MN AG already violated the gag order.
Chauvin gets off on appeal.
The AG?
BWAHAHAHAHA! Donzies. Yeah, he walks.
MN AG already violated the gag order.
Chauvin gets off on appeal.
Right on dude. Made a meme to encapsulate the craziness of this situation.Just another night in Paradise
Antifa militants set fires, attack police building in Portland as Democratic senators insist they don't exist
Op-Ed from Portland PD Chief in the NY Times: Opinion | I’m the Police Chief in Portland. Violence Isn’t the Answer.
Yeah, but the judge basically said the AG's comments weren't material and subsequently removed the gag order.MN AG already violated the gag order.
Chauvin gets off on appeal.
Can a non DA prosecute a case?So I was reading up on the "gag order" issue, and had three thoughts/questions--
1) the judge dropped his gag order in part because "it wasn't working." So why have gag orders at all?
2) Why allow the body cam video to only be viewed in person? If you're going to allow the public to view it, why not make it publicly available? You HAD to know that it was going to get leaked...
3) Hiring local (civilian) attorneys to prosecute the case... isn't prosecution kind of, you know, an "inherently governmental function?" I assume that this is not uncommon, or at least not unprecedented, but it doesn't sit right with me. My last tour in Iraq, in ~2009, we were directed to switch over all of our contract interrogators to GS, because interrogation (of foreign enemy combatants) was an "inherently governmental function." OK fine. But if that's the case, shouldn't it be even more true of prosecutions of American citizens inside the US? related reading
So I was reading up on the "gag order" issue, and had three thoughts/questions--
1) the judge dropped his gag order in part because "it wasn't working." So why have gag orders at all?
2) Why allow the body cam video to only be viewed in person? If you're going to allow the public to view it, why not make it publicly available? You HAD to know that it was going to get leaked...
3) Hiring local (civilian) attorneys to prosecute the case... isn't prosecution kind of, you know, an "inherently governmental function?" I assume that this is not uncommon, or at least not unprecedented, but it doesn't sit right with me. My last tour in Iraq, in ~2009, we were directed to switch over all of our contract interrogators to GS, because interrogation (of foreign enemy combatants) was an "inherently governmental function." OK fine. But if that's the case, shouldn't it be even more true of prosecutions of American citizens inside the US? related reading
on par with my odds of banging Kate Beckinsale.
FWIW, here's my somewhat rudimentary understanding and breakdown of things:Can a non DA prosecute a case?
I thought Ellis was doing it himself?
Judge is a political hack, should have tossed Ellis in jail over a weekend to make a point.
Exactly how does it work that he's getting 2 murder charges and a manslaughter charge for one single death?
Based on the courts martial and jury panels I've served on, it is not uncommon for serious offenses to have lesser included charges in the event that the more serious charge(s) result in acquittal, but there was still an offense committed...I was on a rape court martial when I was a lieutenant and the lesser included charge was indecent conduct...since the act began consensually, it was difficult to convict the SM of rape, but his conduct fit the specifications for the lesser included charge...Exactly how does it work that he's getting 2 murder charges and a manslaughter charge for one single death?
Putting on the tinfoil hat here so take this with as much salt as you'd like, but MN AG is a known supporter of Antifa, correct? What would be the easiest way to sow discourse and further increase the divide we see right now, other than to inflate the charges beyond the point where you could feasibly convict Chauvin? The vast majority of society has already made its mind up and are convinced that Chauvin is guilty, we all know what happens when Chauvin is acquitted because the chosen charges can't stick.
Happens pretty often. Burdens of proof for each charge is separate. As said below, he can still be convicted of lesser charges. It's not double jeopardy to have all those charges. It would be double jeopardy to have to trials under the same exact charges.I had the same question. My best guess is that if they charge him with all three, it allows a jury to pick which one to say he's guilty of. It's not double jeopardy unless they were to find him guilty of more than one of them. If they were to only charge him with the second degree and the jury found that the evidence didn't rise to the standard, then he's acquitted and they are unable to bring another round of charges.
Personally I would say it's BS. The charge should match what they think they can get a conviction for.
Agree it may be a little too tinfoil but the AG is a politican first and foremost. As a result, I believe there is a narrative he can and will push in the case of acquittal. That is: "The system" (legal) is inherently broken and/or tipped such that the black community cannot receive justice against those that do them wrong, like the police, citing case in point. Sadly, that message would probably resonate well with it's intended audience.That's too tinfoil... Unless the AG is deeply entrenched in/with Antifa, who is going to be the very first target of any anger if Chauvin is acquitted because the charges didn't stick?