Do you think?

Aren't they tougher on high profile cases?

A couple of decades ago in the UK there was a case concerning a farmer called Tony Martin who shot two burglars inside his own house, killing one and injuring the second. The case got strongly politicized with the gun and farming lobby coming out in support of Tony and civil rights groups against. The case was emotional and divisive and got discussed quite a lot. Despite Tony's good behavior record in jail, his appeal for early release was rejected, probably for political reasons.

Brilliant, yet another internet psychologist. The only thing that was missing.

Feel free to PM your full diagnosis, along with your credentials and CV.

They will be on this one.

I don't know anything about the UK justice system but I know some about the American one. Chauvin is a first-time offender, so he won't get caught out by a 3-strikes law or anything. He's not eligible for the death penalty. He's wisely chosen to be sentenced by a judge instead of a jury. Juries can be emotional and revenge-driven in sentencing.

Unless sentenced to death or life without parole, a person becomes eligible for parole at roughly the halfway point of a sentence. Prisoners earn 1 day for each day served, including any time served while awaiting trial. They earn roughly an additional day if they behave and don't cause trouble or break the rules. Being a model prisoner and all that.

In 2010, a former classmate of mine was sentenced to 29 years for a drug offense. I think he had a few misdemeanors beforehand but no felonies or anything serious. He was released on parole after serving 10 years of the sentence. If he behaves for the next 5 years of parole, he'll have completed his sentence in 15 years instead of 29.

According to this article, Chauvin will only be sentenced on the most severe charge (2nd degree murder). The recommended time is 12.5 years. The minimum would be 10 years 8 months and the max 40 years.

In MN there's no "bonus" for good behaviour, Chauvin will probably be let out on parole after serving 2/3 of his sentence. The way I understood it, he'll be sentenced for all three charges separately but they'll be served in parallel.

But that's secondary. The real problem is the procedure and the predetermined guilt.
Police officers are leaving in droves, the spike since Floyd's death is bound to just be the beginning of much worse.

I'm scared': AP obtains video of deadly arrest of Black man

https://apnews.com/article/ronald-gr...dd72b269826f7a

video is from 2019... just released l...

Oh my god ... I hadn't heard of this. Humans are no longer humans it seems. Reading that article hurt my heart, quite like the death of poor Elijah McClain.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/who-...h-mcclain.html

In something like Chauvin's case, because it is so high profile and politicized, he may have to watch his back for potential revenge attackers for the rest of his life after release.

And a lot of people are pretty dumb too. I know of a guy who has the same name and also lives in the same town as a high-profile unloved person. Some idiot posted his address on a public forum. He received several death threats and people were even threatening to do things to his children.

Love the vigilantes.....

Not just he, everybody involved in a not-guilty verdict would have to, if there were one. Including experts who rendered testimony that helped Chauvin.

Defense witness Barry Brodd had a pig's head thrown on the porch of his former home last year. AFAIK the names of the Chauvin jury members and their vote may (will?) be published after the trial, whenever the judge thinks it's safe. The details published on the jury cancidates may already be enough to identify them (combine the published details with their social media activity during the trial and workplace presence, for instance).

The natural reaction is to avoid the risk and not render support to Chauvin in the first place.

Most of assassins look over their shoulders the rest of their lives, even before smartphone videos and political commentary. Also, revenge is as old as humans.

In my family we're almost sure grandpa did bad stuff in his youth because in his last years his façade of though guy crumbled and was chased by ghosts (figurative ones) of the people he probably hurt before. So, even if no one is after you for retaliation, the mind is powerful, and a decaying mind is worse.

A new study of diversity in the technology industry:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune...rge-floyd/amp/

"The finding highlights a gap between what companies say about social issues and what they do in their own workplaces, said Stephanie Lampkin, the founder and chief executive officer of Blendoor, which conducted the study set to be published Monday."

22 years.

That'll most definitely be appealed.

What does that mean for the other three ex-cops?
The way I understand it, their verdict hinges on Chauvin's. For instance, if Chauvin had only been convicted for manslaughter, the other three couldn't be convicted for helping any version of murder.

So, doesn't their verdict have to be postponed until after Chauvin has been definitively sentenced? Of course that in turn would bring the risk of imprisoning them far too long. How's that handled?

Article here on Chauvin's sentencing:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/25/us/de...oyd/index.html

He has been definitively sentenced, now he can and will appeal both the guilty verdict and the sentencing.

The other three are set for trial in August, and as of now will be tried together as opposed to individually. The prosecutors wanted to wait for Chauvin's sentencing before starting the second trial. I imagine that's to hopefully secure plea deals, instead of going through further trials.

The max penalty the three were facing (if convicted of the worst charge) was 40 years in prison. Given that Chauvin got 22 years, odds are they'd be looking at less than that. But a plea deal could get them down to far, far less or maybe even no jail time at all.

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-o...-floyds-murder

Down in Florida, they passed an anti-riot law after the BLM protests which included banning demonstrators from blocking roads.
Now the Cubans who are important GOP supporters and voters are demonstrating and blocking roads but seemingly not being arrested.
The Florida governor, de Santis, is now under a lot of pressure to explain this difference.

Funny, because there is plenty of racism towards Latin Americans in the US, it just happens to be the Cubans are able to vote & are terrified of communism & are therefore manipulated into being GOP voters.

Whereas the black folks are manipulated to vote Democrat all over the country, including by racist Joe Biden ("you're not black if you don't vote Democrat").

Pot, kettle.

Can you give a reason as to why African Americans would vote GOP? Other than tax breaks if they are very wealthy?

I'd think people should be allowed to vote for whoever they believe fits their personal beliefs. That's a pretty core democratic value.

I don't mean this in a combative way, but if you replace African Americans with White or Asian it still looks iffy.