idiot cops may think they're above the law but what happens when they face immediate consequences in court here are four times when idiot cops got instantly killed in court as sentence for count one the court commits you to the custody of the commissioner of Corrections for a period of 270 months that's 270 that is a 10-year addition to the presumptive sentence of 150 months this is based on your uh abuse of position of trust and authority and also the particular cruelty shown to George Floyd you granted credit for 199 days already served this is former officer Derek chovin from the Minneapolis Police Department on May 25th 2020 officer chovin responded to a call from a store named Cup Foods clerk in Minneapolis Minnesota when he suspected that a 46-year-old dark-skinned individual might be using a counterfeit $20 bill Mr Floyd was sitting in a car with two other passengers when police officers removed him from the vehicle and handcuffed him officer chovin murdered Floyd by pressing his knee to Mr Floyd's neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds while Mr Floyd was handcuffed and lying face down in the street Mr Floyd repeatedly pleaded that he could not breathe during the final two minutes Mr Floyd became motionless and had no pulse yet officer chovin continued to press his knee on Mr Floyd's neck and back even as emergency medical technicians arve to provide treatment officer chauan was later fired and charged with second deegree murder third degreee murder and second degree manslaughter watch how the sentencing goes when officer chovin faces the court I wanted to thank everybody for being here and for providing the input you did not just the people who were in the courtroom here but also Those Who provided written statements uh both from the Floyd family and the defendant family I've read all the impact statements that were submitted earlier and listen carefully to all the input here today and it is true truly appreciated that you took the time to stay with this case and to provide me with input I have reviewed the preent investigation and carefully considered all the facts of the case in the law but my comments are actually going to be very brief because most of it's going to be in writing I have a 22-page memorandum that is going to be attached to the sentencing order and why am I doing it in writing to emphasize the fact that determining the appropriate sentence in any case and in this case is a legal analysis it's applying the rule of law to the facts of an individual and specific case and that is why as opposed to trying to be being profound here on the record I prefer that you read the legal analysis that explains how I determine the sentence in in this [Music] case what the case is or what the sentence is not based on is emotion or sympathy but at the same time I want to acknowledge the deep and tremendous pain that all the families are feeling especially the Floyd family you have our sympathies and I acknowled and hear the pain that you are feeling I acknowledge the pain not only of those in this courtroom but the Floyd family who are outside this courtroom and other members of the community it has been painful throughout hoping County throughout the state of Minnesota and even the country but most importantly we need to recognize the pain of the Floyd family I'm not going to attempt to be profound or clever because it's not the appropriate time I'm not basing my sentence also on public opinion I'm not basing it on any attempt to send any messages a trial court judge the job of a trial court judge is to apply the law to specific facts and to deal with individual cases and so Mr shovin as to count one based on the verdict of the jury finding you guilty of unintentional second deegree murder while committing a felony under Minnesota statute 60919 subdivision 2 per N1 it is the Judgment of the court that you now stand convicted of that offense pursuant to Minnesota statute uh section 60904 counts 2 and three will remain unadjudicated as they are lesser offenses of count one as sentence for count one the court commits you to the custody of the commissioner of Corrections for a period of 270 months that's 270 that is a 10-year addition to the presumptive sentence of 150 months this is based on your uh abuse of a position of trust and author and also the particular cruelty shown to George Floyd you granted credit for 199 days already served pay the mandatory sear charge of $78 to be paid from prison wages you're prohibited from possessing firearms ammunition or explosives for the remainder of your life provide a DNA sample as required by law register as a predatory offender as required by law and you will receive a copy of the order and also the attached memorandum explaining the Court's analysis anything further from the state if this needs to be said we just ask that it be executed forth with to is remanded of the custody of the sheriff to be transported uh back to the doc or whichever custody is currently holding him anything for the defense very all right thank you we are adjourned officer chovin was sentenced to 22 and A2 years in prison for the murder of George Floyd whose final moments under ch knee sparked the largest outcry against racial Injustice in the US in Generations however Mr Floyd's family members and others expressed disappointment with the sentence as it fell short of the 30 years that prosecutors had requested with good behavior officer chovin could be eligible for parole after serving 2third of his sentence which is approximately 15 years this incident reignited the black lives matter movement across the United States if you think this was the only cop who got instantly killed in court wait until you watch this next case that's something that we'll be dealing with at a later date uh but for today's purpose what the state would be asking for is a cash or shity Bond we would request a bond of approximately $50,000 um and we also believe that based upon the statements that Mr Underwood has made uh intimating potential harm towards his child's mother we believe that GPS monitoring ankle monitor is appropriate in this case we would also ask that the Bond specifically include Provisions uh prohibiting him from going to her place of work and to her residents this is former deputy Joshua Underwood from the aone county sheriff's office on someday in early 2019 Deputy Underwood had reportedly locked himself inside his apartment in the okone county apartment complex he forced a response from a SWAT team initially some deputies tried to insist he exit the apartment however when they entered his apartment they found him in the back room and he refused to leave while armed with a deadly weapon shortly afterwards the South Carolina law enforcement division was called to the scene resulting in the surrendering of Officer Underwood officer Underwood was charged with resisting arrest and was kept in a Coney County Detention Center his bond was set at $50,000 he showed up in the court for a bond hearing where things escalated quickly I'd like to hear from uh the solicitor's office and the sheriff's department uh before I Mak any decisions regarding bond from Mr Underwood yes sir M please the court judge just to clear up any issues regarding the warrant the warrant is resisting arrest however I think what Mr Underwood's maybe misunderstanding about that is is that the resisting arrest also encompasses resisting the service of process or a RIT that is the specific portion that is being dealt with in this particular case this situation arose when representatives from the sheriff's office went out to the residents were Mr Mr Underwood was staying and attempted to serve him with paperwork for an eviction U Mr Underwood refused to accept that paperwork so at that point officers came back obtained that warrant and went back to serve that warrant so that's that's how we got to where we are with regard to the warrant um living with him at that residence and I believe the primary person at that residence um is the mother of Mr Underwood's child I don't think I don't believe they're married but they do have a child in common um certain statements were made while uh the situation was going on yesterday with regard to the standoff um a gun was obtained by law enforcement um at the time of the arrest uh Mr Underwood did did say that was his weapon um and intimated to officers that it was not for use on officers but it was for use on his child's mother um given those circumstan there was also some marijuana in the Resident that was turned over to Narco as well at the time of the arrest um I don't know that any charges have been made with regard to those drugs um that's something that we'll be dealing with at a later date uh but for today's purpose what the state would be asking for is a cash or shity Bond we would request a bond of approximately $50,000 um and we also believe that based upon the status that Mr Underwood has made uh intimating potential harm towards his child's mother we believe that GPS monitoring ankle monitor is appropriate in this case we would also ask that the bond specifically include Provisions uh prohibiting him from going to her place of work and to her residence um and certainly we can we can furnish the addresses to the monitoring company so they can go ahead and plug that into the monitor so they'll be notified if Mr rwood goes to either of those places um I think that's all that's all we're asking for today any other issues certainly can be taken up at a preliminary hearing or at the appropriate time later on okay thank you thank you a MCC I really don't have anything else to add to what he said nothing to add no sir okay thank you very much [Music] [Music] all right Mr Underwood I find the solicitor's request for cash assurity bond $50,000 to be reasonable accordingly I'm going to impose that cash or Bond uh for your release I find it absurd that you haven't even obtained any information from me based off the Lister you going to believe everything that he says okay and you're going go ahead send a sh on me on a m okay are you are you finished okay if you'll hear me out please thank you uh additionally I'm going to place a requirement for a GPS monitor prior your release on bond uh I'm going to restrain or restrict your contact with your domestic partner the mother your child whichever best describes her to include her place of work in her residence additionally I'm going to prohibit your physical or constructive possession of firearms or ammunition at any time for any reason and I want to make sure that you understand when I say constructive possession I mean there's to be no firearms or ammunition in any vehicle you're being transported in or riding in unless it's what grounds are you pring me from Firearms I am why what ground I am because I have that Latitude given severity what what reason is why you standing behind that that you going you going to Mr Underwood Mr Underwood in this court in this court one person talks at a time off the Sheriff's Office you're going to find yourself in contempt of court I've already been in content okay I'm I here sir all right are you going to ow me to finish constru constructive possession of a Firearms or ammunition means you will not have it in your possession it won't be in the house or the room that you're staying in it won't be in the vehicle that you're being transported in unless we're talking about transport by law enforcement do you understand that all right that's all you're dismissed officer if you remove him you can't look at me look you have any questions no sir okay sir sir okay thank very the meeting initially proceeded when the judge asked the lawyer to explain the charge the lawyer explained that officer Underwood mistook resisting arrest and also covered resisting the service of process he also informed me that the actual resident of the apartment was officer Underwood's former partner the lawyer said that the state requested a bond of almost $50,000 due to officer Underwood's threats to her former wife or his child's mother some drugs and intoxicants were also found during the arrest which the judge said would be dealt with at a later date if you think this was the maximum a cop and get instantly killed in the court then you probably aren't aware of this next case again I'm I'm sorry I don't remember exactly what I said to the detective immediately after the shooting I I was in shock how about what you said deductive Walsh on the way there oh my God we're going to have to shoot the guy why' you say that I didn't talk to a Dr Walsh a a detective Walsh officer Walsh ma'am this is former Officer Jason Van dijk from the Chicago Police Department on October 20th 2014 Officer Van dijk was involved in an incident where he was found having killed a darkskinned teenager named laquan McDonald Officer Van djk allegedly shot Mr McDonald 16 times during the incident that caused his death immediately the dash cam video of the incident was the key evidence of the murder and was released almost a year after the incident Officer Van djk explained that Mr McDonald turned his torso toward van dijk and waved the knife in his Direction Officer Van dijk testified that he continued shooting because he saw Mr McDonald's shoulder rise and noticed that Mr McDonald still had the knife in his right hand watch his testimony in court it's where in that video does it show trying to get up I can't tell you it's not in front of me well you just saw the video was there any point in that video where laquin McDonald was trying to get up from the video I may not show it but that wasn't from my perspective man I was coming at a completely different angle and you told detective uh March that night that you continued to shoot at him once he was on the ground because he was pointing the knife at you is that correct you know I I'm sorry I don't remember exactly what I said immediately after this shooting to the detective I was still in shock I I know I I gave him a summary of what happened that night so you don't recall that you told him that you continued to fire your weapon at McDonald who was on the ground as McDonald appeared to be attempting to get up all the while continuing to point the knife at you I'm sorry I said this to the detective Yes again I'm I'm sorry I don't remember exactly what I said to the detective immediately after the shooting I I was in shock how about what you said deductive Walsh on the way there oh my God we're GNA have to shoot the guy why' you say that I didn't talk to a Dr Walsh a a detective Walsh officer Walsh ma'am officer Walsh yes okay why you say to him oh my God we're going to have to shoot the guy I thought the officers were under attack okay at the point that you ma'am I'm still trying to answer I thought he was under attack and the whole thing was just it was shocking to me shocking you've responded to several calls over your years of people with knives correct I've countered a few yes and the only thing that you knew at that point was that they had called in pop a tire and somebody had a knife correct I had heard over the radio that he had slashed the tire yes it doesn't over the radio never says slash the tire does it I now know that yes I misinterpreted it at the time okay so but what you heard was pop the tire right at the time I thought I heard slashed and when you see meliot and GNE and the Burger King parking like you know they're not under attack correct so is your testimony that he's not walking towards a fence I'm sorry it's your testimony that he's not walking towards a fence it's my testimony it looks to me like he's going from one side of the doed line to the other side of the doed line now and it's right there at that point where you say that he raised his arm up round his chest at this exact point yes you know I don't know now you had a radio on that night right yes ma'am you knew a taser car had been called correct yes you know taser had somebody had responded that they were coming corre I just heard that a car had responded they were coming from a distance distance but I never heard once over the radio that a taser unit was responding well I believe the dispatch actually says when they're on the radio they say that they're near uh Mulligan and Archer correct I don't remember the exact uh cross streets now and then the disector comes on and says anybody closer with the taser right I don't remember and so when you got out of that c that night you Pi up called and said Hey where's the person with the taser right hypothetically you could well it's not a hypothetical question you could have called and said where's theer right I'm sorry what's your objection that it is a hypothetical question could have called it's hypothetical overrule hypothetically anybody on scene could have called no question is you you could have called correct it was a very chaotic moment the answer is a yes or no and I'm trying it doesn't just stipulate a yes or no answer it's very complicated answer there's a lot going on at that moment you didn't even have to get out of the car at that point did you you could say I also didn't have to go to work that night no that wasn't the question the question was you didn't even have to go get out the car correct is an officer I know now and what I thought at that time are two different things now you didn't know anything at all about what McDonald that night did you just from uh the actions I observed of him and uh his actions that I heard before seeing him that's all right yeah I don't think I ever met him before now you stopped shooting because your gun was empty correct yes and it wasn't because you thought the threat was over with right I'm sorry it wasn't because you thought the threat was over with right between the time I stopped shooting in the time I reloaded the situation had drastically changed really what changed it was no longer a threat by the time I reloaded my weapon and brought it up to the ready position why wasn't he in those couple of seconds he um it stop moving and it's actually your partner who said hey I got this right you're ready to continue to shoot him absolutely not absolutely not your partner didn't tell you hey Jason I got this you asked me a compound question I was asking the second part of the question he did say he had yes he did say Jason I got this Officer Van dijk claims that the video shown does not accurately reflect his perspective as it captures the scene from behind his head he reiterates that he stopped shooting when Mr McDonald fell to the ground and does not rec called telling detectives that he continued firing because Mr McDonald was trying to get up Officer Van djk admits that he only stopped shooting because his gun was empty not because he believed the threat had ended Officer Van djk was sentenced to 6 years and 9 months in jail and two years of mandatory supervised release he was found guilty of the second deegree murder charge and 16 counts of aggravated battery the prosecution wanted the sentenced to at least consist of 18 to 20 years in prison if you think this was the last cop who got instantly killed in court then you probably haven't heard of this next case just so that you know what is in evidence and what I will allow in evidence up until this point is the point at which you objected or pretty close to it when there was an officer just I believe to be officer mavo just cross it just turning the corner just at the corner and turning walking back on the sidewalk up until that point all of that's already in will stay in what we're talking about is from the point at which he turns the corner and anything that transpires this is Officer Michael Sipple from the Rochester Police Department in May 2018 an individual named Christopher Pate was walking on Bloss Street in Rochester New York when officers stopped him mistakenly identifying him as a wanted suspect Mr Pate stated that he provided ID but was nonetheless grabbed stunned with a taser handcuffed and beaten the charges against him were later dropped and one of the officers involved officer Sipple was found guilty of assault during a bench trial and subsequently fired from the Rochester Police Department watch the court hearing when he is summoned to court the exceptions by way of admissions or statements against penal interest uh any statements uh that might be attributable to uh Mr Sipple um really have have their bag um it would force the FactFinder to to speculate as to where they fit in and to what um in addition I'm not sure there's large portions here where of of this tape where officer simple is not there um so any statement that may have been made just kind of out there um as far as to go to anyone's state of mind um he's he's not even present and you see that um in the video there's other very um in my opinion uh statements attributed to the other individual in the tape that I would submit to the Court's more prejudicial than probative in fact it has no probative value to the issue at hand so I'm asking the court to preclude everything after the res just die or after the alleged assault um and that's where the the officers then separately P around the point just so that you know what is in evidence and what I will allow inhabitance up until this point is the point at which you objected or pretty close to it when there was an officer just I believe to be officer M just cross it just turning the corner just at the corner and turning it walking back on the sidewalk up until that point all of that's already in and will stay in what we're talking about is from the point at which he turns the corner and anything that transpires after that based on my making that clearer than perhaps I did earlier anything more you want to say no thank you thank you m you honor the people would submit that um number one the entirety of video goes to complete The Narrative of the events and that anything that any there's actually numerous lines of dialogue that occur throughout the portions of the video that we watched in camera that are relevant to the ultimate issue at hand are relevant to the reasons for the arrest of Christopher Pate and are relevant to the material issue of this case and that in fact the other issue the other um images on that video are exceptions to the hear Rule and that they are excited utterances um and go to show the State of Mind of the victim as well as the other people that are in that video and that we do I do I do um disagree with defense Council that some of the statements contained are declarations against F interest and due to those reasons we would ask that all the portions of the video be accepted into evidence the basis for excited utterance raise that as an exception to the hearsay well a lot of what is on that tape is hearsay uh would be introduced for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement or if it's not here say then I presume somebody would be asking it to be introduced as a verbal act or an act of independent legal significance not for the truth of the matter but because it completes the narrative or it explains what somebody did the classic reasons why you would allow a statement not for the truth of the matter asserting the statement and the reason that I stopped the and ask where are we on this tape on at least three if not four occasions is because in listening to it there as a judge became a question in my mind as to whether or not uh this did tend to prove or disprove a fact in issue said you raise the excited utterance um there at least becomes a point where um as a judge viewing that as an objection I have questions as to whether or not the individual whose voice can be heard um may be saying things knowing that what's what's being what's transpiring is on tape there is a in the Court's view a marked change in the tone tender and Timber of that person's voice what is said might lend one to believe that that is uh not a statement made in the Heat or excitement of the moment but rather a statement made uh for another purpose so even if I I were to accept that some of the statement May were an excited arance it becomes a point where clearly I would rule against you on that theory that it is not an excited utterance but it is after some reflection as to the situation the person may find themselves in and uh does not fall within the you have your ID sir do you have your ID sir sir I'm talking to you do you have your ID I just showed you don't need to see I do put your hands behind your back have my ID put your hands behind your back my ID put your hands behind your back anything WR to you you you have my ID you have my ID put your hands behind your back now behind you behind your back you behind me you put your hands behind your back behind me put your hands behind your back behind me put your hands behind your back under you're under a put your hands behind your back all right uh ladies and gentlemen we're going to go back in session at this point I ask you to wrap up that you're having if you would please first Mr Zimmerman and I may yes ahead the judge concludes that the jury will not see the full footage allowing only specific Parts if they are deemed relevant and not overly prejudicial the judge discusses the relevance of the video evidence weighing whether parts are prejudicial or if they qualify as exceptions to hearsay rules later officer zipple was sentenced to just 3 years of probation with no jail time it's meritorious to see idiot cops getting instantly killed in court for their evils if you enjoyed this video make sure to like this video And subscribe for more goodbye