• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minnesota Supreme Court denies Chauvin public defender request

Lutherf said:
The Minnesota Supreme Court went around one of their own precedents to get Noor off the hook. They are a social justice court rather than a Constitutional justice court.
Click to expand...

Noor’s own testimony should have been enough to uphold the conviction. Noor claimed that he shot (whoever was handy?) because his partner looked scared.

Noor testified that they heard a "loud bang" on the police car as they drove through the alley. Harrity screamed at the sound and tried to draw his gun, but it was caught on his holster, and he turned to Noor "with fear in his eyes," Noor said.

Noor said he believed that his partner feared for his life, and he wanted to "stop the threat." Damond was unarmed and holding her iPhone in her hand during the encounter.
Click to expand...

www.buzzfeednews.com

A Former Minneapolis Cop's Murder Conviction In The Killing Of An Australian Woman Has Been Reversed

Mohamed Noor was convicted in 2019 of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Justine Ruszczyk Damond.
www.buzzfeednews.com www.buzzfeednews.com
 
Lutherf said:
He has the right to appeal. That too is part of what used to be justice in the US.
Click to expand...
That's right folks, you'd have us believe Chauvin is the real victim here...
 
Lutherf said:
The guy doesn't deserve justice?

Swell. Let's just toss every legal principle this nation was founded on because we all hate Derek Chauvin. That, sir, is the essence of social justice.
Click to expand...

Hmm… in post #14 didn’t you claim this was the decision of a social justice court?
 
TheParser said:
She said that Mr. Floyd was one of the greatest Americans in the history of this nation.

Some people (for some crazy reason) take their cues from that arrogant individual.

Judges are just ordinary people who do not want to cross powerful figures like Ms. Nancy.

She even interjected herself into the Minnesota case by bragging that if she had been there, she would have pulled the cop off Mr. Floyd.
Click to expand...

I asked you to prove she had anything to do with this decision. Let's see it.
 
Lutherf said:
Yes, I think he's getting unfair treatment. It's pure stupidity to determine that the one asset he can use to pay the fines for the crimes he has already been convicted of also be considered an asset for the purpose of financial ability to pay an attorney.
Click to expand...
You know, I'd bet they've denied such request for people with fewer assets (even granting that Chauvin doesn't have his retirement account). This is one consequence of insufficient social spending, at all levels, over several decades...
 
Lutherf said:
https://kstp.com/news/minnesota-sup...hauvin-public-defender-request/6261995/?cat=1



So, going back to an earlier article, it seems that the court decided that Chauvin's retirement account provides him sufficient resources to retain an attorney. However, that retirement account is the only asset he can use to pay the fines tied to his conviction and if he pays an attorney then he can't pay the fines.

This guy is just getting ****ed every which way.
Click to expand...

shouldn't everybody get a public defender, regardless of whether they can pay? I suspect there is other issues at play. that article was a bit vague.

but I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with this being an appeal? He had his trial and lost, so why should the tax money pay for an appeal, he had his representation?
 
Lutherf said:
The guy doesn't deserve justice?

Swell. Let's just toss every legal principle this nation was founded on because we all hate Derek Chauvin. That, sir, is the essence of social justice.
Click to expand...

He is being treated like any other convicted criminal.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Trumpsters defend Chauvin because as they say Floyd didn't listen to the cops instructions..

Trumper Babbitt is killed for not listening to police on 1/6/2121 and Trumpsters are still in mourning.

Trumpsters are traitors. Phony, hypocrites, and lying traitors...
Click to expand...
I think that can be said of every single topic, because they are always hypocrites. Like someone whining Biden is politicizing DOJ by looking into harrassment of school boards, and saying that after 4 years of actual proven examples of Trump actually politicizing the DOJ. Seriously, who the F do these people think they are kidding?
 
Lutherf said:
The guy doesn't deserve justice?

Swell. Let's just toss every legal principle this nation was founded on because we all hate Derek Chauvin. That, sir, is the essence of social justice.
Click to expand...

He got justice already.

This nation wasn't founded on the principle that convicted murderers with million-dollar pensions should get free representation.
 
Lutherf said:
Yes, I think he's getting unfair treatment. It's pure stupidity to determine that the one asset he can use to pay the fines for the crimes he has already been convicted of also be considered an asset for the purpose of financial ability to pay an attorney.
Click to expand...
It's an appeal. If he wins, no fines.
 
Lutherf said:
https://kstp.com/news/minnesota-sup...hauvin-public-defender-request/6261995/?cat=1



So, going back to an earlier article, it seems that the court decided that Chauvin's retirement account provides him sufficient resources to retain an attorney. However, that retirement account is the only asset he can use to pay the fines tied to his conviction and if he pays an attorney then he can't pay the fines.

This guy is just getting ****ed every which way.
Click to expand...
Not sure if he is being treated differently than anyone else or not, nor am I sure why he would care about paying a fine more than his own representation.
 
Michael Cole said:
It's an appeal. If he wins, no fines.
Click to expand...
The account should, at this point, be held in escrow for the benefit of the parties entitled to it by the conviction. Chauvin should have no access to that account at this time.
 
Lutherf said:
The account should, at this point, be held in escrow for the benefit of the parties entitled to it by the conviction. Chauvin should have no access to that account at this time.
Click to expand...
I don't think the law works that way. Pending appeal, I believe he has access to all his funds.
 
Lutherf said:
Yes, I think he's getting unfair treatment. It's pure stupidity to determine that the one asset he can use to pay the fines for the crimes he has already been convicted of also be considered an asset for the purpose of financial ability to pay an attorney.
Click to expand...
The court knows he will likely never pay the fines. When a guy is looking at spending most of the rest of his adult life behind bars, he ain't going to pay any fines. He doesn't need the money for jail. So he can hire a lawyer just like anyone else.

He has no chance on appeal anyway. So who the hell cares about his personal finances. He's an effing murderer and deserves to suffer in any way possible.
 
Why does he need a lawyer now? He had one for his trial. The constitutional requirement has been met.
 
The AntiDonald said:
The court knows he will likely never pay the fines. When a guy is looking at spending most of the rest of his adult life behind bars, he ain't going to pay any fines. He doesn't need the money for jail. So he can hire a lawyer just like anyone else.

He has no chance on appeal anyway. So who the hell cares about his personal finances. He's an effing murderer and deserves to suffer in any way possible.
Click to expand...
OK. Then let's say that he loses on appeal, how does he pay the fines that were required?
 
The AntiDonald said:
The court knows he will likely never pay the fines. When a guy is looking at spending most of the rest of his adult life behind bars, he ain't going to pay any fines. He doesn't need the money for jail. So he can hire a lawyer just like anyone else.

He has no chance on appeal anyway. So who the hell cares about his personal finances. He's an effing murderer and deserves to suffer in any way possible.
Click to expand...
I think he knows that which would explain why he doesnt want to spend his own money on his defense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom