rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
5 years ago
Feb. 11, 2021, 12:22 PM EST
By Pete Williams

The fired Minneapolis police officer who held his knee to George Floyd's neck agreed to plead guilty to third-degree murder days after Floyd's death, but then-Attorney General William Barr rejected the deal.

Derek Chauvin and the three other officers involved were fired the day after Floyd's death on May 25 and later arrested. Chauvin faces second-degree murder charges and is scheduled for trial in March. The other three are charged with aiding and abetting and are to be tried together in the summer.

The details of the failed deal were first reported by The New York Times.

A former Justice Department official confirmed the failed deal to NBC News, saying that both politically appointed and career Department of Justice officials had rejected the idea.

"His lawyers were trying to rush us, and we didn't want to be rushed," the official said.

Chauvin's lawyer, Eric Nelson, declined to comment Thursday.

A spokesperson for Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who is leading the prosecution, said he could not comment because it covers a period before Ellison was assigned to the case.

Lacey Severins, a spokeswoman for the Hennepin County attorney's office, which was handling the case at the time, said: "As is typical in many cases, early negotiations can occur between all relevant parties involved. Many times, a defendant will explore their options with a negotiation. It is also common for these types of discussions to happen in the beginning of a case and then have no agreed upon negotiations develop. This case was no different. Negotiations were discussed, nothing developed."

Floyd's death sparked nationwide protests and renewed calls for an end to police brutality and racial inequities.

"As part of the deal, officials now say, he was willing to go to prison for more than 10 years," the Times reported. "Local officials, scrambling to end the community's swelling anger, scheduled a news conference to announce the deal."

But the deal fell apart, the Times reported, citing three law enforcement officials, because Barr worried that it was too early in the investigation and would be perceived as too lenient. Barr also wanted to allow state officials taking over the case time to make their own decisions, the Times reported.

Chauvin had asked to serve his time in a federal prison, and the deal was contingent on the federal government's approval because Chauvin wanted assurance he would not face federal civil rights charges, the Times reported.

It would be highly unusual for the Justice Department to agree in advance to stop a civil rights investigation and forgo any possible federal prosecution before state proceedings have fully played out.

...



Pete Williams
Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington.
frankj1
5 years ago

Minnesota has a quirky legal system.

The celebration party is disturbing. This is nothing to celebrate. It should be an expectation in these situations not a novelty.

teedubbya wrote:


I'm feeling like the initial reaction is related to justice for the Floyd family, but the long haul effect, to use a newly common phrase, is for the hope that this is a giant step for fairness for every citizen in this melting pot called USA.

Not to say it will be the final step...
frankj1
5 years ago

Feb. 11, 2021, 12:22 PM EST
By Pete Williams

The fired Minneapolis police officer who held his knee to George Floyd's neck agreed to plead guilty to third-degree murder days after Floyd's death, but then-Attorney General William Barr rejected the deal.

Derek Chauvin and the three other officers involved were fired the day after Floyd's death on May 25 and later arrested. Chauvin faces second-degree murder charges and is scheduled for trial in March. The other three are charged with aiding and abetting and are to be tried together in the summer.

The details of the failed deal were first reported by The New York Times.

A former Justice Department official confirmed the failed deal to NBC News, saying that both politically appointed and career Department of Justice officials had rejected the idea.

"His lawyers were trying to rush us, and we didn't want to be rushed," the official said.

Chauvin's lawyer, Eric Nelson, declined to comment Thursday.

A spokesperson for Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who is leading the prosecution, said he could not comment because it covers a period before Ellison was assigned to the case.

Lacey Severins, a spokeswoman for the Hennepin County attorney's office, which was handling the case at the time, said: "As is typical in many cases, early negotiations can occur between all relevant parties involved. Many times, a defendant will explore their options with a negotiation. It is also common for these types of discussions to happen in the beginning of a case and then have no agreed upon negotiations develop. This case was no different. Negotiations were discussed, nothing developed."

Floyd's death sparked nationwide protests and renewed calls for an end to police brutality and racial inequities.

"As part of the deal, officials now say, he was willing to go to prison for more than 10 years," the Times reported. "Local officials, scrambling to end the community's swelling anger, scheduled a news conference to announce the deal."

But the deal fell apart, the Times reported, citing three law enforcement officials, because Barr worried that it was too early in the investigation and would be perceived as too lenient. Barr also wanted to allow state officials taking over the case time to make their own decisions, the Times reported.

Chauvin had asked to serve his time in a federal prison, and the deal was contingent on the federal government's approval because Chauvin wanted assurance he would not face federal civil rights charges, the Times reported.

It would be highly unusual for the Justice Department to agree in advance to stop a civil rights investigation and forgo any possible federal prosecution before state proceedings have fully played out.

...



Pete Williams
Pete Williams is an NBC News correspondent who covers the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, based in Washington.

rfenst wrote:


thanks, Robert.
Lacking any credible evidence, it makes me feel like Chauvin knew the truth and wanted to get the softest deal with the best chance of surviving the sentence...
And our resident loonies (no offense rayr and your ilk) should celebrate Barr's decision as a win for states to control what happens in states.
delta1
5 years ago
although I was skeptical given America's history of acquitting bad cops, I am hopeful that Chauvin's conviction marks a change in law enforcement practices, especially in how poor and minority citizens are served by their police...

the fact that so many law enforcement people were willing to testify that Chauvin's use of force was excessive may be a turning point in the heretofore solid blue wall of silence and the tolerance for bad policing

the efforts to paint Floyd as the villain and the cause of his own demise, a tried and true defense in the past, was undercut by the graphic video that showed exactly what killed Floyd...



wonder how this case would have been decided if that video didn't exist?


we all need to keep our cell-phones charged up, just in case...
izonfire
5 years ago

.................another scary walk through Delta's psyche..........................................
wonder how this case would have been decided if that video didn't exist?
......

delta1 wrote:


That video should not have been allowed in court, as it is very prejudicial...
teedubbya
5 years ago
Even his fellow cops testified against him. It’s a very special group of folks that don’t see this for what it is.
frankj1
5 years ago

Even his fellow cops testified against him. It’s a very special group of folks that don’t see this for what it is.

teedubbya wrote:


and those weren't the hired gun experts.
Speyside
5 years ago
A jury has decided. What he is, is a murderer.
rfenst
  • rfenst
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
5 years ago
Delta, he might not even have been charged without the video.
teedubbya
5 years ago
That is what is telling. Folks are justifying this kill WITH the video. What happens when there isn’t video?
frankj1
5 years ago

That is what is telling. Folks are justifying this kill WITH the video. What happens when there isn’t video?

teedubbya wrote:


the Civil Rights Act?
Mr. Jones
5 years ago
Now the OtHER 3?4? DUDeS GET tHEIR ASSES
PUt ON A SPIT ROTESSEIRE AND GET THEIR ASSES FRIED FOR THIRD DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER AT LEAST?
Or ACCOMPLICES TO SECOND OR THIRD DEGREE MURDER...THOSE 3-4 DUDES ARE T.O.A.S.T....

TOast I sAy...
HockeyDad
5 years ago
George Floyd should still be alive today. And while nothing will bring him back or heal the unthinkable pain his killing caused his family and Black Americans everywhere, today’s verdict offers a retribution on toxic masculinity and a ray of light in the fight for racial justice.
Speyside
5 years ago
RayR
5 years ago
This case could never be called justice being served because it was so politicized from the very beginning until the end.
After the conviction, the evil ghoul Pelosi couldn't help but liken George Floyd's death as a human sacrifice to the sick leftist idea of justice, which is really just anything that can be used to continually ignite the emotions of the violent leftist zombie mob and aggrandize the power of the left progressive pols.

I can concur with this rant by Candace Owens on Tucker, she says it all.

opelmanta1900
5 years ago

George Floyd should still be alive today. And while nothing will bring him back or heal the unthinkable pain his killing caused his family and Black Americans everywhere, today’s verdict offers a retribution on toxic masculinity and a ray of light in the fight for racial justice.

HockeyDad wrote:


I actually agree with this, but you forgot your sarcasm emoji...
teedubbya
5 years ago
Was thinking same thing. Thought is was a trap LOL
fiddler898
5 years ago

That video should not have been allowed in court, as it is very prejudicial...

izonfire wrote:



The technical name for this is "evidence."
izonfire
5 years ago

The technical name for this is "evidence."

fiddler898 wrote:


Yes, “prejudicial evidence” specifically.

As in,
clearly showing manslaughter at the very least...
teedubbya
Users browsing this topic