Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,511
    If AG Garland hasn't decided there is enough evidence to convict, why even think about filing the charge?
    Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd, and I have no problem with that. Merrick Garland apparently decided that he was guilty of a civil rights violation prior to the verdict in the criminal trial being announced.
    As I said, judges must allow the evidence to determine the direction the trial goes. If a judge expresses an opinion on a case, it is very likely that the case will be dismissed and charges dropped.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,248
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    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.
    I don't know what the right word is but your ability to turned this man’s murder into something political is something


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




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

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    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.
    His job title is “Attorney General”. Sorry I have no idea what you are upset about. I’m pretty sure William Barr set up something to look into potential civil right violations in this case before Garland even took office


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 05-01-2021 at 12:10 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,511
    I didn't turn it into a political event. It was a criminal event that was concluded with the jury finding Derek Chauvin guilty of 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and manslaughter. For Garland to have decided that he was guilty of a civil rights crime prior to hearing all of the evidence is improper and would have resulted in a mistrial and dismissal of all charges had he been a judge.
    We will never find out how Garland would have been as a supreme court justice, and with this sort of attitude toward the justice system, I think that is for the best.
    I would not be surprised to hear that Barr did some investigation into a civil rights charge, but he did not make any announcement that he was going to bring the charges against Chauvin regardless of the determination of a criminal court.
    Last edited by catman; 04-30-2021 at 11:57 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    I didn't turn it into a political event. It was a criminal event that was concluded with the jury finding Derek Chauvin guilty of 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder and manslaughter. For Garland to have decided that he was guilty of a civil rights crime prior to hearing all of the evidence is improper and would have resulted in a mistrial and dismissal of all charges had he been a judge.
    We will never find out how Garland would have been as a supreme court justice, and with this sort of attitude toward the justice system, I think that is for the best.
    I would not be surprised to hear that Barr did some investigation into a civil rights charge, but he did not make any announcement that he was going to bring the charges against Chauvin regardless of the determination of a criminal court.
    If he believed he had a federal case based on his investigation I think it would it be his job to bring charges


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 05-01-2021 at 12:07 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,511
    We did not need to know that the plan was to file the charge if Chauvin was not convicted, however. It is best to not know the biases of our legal authorities.
    I don't see what evidence they would have used in a civil rights case had Chauvin been exonerated. If the evidence had not been sufficient to convict on the lesser charges in this case, it would have been very difficult to get a conviction on a federal case. It would have been an embarassment to lose a case of this sort, especially with the racial climate in the country today.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    We did not need to know that the plan was to file the charge if Chauvin was not convicted, however. It is best to not know the biases of our legal authorities.
    I don't see what evidence they would have used in a civil rights case had Chauvin been exonerated. If the evidence had not been sufficient to convict on the lesser charges in this case, it would have been very difficult to get a conviction on a federal case. It would have been an embarassment to lose a case of this sort, especially with the racial climate in the country today.

    I do not think the AG’s determining that US GOV has a case after a year of investigation is a demonstration of bias. It's his job. I don't think his being convicted or not on different charges in a different court matters. The facts and how they see them in relation to the law do. I will trust the DOJ’s expertise here


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 05-01-2021 at 12:47 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




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

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,547
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    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.






    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....
    I didn't reply to you, I was replying to mets point that double jeopardy only applies to an acquittal.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,511
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    The I do not think the AG’s determining that US GOV has a case after a year of investigation is not a demonstration of bias. It's his job. I don't think his being convicted or not on different charges in a different court matters. The facts and how they see them in relation to the law do. I will trust the DOJ’s expertise here


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You don't bring a case you don't think you will win. It is obvious to me that Garland determined that Chauvin was guilty prior to hearing all of the evidence.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,248
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    You don't bring a case you don't think you will win. It is obvious to me that Garland determined that Chauvin was guilty prior to hearing all of the evidence.
    I think him and his staff have access more information then either of us. I suspect over the past year them and their predecessors reviewed this case in greater detail then either of us could imagine.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




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

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    40,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    So you can be charged with the same crime again after being found guilty?
    You can be charged with the same crime on a state and federal level if it applies. That said, that's not what would have happened here. There were clearly federal civil rights violations Chauvin committed here. Those would have added up to a lengthy prison term as well. Its good it didn't have to get to that point though.
    Last edited by metswon69; 05-01-2021 at 01:41 AM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    5,511
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    I think him and his staff have access more information then either of us. I suspect over the past year them and their predecessors reviewed this case in greater detail then either of us could imagine.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Is Garland going to bring a civil rights case against BLM/ANTIFA for violating the rights of the business owners whose businesses they destroyed? How about those businesses in "George Floyd Square" at 38th and Chicago in Minneapolis? They are not allowed to conduct their legal businesses freely due to the protestors.
    You are probably right about Garland having more information than the average internet bulletin board poster has. Keith Ellison (Minnesota AG) decided that he didn't have enojugh evidence to charge Chauvin with a state hate crime and likely has more information than the feds do.
    Last edited by catman; 05-01-2021 at 08:58 AM.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    74,738
    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    If AG Garland hasn't decided there is enough evidence to convict, why even think about filing the charge?
    Derek Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd, and I have no problem with that. Merrick Garland apparently decided that he was guilty of a civil rights violation prior to the verdict in the criminal trial being announced.
    As I said, judges must allow the evidence to determine the direction the trial goes. If a judge expresses an opinion on a case, it is very likely that the case will be dismissed and charges dropped.
    Do you think Garland was going to personally pick the murder cop up and throw him in jail for life without a trial? Like what? Yeah, the DOJ saw a cop kill a guy and potentially have thought about bringing forward federal charges. There is nothing to be mad about. You look insane.

    Again, the DOJ has LITERALLY done NOTHING. You are upset about a hypothetical. Mixed with some delusion that the DOJ was prepared to go extrajudicial
    HELLO

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,547
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    You can be charged with the same crime on a state and federal level if it applies. That said, that's not what would have happened here. There were clearly federal civil rights violations Chauvin committed here. Those would have added up to a lengthy prison term as well. Its good it didn't have to get to that point though.
    I know that the feds can bring charges, I was just confused by your statement that double jeopardy only applies to acquittals.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    58,248

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

    Quote Originally Posted by catman View Post
    Is Garland going to bring a civil rights case against BLM/ANTIFA for violating the rights of the business owners whose businesses they destroyed? How about those businesses in "George Floyd Square" at 38th and Chicago in Minneapolis? They are not allowed to conduct their legal businesses freely due to the protestors.
    You are probably right about Garland having more information than the average internet bulletin board poster has. Keith Ellison (Minnesota AG) decided that he didn't have enojugh evidence to charge Chauvin with a state hate crime and likely has more information than the feds do.
    Those who broke laws should be prosecuted. Sweet whatabout and way to turn a clear murder more tribal nonsense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 05-01-2021 at 11:39 AM.
    Rep Power: 0




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

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •