Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:State v. Chauvin)

How does the 2028 date for earliest possible release work?[edit]

If he must serve 15 years before becoming parole eligible, even considering that he already served 199 days that are accredited, wouldn't that date put him in the early-mid 2030's at least? How is the date in 2028 obtained? Not A Superhero (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I checked and several news articles have stated 2035 or 2036 are the earliest he can get out, nothing about 2028.2607:FEA8:88A0:420D:AD3C:786E:D264:2D93 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been fixed, edited it to 2036 Phillip Samuel (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help fixing citation missing its link[edit]

There is a citation which appears 5 times under "Sentencing" sub section, but only the "ref name" is given. It's missing its link and other information. 

<ref name="Chauvin Sentence Begins" />

Because there's no other info, the citation currently shows as: 

Cite error: The named reference Chauvin Sentence Begins was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Any help tracking down the original info? I could go through the history of edits, but that could take forever to find the relevant edit that had it removed, if it was placed in the article at all. It looks like it may have had an earlier mention, but since removed (in error perhaps?). -- Tytrox (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking through the history and not too far away from a fix (I think). So far it looks like the changes that created these errors were made by L1amw90. L1amw90, please let me know if whatever fix I make interferes with the improvements you intended to make. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to figure it out by using my sandbox to try and fix, and this is what I have so far... 

<ref name="Chauvin Sentence Begins" />

<ref {{Cite news|last=Walsh|first=Paul|date=May 12, 2021|title=Judge's ruling echoes prosecution's points, setting stage for Chauvin getting longer sentence.|language=en-US|work=startribune.com|url=https://www.startribune.com/judge-s-ruling-echoes-prosecution-s-points-setting-stage-for-chauvin-getting-longer-sentence/600056317/|access-date=May 12, 2021}}</ref>

Any idea as to why it's still showing as an error?

L1amw90 18:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all the claims that "Chauvin Sentence Begins" shows up on were referenced to the CNN source (this one). I am checking to make sure the CNN source verifies all the claims. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@L1amw90: You've missed the > at the start, in 
<ref>
It should then be 
<ref>{{Cite news|last=Walsh|first=Paul|date=May 12, 2021|title=Judge's ruling echoes prosecution's points, setting stage for Chauvin getting longer sentence.|language=en-US|work=startribune.com|url=https://www.startribune.com/judge-s-ruling-echoes-prosecution-s-points-setting-stage-for-chauvin-getting-longer-sentence/600056317/|access-date=May 12, 2021}}</ref>
-- Tytrox (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have the issue fixed, but I would appreciate a double check. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Happy to consider this resolved. -- Tytrox (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

naspy[edit]

some of the links are archived or missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.241.157 (talk • contribs)

the semi-protection date has passed.[edit]

Hello, quick reminder the semi-protection date has passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorRocks (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems no more.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witness intimidation, questionable eligibility of jurors, juror intimidation strangely absent from article.[edit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/18/rittenhouse-trial-msnbc/ - MSNBC followed jury bus and took photos of jury

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chauvin-juror-participated-2020-march-washington-it-grounds-appeal-n1266337 - Chauvin juror attended multiple BLM marches, had friends in BLM, and wore a shirt that said "Keep your knees off our necks", did not disclose this information before being chosen

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/18/us/chauvin-witness-barry-brodd-pigs-blood-santa-rosa/index.html - Pig's blood was smeared on the former home of the use-of-force expert who testified for the defense in Chauvin's trial

imshocked.gif that Wikipedia didn't put this in the article, wellnotthatshocked.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5880:6D0:B997:8CD:6F0B:9D4F (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Rittenhouse had nothing to do with Chauvin trial.
  2. Black juror is black, to quote "The thing is, he was honest about his underlying belief, which is that he felt very favorably about Black Lives Matter," Osler said. "The attorneys knew that. And they also knew that that attitude based off lived experience is not a reason to bar jury service." "We can't write off Black jurors because they have lived their lives as Black people," Osler said
  3. Expert witness old home they hadn't lived at for years was smeared with pig's blood Saturday, four days after he testified for the defense. So, 4 days and several years too late to intimidate him. Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The second explanation is absolute nonsense. In fact he blatantly admitted that they disregarded jury selection etiquette and had the gall to defend it. If it were any other trial, this information could've derailed the whole thing. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:C8F0:5D64:E34F:C5A1 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In further response to the IP:
  • the Rittenhouse verdict (when "MSNBC followed jury bus") was seven months after the Chauvin verdict.
  • An expressed belief that black lives do, in fact, matter, does not disqualify a citizen from serving on a jury. Nor can members of any race be excluded from a jury on account of their race, regardless of the race of the defendant.
  • Jury "etiquette" is not a legal principle. The lawyers are allowed to ask questions of jurors, and make a certain number of peremptory challenges preventing individuals from serving on the panel. Here, Chauvin's attorney had three unused challenges when the jury was selected.
Kablammo (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicting Convictions[edit]

I do not understand the convictions. Prosecutors frequently file multiple charges so juries have the option... if you find him not guilty of x, maybe you can find him guilty of the lesser charge of y. That way, it doesn't wind up with the defendant going scot free on a single technicality...the jury will still have the option to convict on the lesser charge. The lesser count of the three, 2nd degree manslaughter, (Minnesota Statute) by definition includes the following text:

"...and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby."

So by convicting him of manslaughter, they are saying its NOT murder, yet they also convicted him on 2 separate counts of murder. I am just posting this for discussion only. The page accurately lists the convictions. I just don't know another medium to question the legal justification for convicting him on all three charges. I'm sure the prosecutor was only shooting for 1 and got all 3. 49.144.64.141 (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:forum. This is not a place to discuss any thing other than changes to the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the trial or appellate court found that not all of the elements of murder were met, but the elements of manslaughter were present, then he would be convicted of manslaughter. As all of the elements of murder were met, the manslaughter conviction has no practical effect. Kablammo (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Questions like this, where you're just looking for info and are not thinking to change article content, are best asked at one of the WP:Reference desks.
Chauvin was convicted of second-degree manslaughter under the 2018 version of Minnesota's Statute section 609.205, part 1: "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another". The clause does not include that "murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby" caveat, though there are other manslaughter codes that do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_of_Derek_Chauvin&oldid=1216045813"