George Floyd

Derek Chauvin Receives a 22.5-Year Sentence for Killing George Floyd

A jury convicted the former Minneapolis police officer of murder and manslaughter in April, nearly a year after Floyd's death set off nationwide protests.

|

A Minnesota judge today sentenced former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin to 22.5 years in prison for killing George Floyd on May 25, 2020, an incident that provoked nationwide protests and calls for reform. The 270-month prison term is 10 years longer than the presumptive sentence for the most serious charge against Chauvin. Prosecutors had asked for 30 years, while the defense had recommended probation.

On April 20, a jury convicted Chauvin of second-degree manslaughter, third-degree murder, and unintentional second-degree murder. The maximum punishment for that last charge, which was the most serious count against Chauvin, is 40 years in prison. But the range recommended by Minnesota's sentencing guidelines is 128 to 180 months, with a presumptive sentence of 150 months, or 12.5 years. In a June 2 memorandum and at today's hearing, the prosecution told Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill an upward departure from that range was appropriate in light of four "aggravating factors" that Cahill recognized in a post-trial ruling on May 11:

1. Cahill found that Chauvin "abused a position of trust and authority" by using excessive force against Floyd while assisting Officers J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane, who had arrested Floyd for using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes. Chauvin knelt on Floyd's neck and back, keeping the handcuffed man pinned facedown to the street for nine and a half minutes, even after Floyd repeatedly complained that he was having trouble breathing, even after bystanders warned that Floyd's life was in danger, even after Lane repeatedly suggested that Floyd should be rolled onto his side, even after Floyd stopped talking and became unresponsive, and even after Kueng twice reported that he could not find a pulse.

2. Cahill found that Chauvin treated Floyd "with particular cruelty." The judge said "it was particularly cruel to kill George Floyd slowly by [impeding] his ability to breathe when Mr. Floyd had already made it  clear he was having trouble breathing." Although "Floyd was begging for his life and obviously terrified by the knowledge that he was likely to die," Cahill said, Chauvin "objectively remained indifferent to Mr. Floyd's pleas."

3. "Children were present during the commission of the offense," Cahill noted. The witnesses included three 17-year-olds and a 9-year-old.

4. Chauvin "committed the crime as a group with the active participation of at least three other persons," Cahill found. Lane and Keung helped restrain Floyd, while Officer Tou Thao held back the bystanders, preventing them from intervening.

Given these factors, the prosecution told Cahill, a 30-year sentence—twice as long as the upper end of the recommended range—was appropriate. "This is not the typical second-degree unintentional murder," Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Matthew Frank said. "This is egregious."

In a June 2 memorandum, Chauvin's lawyer, Eric Nelson, argued that his client was "amenable to probation" because of his age (45), his lack of a prior criminal record, his "history of service" as a Minneapolis police officer for 19 years, his "level of cooperation and attitude in court," and his support from friends and relatives. Alternatively, Nelson said, Cahill should consider a prison sentence shorter than the bottom end of the recommended range.

Nelson's attempt to minimize the seriousness of Chauvin's crime was pretty unpersuasive. "Mr. Chauvin was unaware that he was even committing a crime," he wrote. "In fact, in his mind, he was simply performing his lawful duty in assisting other officers in the arrest of George Floyd….Mr. Chauvin's offense is best described as an error made in good faith reliance [on] his own experience as a police officer and the training he had received—not intentional commission of an illegal act."

But as multiple prosecution witnesses, including the chief of police, testified, Chauvin's prolonged prone restraint of Floyd was not consistent with department policy or "the training [Chauvin] had received." As Cahill noted, Chauvin knew about the risk of positional asphyxia from his "training and experience," and the neck restraint he used "was not a technique that was part of any training by the Minneapolis Police Department and was not an authorized use of force."

Cahill found that Chauvin knelt on Floyd "for an inordinate amount of time," causing a slow death that magnified the cruelty of the assault. In Nelson's view, by contrast, "the assault of Mr. Floyd occurred in the course of a very short time." He said it "involved no threats or taunting," and "there is no evidence that the assault perpetrated by Mr. Chauvin against Mr. Floyd involved a gratuitous infliction of pain or cruelty not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question."

Nelson did not reiterate those arguments at today's hearing. Instead he suggested that "mitigating factors" counterbalanced the "aggravating factors," implying that the sentence should be close to the presumptive term of 12.5 years. Chauvin himself spoke briefly, offering condolences to Floyd's family without mentioning anything that could be seen as a mitigating factor.

Cahill said his decision, which he explained in a 22-page memorandum, was not based on emotion, sympathy, public opinion, or a desire to "send a message." Rather, he said, the upward departure was based on two of the aggravating factors: Chauvin's abuse of trust and the "particular cruelty" of his crime.

Cahill rejected Nelson's argument that invoking the "position of trust" factor against Chauvin was inappropriate. Chauvin "claims that there is 'no case law in Minnesota, precedential or otherwise, in which a peace officer's position' has triggered the application of this aggravating factor," Cahill writes. "While perhaps true, that observation is unsurprising precisely because successful prosecutions of police officers in Minnesota have been so rare; research has not disclosed any prior Minnesota cases in which a police officer was convicted of murder and the State sought an upward sentencing departure." Cahill also rejected Nelson's suggestion that a lack of "threats or taunting" meant Chauvin's assault on Floyd was not "particularly cruel" and Nelson's description of the assault as lasting "a very short time."

Both of those factors, Cahill says, provide "substantial and compelling reasons" for imposing a sentence above the recommended range. But he said he did not consider the presence of children in crafting the sentence, because they were free to leave the scene, were not directly injured, and had not experienced adequately documented psychological trauma.

Cahill also did not consider the three other officers' participation in Chauvin's crime. Noting that the sentencing guidelines refer to other "offenders," he concludes that not enough evidence was presented during Chauvin's trial to apply that label to Kueng, Lane, and Thao.

[This post has been updated with material from Cahill's sentencing memorandum.]

NEXT: Chinese Officials Are Obscuring the Truth About COVID-19

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How exciting.

    1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings A are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…..VISIT HERE

  2. “…a jury convicted Chauvin of second-degree manslaughter, third-degree murder, and unintentional second-degree murder.”

    Convictions for three different types of unlawful killing for one perpetrator and one victim seems incoherent.

    1. Welcome to the the American “justice” system.

      1. Please note that it is a ‘criminal’ justice system, not a “justice system”.

    2. Political prosecutions don’t have rules.

    3. It’s possible one or more of them could be rolled into another as a lesser included charge, but it’s possible for one act to break more than one law, or be a component of more than one crime.

      For example. Say someone breaks a window, climbs into a house, and steals something. Breaking the window could be related to both vandalism, breaking and entering, and burglary.

      Likewise, the perhaps more strained logic here is that the death was a component of more than one crime. Perhaps under logic as follows:
      An assault (knee on the neck) that led to unintentional death (second degree murder)
      Committing an eminently dangerous act (placing Floyd in a position likely to cause asphyxia) with reckless disregard for human life leading to death (third degree murder)
      Criminally negligent behavior (unreasonable force after he was subdued, failure to render aid when he became unresponsive, etc) causing death (manslaughter)

      I could see the manslaughter being rolled into the 3rd degree murder, or even the third degree murder being rolled into the second degree murder, but I at least see the logic behind multiple charges.

      1. Can you murder someone maliciously while doing it negligently?

        1. Read a few of the more recent rulings of the US supreme court, and you will realize Humpty Dumpty was right about what words mean.

          1. Robert definitely belongs in the next adaptation of Alice.

            Still recommend the annotated alice in wonderland to people to get the metaphors.

        2. “malicious” wasn’t a component of any of the charges. There was “assault” “reckless disregard” and “negligent” in my post. I think you can have an act where someone is negligent, shows reckless disregard, and assaults someone.

          Like i said, it wouldn’t surprise me if one or more of these gets rolled into a lesser included charge, but I can at least see the argument for separate charges.

          1. Negligence implies an action was not intentional, but had disregard for someone’s well being. Assault suggests an intentional act meant to harm another through some form of physical behavior.

            Using state trained tactics as every prosecution witness actually agreed with should not constitute and assaults especially when distracted by a crowd of protesters seemingly agitated.

            Likewise negligence requires the assault to have caused the death. The prosecution presented 3 different versions of how Floyd died while denying the fourth, drugs, contributed. The prosecutions own line of theory introduced reasonable doubt as they didn’t even argue one single cause of death. They switched from blood choke to asphyxiation on a whim. They ignored lethal levels of drugs and prior arrest where Floyd also invested drugs prior to arrest to attempt being taken to a hospital. Neglect when the police called the paramedics who were delayed due to the crowd is also quite a strange form of neglect, especially when Floyd himself asked to remain in the prone position.

            1. I think its weird they don’t see the drugs as a serious cause of Floyd’s death, meaning Chauvin was at worst negligent only.

      2. Just because multiple crimes can be applied does it seem reasonable that the prosecutor should pursue all of them rather than picking the most appropriate for the case at hand?

        1. I can understand them as a choice.
          Murder 2, Murder 3, or Manslaughter 2. Pick which one.

          On the other hand, convicting of all essentially is the same as a conviction on just the Murder 2 charge, so it’s mostly pedantic.

      3. The same logic says you can be charged with 100 counts of theft by stealing one bag of jellybeans. Each one gets you the maximum, served consecutively, so you get a life sentence. Justice is never served by piling on or finding an explanation that somehow gets you to a predefined retribution goal.

        This outcome however can be explained by both the judge and DA not wanting to have their house burned to the ground or potentially looking to cash in politically. Neither of which has anything to do with justice.

        1. Multiple charges should only be allowed if there are two separate actions with different purposes and outcomes. Yes a man should be able to be charged with rape and murder or 3 counts of murder when there are three deaths. But are we really going to start piling on by charging the perpetrator with a new and separate act for each time he stabbed the victim?

          If we are going down that road, there are likely few crimes committed that don’t have at least 5-10 others that we can find. Yeah he killed him but he also broke a window, trespassed, brandished a weapon, assaulted the victim, fled the scene of a crime, lied to the police, and obstructed justice. Probably a few more if I thought about it.

    4. Prosecutors need to eat, too.

    5. Hahahahahahahaha! They can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Vote for looters, get force-initiating murdering cops, whine, repeat.

    6. a rigged trial and mockery of justice.

      1. Yes, the prosecutor and judge were likely operating on either personal fear of reprisal if they didn’t go overboard or using it as a foundation for imminent political gain.

  3. Sentence likely to get reduced once appeals court gets a hold of it and Ellison can’t buy off the judge and jury.

    1. No one in this country is going to sacrifice their career not to mention the lives of themselves and their family making any adjustment to this debacle.

      1. And that is why an appeal is necessary. A jury cannot perform their duties with a lynch mob at the door that will turn on them if they don’t come back with the “right” decision.

        It doesn’t matter if the lynch mob is wearing white robes or black hoodies. The result is the same

        1. Well said…totally agree.
          Not to mention that a juror totally lied to the Court to get on the jury and was bent on a conviction. This was cause for an immediate mistrial.

          1. Observing right-wing racists whining about accountability for an abusive police officer makes me confident our society continues to improve.

            1. Could you please inform us when and where a fair trial should be allowed you fascist creep?

  4. But how long will Democrats be able to “milk” George Fentanyl’s death for political points with the African American community?

    1. They’re building fucking statues of this newly anointed saint.

      1. I want to see a statue of him pistol-whipping a pregnant woman.

    2. No worries, blacks commit about half of the violent in crime in this country despite comprising 13% of the population. One of them will be shot during the commission of a crime sometime between now and Cameltoe Harris’s reelection bid.

      1. when will you idiots stop saying number of blacks are 13% and commit 50% of crime. black males from 15 to 45 do all the crime and they might be 4% of the population

        1. You seem to be the idiot. All crime in America isn’t black males 15-45. You are the moron that commented “do all the crime”

          1. hey aztec I replied to the person that said blacks 13% and do 50% of crime mind your own business

            1. OR… Perhaps you should have minded your own business. Obviously you’re not intelligent enough to understand how comments work or form a proper sentence, much less a citation for your refutation, so I don’t expect you’ll last long around here.

        2. Honestly, how stupid do you have to be to call people idiots and then agree with them. Yes, junior, black males who commit those crimes make up a lot less than 13%, but that’s not what was said. Not things can be true. Blacks DO make up 13% of the population and FO commit 50% of the crime. You’re the idiot for then assuming that someone is claiming all of that 13% commits 50% of the crime. Idiot indeed.

      2. This is an oft repeated fallacy that was true many years ago but has not been stopped being repeated by certain people every chance they get. According to the FBI, in 2019, the most recent year were full statistics are available “White individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race and accounted for 59.1 percent of those arrests.” Just using the most recent DOJ statistics on convictions while it is true black make up the majority (about 51%) of conviction for murder and manslaughter and also robbery (52%), it is NOT true when all violent crime is taken into account. Whites lead convictions in Rape (69%), sexual offense other than rape or prostitution (74%), Aggravated Assault (61%) and Violent arson (59%).

        1. How many arrests are made for the gang shootings in chicago?

          1. You don’t arrest your own.

        2. Understand what per capita means. Of course whites in the USA commit more crime as a whole, they are the dominant population.

          1. Yes and the person I was responding to said otherwise. What is your point? If you are sitting on some revelatory numbers share them with the class. Don’t just give me vague “but per capita” lip service.

            1. On the other hand why did you choose arrests when it is only a subset for crime?

              1. What do you mean by “subset”? What more reliable way do you know of determining who is committing crimes? I understand arrest don’t always equate to guilt but considering the vagaries of the justice system in regard to who does and doesn’t get charges pressed and who does or doesn’t cut deals, arrests are a better indicator for who is committing crimes as opposed to convictions.

                1. The fbi and local departments also report on number of criminal reports.

                  So you have to balance fake accusations of crime against neighborhoods that don’t talk to officers woth fewer reports.

                  Arrests is just a bad metric in general. Look at number of unsolved murder cases.

                  1. Listen now you are entering the realm of supposition. Arrests are the best way we have of quantifying and understanding crime statistically. I am not making the argument it is absolutely flawless but until you can provide a viable alternative it is the way it is done. “what about what we DON’T know” is not an argument that invalidates these numbers. Your like a person who questions every poll because nobody called you or anybody you know. Lack of totality is not a point of invalidation in statistical analysis.

                    1. Arrests are not the best way to measure crime, criminal reports are.

                      Again, what do you actually think the percent of arrests to homicides is?

                      When considering clearances of violent crimes, 61.6 percent of murder offenses, 53.3 percent of aggravated assault offenses, 34.5 percent of rape offenses, and 29.7 percent of robbery offenses were cleared.

                      Among property crimes, 19.2 percent of larceny-theft offenses, 13.7 percent of motor vehicle theft offenses, and 13.5 percent of burglary offenses were cleared.

                      In 2017, 21.7 percent of arson offenses were cleared by arrest or exceptional means.

                      https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/clearances

                  2. Yeah I get it. What you are not getting is people who aren’t arrested cannot be classified as criminals. This whole conversation is about people bandying about “facts” about what ratio of offenders are black. Well what is the best way to quantify that? THE BEST WAY. Not an absolute way. My way of using arrests numbers is an accepted way used by most statisticians. Your way would involving the supposition of who did or didn’t get away with it. What their races MIGHT have been. How do you quantify a murderer who is never caught, never charged, never given due process? Using arrest numbers offers us the BEST, WORKABLE, method of obtaining some idea of those numbers. It is the mid ground between criminal reports on the one hand, which have at best only SUSPECTS, if that, and convictions or pleas on the other which involve a myriad of complications involving fairness of the jury system and DA’s office.

            2. No, they did not say otherwise.

        3. Good points. However, crimes like rape notoriously suffer from underreporting. Criminologists generally treat homicides as most reliable indicator of violent crime overall.

          1. I’d love to know what you base that assertion on. I don’t even know what you mean by “reliable indicator of violent crime”. What exactly is the homicide rate indicating in regards to violent crime? I mean since the FBI and DOJ make it clear violent crime is a large category that encompasses many violent acts, what source are you using when you state homicide is the most relevant to criminologists? Statistically speaking the most often committed act which is defined as a violent crime would be the best bellwether in regards to frequency of overall violent crime committed by race in this country. In that case according to FBI statistics it would be aggravated assaults and assaults listed as “other assaults”. There was almost 8000 arrests made for murder in 2019 compared to 274,000 for aggravated assault and 703,000 for “other assaults”. That’s close to a million instances of arrests for violent crime. THAT would seem to be the most statistically relevant place to start if your goal is determining which race has the higher amount of criminal violence. For aggravated assault whites represent 61% of arrests vs 33 for blacks. For “other assaults” whites are 64% vs 31%. That’s 617,000 white arrests vs 308,000 black arrests. And once again that does not include all other types of violent crimes which whites also lead in. BTW as a sidenote these numbers run parallel to overall criminal arrests for ALL offenses with white representing 69% and black 26%. For the record I am a white man who has no ideological dog in this fight. It means little to me in that it doesn’t affect my life in any meaningful way. I am however a stickler for reality over perception. Using the best data available to us is how intelligent people make reasonable determinations. The numbers simply don’t bear out the idea that blacks are the primary perpetrators of violent crime in this country. Murder yes, and perhaps they have a higher INCIDENCE overall for their population but that is very different than saying ” blacks commit about half of the violent in crime in this country” which is the original post i was challenging. Thank you for your time,lol.

            1. The data you cite are only as good as the reporting behind them. If the proportion of unreported rapes is much higher than proportion of unreported homicides, then the official rape statistics are that much less reliable.

              Rape is easy to miss: unless victim comes forward the crime is not recorded. Homicide is much harder to conceal insofar as dead bodies are hard to conceal; they don’t depend on victims coming forward on their own. So if you want to determine racial breakdown of violent crime overall that is a factor to consider.

              1. Sigh. We are talking in circles. YOU CAN’T CONSIDER THE UKNOWN.
                Trying to take into account information not available leads to supposition which inevitably is tainted by the opinions of the person doing the supposing. The numbers may not be a complete picture but it is the BEST AVAILABLE one we have. To stray away from data into “what if this” and “what about that” is to invite the imagination to fill in the blanks in a way the best suits the arguments we are each a predisposed to make. When your argument boils down to “what about what we DON’T know” you are staring to veer into self fulfilling thinking. Then you are one step and 3 youtube videos away from finding a conspiracy.

                1. Well none of the data shown contradict the observation that blacks commit violent crimes out of proportion to their share of the population. It’s certainly possible whites commit an absolute majority of all violent crime but it’s certainly curious that the most reliable statistic, the murder rate, gives blacks an absolute majority, although they are just 12% of the population.

        4. Also note that the de-policing policies of the last year have resulted in many departments are not enforcing the laws against blacks. This is evidenced by the massive increase in violent crime in lib cities. But it’s a small price to pay for having equity in arrest statistics.

          1. True. Arrest rates in urban areas have gone down while reporting crimes has gone up. Of course this won’t last forever. When reporting crime doesn’t produce results, the reporting rates tend to drop, and this is mistaken for success at a government level.

        5. Fun fact: in North Carolina at least Hispanics are counted as white.

          1. Many places are starting to modernize this because it’s very difficult to separate people by race when you can’t separate them race. Non-Hispanic or Hispanic White is the new politically correct designation.

    3. Long enough. Christian National Socialists exploited Ernst Eduard vom Rath’s death long enough to pass Kristalnacht laws and send murderers out to disarm the selfish. After that they laughed all the way to the camps singing the Horse Wessel Die. There was nobody to stop the looters altruist voters had elected. Most voters get what they asked for and deserve.

  5. Fine, give the Democrats what they want and stop enforcing the law in their cities. The additions basically mean arresting people in public is off the table and if they resist (real resistance) then it’s off to jail for doing the job demanded.

    Let them have their Lord of the Flies utopia, just be sure to seal them off so the Dems cannot escape the consequences of their policy demands.

    Floyd died of a self inflicted OD but you wanted your pound of flesh, here’s hoping it comes with a river of blood to wash it down.

    1. I want them to stop enforcing laws in the hood in fact they should be leaving crates of ammo on street corners

    2. Arresting people is not the same as killing them. Also Floyd’s death was ruled a homicide.

      1. Overlooking the threats to the city and jurors if that didn’t happen aren’t you. Gotta love marxists and their witch-hunt and show trials.

        1. And you’re overlooking the fact that elsewhere juries routinely exonerate crooked cops. It’s sad that it takes national campaign of outrage to ensure justice in one case.

          1. How many of those have daily riots directly tied to the case at hand? In almost every case a violent mob was whipped up against a court case the jury mysteriously sided with the mob. Shocking.

            1. Jason Shockley and Darren Wilson were both exonerated in the St Louis area despite riotous mobs, particularly in Wilson’s case. And that’s just off the top of my head.
              I’m guessing riotous mobs have little to nothing to do with criminal convictions/exonerations. I suspect you already know that, too.

      2. Literally on record saying it would have been ruled an overdose death.

  6. >>”This is not the typical second-degree unintentional murder,” Frank said. “This is egregious.”

    lol typical murder … grandma was a typical white woman

    1. Much like the designation between ordinary 1st degree murder and hate crime 1st degree murder, the latter being worse because the victim also had hurt feelings.

  7. Cahill said his decision was not based on emotion, sympathy, public opinion, or a desire to “send a message,”

    Okay, we all know that’s a lie.

    1. It won’t even send a message. This prosecution let alone conviction was an outlier and police know it.

      1. Abusive police officers are going to change their behavior, one way or another, as better elements of our society increasingly impose accountability on authoritarian jerks with badges and guns.

        I would prefer they be terminated and required to try to find a decent livelihood, but if they wish to improve their performance and keep their jobs, that’s also acceptable progress.

        1. “I would prefer they be terminated and required to try to find a decent livelihood”

          Hey fascist dipshit, you’re making a mistake. I know you are a left fascist, but you still need the police. Actually, in a healthy society, police is your only hope to be protected when you spew your authoritarian drivel.

          1. He will likely be killed by antifa, BLM, or some other radical group. His kind tend to eat their own.

      2. It is an outlier and, as such, will be corrected in appeals court. The blue marxist whining will be exquisite.

    2. So he’s saying it was for his own political motives?

      His statement rings as true as every criminal ever saying they are innocent. If it was to satisfy a public demand, he sure as hell isn’t going to admit it.

  8. 22.5 years of getting bumholed should teach Chauvin a lesson.

    1. He’s really Debbie Chauvin?

  9. If a sentence is 25 years that is both a run-on sentence for sure and the longest filibuster ever.

    1. It appears you don’t understand grammar or punctuation.

      1. Poe’s law, dude.

      2. It appears you are an irrelevant authority.

      3. It appears you don’t understand English.

  10. Everyone who owns a business with a window is relieved at this.

    1. And will quickly put up a poster in that window saying “Workers of the world, unite!”

  11. Has the mob started collecting their reparations at the local Tarzhey? Assuming there is still one standing.

  12. Just ask yourself this question, forget cops, forget blacks.

    Suppose your neighbor came over, got into an altercation with your Dad, he put his knee on your Dad’s neck, your Dad repeatedly says, “I can’t breathe” then your Dad dies, what would you feel would be an appropriate sentence? Or would you just let your neighbor off the hook?

    If I were in that position, I would be satisfied with a sentence of 8 yrs. or so.

    1. Thought the knee was on the back and not the neck. And your dad would have ingested a lethal dose of a controlled substance beforehand.

      1. But the prosecution medical witness said cigarettes and drugs don’t effect the heart….

      2. Floyd was found to have 11 ng/ml fentanyl in his system. I’m seeing typical postmorten substance abuse OD death blood concentration at 26.4 ng/ml.

        I think you got some bad info on that one.

        1. Here’s an actual review. Numerous studies show that even less than 1 ng/ml can be fatal, and that fatalities are quite common under 10 ng/ml. I think you got some bad info on that one.

          1. Note that “typical concentration” is meaningless in establishing the fatal concentration. For instance, if your morgue had 9 people who die at 1 ng/ml and 1 who died at 91 ng/ml, that’s an average fatal concentration of 10 ng/ml. Yet the data actually suggest that the LD50 is below 1 ng/ml, since 90% of people who had 1 ng/ml in their blood actually passed away.

          2. That paper is about drugs “that are much more potent, and dangerous, than fentanyl itself.”

            I think we should be looking at studies about fentanyl itself, no?

            1. You can read the medical examiners report the prosecution attempted to supress…

              The lethal dose of fentanyl is generally stated to be 2 milligrams. This lethal dose considers that the individual has not developed significant tolerance; however, even in individuals with significant tolerance, the lethal dose of fentanyl is extremely small compared to the potential lethal doses of many other opiate drugs.

              Likewise Floyd had more drugs in his system than just Fentanyl. He also had various uppers including meth. Of course as the prosecution medical doctor said, we know drugs have no effect on the heart…

              1. Multi drug use lowers the lethal dose for fentanyl. Per NIH and the CDC.

                1. Okay, gonna call bullshit unless you have a link.

                  Because Floyd’s lungs were 3x normal weight per the medical report which is consistent with a fentanyl OD where the lungs fill with fluid.

                  1. It is in the lethal dose data. It trends towards single digit ng/ml when other drugs are present.

                  2. He’s agreeing with you.

                    He’s saying that taking multiple substances lowers the level at which fentanyl becomes lethal, not that taking multiple drugs reduces the lethality of fentanyl.

                    I.e., if a “typical” lethal dose were 10 ng/ml, then taking fentanyl and methamphetamine simultaneously might lower the level at which fentanyl becomes fatal to 5 ng/ml. (Those numbers are expressly only for demonstration purposes, they are not the actual numbers.)

                    1. Yup. That part seems to have been missed both here and in the testimony.

              2. Here was the toxicology:

                Fentanyl 11 ng/mL
                Norfentanyl 5.6 ng/mL
                4-ANPP 0.65 ng/mL
                Methamphetamine 19 ng/mL
                Various types of THC: 11-Hydroxy Delta-9 THC 1.2 ng/mL; Delta-9 Carboxy THC 42 ng/mL; Delta-9 THC 2.9 ng/mL
                Cotinine positive
                Caffeine positive

              3. You armchair experts are just amazing.

                1. None of them claimed expertise. They’re just posting data.

            2. Did you read the paper? It directly talks about Fentanyl and it’s lethal concentrations.

              1. Well I suppose googling something outweighs the opinions of the medical examiner, two forensic pathologists, the toxicologist, the top critical care and pulmonary medicine doctor in the country, and the top cardiologist at Northwestern University. They all said the same thing.

                1. Did the public school system teach you to be such a perfect mouthpiece for authority?

                  A lobotomy would be more efficient.

                2. The difference is that the medical examiner et al had a direct incentive to make a certain statement, whereas the fentanyl study outside the context of the Floyd affair was likely more dispassionate.

      3. Don’t forget that Dad was saying “I can’t breathe” before the neighbor started kneeling on him, and that the neighbor had the rescue squad summoned to treat Dad.

        1. Floyd was dead by the time he got there and he kept him prone and with the knee until they got there. He knew that Floyd was unconscious, pulseless and not moving. Procedure would have been to place him in rescue position or supine as he had no pulse and render aid. An off duty EMT in the crowd begged him to let her help and he ignored her.

          This was an act of unquestionable cruelty and outright murder.

          1. I get you’re a lying leftist but you realize people lie so a random bystander cannot be trusted. The mob of onlookers constantly attempting to interfere with the arrest delayed the EMS team on-site from doing their job, but you can only lay blame on the man doing his job. Time to give you leftists what you demand and let it all burn to the ground.

            1. Oh when did this happen? That onlookers

              “delayed the EMS team on-site from doing their job”

              I have watched the entire thing and the trial. Can you provide evidence of this?

    2. Is my dad on lethal amounts of fentanyl with a history of swallowing drugs in prior arrests?

    3. It must be nice to construct a hypothetical that ignores all of the inconvenient legal facts. Was my dad high on fentanyl and meth? Was he already repeatedly saying “I can’t breathe” long before going to the ground? Did the neighbor treat him calmly until he started behaving extremely erratically and showing signs of excited delirium? Did he request to be put on the ground? Did he outweigh my neighbor by 100 pounds? If so, I’d say there’s a very strong case that my neighbor didn’t commit manslaughter, let alone murder.

      The comment about race is incredibly galling. You are the one who brought race into the conversation. There is not a shred of evidence that Floyd’s death was racially motivated. If it had been, hate crime charges would have been filed. They weren’t. It is disgusting to hint that those who disagree with you must be thinking in terms of race.

      1. The record indicated Officer Chauvin was an authoritarian disgrace long before he encountered George Floyd, and Chauvin would have deserved a stout prison term regardless of the race of the man he killed.

        Those defending him here are just disaffected, anti-social malcontents, mostly with a strong dose of racism.

        1. There’s a difference between exonerating the man and saying that there are mitigating circumstances that make this not a case where someone gets a sentence that exceeds many first degree murder sentences and is significantly longer than the average time served for that crime [17.3 years].

          There is also a serious due process problem with a State that allows 3 separate murder convictions for the same death. If they can’t make the conviction on a 1st degree murder charge, it’s dubious law that allows a zealous prosecutor to get the same or better by charging him with 3 murders on a different scale. It’s got nothing to do with race, though I can see why you take this easy out. You bring nothing else.

          1. You can be charged for more than one felony in the same act. However because they are the same act you can only be sentenced for one, the greater charge. So you can’t have them served consecutively. Which is what happened.

            They bring all three because if say he were found not guilty on the greater charge you could still get a conviction on one of the others.

            It happens all the time. Notice how his defense never brought it up. They are not ignorant. Where they will try to appeal is by claiming jury bias or some procedural technicality.

            1. You armchair experts are just amazing.

          2. Thank you for the post. Though you are arguing with a gleeful authoritarian. But I’m sure you know that.

    4. Kill my dad in my house and you aren’t making it to trial.

  13. chauvin and the other 3 cops mishandled the whole godamn affair. he was cuffed in the car how th fuck did he get out with 4 cops there. then chauvin has his knee on him that looked like it was on his neck for a long time with the crowd screaming at him. so I say fuck him being 45 cities burned 50 killed billions in damage and now we are forced to worship blacks. I hope they do him in while he is in jail

    1. He got out because he was going nuts in the back of the vehicle, they took him out of the car so he wouldn’t cause any damage to the vehicle or himself. No way Chauvin should have been knee to neck that long, there were other options with other officers available.

      1. “No way Chauvin should have been knee to neck that long, ”

        Along with the fact that Chauvin was notified by a fellow officer that Floyd no longer had a pulse……and yet he kept his knee there.

    2. Everything that happened after is due to progs. We need to get rid of them.

  14. If you support the police officer foes that make you a Chauvinist?

    1. 🙂

    1. Would you also exclude from jury duty anyone who contributed to a police organization, bought a meal for a police officer, or publicly thanked a police officer ‘for your service,’ you bigoted hayseed?

      1. No but I might exclude someone who had gone to a March that opposed prosecuting police.

      2. Would you exclude jurors who had marched in Klan rallies in a trial of a white man accused of the murder of a black man? Try thinking past the first thought that enters your head.

        Jurors are supposed to be without bias and there are facts and associations that strongly indicate those bias.

        1. Voir dire should handle that, but didn’t this guy admit to lying to the court about his bias?

  15. 22 years seems about right.

    1. If he lives that long. Some of the brothers may want to even the score.

    2. What are you basing that on?

  16. I don’t dispute that Chauvin should have been punished for this. But how do you get three charges, each of which involves causing the death of another person, for ONE death?

    1. If I’m not mistaken, the sentence is for the most serious offense, which is second-degree murder. I thought third-degree murder (murder with a depraved heart in Minnesota) was the most obvious. That also applies to murder of a fetus (not abortion per se but something like shooting a pregnant woman in her womb or kicking her in the stomach with the intention of making her miscarry–which come to think of it does show a depraved heart).

      1. A depraved heart? He should visit a cardiologist for that. Maybe angioplasty would help.

  17. A travesty of justice which makes the Dreyfus Affair in France seem benign. Mob rule comes to America, jurors lives are threatened if that vote the ‘wrong way’, and this ‘libertarian’ web site cheers it on.

  18. I don’t have a problem with this sentencing. What bothers me is Daniel Shaver’s murderer is free and receiving disability payments. But no one seems to give a shit.

    1. I give a shit. I still feel physically ill when I think back to that video of his execution; those two bloodthirsty pigs barking contradictory orders to a crying, drunk man crawling on all fours begging for his life…

      1. Yeah, I don’t recall rioting and mayhem after that one. That video is a horror movie come to life. It’s so fucked what corporate and social media allow and focus on.

    2. Amen to this.

  19. I can certainly say that the inmates will quickly make it life in prison.

    1. You kidding? The guy is a hero among cops and prison guards. He choked someone to death. Most LEOs and corrections officers dream of having that opportunity. He’ll be getting extra special treatment. Count on it.

      1. Wow, so you’re an expert on the psychology of cops and prison guards now? All that from supposedly sitting next to one in a bar one night and your own many personal encounters. I bet you was always innocent or give no fuss too.

        Some guys always get the sale
        Some guys get lucky in poker
        Some guys always get the hot girl
        Some guys always get picked on by the policeman
        … but ain’t nothing special about them. Just a random universe thing with no causation.

        “Why’s Everybody Always Pickin’ on Me?”

  20. It wouldn’t matter if he got 100 years. There will still be riots.

    1. Free shoes don’t fall out of the sky.

    2. Still waiting for the riots.

      1. They will be mostly peaceful riots

  21. Any (unbiased) person who watched the ENTIRE video – including the career criminal Floyd spastically kicking and thrashing as they try to herd him into the police vehicle all the while foaming at the mouth – understands that this politically motivated show trial presided over a judge who wouldn’t have dared to let in relevant evidence and blew every ruling was complete bullshit. That Reason’s Jacob Sullum would continue to perpetrate yet another political hoax is disgusting.

    1. Sullum’s gotta Sullum.

  22. Witch-Hunting in action. The pitch-fork carrying mob has buried their ‘witch’.

    1. A ‘witch’ caught on video callously squeezing the life out of a man with depraved indifference while he cried for his mother. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure…

      1. As a direct result of resisting arrest.

        1. Let’s be real. Resisting arrest doesn’t warrant execution. Bad argument.

          On the other hand, painting Chauvin as some sort of malicious killer is not even close to accurate.

          1. As-If Chauvin just up and shot him immediately after resisting arrest… Ya know; like what the feds did to Lavoy Finicum. 90% of the supposedly “Execution” was due to natural/health related causes. It’s just like pegging murder charges on a wrestling match at HS.

            1. It sounds like you never watched the video. Chauvin was told by one of his fellow officers that Floyd didn’t have a pulse. A non-sociopath probably would have let up and started CPR. Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd’s neck for 2 minutes after he was informed he had no pulse. There is no excuse for that.

              BTW if Floyd died of natural/health related causes, the cause of death would not be listed as a homicide.

              And what does Lavoy Finicum have to do with this?

              1. And after the called for the paramedics until one of them basically shoved him off.

              2. 1) No pulse isn’t caused by strangulation.
                2) The autopsy says death wasn’t due to strangulation.
                3) 90% of the evidence against Chauvin is a “Cop” prejudice.

                Consider how this would’ve played out if Chauvin was just a H.S. Wrestler who got frustrated at a wrestling match; and pinned his opponent to the mat unconventionally.

                The opponent Floyd (who was on Meth & Fentanyl) while having “severe” multiple heart diagnosis but insisted on ‘signing up’ for a wrestle anyways (picked a street fight).

                Ya; Take the “Prejudice” out and there isn’t any witch-hunting left.

                1. Oh c’mon Tj

                  “No pulse isn’t caused by strangulation.”

                  Cardiac arrest is not caused by hypoxia? This is way before first year medical student. It is common human sense.

                  Let me explain in a way any child can understand. If you can’t breathe you die.

                  The autopsy and medical reviews and testimony all said the same thing. He died of asphyxia, I know that is a big word, he could not get enough air into his lungs. He could not exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide enough to sustain life. He died right in front of us.

                  But how left wing of me to present what anyone can see for themselves. There is no wing here.

                  1. You armchair experts are just amazing.

                  2. Asphyxia happens when your body doesn’t get enough oxygen to keep you from passing out.

                    Oh… So passing out is “no pulse”? Right…………….. /s

                    1. “1) No pulse isn’t caused by strangulation.”

                      What a stupid comment. If you strangle someone, they will ultimately lose their pulse.

                      Aside from that, no explanation was given as to why Chauvin didn’t get up after he was told Floyd didn’t have a pulse.

                      And you still didn’t answer my question about your non sequitur. It’s possible to believe that Finicum was executed just like Floyd was.

                    2. Ironically not a single autopsy examiner listed asphyxia as the cause of death anyways; it was “cardiopulmonary arrest”.

                      Was Floyd requesting assistance from the county sheriffs office?
                      Was Floyd shot at multiple times from 1/2-Mile away?
                      Did officers sit there shoot at Floyd with his hands in the air?

                      Um, No… Actually Floyd wasn’t shot at AT ALL!
                      He resisted arrest / tried to escape the police while putting him in the police car ending up in a wrestling match his health conditions couldn’t handle.

                    3. So you agree that it’s fucking stupid to say “No pulse isn’t caused by strangulation.”?

                      Did the autopsy conclude that Floyd died of an overdose, or was it homicide?

                      As mentioned above, Chauvin was notified that Floyd had no pulse. The only logical reason to keep strangling someone who is comatose is that you want them dead. The prison sentence is warranted.

                    4. To your other point, Finicum was also trying to “escape the police.” He purposefully drove around a checkpoint and kept driving off road while law enforcement vehicles were in pursuit.

                      I’m with you that those pigs had no business shooting Finicum, but it doesn’t make any sense to bring his situation up on this thread.

                      Not sure if you watched “No Man’s Land” – it’s an amazing documentary about that whole standoff. The shooting of Finicum was shown in gut-wrenching detail. Anyway, much of the film is interviews with Bundy, Finicum (before he was shot), and many others involved in the standoff on both sides. Finicum was a strong believer in individual rights and was opposed to State overreach. I’m betting if he was alive he would be glad Chauvin is headed to prison.

                    5. You ignorantly ignore the whole order of events in EVERYTHING…

                      “No Pulse” before enough time passed to be a strangulation.
                      Pinning him down pleading, “Are you going to get into the police car?”
                      After-which he resisted.

                      Do you seriously believe Finicum would propose Floyd have some superpower-right to resist arrest for passing counterfeit money and being high on illegal drugs?? Floyd was a known repeat-offender felon. (another fact you seem to soooooo eagerly dismiss entirely).

                      Finicum resisted ***UN-Constitutional*** arrest by ‘Feds’ (Nazi Governing) and seek-ed out assistance from the PROPER Constitutional law enforcement. In Finicum’s case the ‘Feds’ were the law-breakers.

                    6. Nope, I’m not ignorant of anything. As I said, Chauvin had the opportunity to let up when he was told that Floyd had no pulse. You have not explained why he didn’t (and his defense didn’t either), that’s why he’s sitting in a prison cell. I can only assume it’s because he wanted Floyd dead, but if you know of another reason please fill us in.

                      You really need to watch the documentary, cause it sounds like you’re fucking clueless. Finicum, Bundy, and the crew had an arrest warrant issued by the state police (not the Feds) for their occupation of the Malheur reserve.
                      The state police set up a roadblock. There is no Constitutional right to drive around a roadblock. He chose to drive around it, and kept driving until he hit a snow drift. At that point, he got out of the car and dared the Feds to shoot him. I agree it was an illegal use of force (he wasn’t pointing a gun at anyone and his hands were above his head) but he chose to drive away from law enforcement. You keep mentioning that Floyd chose to resist, but Finicum did as well. Would Finicum be dead if he stopped for the police?

                      I’m not ignoring the fact that FLoyd was a repeat offender. Why is it relevant? If he was a first time offender, you’re saying Chauvin’s actions wouldn’t be OK???? That makes no sense.

                    7. This is getting tiresome and ridiculous…

                      Floyd died of heart failure. There’s a million in a half ‘other’ criminals that would’ve survived that EXACT situation.

                      Finicum died of a Gun-Shot by federal HRT/FBI and was but 1 of most likely 100-fired. The pickup was loaded with bullet holes before it was even close to the road-block. And what was the arrest for when finally taken into custody as explained to the rest of them, “Oh, We really aren’t sure what you got arrested for.” but we’ll use some law from the civil war to peg you with something.

                      Never-mind the ‘Feds’ had no legal jurisdiction to even be there. There was no “hostage” situation. There was no hold-up. That place saw more visitors while they were there than it had seen in the last 10-years.

                      Are you seriously going to pretend that FBI/HRT has the authority to enforce a State Arrest??

      2. Oh so you didn’t watch the trial… “Mama” was a nickname he gave his drugged out girlfriend, that is who he was calling out to…

  23. Meanwhile, the murderer of Ashli Babbit is not only not prosecuted, his very identity is kept hidden. And this faux libertarian website, which is in reality just a mouthpiece of the corrupt and violent state, is fine with that.

    1. Babbit didn’t deserve to die, but she was a traitor.

      1. Right; Traitors usually serve their country for 14-years on the Air Force and National Guard. URFOS.

        1. Wait, so people can’t have a change of heart? Because she served, she can’t later become a traitor, right?

          Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh?

          1. Suuuure; like the definition of a ‘traitor’ is finding 94% Democrat favor in a swing state repulsive enough to protest… UR-Nazified.

            Trespassing =/= Traitor dumb*ss. Hunter Biden working out foreign-favored deals in USA politics with Biden under the tables is a ‘Traitor’.

            1. I didn’t say she was a traitor you halfwit. I only said that your point is fucking stupid – just because someone served in the military doesn’t mean that later in life they can’t be a traitor.
              You didn’t answer my question – doesn’t that line of reasoning apply to Timothy McVeigh.

              1. So let me make sure your completely and utter ‘inferment’ isn’t mistaken this time.. You think Timothy McVeigh is a ‘traitor’ to the USA?

      2. No, YOU are a traitor. She was a trespasser.

  24. Like Floyd saying “I can’t breath” BEFORE Chauvin even knelt over him, indicating a totally separate cause for Floyd’s death, even if asphyxiation was involved. Supposedly 11 nanograms of fentanyl doesn’t qualify as a cause of death even though this is a potentially lethal level. The Oxford Treatment Center for drug recovery lists the following description for fantasy ODs:

    Noticeably slowed or shallow breathing (In some cases, people may stop breathing or produce gurgling noises.)
    A marked reduction in blood pressure and heart rate
    Becoming unconscious or comatose

    1. “even if asphyxiation was involved. ”

      This doesn’t make any sense. It’s legal to strangle someone who took fentanyl??

      “Supposedly 11 nanograms of fentanyl doesn’t qualify as a cause of death even though this is a potentially lethal level. ”
      What do you mean by potentially? And do you understand the concept of tolerance? There are chronic alcoholics who are walking around awake with blood alcohol levels that kill teenage frat members.

      1. How do you strangle someone without pressure to the neck or diaphragm? One way is to lie about other facts and actions until strangulation is the conclusion facts be damned.

    2. Well if there is reasonable doubt that his restraint caused his death that would be one thing. But you’d have to persuade me that the pressure on his neck for nine minutes was truly incidental and that he would have died at the moment in the same way without the restraint. That seems implausible. No one disputes the drugs and his heart condition made him more vulnerable, but that is not what killed him there and then.

      1. His choice to resist arrest also shouldn’t be a disputed factor.

        Seems the plausible thing to conclude is if Floyd hadn’t resisted getting in the police car; he’d still be kicking just fine. In civilized societies Justice isn’t served by picking a street fight with the police.

        Perhaps the restraint was excessive or more likely perhaps the fact that Floyd was 2-Times the size of Chauvin is the very reason it was excessive. The originating factor is STILL resisting arrest so 22-years of prison is still wildly excessive for a restraint used after picking a street fight with law enforcement.

  25. In other news someone defaced the statue of a known convicted felon and drug dealer/drug addict.
    One who died from an overdose of fentanyl.

    1. He didn’t OD on fentanyl.

      1. Oh sorry, fentanyl and meth…

  26. So now we can all get along, right?

  27. I know someone doing 30 to 60 years, with no good time reduction allowed, for writing bad checks. I think that murder is worse than writing bad checks, don’t you?

    1. No you Dont

    2. Ask Bernie Madoff.

    3. Difference;
      That ‘someone’ probably intended (i.e. ‘intent’) to commit a crime.
      Chauvin had no intention of killing Floyd or he would’ve used his gun.

      1. I miss the good-ol-days when ‘intent’ was the basis of our justice system.

  28. Seems like a pretty appropriate sentence. actually. Suffice it to say, this dude is going to have a rough go of it in the joint, and will be lucky to get out in one piece.

  29. In the absence of race politics, Chauvin is not a threat to society, as long as he is barred from future police work. From that standpoint, I would give him a few years and early parole.

    BUt if I were a small business owner and I knew that a mild sentence could touch of rioting and the consequent destruction of my business, I would vote for an extra long period of incarceration. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but that’s the way it is.

    1. The judge explained why he ruled that aggravating factors were present. The prosecution had listed five of them and he agreed with four:

      i) That Mr. Chauvin abused a position of trust and authority;

      (ii) That Mr. Chauvin treated George Floyd with particular cruelty;

      This Court found that the fifth factor urged by the State, that George Floyd was particularly vulnerable, had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

      (iii) That children were present during the commission of the offense; and

      (iv) That Mr. Chauvin committed the crime as a group with the active participation of three other individuals, former Minneapolis Police Officers Thou Thao, Thomas Lane, and J. Alexander Kueng, who all actively participated with Mr. Chauvin in the crime in various ways.

      So he got more than the suggested basic and less than the maximum which is what I expected.

  30. Cops should leave all Blue areas ASAP.

  31. manslaughter yes, murder no

    anyways the Communist Party of China certainly got value for their fentanyl and covid, they must be laughing their asses off at CRT and antifa

  32. George Floyd was a dead man walking with comorbidity health problems on top of an overdose of fentanyl to top them off. He was not strangled and he was breathing, except his COPD was keeping him from getting enough oxygen as witness were saying George was claiming he could not breathe before the police showed up. But no police officer knew about his medical condition. The police officer did not get a fair trial! The social pressure to convict was way over the top and nobody was paying any attention to the evidence.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.