Talk:Trial of Derek Chauvin

Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below. Copied Derek Chauvin (history) → [[]] Copied Killing of George Floyd (history) → [[]]

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Black Lives Matter C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article was created or improved during WikiProject Black Lives Matter's Q1 2021 edit-a-thon. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Minnesota C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Not sure if an attribution template is needed or not, but this article seems to be based on:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Chauvin&diff=prev&oldid=1014963500
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_George_Floyd&diff=prev&oldid=1014964069

Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, attribution is required per WP:PATT. The creator alluded to it in their edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the short form State v. Chauvin or Minnesota v. Chauvin? @Extraordinary Writ: - as a WP:LAW member can you advise? starship.paint (exalt) 15:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally enough, I was dealing with a case like this just yesterday. My general understanding is that "State v. X" is correct as long as the case remains in state court. (Other states, like California and New York, use "People v. X". But in Minnesota, "State v. X" is the norm. See, e.g., this.) If the case is ever appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (most improbable, in my view), then "Minnesota v. Chauvin" (or "Chauvin v. Minnesota") would be correct. But "State v. X" remains correct as long as the case remains in state courts. (One example is Miranda v. Arizona, which once upon a time was "State v. Miranda.) Ultimately, the most important thing is creating redirects for, e.g., "Minnesota v. Chauvin", "State of Minnesota v. Chauvin", "[Derek] Chauvin trial", etc. But unless common usage coalesces around a different name, the article's present title is just fine. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Extraordinary Writ, you’ve enlightened me. Right move, Jax 0677. starship.paint (exalt) 06:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a short form, used on the MCRO website, and a long form for official documents, like warrants. For example, at the MNcourts summary page, it lists the case as "27-CR-20-12646: State vs. Derek Chauvin". (Note also the related case to the right, listed as "State vs. Tou Thao".) But if you click on the May 29, 2020 Complaint, the actual affidavit reads, "State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. DEREK MICHAEL CHAUVIN". Mathglot (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I can't access mn.courts.gov directly. archive.is / archive.org solves that problem though. starship.paint (exalt) 03:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEGAL and Talk:Derek Chauvin#Splitting proposal, Unless needed for specificity, leave state names out of the title, e.g., use State v. Elliott, not State of Vermont v. Raleigh Elliott, et al., and redirect the latter to the former. See Category:U.S. state criminal case law. Tvc 15 (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definitive chronology of the witness testimonies in the case? -Splinemath (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this wrong? Wasn't Justine Ruszczyk a civilian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.62.184.213 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

corrected this statement per the source: "Chauvin is the first white officer in Minnesota to be charged for the death of a black civilian."^[1]Tvc 15 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens or hundreds of court documents are available online gratis at Minnesota Court Records Online (MCRO) in full-text view. Examples: latest three at this moment: 3/31 Notice of Intent to Invoke Fifth Amendment Privilege and Motion to Quash Subpoena (1 p.), 3/30 Correspondence (1p.), 3/30 Discovery Disclosure (2p.); oldest three: 6/30/2020 Amended Criminal Complaint (8p.), 6/30 Certificate of Representation (1p.), 5/29 E-filed Comp-Warrant (7p.). This last is the original criminal complaint, "State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. DEREK MICHAEL CHAUVIN". My understanding of the T&C is that they are under copyright of the State of Minnesota, so unlike for Federal government documents, it is not possible to upload them to Wikisource or Commons, but fair use is not restricted. An index of all available documents can be found at 27-CR-20-12646: State vs. Derek Chauvin. Mathglot (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will there continue to be a list of all 500 witnesses with summaries? Important historical cases will more have a summary along with important points of contention. -Technophant (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it depends on how much it's covered. See O. J. Simpson murder case for example. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging mathglot here since they're involved in the editing.

