Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,092
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    Floyd's family can bring file a civil suit against him.
    They can, but he's some rando cop, I doubt he has much money, they got 30 million from the municipality.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    4,092
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    You'd think red-blooded flag-waving Republicans would be bothered that we waste so much taxpayer money on police misconduct. NYC has spent like a billion over the last 10 years in settlements. What a waste!

    Nope. They just like the violence.
    Often times it's cheaper in cash (and PR) to just do a settlement, so cities will settle even if the police did nothing wrong.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,185

    Feds had plan to arrest Chauvin on the spot if he was found not-guilty

    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Often times it's cheaper in cash (and PR) to just do a settlement, so cities will settle even if the police did nothing wrong.

    Billion


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,539
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Double jeopardy only protects you from being charged with the same crime after acquittal. There were definitely other laws Chauvin broke that on a federal level he could have been charged for.
    So you can be charged with the same crime again after being found guilty?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,539
    Seems like theater to me.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    74,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    So you can be charged with the same crime again after being found guilty?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double...ignty_doctrine

    Some examples there if you scroll down to the Dual Sovereignty section. Including the Rodney King assault that I mentioned. Yeah it's wikipedia but whatever. I was reading the law schools websites yesterday and that stuff is for NERDS.

    There may also be Federal laws that call other facts into question beyond the scope of any State law. A state may try a defendant for murder, after which the Federal government might try the same defendant for a Federal crime (perhaps a civil rights violation or a kidnapping) connected to the same act. The officers of the Los Angeles Police Department who were charged with assaulting Rodney King in 1991 were acquitted by a jury of the Superior Courts of California, but some were later convicted and sentenced in Federal court for violating King's civil rights. Similar legal processes were used for prosecuting racially motivated crimes in the Southern United States in the 1960s during the time of the Civil Rights Movement, when those crimes had not been actively prosecuted, or had resulted in acquittals by juries that ​were thought to be racist or overly sympathetic with the accused in local courts.

    The dual sovereignty nature of the Double Jeopardy Clause was reheard as part of Gamble v. United States, decided in June 2019. The Supreme Court upheld the nature of dual sovereignty between federal and state charges in a 7–2 decision.
    Again, making it very clear I'm out of my bounds here with my miniscule legal knowledge but this feels like it makes sense to me. The DOJ absolutely could've stepped in and tried him. Regardless, I think it's a weird thing to be bothered by. First, it's a hypothetical...it did not happen. Second, the cop killed someone on camera and this is a takeaway? Come on....
    Last edited by ManRam; 04-30-2021 at 11:26 AM.
    HELLO

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,509
    It appears that the country is better off not having Garland on the supreme court. He seems to have determined that Chauvin was guilty before he was tried. It's OK for an attorney to form an opinion prior to hearing all of the evidence, but judges need to hear the evidence and weigh it against the law prior to passing judgement.
    And Kieth Ellison determined from the evidence presented that this was not a "hate" crime, so proving this case would not be easy.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    74,731
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    It appears that the country is better off not having Garland on the supreme court. He seems to have determined that Chauvin was guilty before he was tried.
    Why do you say this?
    HELLO

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,185
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    Why do you say this?
    He must of seen a 10 min video of him committing murder


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    98,744
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    He must of seen a 10 min video of him committing murder


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Catman saw a man killing 3/5 of a man.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,509
    Catman saw the death of a man that was caused by another man. Catman did not need to see races.
    AG Garland apparently decided prior to the trial that Chauvin was guilty of a hate crime. Ellison (Minnesota AG) decided that there was not enough evidence to charge Chauvin with a hate crime.
    Attorneys can have preconceived notions about guilt or innocence without having any problems. Judges MUST weigh the evidence against the law on the books and determine if there is enough evidence to determine guilt.
    If Garland has preconceived notions, the country is better off not having an obviously biased judge on the bench.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,509
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Catman saw a man killing 3/5 of a man.
    You sound like a racist to me.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,185

    Feds had plan to arrest Chauvin on the spot if he was found not-guilty

    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Catman saw the death of a man that was caused by another man. Catman did not need to see races.
    AG Garland apparently decided prior to the trial that Chauvin was guilty of a hate crime. Ellison (Minnesota AG) decided that there was not enough evidence to charge Chauvin with a hate crime.
    Attorneys can have preconceived notions about guilt or innocence without having any problems. Judges MUST weigh the evidence against the law on the books and determine if there is enough evidence to determine guilt.
    If Garland has preconceived notions, the country is better off not having an obviously biased judge on the bench.
    I don't know what triggered this rant but everyone has “notions”


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 04-30-2021 at 11:11 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,509
    It was not a "rant". It was a comment on the differences between a judge and a trial attorney. A trial attorney is encouraged to have preconceived notions. A judge MUST allow the evidence to determine guit of innocence. They do not have the luxury of being allowed to express their opinion prior to a trial. Garland apparently has difficulty with this concept. We do not need an obviously biased justice on the supreme court.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    74,731
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Catman saw the death of a man that was caused by another man. Catman did not need to see races.
    AG Garland apparently decided prior to the trial that Chauvin was guilty of a hate crime. Ellison (Minnesota AG) decided that there was not enough evidence to charge Chauvin with a hate crime.
    Attorneys can have preconceived notions about guilt or innocence without having any problems. Judges MUST weigh the evidence against the law on the books and determine if there is enough evidence to determine guilt.
    If Garland has preconceived notions, the country is better off not having an obviously biased judge on the bench.
    AG Garland hasn't decided anything. The DOJ may or may not file charges against him too, which is all the article said. But the DOJ and Garland have literally not done anything with Chauvin. You're upset about something that hasn't happened. And if the DOJ does look to try him for federal charges, there'd be a trial too.
    HELLO

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •