Derek Chauvin jury reaches a verdict
By - itsaride
Racism is unacceptable and unwelcome on /r/news. If you choose to post racist comments, you should expect to be permanently banned from this subreddit.
With that out of the way, just a few more rule reminders for you all:
* Don't incite violence.
* Do not threaten/wish death or describe your vivid fantasies of harm towards any human.
* Do not share the personal information of any non-public individuals.
Help us out by reporting users who violate these rules.
[Live coverage from the courthouse.](https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1YqGoygvAZbxv)
* Derek Chauvin is facing three charges.
Second Degree Murder - Third Degree Murder - Second Degree Manslaughter.
* Derek Chauvin just showed up at the courthouse to hear the jury’s decision on his fate.
* The jury members in the Derek Chauvin trial are 7 women and 5 men. 6 are white, 4 are black and 2 are multi-racial.
* The Congressional Black Caucus will hold a press conference following the verdict in the Chauvin trial, and will be joined by Democratic leadership.
* Chauvin is in the courtroom with his attorney and jurors have returned.
* The verdict for Derek Chauvin is expected to be announced any minute now.
* **Derek Chauvin GULITY of Second-Degree Murder, Third-Degree Murder, Second-Degree Manslaughter.**
* The judge has revoked Derek Chauvin's bail.
Chauvin has been [taken into custody ](https://imgur.com/gallery/BRostxj) where he will wait for his sentencing.
* The Judge says it will be approximately 8 weeks before Derek Chauvin is sentenced for murdering George Floyd. Chauvin had previously waived his right to have the jury decide his sentence.
* Chauvin faces up to 40 years in jail.
Should update, guilty on all charges
And remanded into custody
And banished into the Shadow Realm.
No, sentencing comes later.
Bond has already been revoked at least. It's gonna be straight to jail for this murderer.
To be honest I did not expect that, although I'm glad he's been found guilty.
Also thank you for posting this text update, it helps a ton.
My jaws on the floor because I was expecting another Zimmerman trial. But holy shit, we just saw a cop get convicted for killing a black man.
Edit: Zimmerman was a bad example. A more accurate example is Eric Garner's or Philando Castile's murders
Don’t forget cops went into the stand and condemned him. That needs to be praised so this continues to happen
Including the Chief of Police, who also fired him the other three who were involved the next day. Did the right thing from the start.
What happened with the other 3? Are they going to have trials too?
From what I understand Chauvin was the first, but the others will stand trial. They were separated so that they didn't have a chance to claim that they were unfairly villianized by association with chauvin, and appealed the verdict.
That said, you bet their lawyers will be clamoring for a deal given what just happened.
Please note that I am nowhere near a legal expert, and I could be mistaken.
Especially all three counts. It’s usually one or two guilty, but all three this time
HOLY SHIT. They even got him on second-degree murder. I didn't think there was a chance in hell that every juror would agree that the killing was deliberate enough for that.
Thank you, America, for surprising me.
>killing was deliberate enough for that.
He was charged with 2nd Degree unintentional murder. Basically that charge is for situations where a death occurs during another felony. The prosecution argued that kneeling on the neck was a felony assault.
>It’s also called felony murder. To prove this count, prosecutors had to show that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault. They didn’t have to prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd, only that he intended to apply unlawful force that caused bodily harm.
>[AP News: EXPLAINER: What are charges against Chauvin in Floyd death?](https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-charges-716fa235ecf6212f0ee4993110d959df)
The important thing here is that the prosecution actually sought after charges that could stick easily and have very serious sentences. No slap on the wrist from light or uninspired prosecution.
Looks like they will be announcing at 4:30 pm eastern (according to NBC)
Edit: Actually I think they said within the 4:30pm - 5:00pm window
* [NBC (with commentary, footage outside the courtroom too)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4UVQTg-0hU)
* [PBS (no commentary)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbt0uL9tii4)
Edit 2: welp, it seems like they pushed it back; sorry folks
Edit 3: Ok it's actually starting now
* Third Degree Murder -> Guilty
* Second Degree Murder -> Guilty
* Second Degree Manslaughter -> Guilty
* Guilty of all charges
* 8 weeks to sentencing
* bail revoked
Another important thing. According to several news outlets, Minnesota has a presumptive murder sentence of 12.5 years for first time offenders. And typically 2/3 of that sentence is spent in prison, with the rest on parole. However the maximum sentence is 40 years, and the prosecutors will likely argue for a higher sentence than the presumptive 12.5 years.
>Each count carries a different maximum sentence: 40 years for second-degree unintentional murder, 25 years for third-degree murder, and 10 years for second-degree manslaughter.
>But under Minnesota sentencing guidelines, for a person with no criminal history, each murder charge carries a presumptive sentence of 12 1/2 years in prison, while manslaughter has a presumptive sentence of four years.
>Prosecutors are seeking a sentence that goes above the guideline range. They cited several aggravating factors, including that Floyd was particularly vulnerable, that Chauvin was a uniformed police officer acting in a position of authority, and his alleged crime was witnessed by multiple children — including a 9-year-old girl who testified that watching the restraint made her “sad and kind of mad.”
>Chauvin has waived his right to have a jury decide if aggravating factors exist. So if he is convicted, Judge Peter Cahill will make that decision and would sentence Chauvin at a later date. In Minnesota, defendants typically serve two-thirds of their penalty in prison, with the rest on parole.
3:30 PM Central for those in the midwest
2:30 Mountain, for mountains
1:30 Pacific, for the fish
20:30 Iceland, for the volcanos
22 minutes later than that for the Mars rovers. Because of how long it takes the signal to get there.
10:30 Hawaii. Yes we get our own time zone. suck it.
wow. all three.
I really thought it would be lighter than that.
The prosecutors did good, good work. I watched part of the trial, where they took apart one of the defense's medical experts (possibly their only medical expert? Not sure) and it was something to behold, just the methodical, careful, thorough teardown of the guy's argument.
I didn't dive too deeply into the details of the case, but it really felt like the prosecution had a TON of evidence and was using it to great effect. Everyone was throwing this guy under the bus. Good.
Lawyer here. You never know with juries, but it’s really hard for me to imagine a verdict being reached so fast in this type of case unless it’s guilty. There would probably be much more back and forth with a not guilty or hung jury. 10 hours is fast for this kind of case.
My wife thinks I'm a nutcase but I'd love to be a jury foreman for a high profile case.
You are a nutcase. I was the foreman on a child pornography case. I'll never forget the eyes of the defendant staring at the jury as the court clerk read the verdicts.
(A bit paraphrased.)
"We, the jury, on the count of child abuse, find the defendant guilty.
Signed, THEDrunkPossum, jury foreman."
She read that, with my name attached, for 11 of 12 guilty verdicts, and one not guilty verdict. He probably didn't know which one was me, but I'm guessing he remembers my name after hearing it send him away over and over.
Serving on a jury for child porn has to be rough for the jury. I hope that you had your own support afterward and you were able to take care of yourself. Thank you for serving.
I thought you are only supposed to use juror numbers as opposed to real names? That's how it was when I served on an elder abuse case last year.
It depends on the case for sure. My mom has been unlucky enough to land jury duty more than any of us - but she says the worst ever was a rape case of a young girl who was about the same age as me at the time. I'm sure the prosecutor loved having a woman with a daughter the same age as the victim on the jury, but she said it was incredibly difficult to sit through.
I was going to say, just based off of stupid TV tropes and media portrayals, usually a quick verdict is never a good thing for the defendant right?
Obviously it's a lot more complex and comes with a lot more caveats it just feels that that's the way it's portrayed
OJ was found not guilty in 2 hours
The glove that bitch slapped the US Justice Department
The glove most likely was not a major factor in OJ not being convicted. It's much more likely that a general distrust of the police and especially Mark Furman exercising his fifth ammendment right to remain silent when asked on cross-examination if he had fabricated evidence sunk the prosecutions ship.
Additionally the Furman tapes would have been a way bigger influence in creating reasonable doubt than OJ trying on the gloves.
EDIT: Also as pointed out, the police broke chain of custody of the evidence by taking it home, the DNA expert wasn't able to explain the science to normal everyday people (And because the chain of custody was broken doubt is created as to if the DNA evidence was fabricated by the state or if it was contaminated in some other way)
I mean, they took evidence HOME for fucksake, the *opportunity* for tampering wasn't an open window so much as it was an opened airplane hangar door. You could have driven a convoy of semi trucks loaded with reasonable doubt thru that open 'barn' door.
Yeah OJ was guilty, but when the trial involves revealing that the police involved are super racist, and the police involved fucked up the evidence handling so bad they're pleading the 5th on "did you fabricate evidence?", it meant that the jury *had* to reach not guilty, too much doubt.
But at the same time I also have no doubt he did it.
The silver lining is that police departments take chain of custody MUCH more seriously than they would have otherwise.
You can go on and on about the gloves but the chain of custody really helped sink the prosecution's case.
And we are ultimately all better off for it.
They framed a guilty man.
The Defense ended up putting the police department on trial. And the LAPD, being as corrupt as it was, was bound to lose. With most of the evidence now in doubt the only thing that was left was circumstantial evidence. Not enough to convict OJ.
And the defense also produced evidence that Fuhrman was a racist after he lied about it. He basically perjured himself.
Fuhrman is why OJ went free.
The OJ case is taught as an example of how to utterly and completely screw over your murder investigation. Gross incompetence in many many areas
Did they have an opinion on the Casey Anthony case?
I always felt Nancy Grace played a large role in Anthony's acquittal. If not for Nancy going all in on "tot-mom," the prosecutor probably wouldn't have felt pressured to go for first-degree murder, which is hard enough to prove even with a definitive cause of death. (Which could not be established in this case.) A lesser charge might have resulted in a conviction.
Of course, I have no idea whether the prosecutor would have ever charged with anything but first degree murder. But that's always been my take on that case.
...and yet he actually turned the OJ trial into a nifty new career for himself.
Some people can stick their hand in a bucket of shit and pull out a diamond ring
My $.02, twenty-some-odd years later: This was a weirdly big fucking deal. The idea that there was even a chance that the police had fabricated evidence in a case as clearly obvious as this one... why? Why would cops need to lie to get a conviction in a murder as sensational and low-key obvious as this one? Unless... that’s just what cops do, maybe? Fabricate evidence, lie, corroborate one another’s stories, especially in cases against minorities?
Like... why? Why make up shit? Because that’s what cops do.
On the one hand, in hindsight the whole defense theory would have required the LAPD to conspire on the case before they knew OJ didn't have an alibi and without talking to each other about it. On the other, when the lead investigator pleads the 5th about planting evidence in front of the jury you really can't expect anything but an acquittal.
With one of the most horribly botched trials ever. Lol
Linda Burdick has entered the chat.
Aka lead prosecutor on the State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony case.
Idk Casey Anthony's case was pretty butchered.
Correct. Although there is always a chance that a clear cut unanimous acquittal is reached quickly too.
I’m thinking the same thing. They reached the verdict a lot quicker than I thought they would.
Free stream for my fellow bum ass poors without cable.
FYI, PBS Newshour typically has a free YouTube livestream up to cover most major events. Highly recommend as they have way fewer talking heads, and the people who they do have to discuss a topic are usually very rational and well-informed.
Their current livestream is just a view of the seal in the courtroom. I appreciate their lack of hype.
That was amazing. I literally hit your link JUST AS THEY REVOKED THE FUCKER'S BAIL AND CUFFED HIM!
Thank you, so, so much!
Thank you! I just tried to fast forward a live feed.
The other day i tried to pinch zoom a picture in a book
It's ok, we won't tell anyone.
I’ve most definitely done this. Also had an impulse to Ctrl+F in a book and then realized I could not lmao
Hope they can all stay anonymous.
They might be for a little but don’t they have to eventually be named? In order to show the unbiased nature of the process
No matter the outcome, there's going to be witch hunting... I hate this.
His buddies on the scene must be sweating right now
Right? This does not bode well for their trials.
I should have said, it's not a slam dunk because they're still only accessories. Idk if the rookie gets convicted and honestly I don't think he ought to be. But I'd definitely be concerned if I was Thao, IMO.
I feel like Lane should never be able to be a cop again, but I can’t see him getting any meaningful or heavy charges tbh. He told chauvin they should roll him over so that might count towards him not wanting to hurt floyd
If I was Lane, I would never want to be a cop again.
He tried to do the right thing, he knew it wasn't right, and his coworkers hung him out to dry.
Why did the daily Megathreads here stop? I was surprised there wasn't really anything after day 4.
It was an absolute shitshow in the comments
yea but they should at least put one up for the verdict.
2nd degree GUILTY
3rd degree GUILTY
2nd degree manslaughter GUILTY
Maybe a stupid question. But I'm unfamiliar with the justice system, especially in the states. How can he be guilty of all three on one person?
Technically speaking every charge basically contained the lower charge plus something else, that means that if you don't meet the minimum for the highest charge you might meet it for one lower, guilty on all three here is basically the highest bar was reached, but in this case the three charges did not contain themselves perfectly because of subtle difference in legislation.
The second degree one for example means that he was committing a felony assault when he killed the victim while the third degree manslaughter is that he committed actions that unreasonably put the victim in danger, while they often can go along, sometimes only one is actually applicable
So if they contain elements of the lower charge, does that mean the sentence for each charge is additive, or do they really only treat the 2nd degree murder charge in context of the lower two for sentencing? Does that make sense?
Ok basically another user dumbed it down better, these charges were like venn diagrams, not fully encompassing the lower one but mostly yes, what happened is that the jury decided that not only was he guilty of highest charge, but that there was enough evidence to say that he was guilty of the parts not encompassed by it but encompassed by the minor charges
Typically in cases like this the sentences would run simultaneously. So he basically would only be serving the time for the highest charge. *But* if he had also committed any other crimes that were separate, say vandalism, those charges would run consecutively with the other charge.
Lol at the BBQ set-up outside the Hennepin County Government Center.
Dude's an entrepreneur.
Good, bad... I'm the guy with the bun.
Reminds me of the guys who set up outside the trump rallies and were like "I dont fuck with these guys at all, bit I fuck with their money".
Thank you for bringing a little bit of levity to this thread
Edit: typing on mobile sucks
For all the people comparing this to oj, remember the prosecution totally fucked his case up.
The OJ jury was sequestered for over 200 days, so that was a weird case. Really hard to think this isnt a conviction on some charge.
One of my favorite lines from the 2016 mini series was "the jury discussed this case less than anyone in America!"
I was in the 2nd grade and probably discussed it more than 4 hours with other 2nd graders.
Was just talking to a friend about this. OJ was in a league of its own. A sequestered jury that just wanted to go home. And years later several jurors came out and said it was payback for Rodney King
Edit: and then oddly enough when OJ went on trial for that theft in Vegas, the jurors came forward and said their verdict was payback for the murders.
Yeah, ESPN has an excellent doc on it. Talks about the trial, OJ and Nicole's relationship but most importantly the history of race relations in LA.
A&E did a great one too, I think a lot of people fail to put the trial in the larger context of what was going on in LA in the years leading up to it. That and the defense effectively put the LAPD on trial.
ETA: apparently I was thinking about the same documentary.
At least one of the jurors (black lady) said they had made up their mind to acquit him to "stick it to the system." They didn't care if he did it or not; they wanted a black man to get a "win."
Edit: allegedly, it also plays a factor that the trial was so long which weeded out many juror members. The remaining pool was largely minority, local inner-city, low income individuals. Not long after Rodney King, this was a perfect storm for acquittal (plus the racist cops).
I can understand their feeling that way... but the irony that they picked OJ Simpson as that "black man to get a win".
"I'm not black, I'm famous." - OJ Simpson, before he murdered his wife.
Thought it was “I’m not black, I’m [O.J!](https://phillys7thward.org/2018/07/im-not-black-im-o-j-understanding-privilege-can-help-disrupt-inequity/)
Every time I hear that I can't help but append "... Okay." to that. Thanks Jay Z.
The song is probably why I know this honestly lol
It is pretty funny when OJ went out of his way to become "white friendly/palatable" for money.
That was pretty much Cochran's defense strategy
They dramatacized this on the American Crime Story season about the OJ trial. A black juror flat out refused to convict another black man and said he would never change his mind.
The defense attorney was no Johnnie Cochran.
Or Jackie Chiles for that matter...
Did I tell you to put the balm on?
Who told you to put the balm on?
Who told you to put the cheese on?
I didn't tell you to put the cheese on.
As soon as the Furhmann tapes were in evidence, the jury had to acquit.
The DNA evidence should have made it a slam dunk.
It's hard to believe now, but DNA didn't really become "slam dunk" evidence until the advent of shows like CSI. In 1995, it was brand new to most Americans.
>The defense then made the point that not only was the forensic evidence collected incorrectly or not at all but the established chain of custody wasnt even followed. So yeah, you found the defendants DNA but because you didnt follow proper procedures you cant say for sure how it got there.
That part is unfortunately true. The evidence collection was a mess.
I remember seeing John Mulaney perform live years ago, and he talked about growing up in a house with parents who were lawyers, discussing the OJ trial every night at dinner. He mentioned two things could be true simultaneously: that OJ committed the murder and that LAPD planted evidence. Obviously that elicited groans from the audience, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities. We already know the police act corruptly to protect their own, so it stands to reason they'll make it easier to secure convictions. There's even evidence planting that's been caught on bodycam. I'm not saying that's the case here, given OJ's cover-up was incredibly sloppy.
IMHO, OJ absolutely committed those murders AND the police tried to frame him and/or deeply screwed up the investigation and chain of custody. The verdict was correct based on what I saw of the trial/understood of the law, but being found “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” isn’t the same thing as “didn’t do it” or “people believe he did it”!
Wow. That is *way* faster than anyone expected and could honestly go either way for a high profile case like this.
Remember the OJ trial lasted 11 months and then the jury deliberated for like a day. So no premature celebration but damn I’m shocked.
What this *does* mean is we are getting a verdict. Cahill was absolutely not declaring a hung jury this fast. So that’s good news — at least it’ll be over.
Well the OJ jury was sequestered. I would want to get the fuck out of there too after 11 months.
Hell at month 3 I likely would have just gone nuts and done something to get me kicked out
I can't imagine being sequestered for 11 months. Fuck.. I'd want to get out of there just after a day.
Imagine being at your normal job for 20+ years, then having to take 11 months off then coming back to your job which is probably someone else's now.
It's illegal to fire someone due to absences because of jury duty.
>It's illegal to fire someone due to absences because of jury duty.
It's illegal to fire people for a lot of reasons, but the employer can always work around it.
"We downsized while you were gone. Then five minutes later we upsized. We looked around, but we couldn't find you."
Businesses don’t care and will always find a workaround.
You're not fired because you were on jury duty, you're fired because I don't like the quality of your work. Good day sir.
OJ trial lasted 11 months with the jurors sequestered from society, so they only deliberated for 4 hours because they wanted their freedom.
Honestly, after going that long listening to everything, it's unlikely people are going to be changing their opinions either.
Exactly. After having 11 months of your life dedicated to one thing, in that case a jury trial, you're going to have your mind made up.
The OJ deliberation was that fast because they lost a year of their lives.
I know the feeling after 2020.
While I feel like there are some jurors that came in giving Chauvin the benefit of the doubt, I'd have to imagine that there were also jurors coming in who were not going to let him walk unless the evidence was absolutely irrefutable that he was 100% justified. Yes, I know the prosecution has to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, but in this case, we had all seen the video a year ago and Chauvin clearly killed Floyd unless the defense can provide a very credible reason for it to be justified (and IMO the defense didn't have too much to work with in this case). If the jury was going to let him off, they would deliberate WAY longer.
So this quick turn around is probably good news for the prosecution.
Guilty on all charges.
Guilty of all three charges
Guilty on all 3 charges. Wow.
We've been sitting here for days. Read the damn verdict before I piss m'self.
cnn's streaming service is a hot piece of garbage.
Feels like one of those moments you will remember for a long time just because of the implications
> because of the implications
Are you going to hurt these women, Dennis?
No no. I feel like you’re misunderstanding me bro. If they say no, then obviously it’s a no.
But they aren’t going say no, *because of the implication.*
Don't look at me like that? You clearly wouldn't be in any danger.
So, these girls are in danger?
My prediction: this is either a full conviction or a complete acquittal. This is SO fast, and if you figure that maybe they had a chance to sit down, pick a foreman, read the instructions, and take a straw poll yesterday, you're talking maybe 4 hours total of deliberation. No way they went through the nuances of each of the charged offenses and picked one over the other.
And now I sit back and prepare to be proven wrong.
I agree with your prediction and what’s most surprising to me about how fast this was is that not only did the jury have to consider each charge separately, but in order to have a guilty verdict on any of the charges it had to be unanimous amongst the jurors, meaning not even one juror could disagree and vote not guilty. For clarity’s sake I think they reached a guilty verdict on something because otherwise I believe they would still be deliberating.
I'd think so too, but history makes me think it'll somehow end is a less-than-guilty verdict. If they get him on all charges, that'll truly be a monumental change from the norm.
> For clarity’s sake I think they reached a guilty verdict on something because otherwise I believe they would still be deliberating.
I tend to agree here. You have to think one person on the jury would think he was guilty.
It could have also gone "We all think manslaughter? Ok, cool."
Could be. Practiced law for a long time, was frequently wrong in guessing what juries were doing.
Juror number one is generally the foreman.
They do all the grilling?
Not always. Sometimes the foreman is assigned based on seat number, but more often the jurors talk amongst themselves to select someone. It depends on the jurisdiction. In Minnesota, it's selected by the jurors: [https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/scao\_library/Jury/Juror-Handbook.pdf](https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/scao_library/Jury/Juror-Handbook.pdf)
That is the way it is here in Texas. One of our fellow jury members was a professional in the world of conflict management and employee relations, we had her elected in less than five minutes, lol.
> This is SO fast,
I was a juror on a civil slip and fall case and we deliberated longer than these folks did.
There is no point in deliberations if you're all in agreement at the outset.
I guess it’s going to happen at top of the hour?
Here we go. Holy fuck.
It’s guilty on all counts
Now Ghislaine Maxwell
It’s like when Comcast says they will be at your house “between 10am and 2pm” and they still fucking show up at 2:15pm...
Guilty on all charges. Wow.
Judging by his reaction he was completely expecting this.
The judge knows everyone is about to shit their pants with anxiety.
Jury: (in the morning) We reached a verdict.
Public: *blank stare* Okay! What is it?!
Jury: *returns stare* We'll tell you.
Public: *exasperatedly* Okay! When?!
Jury: *looks at watch* Later today. *whistles and walks away*
They have to transport Chauvin into the court room as well as get the lawyers there, witnesses, etc.
Its a process. Not like the Jury could just open the door and scream it at the judge whenever they wanted and go home.
they have paperwork to fill in
tbf the verdict was reached like an hour ago
The 12 jurors found him guilty of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in George Floyd's death in May 2020.
Looks like Derek Chauvin is done ?
Very quick turnaround. But I wouldn't read into this one way or another. Could be fast if they thought the defense sucked, could be fast if they think he's clearly not guilty. Only those 12 know how they came to a decision.
I have no idea what they're going to say. All I know is this will 100% get appealed by ~~the loser~~ Chauvin if he loses. Forgot that prosecutors generally cannot appeal
Prosecution cannot appeal
The old prosecutor rule is that a quick response usually means guilt. But it could mean anything here - it may just be the jury made up its mind quickly.
That being said, if the defense wins I think the matter ends. Most states don't allow prosecutors to appeal, and I think the matter is in federal court (but using state law). I don't know what Minnesota's code states (I'm note barred in Minnesota), but if it's like VA then there's no option for the prosecutor to appeal.
To add an edit: the appeal rights created by some states for prosecutors are for particulary issues that are not applicable in most cases (and the general rule "prosecutors can't appeal" is good). I don't know the law of MN which is why I didn't want to state anything, but for all intents and purposes you can't appeal.
Bail has just been revoked. He's in cuffs and on his way to a cell
Murder 2 is a felony charge up to 40 years. Zero chance he would be leaving the courthouse on that conviction.
Well, this sets a hell of a precedent moving forward with finding officers guilty
second-degree unintentional murder GUILTY
third-degree murder GUILTY
second-degree manslaughter GUILTY
It's gotta be such a mind fuck as an ex-cop. To have spent so much time sending people to jail, to then go through the motions yourself. Most definitely gotta feel like a worm hole situation.
Yeah I said that earlier. Putting people in handcuffs to be in handcuffs yourself. Just insane. It really is. It's the perfect ending for someone who murdered someone and abused others.
Hold on to your butts
stop complaining about CNN's or whoever's coverage and put PBS on. None of that bullshit.
Right, stare at the seal in silence & anticipation!
Guilty of 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree of manslaughter. Gottem all
Guilty 2nd degree murder.
Just now: Guilty - all three counts.
This feels like waiting on nevada during the elections last November
Guilty on the big one. They’re getting all three.
damn, “the great seal of the state of minnesota •1858•” starting to look kinda sexy.
I’m gonna sort by controversial wish me luck
Don't even need to sort by controversial at this point.
What time are they reading it?
Guilty on all 3 counts
Verdict was guilty on all counts
And he was found guilty. Of all three charges.
Found guilty of 3rd degree murder
Guilty on all 3 counts.
Guilty on all charges
No way Derek Chauvin is NOT put in solitary. He is walking with a target on his back.
Now that was the face of a man facing consequences for the first time in his life.
If he is guilty and serves 10 years, protective custody for the rest of his life after?
Man I hope no matter the verdict, we have no more violence, injuries, or deaths attributed to this case.
Verdict is in- Guilty on all three counts.
Guilty on all three charges, im actually surprised. I was expecting Manslaughter and a night of riots.
Today is a beautiful day