Per consensus here and on Killing of George Floyd, as well as at Wikipedia:DEATHS, "killing" is not a legal matter. Killing as it is used in Wikipedia does not imply guilt, and does not require the weighing of a court (for example, at Killing of Harambe). Death is only to be used either if the death is of natural causes, or if the cause of death is entirely unknown. Autopsies have stated that Floyd died as a direct result of his injuries from Chauvin, and thus we can sufficiently call it a killing regardless of the opinion of any court. The court's job is not to rule if it is a killing, but if it was murder, which is a specific type of killing which carries criminal liability. The change from "killing" to "death" was made by a disgruntled editor who believes Floyd died of a drug overdose and has been using multiple accounts to advance that view on articles, including at Killing of George Floyd. I thus reverted their edit manually as a bad-faith POV edit; it was not my own addition as Mathglot's edit summary seems to imply. Builder018 (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Builder018: Thanks, I understand what you're saying that it wasn't your addition, and the reversion comment is generated automatically by the software, so the fact that your name was in there in the comment, was only as the last editor who restored the previous version and is by no means any kind of accusatiion, or attribution by me that you were responsible for the wording. You're in the clear; the words are intended for whomever originally added them.

That said, I also follow what you're saying about the legal aspect of killing vs death; I'll have to go read more about that. That said, I don't dispute that killing is independent of legal concerns, but I don't know if I buy whether it is also devoid of accusation, at least, in that case. The widespread opinion is, that Chauvin killed (or murdered) Floyd. Yes, there's a possibility that, say, drugs did it, but let's face it, that's not what people see, when they see "Killing of George Floyd" in a Wikipedia article. Everybody knows what is meant by that, and it's a not-very-veiled accusation against Chauvin, and is tantamount to saying, "Chauvin killed Floyd". In my opinion, the court will ratify that statement in a few days, or weeks, and then I have no problem saying that. But saying that NOW, is premature, and a violation of WP:BLP. Saying that Chauvin is a killer now, just seems like a rush to judgment. There's WP:NODEADLINE; let's just wait for the court and the reliable sources to give a firm basis for that claim, and not step all over WP:BLP just for the pleasure of getting Chauvin labeled a killer at Wikipedia, before the legal system does. It's not what we do. Thanks for your message. Mathglot (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with your assessment that it's a rush to judgement, we already have several autopsies that state that Floyd died directly as a cause of Chauvin's actions. I personally think waiting for the court, if anything, is an unnecessary delay to improving the related articles. BLP would only apply if "killing" were a criminal term, but it isn't, and thus it doesn't. Thank you for being civil about it though, as many editors I've encountered during this discussion have been less than nice about the matter. Builder018 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's appropriate to keep the section titled as "Killing of George Floyd" instead of "Death of George Floyd". One thing to keep in mind, however, is that while the two autopsies found the manner of death to be homicide, the examiners actually took pains to avoid stating that Floyd died directly as a result of Chauvin's actions. Instead of a "cause of death," (and who killed Floyd), they speak to the "manner of death" (homicide), and then note that while the manner of death was ruled to be a homicide, it "is not a legal determination of culpability or intent."^[1] Assuming Chauvin is convicted (and he probably will be), there will no doubt be a requested page move to "Murder of George Floyd" for the "Killing of George Floyd" article. One of the things the community should probably look at closely in that request is the question of what the trial court's finding was with regard to intent, i.e., did Chauvin intend to kill Floyd or was it unintentional? If intentional, "murder of" is the obvious name for the article title. If unintentional, then "killing of" may still be a better title, as all the "murder of" articles on Wikipedia involve situations where the killer intended to murder the victim. Or to put that another way, there are no "murder of" articles that revolve around a killing that was unintentional, hence why make an exception for this one? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the court\jury finds Floyd died due to overdose, pre-existing medical conditions, or a combination thereof, is killing still appropriate? Killing implies to me an outside agency such as Chauvin causing the death whereas death makes no distinction between a health crisis, accidental suicide, manslaughter, murder etc. Given the prosecution's evidence to date Chauvin has reasonable odds of beating most charges. 人族 (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not open to the jury to make such a finding. They can only decide "guilty" or "not guilty" to the charges put before them. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB:, you miss the point. Within hours of whenever the jury gets back, you're going to have a thousand reliable sources nationwide and worldwide supporting "killed". You don't have that now, and it's not up to editors here to opine about whether it should, or shouldn't, be "killing". Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point I was making. I express no opinion on "killing of" versus "death of". I am just saying that the jury can make no finding wrt drugs, as that it not the matter before them. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AzureCitizen:, your arguments aren't wrong, they're just premature. You're arguing about what might happen in the future, "Assuming Chauvin is convicted (and he probably will be)". I agree with you about what probably will happen, but Wikipedia is not The Encyclopedia of the Future. Just be a little bit patient; you'll get your wish, but only after it happens; not before. Cheers Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You said,

BLP would only apply if "killing" were a criminal term...

No, WP:BLP is not a legally-based policy, the way WP:LIBEL or WP:LEGALTHREAT is based on law. WP:BLP, as it says in the three bullets right at the top of the policy page, is about the WP:NPOV policy, WP:Verifiability, and no original research. Right after that, it says (emphasis in the original):

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The statement that "Chauvin killed Floyd" (which I think is a true statement) is a contentious statement, because some people disagree with it, and we're having a trial in court, because people disagree about it. Furthermore, that statement is about a living person, and according to the policy, must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. There's simply no hurry about this; absolutely nobody disputes that George Floyd died; that may be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Some people dispute that he was killed by Chauvin, a living person; therefore, Wikipedia must not say it, but may quote people who say it, with attribution, as their opinion. Just be patient a little while; soon, the court will agree with you, and say that "Chauvin killed Floyd"; at that point, we can say it, too. There's simply no rush, here. There's a lot of emotion, a lot of anger (me, too), but as editors here, we need to set that aside (just like jurors are supposed to do) and do our duty—the jurors following the law, and we editors following policy. The policy says, not yet. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Some People" are going to disagree regardless. A hundred court cases, a hundred autopsies, and a hundred testimonies down the line, there will still be people who believe Floyd died of a drug overdose, whether because they've bitten a propaganda apple a bit too hard or because it confirms their biases about the situation. It's generally accepted as a result of the autopsies that Floyd was killed, not just that he died. I don't believe that "Floyd was killed" is contentious, nor that it is the same as saying "Chauvin is a killer". Builder018 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just like "some people" don't believe in the Moon landing, but they are not the reliable sources we are concerned about. Once the verdict is in, and in particular, once a thousand news sources all around the world immediately report the result, we will have the unimpeachable, overwhelming, almost universal WP:WEIGHT of worldwide reliable sourcing of the fact. Now, we do not have that. Whether you believe that it's not contentious, or a hundred Wikipedia editors believe that it's not contentious, is irrelevant. We are not reliable sources. Just wait a bit. You'll get your wish. There's simply no reason to do this now, and it's clearly against policy. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subheading Killing of George Floyd should remain per the previous consensus about that article's title. A request to change that article's title back to Death of George Floyd is still under discussion. If consensus to change back is reached there, re-name of the subheading here would be warranted. Until then, the subheading here should reflect the article it references and the consensus already reached. Discussion here will not change the outcome of the consensus already reached or the discussion still ongoing. Tvc 15 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Killing does not mean murder, you can be killed by a falling tree, that does not mean the tree murdered you.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the Testimony section for Prosecution Case is summarising what the prosecution is claiming, not what witnesses have actually testified. Might analysis by a subject matter expert be more useful e.g. https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/chauvin-trial-day-3-wrap-up-floyd-was-high-with-foam-around-his-mouth/? I am aware LI has been knocked back in the past because 'Blog' but this is an expert providing guest commentary and analysis of the case. Several admissions are noted in the linked article and other pieces about the trial as strongly supporting the defence, yet they're ignored in the current Testimony section. Thoughts? Does expertise trump approved sources? 01:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 人族 (talk • contribs)

I removed a couple things from the description of the witnesses as I felt they were unnecessary. The two were regarding Floyd's girlfriend, and the EMT who was off duty. The sentence regarding the gf being a "fellow addict" feels like character assassination to me. The sentence about the EMT being plain clothed and not carrying credentials doesn't seem necessary. Just my two cents. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did retired supervisory Sgt. David Pleoger testify as a witness in this trial? 76.190.208.61 (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]