(CNN)Four Minneapolis police officers have been fired for their involvement in the death of a black man who was held down with a knee as he protested that he couldn't breathe, officials said Tuesday.
The FBI is investigating the incident, which drew widespread condemnation of the officers after a video showing part of the encounter circulated on social media.
The FBI is investigating the incident, which drew widespread condemnation of the officers after a video showing part of the encounter circulated on social media.
Judge Makes Several Major Rulings in George Floyd Case
Judge Peter Cahill issued a 51-page ruling Thursday morning, saying the trial for Derek Chauvin, Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng, and Thomas Lane will be held jointly in Hennepin County. This ruling is preliminary, and future arguments could still change that. Stearns County was on the shortlist of potential trial venues if the judge decided to move it. <snip>
Cahill also said the trial would be televised. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing will be observed in the courtroom, leaving little space for family, friends, and the media to observe. Minnesota law does not allow for cameras to automatically be allowed into courtrooms. Attorneys must petition the court for audio and video recordings to be made public. The four former officers asked for cameras in the courtroom, and defense attorneys argued it would add to transparency, but prosecutors, including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, argued against it. The prosecution said cameras could change how evidence is presented, intimidate witnesses, and would "create more problems than they will solve."
There are strict rules in place for camera access. Jurors will not be shown, and any witness under 18 cannot be shown on video, but audio is allowed. Members of George Floyd's family will also not be shown unless they consent to it. Zooming in on tables, attorneys or defendants is also not allowed, and microphones will not be permitted at counsel tables. <snip>
(Minneapolis, MN) - A Hennepin County judge has made some major rulings in the case against four former Minneapolis police officers accused of killing George Floyd.
Judge Makes Several Major Rulings in George Floyd Case
Judge Peter Cahill issued a 51-page ruling Thursday morning, saying the trial for Derek Chauvin, Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng, and Thomas Lane will be held jointly in Hennepin County. This ruling is preliminary, and future arguments could still change that. Stearns County was on the shortlist of potential trial venues if the judge decided to move it. <snip>
Cahill also said the trial would be televised. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing will be observed in the courtroom, leaving little space for family, friends, and the media to observe. Minnesota law does not allow for cameras to automatically be allowed into courtrooms. Attorneys must petition the court for audio and video recordings to be made public. The four former officers asked for cameras in the courtroom, and defense attorneys argued it would add to transparency, but prosecutors, including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, argued against it. The prosecution said cameras could change how evidence is presented, intimidate witnesses, and would "create more problems than they will solve."
There are strict rules in place for camera access. Jurors will not be shown, and any witness under 18 cannot be shown on video, but audio is allowed. Members of George Floyd's family will also not be shown unless they consent to it. Zooming in on tables, attorneys or defendants is also not allowed, and microphones will not be permitted at counsel tables. <snip>
(Minneapolis, MN) - A Hennepin County judge has made some major rulings in the case against four former Minneapolis police officers accused of killing George Floyd.
I am not sure what I think of the prosecution having a problem with transparency and cameras...
I can understand that witnesses may be intimidated especially if they are worried about LE reacting towards them... However, if they have already shared what they saw and such, they have come forward...? And why would it change the way evidence is presented? I myself am not a fan of public trials being secretive or nontransparent. I guess that does not mean they have to be televised but still... I can understand that they may worry about media influence in MSM and outrage by people...
I am not sure what I think of the prosecution having a problem with transparency and cameras...
I can understand that witnesses may be intimidated especially if they are worried about LE reacting towards them... However, if they have already shared what they saw and such, they have come forward...? And why would it change the way evidence is presented? I myself am not a fan of public trials being secretive or nontransparent. I guess that does not mean they have to be televised but still... I can understand that they may worry about media influence in MSM and outrage by people...
Personally, I would be very nervous testifying in this case. First of all, I would testify to the truth. If that truth were perceived to be a threat to any group, oh boy! I can see the point, but I can't see a way around it either.
Personally, I would be very nervous testifying in this case. First of all, I would testify to the truth. If that truth were perceived to be a threat to any group, oh boy! I can see the point, but I can't see a way around it either.
I tend to think the prosecution witnesses would worry more about repercussions from cop friends/boys in blue of the four officers. I am not saying cops would do that but it is a common enough fear, I think it is often why people won't get involved. Fear they will come after you or arrest your sister for something, etc. Witnesses for the prosecution have to testify against these four Mpls. officers and I think that would worry most people and it's a big force. Also, like you say, some group taking issue is possible too.
However, their names will be known one way or another on witness lists and covered by reporters either way, even without cameras. It might not be out there as fast and all over as it would be if televised live but regardless they are part of the case.
I don't know the answer other than I believe in transparency. I don't envy the witnesses, I will say that. One can see I guess why it is often a debated issue.
Proposed divorce agreement between Chauvin and wife rejected for possible fraud
<snip>
According to the order filed on Oct. 26, under the proposed agreement Kellie would have received all the equity in their homes, all of their funds in the bank and investment accounts, and all of Derek's pension and retirement accounts, except for the nonmarital portion of two accounts.
In her order, Judge Juanita Freeman wrote that a transfer of "substantially all" of one's assets to another in an uncontested marriage dissolution is a "badge of fraud" and rejected the proposal. <snip>
A Washington County District judge rejected a proposed divorce agreement between Derek Chauvin, the fired Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd's death, and his estranged wife due to the possibility of fraud.
Wow. I wait to see the decision on this. The little I know of bringing in past crimes or behavior is if it is similar behavior....? I don't know if states differ or all of the criteria but I do know that often applies, and this was similar behavior and may show a pattern.
On the other hand, it is often due to past criminal history and this was not a charged crime (the 14 year old)...?
It definitely to me shows a pattern... But again, not sure what all they have to consider. Just thoughts...
Proposed divorce agreement between Chauvin and wife rejected for possible fraud
<snip>
According to the order filed on Oct. 26, under the proposed agreement Kellie would have received all the equity in their homes, all of their funds in the bank and investment accounts, and all of Derek's pension and retirement accounts, except for the nonmarital portion of two accounts.
In her order, Judge Juanita Freeman wrote that a transfer of "substantially all" of one's assets to another in an uncontested marriage dissolution is a "badge of fraud" and rejected the proposal. <snip>
A Washington County District judge rejected a proposed divorce agreement between Derek Chauvin, the fired Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd's death, and his estranged wife due to the possibility of fraud.
Now this is obvious to me. It is transferring all assets imo in case of a civil judgment and also so an attorney or other cannot do a lien or judgment, etc. This man is not helping himself out. AND imo this "wife" may want to be careful unless she wants to be in jail as well... Jmo.
Now this is obvious to me. It is transferring all assets imo in case of a civil judgment and also so an attorney or other cannot do a lien or judgment, etc. This man is not helping himself out. AND imo this "wife" may want to be careful unless she wants to be in jail as well... Jmo.
Proposed divorce agreement between Chauvin and wife rejected for possible fraud
<snip>
According to the order filed on Oct. 26, under the proposed agreement Kellie would have received all the equity in their homes, all of their funds in the bank and investment accounts, and all of Derek's pension and retirement accounts, except for the nonmarital portion of two accounts.
In her order, Judge Juanita Freeman wrote that a transfer of "substantially all" of one's assets to another in an uncontested marriage dissolution is a "badge of fraud" and rejected the proposal. <snip>
A Washington County District judge rejected a proposed divorce agreement between Derek Chauvin, the fired Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd's death, and his estranged wife due to the possibility of fraud.
Okay. A volatile subject, etc. and I will comment although it may be hotly disagreed with. I have an issue with some of the things in this article and the statements of some.
To date, I truly have no reason to necessarily think this is a race case necessarily. I am NOT okay with what Chauvin did and for how long, however, I am also not all right with almost elevating the victim to sainthood. I am no saint and most mortals are not either and the victim was not MLK and he is compared to him. I have no doubt he was probably a person with a heart and more but he certainly was not perfect and LE was called for a reason.
Mpls I hope is preparing for what is sure to be total chaos and trouble.
I am also not all right with almost elevating the victim to sainthood. I am no saint and most mortals are not either and the victim was not MLK and he is compared to him. I have no doubt he was probably a person with a heart and more but he certainly was not perfect and LE was called for a reason.
I hate this argument. And this is not directed at you personally at all. But I hear this all the time. "Well he was no angel!" Okay. And? ... Cops aren't supposed to kill guilty people either. Cops aren't the ones who make that decision. They were called for a counterfeit $20. That should not result in someone's death.
I hate this argument. And this is not directed at you personally at all. But I hear this all the time. "Well he was no angel!" Okay. And? ... Cops aren't supposed to kill guilty people either. Cops aren't the ones who make that decision. They were called for a counterfeit $20. That should not result in someone's death.
Not directed at you at all either, I agree with everything you said. I don't mean even case wise, just that when people die we have a tendency to forget they were human and not perfect and none of us are. I probably was not clear and meant that more generally. Doing something good with it if his family or if anyone at all anywhere whether connected or not is absolutely great.
This case is being made a huge example of and all of it brings many players and not all with good motives.
I ENTIRELY disagree with what Chauvin did if I did not make that clear. There is no excuse whatsoever for the length of time and way more with what happened here. I feel they moved vehicles because of awareness of cameras and more.
I sure do not mean that the victim deserved it. I would never say that or mean that. He is a victim without a doubt. I honestly do not spend a lot of time following this case and all of the different "interests" regarding it that probably have no concern about the actual victim or the officers...
ETA to the end: Or their respective families and loved ones.
Chauvin murder trial: What to know as the first officer is tried in George Floyd’s death
The first trial in the death of George Floyd is set to begin with jury selection on March 8. Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer filmed with his knee on Floyd’s neck in May, faces murder and manslaughter charges for the encounter that sparked months of historic protests around the world.
The trial has been described as one of the most important in the nation’s history, a potential barometer of change in a country where police officers are rarely punished for abusive behavior and fatal tactics used on the job.
Opening arguments in Chauvin’s case are expected to begin as soon as March 29. A trial for the three other officers implicated in Floyd’s death — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — is scheduled for August.
Chauvin murder trial: What to know as the first officer is tried in George Floyd’s death
The first trial in the death of George Floyd is set to begin with jury selection on March 8. Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer filmed with his knee on Floyd’s neck in May, faces murder and manslaughter charges for the encounter that sparked months of historic protests around the world.
The trial has been described as one of the most important in the nation’s history, a potential barometer of change in a country where police officers are rarely punished for abusive behavior and fatal tactics used on the job.
Opening arguments in Chauvin’s case are expected to begin as soon as March 29. A trial for the three other officers implicated in Floyd’s death — J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — is scheduled for August.
I was discussing this today with my daughter and future SIL. Asking what they thought Mpls was apt to be like again in the coming days. It came up with my reminding them might be a good neck of the woods to stay away from in the coming days. While they don't head to Mpls central, they do head to areas of the Cities on a somewhat frequent occasion.
Our opinions varied some, it was interesting, and yet not where it could not all be discussed. I have never discussed it with the two of them before. My opinion is not solid except on a few things. We agreed on other things and not on some things but were able to discuss it in a not set on pushing any opinion on another type of way.
Not really posting to weigh in with an opinion. More about the ability to discuss and the fact that one thing we certainly agreed on is how such will be used by factions or groups on both sides of the equation who do not care one bit about the individuals involved and want only to win their agenda, no matter which direction and it will not result in anything "better". It is always win/lose with those factions and no in between.
www.cnn.com
