George Floyd murderer's trial

[Gospel]

If you want a trial you can win, don't murder someone on camera.

Meanwhile, I continue to acknowledge that many MANY trials against cops that I thought had overwhelming evidence were nevertheless ended in acquittal. Not becuase good evidence overcame the culpatory evidence, but for reasons of technicalities and unexplained juror reticence. Perhaps they are “scared of the potential backlash” by police.

So it remains fully possible that what the evidence shows overwhelmingly to be a deliberate application of unecessary force that led to a death, may still result in an acquittal.

Something to keep in mind: The press tends to report the sensational bits, the jury sees a much bigger picture.

For example, in the Michael Brown case much of the testimony saying he did nothing wrong came from people who couldn't actually have witnessed what they claimed to have. The press barely touched on that aspect of it.

My knee-jerk reaction was to leap on yo ass over whatever you posted for whatever reason because I'm drunk; but then I read "the jury sees a much bigger picture" and have to agree.

 

[Derec]

Floyd was being arrested (and died during said arrest) over a counterfeit 20. The police better have that counterfeit 20.

Interesting. If the $20 was not counterfeit, would that not make the store clerk ultimately responsible for setting this whole mess in motion? \
It was not a cop who randomly deemed the bill fake. It was a store clerk who called police to report a fake $20.

 

[Derec]

I think Derec was referring to the thread title. If I'm wrong is there a way that I can retract reputation?

Indeed I was.

 

[Derec]

Lt. Richard Zimmerman should be arrested for inciting a riot. I'm almost certain (based on the conviction record of police officers in Minneapolis) that Chauvin will be acquitted and such language is only dumping a bucket of Chlorine Trifluoride on the sun.

I think Chauvin will almost certainly be convicted.
Also, ClF₃ will just decompose if dumped into the Sun.

 

[Derec]

[Police officers are not known for being held accountable so you don't have much to be concerned about.

On the contrary, many have been convicted of serious crimes, including murder. Jason Van Dyke and Michael Slager are just two of them that come to mind immediately.
There the case of Stephen Rankin who was convicted of manslaughter even though a shoplifter, William Chapman, attacked him in a WalMart parking lot. So sometimes cops get railroaded even when they do nothing wrong.

 

[Derec]

So presenting the evidence is declaring the verdict before the trial.

No. Calling the defendant a murderer is declaring the verdict before the trial.

 

[untermensche]

Suffocating a man begging to breathe is murder.

Allow the man to breathe and he would still be alive.

 

[Elixir]

So presenting the evidence is declaring the verdict before the trial.

No. Calling the defendant a murderer is declaring the verdict before the trial.

Yeah, we saw the act on video, but it might be a deep fake so we best defer to the people who were there.
Oh wait - no, we best believe the autopsy results were all wrong and he died of a fentanyl overdose, and would have died even if cops weren't speaking roughly to him.
That's the ticket... he was dying before the cops even got there!

Sorry Derec.
The guy is OBVIOUSLY a murderer. There is no question about that.
The question is whether or not he will be convicted.

 

[Gospel]

[Police officers are not known for being held accountable so you don't have much to be concerned about.

On the contrary, many have been convicted of serious crimes, including murder. Jason Van Dyke and Michael Slager are just two of them that come to mind immediately.
There the case of Stephen Rankin who was convicted of manslaughter even though a shoplifter, William Chapman, attacked him in a WalMart parking lot. So sometimes cops get railroaded even when they do nothing wrong.

I have a witty and fact-driven reply but I'm too drunk right now. This is a placeholder.

 

[Wiploc]

Then Chauvin’s lead defense lawyer, Eric Nelson, set out his case, focusing on Floyd’s use of illicit drugs and his underlying health conditions.

I recall a homicide case where the defense argued that the victim shouldn't have died. The defendant hadn't hit him all that hard. The victim had an egg-shell skull, which the defendant had had no way of knowing about.

The court held that the perp was the one who selected the victim. You are guilty of homicide if the person you hit dies from the blow that you hit him with.

If we apply that logic, Floyd's use of drugs doesn't amount to a defense.

-

Irrelevant footnote: If that perp actually had enough head-hitting experience that he could offer expert testimony as to whether his blow should have killed, then I definitely want him to have been convicted.

He argued that Chauvin followed his police training and should be found not guilty.

I recall another case. A miner fell down a mine shaft; the mining company was sued.

Plaintiff claimed negligence: A vertical drop that wasn't barricaded or lit.

Defense claimed that it was in compliance with industry standards, which was they had to show.

The court held that an unbarricaded and unlit shaft was egregious. Yes, the law--as previously understood-- called only for compliance with industry standards, but this was a case in which industry standards were patently wrong, so that standard did apply.

If we apply that logic, then even if Chauvin was doing what he was trained to do, that may not amount to a defense.

 

[untermensche]

The police witness today says he was never trained to kneel on a cuffed person's neck.

There was no rational need to kneel on his neck.

Chauvin said to a bystander immediately after it happened that he thought Floyd was on something.

A trained person knows that if that something is a narcotic the person's breathing can become suppressed by the drug itself.

 

[Gospel]

[Police officers are not known for being held accountable so you don't have much to be concerned about.

On the contrary, many have been convicted of serious crimes, including murder. Jason Van Dyke and Michael Slager are just two of them that come to mind immediately.
There the case of Stephen Rankin who was convicted of manslaughter even though a shoplifter, William Chapman, attacked him in a WalMart parking lot. So sometimes cops get railroaded even when they do nothing wrong.

I have a witty and fact-driven reply but I'm too drunk right now. This is a placeholder.

Ok using my placeholder. I'm talking about officers that obviously did something wrong (like in the case of George Floyd). And yeah, I know to you a black man is still a threat even though he's face down and handcuffed. So kneeling on the kneck of a nonresponsive and handcuffed black man for 4 minutes and change may not be obviously wrong to you but it is to me. Rodney King is another case that comes to mind. You know that one where a city burned and all you saw was a bunch of lawless thugs who hate America destroying private property? What I saw were lawless thugs too, but I also saw lawless thugs who are always held accountable under the law being told it's only them being held accountable and not law enforcement (I'm not shocked that they were pissed).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Day 6

Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo took the stand Monday in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the fired police officer charged in George Floyd's death. He testified Chauvin's actions violated Minneapolis police policy.

Arradondo testified there was an "initial reasonableness in trying to just get [Floyd] under control" in the first few seconds of the encounter. But when Floyd had stopped resisting and "clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person prone out, hands cuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy," Arradondo said. "It's not part of our training and it's certainly not part of our ethics or values."

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-death-2021-04-05/

The emergency room doctor who pronounced George Floyd dead, Dr. Brandford Langenfeld, said Monday that “oxygen deficiency,” commonly referred to as asphyxia, was most likely the cause of death. This challenges the defense’s argument that Floyd’s death was caused by a heart attack related to drug use, as opposed to Derek Chauvin’s use of force.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/nat...f-death-was-likely-oxygen-deficiency/2478698/

 

[Gospel]

Again thanks for the updates Don (saw that one while I was at work).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Again thanks for the updates Don (saw that one while I was at work).

You're welcome, sir.

I am finding it fascinating at the moment just how many police have given expert testimony on why Chauvin was wrong. It seems like the defense's opening argument is debunked. Yet, there are still people trying to defend Chauvin over this.

Is it faith?

 

[J842P]

A trained person knows that if that something is a narcotic the person's breathing can become suppressed by the drug itself.

This is a good point. If indeed Chauvin thought that Floyd was potentially overdosing, then this makes his actions even more unjustified.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is it possible for Derek Chauvin to get a fair trial? No matter the result he's going to be condemned by one mob or another, on either side. It'll be a political conviction no matter what. The result will tell us who is in power, not if what he did was wrong. I don't think the facts matter a damn in this case. Those who call for his blood do so for political reasons. Those who call for leniency or acquittal do so for political reasons. I don't think he can get a fair trial.

I'm not defending him. I'm personally too immersed in the highly biased reporting, on either side, to make a sober judgement on the case. Because of this I don't trust my own judgement on the matter, and I'd say having an impartial view of the case is, at this point, a super human feat. I do not envy the members of the jury. They can only do wrong. No matter what they do. Just my impression.

 

[Patooka]

Is it possible for Derek Chauvin to get a fair trial? No matter the result he's going to be condemned by one mob or another, on either side. It'll be a political conviction no matter what. The result will tell us who is in power, not if what he did was wrong. I don't think the facts matter a damn in this case. Those who call for his blood do so for political reasons. Those who call for leniency or acquittal do so for political reasons. I don't think he can get a fair trial.

I'm not defending him. I'm personally too immersed in the highly biased reporting, on either side, to make a sober judgement on the case. Because of this I don't trust my own judgement on the matter, and I'd say having an impartial view of the case is, at this point, a super human feat. I do not envy the members of the jury. They can only do wrong. No matter what they do. Just my impression.

It's a bit ironic that you're condemning the lack of a fair trial; in effect making your mind up before it is even completed. I'm not a fan of all the publicity whilst it is in progress, but that is such an American thing it kinda shows this court case is being treated no differently than any other that occurs in the states. The fact that the process is being followed to the letter shows that this trial is about as fair as one can have without replacing everyone involved with robots.

You seem to think the trial can't be fair because a lot of people, including yourself, have already decided. That's not the fault of the trial and is also beyond its scope to control.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is it possible for Derek Chauvin to get a fair trial? No matter the result he's going to be condemned by one mob or another, on either side. It'll be a political conviction no matter what. The result will tell us who is in power, not if what he did was wrong. I don't think the facts matter a damn in this case. Those who call for his blood do so for political reasons. Those who call for leniency or acquittal do so for political reasons. I don't think he can get a fair trial.

I'm not defending him. I'm personally too immersed in the highly biased reporting, on either side, to make a sober judgement on the case. Because of this I don't trust my own judgement on the matter, and I'd say having an impartial view of the case is, at this point, a super human feat. I do not envy the members of the jury. They can only do wrong. No matter what they do. Just my impression.

It's a bit ironic that you're condemning the lack of a fair trial; in effect making your mind up before it is even completed. I'm not a fan of all the publicity whilst it is in progress, but that is such an American thing it kinda shows this court case is being treated no differently than any other that occurs in the states. The fact that the process is being followed to the letter shows that this trial is about as fair as one can have without replacing everyone involved with robots.

You seem to think the trial can't be fair because a lot of people, including yourself, have already decided. That's not the fault of the trial and is also beyond its scope to control.

I'm not condemning anything. It's not like I think there's a better way to do it. I'm just describing my feelings after reading through this thread. People have a lot of strong opinions on this matter and we're very coloured (lol pun) by all the talk, demonstrations and controversy.

How could I possibly judge it afterwards as a fair trial? I think I myself am too coloured by the politicisation of this to make a judgement on the fairness of it. Same goes for everyone else in this thread.

I think what everybody has in mind is the BLM demonstrations and riots. Which were pretty extreme in USA.

But they also spread overseas. We had BLM riots in Stockholm. A country with few black citizens, of which 99.9% are straight from Africa and the descendants of slavers, (not slaves). Same deal in Denmark. I took a picture of the BLM demonstrations in Copenhagen. Out of roughly 10 000 people I saw one black person. An East African, ie ethnically Arab. So not even the same population BLM is about.

The fact that BLM was a thing in Scandinavia says something. Over here it can only have been a media product. By the sound of it in our media and talk shows on TV one would have thought Sweden was a state in USA.

This trial isn't about Floyd, nor BLM. It's an internal political debate about where USA should be heading in the future regarding it's social issues associated with slave descendants. That's what I think.

You seem to think the trial can't be fair because a lot of people, including yourself, have already decided. That's not the fault of the trial and is also beyond its scope to control.

That's exactly what I think. This trial cannot be fairly judged. No, it's not the fault of the trial. All the hubub around the trial has killed the trial. This is a political show trial. No matter the outcome.

 

[Patooka]

I'm not condemning anything. It's not like I think there's a better way to do it. I'm just describing my feelings after reading through this thread. People have a lot of strong opinions on this matter and we're very coloured (lol pun) by all the talk, demonstrations and controversy.

How could I possibly judge it afterwards as a fair trial? I think I myself am too coloured by the politicisation of this to make a judgement on the fairness of it. Same goes for everyone else in this thread.

I think what everybody has in mind is the BLM demonstrations and riots. Which were pretty extreme in USA.

But they also spread overseas. We had BLM riots in Stockholm. A country with few black citizens, of which 99.9% are straight from Africa and the descendants of slavers, (not slaves). Same deal in Denmark. I took a picture of the BLM demonstrations in Copenhagen. Out of roughly 10 000 people I saw one black person. An East African, ie ethnically Arab. So not even the same population BLM is about.

The fact that BLM was a thing in Scandinavia says something. Over here it can only have been a media product. By the sound of it in our media and talk shows on TV one would have thought Sweden was a state in USA.

This trial isn't about Floyd, nor BLM. It's an internal political debate about where USA should be heading in the future regarding it's social issues associated with slave descendants. That's what I think.

You seem to think the trial can't be fair because a lot of people, including yourself, have already decided. That's not the fault of the trial and is also beyond its scope to control.

That's exactly what I think. This trial cannot be fairly judged. No, it's not the fault of the trial. All the hubub around the trial has killed the trial. This is a political show trial. No matter the outcome.

I'm 99% certain jurors were given very clear instructions as to what is required from them. And with the fuckton of publicity, everybody knows if they just phone it in they'll be called out on it. There is also a clear difference between having an opinion of the incident in question (which we all have) and the trial itself (which we really shouldn't yet). You have yet to provide any specifics in the proceedings so far that imply an unfair trial.