guilty and died of natural causes !!!

 

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

22 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Because he isn't a blonde white girl.

Maybe Chauvin should have put on a blonde wig and lipstick?

[SKJ 1,311]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Maybe Chauvin should have put on a blonde wig and lipstick?

He just might,  if they let him on a real yard

[Gourmand 7,774]

1 hour ago, Lechuza said:

Glad this prick got what he deserved. In listening to the commentary after the verdict by some of the leaders in the black community, it would be nice if they would at least suggest that people better themselves also in addition to pleading for reform. Let’s be frank, a very high percentage of the people who have killed by police in recent times have been shitbags. Should they have been killed because of it?  No.  Can they at least plead with people not to act like fucksticks when they have interactions with police?  It’s really not that hard to do.  A lot of reform is needed and it’s not just with policing these days. 

[tx ind 7,013]

[SquishMitten 10,440]

Just to be clear, I am very happy with the outcome. IMO, he got what he deserved. But, from a legal defense standpoint, for the criminal law folks out there, why didn’t he take the chance to take the stand and at least try to defend himself?  He had to know this wasn’t going to work out in his favor. He could have gotten up and said something like “I have been working these streets for a long time, they are very dangerous, if you let up for a second you get killed, I was nervous, did not want this to happen, very sorry it did, blah, blah blah”. 

Because he would’ve been cross examined and destroyed. You think someone who murdered a guy while knowing he was being filmed is capable of coming across as something even remotely human?

[atomheartbevo 89,808]

3 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

Did you watch any of the trial? MPD threw him under the bus. They wanted to get as far away from him as possible. Hoping with every ounce of hope I have that other departments are going to take the same approach

And that's why the National Fraternal Union of Order of Police People made the statement that they did.

People like Chauvin cause a shit ton of headaches for other police officers.  Like I said, it leads to a hyper-aware public that will start recording police encounters at the drop of a hat, and it massively ramps up calls for police reform. These are both Very Bad Things in the eyes of police officers.

[atomheartbevo 89,808]

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I mean, who thinks like this?

Insecure people who put fake championships on the side of their Krogers football stadium?

[EuroHorn 3,268]

43 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That's very interesting that you believe no leaders in the black community suggest that members of their community should better themselves or behave legally. Can you cite your research that led you to this conclusion?

The research and conclusion is there if you just turnaround... 

[Lechuza 31]

1 hour ago, Orale said:

"Sorry he got murdered by the police, but maybe if he would have been a better person the murderous police wouldn't have been so murderous." Yeah, that's what any human would say right after this verdict. Dumb ass.  

If he was at home providing for and caring for his child like a responsible adult instead of being jacked up on meth and passing counterfeit bills on a Monday afternoon and then acting like a jackass when approached by the police he would definitely still be alive. Again, he should not have been murdered, and that bitch needs to go to prison for a long time. But for fuck’s sake, people need to be a little more responsible. 

[SquishMitten 10,440]

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but in my opinion the best defense would have been to simply put Chauvin on the stand and apologize for what happened but say he never meant to kill him. Get a manslaughter conviction, a murder acquittal and serve a few years. Not he’s looking at what, forty years? The rest of the defense was BS in my opinion. Who knows. Maybe the client insisted he did nothing wrong and this is the end result.

100% agree. And I’d bet that’s what his attorney told him to do. But it was Chauvin’s choice in the end, and he’s now 0 for 2 on the biggest decisions in his life

[Da Fino 2,784]

Is he in GenPop on a yard that's not in good standing? there are 3 or 4 in the feds... those are the yards they send all the molesters,  rapists,  high profile snitches,  and cops  to...
 
In the feds they have the resources to develop yards like that,  for gang dropouts, check-ins and such. 
Trust me,  he's not walking a main line above low security being both a skin beef and a cop

I know all of these words, but I’m having a hell of a time understanding them right now.

[cabowabo 4,514]

3 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

100% agree. And I’d bet that’s what his attorney told him to do. But it was Chauvin’s choice in the end, and he’s now 0 for 2 on the biggest decisions in his life

Lol. There is 0% chance his attorney told him to take the stand.