George Floyd murderer's trial

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are we spreading blame around during the trial of DEREK CHAUVIN, though?
Why would we spend time spreading blame around in a discussion of DEREK CHAUVIN’s trial?

To what end?
What’s the point?

Honesty. Sorting out what actually happened. Trying to prevent it from happening again.

Do you really not care about that sort of thing?
Tom

You are not making a lick of sense. The topic of the thread is Derek Chauvin's trial and it's about the evidence presented and reasoned arguments about the evidence. What you are now claiming is that you have inserted a Public Service Announcement to thread participants in hopes that they will heed your advice not to take a handful of pills, which presumably they would know and as already discussed, addiction does not lead to rational conclusions anyway, so your Public Service Announcement would be in vain. Could you at least try harder to make something relevant to the thread? Here's an example: you claim Chauvin didn't murder anyone but refuse to discuss any degree of murder other than murder#1 which Chauvin is not even tried for...so why don't you instead review the statutes for murder 2 and 3 and show how the evidence of the trial is inconsistent with those degrees of murder...since you've also stated he didn't murder anyone? That would be on-topic as opposed to a Public Service Announcement.

 

[Rhea]

I definitely think Chauvin was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a security position, much less a police job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not murder.

As Don rightly questions - not any murder? Not even murder in the second or third degree? You want to say that Chauvin didn’t cause the death while doing something eminently dangerous and while ignoring all pleas around him to stop, with his hands in his pockets?

That’s your claim when you say, “not murder”? Not ANY degree of murder?
You’ve only argued against a degree of murder that Chauvin is not even charged with. A rather blatant straw man, no?

From Toni’s post #53 - here’s what he’s charged with:

When former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin goes on trial Monday for the May 25 killing of George Floyd, he will face three charges: second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Here's what you need to know about the charges and what prosecutors must prove in order to convict Chauvin.

What is second-degree unintentional murder?
For a conviction of second-degree unintentional murder, the state's prosecutors will have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while assaulting him. This is the most serious charge and carries a presumed sentence in this case of 10 3⁄4 years to 15 years, according to state sentencing guidelines.

The cause of Floyd's death is likely to be a major focus of the trial. Expect the defense to question Floyd's overall health and try to claim that he was already compromised before Chauvin put his knee on his neck. Prosecutors are likely to assert that Floyd would still be alive if the former officer hadn't pinned his neck to the ground for about nine minutes. There will almost certainly be much discussion about Floyd's drug use and underlying health conditions.

What will not be an issue: whether Chauvin intended to kill Floyd. None of the charges require prosecutors to prove the former officer was trying to kill him.

What is third-degree murder?
Initially, Chauvin faced an additional charge of third-degree murder, but Cahill dismissed that charge and denied a request from the prosecution to reinstate it. The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Friday that the judge was wrong to refuse reinstating the third-degree murder charge and sent the case back to Cahill for consideration. After the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal from the defense, Cahill reinstated the charge Thursday. It also carries a presumptive sentence in this case of 10 3⁄4 years to 15 years, according to state sentencing guidelines.

Third-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that someone caused the death of another "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." Legal experts note that the definition of "depraved mind" is murky— as is the legal line between "depraved mind" and the "culpable negligence" standard for manslaughter.

Historically, third-degree murder has been used to prosecute drug dealers who sold deadly products but weren't planning to kill specific individuals. But in 2019, former Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder in the death of Justine Ruszczyk Damond after she called 911 to report a possible sexual assault in progress in the alley near her house. Noor fatally shot Damond from the passenger seat of a squad car, firing across his partner, who had been driving. The state Court of Appeals narrowly upheld his conviction, and the state Supreme Court will hear the case in June. Noor is currently serving a 10½-year sentence. He is the only police officer ever to be convicted of murder for an on-duty incident in Minnesota.

Explaining his decision to reinstate the third-degree murder charge Thursday, Cahill noted that the Noor ruling established a legal precedent that "murder in the third degree applies even if the person's intent and acts are directed at a single person," and therefore the charge could be applicable to the Chauvin case.

 

[TomC]

You know full well that I do.

No.
Really I don't.

I am not sure that you care as much about what really happened as you care about a narrative you've already created, and simply refuse to discuss anything that interferes with your narrative.

I'm seeing that happen a lot on TFT.
Tom

 

[J842P]

Which clearly was an unsupported assumption. Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

Um, those things include being restrained in that way by Chauvin. It is my opinion that this restraint was not justified, in which case, this is a felonious assault. Since this felonious assault was a significant contributor to Floyd's death, then by Minnesota law, it is unintentional murder 2...

 

[J842P]

Maybe something different is going on in your headd when you do that. But what we see is you changing the subject.

Something entirely different from that is going on in my head. And I'm pretty sure I've said so. There's a bunch of threads on this issue, so maybe I wasn't clear in this particular thread.
So I'll explain.

I definitely think Chauvin was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a security position, much less a police job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not murder.

HOWEVER, Floyd contributed hugely to his own demise. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death for allegedly passing a fake $20. The video doesn't show Floyd's health issues, or that Floyd took enough drugs to kill some people, or that Floyd was safely in a car demanding to be restrained physically on the ground instead. The video only shows Floyd's death. Which I doubt would have happened if Floyd had made a few choices differently.

Floyd certainly wouldn't have been restrained by the knee on the neck if he'd stayed in the car. But he didn't want to stay safely in the car.
And he got his way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Chauvin is ridiculous.
Tom

This is just nonsense. None of those things you are saying are relevant. First, I think it is just absurd to state that Floyd asked to be restrained the way he was. Regardless of whether or not he did, Chauvin made that decision, and is criminally liable for that decision if in fact it was against the law.

Why do are you against people being bound by laws? Because that is what you are arguing.

 

[J842P]

Remember, George Floyd already had his trial.

This is the kind of crap that makes this discussion so difficult.
Tom

Yes, I agree, these sort of pithy responses serve no useful purpose and just make it almost impossible to talk about this.

 

[J842P]

So Tom, I asked this in another thread, but it got buried in the noise. It belongs in this thread anyway, so I'll repost it. When you say Chauvin is not guilty of murder (as he is being charged), then what *exactly* do you mean?



Are you saying you don't think Chauvin is guilty of "unintentional murder in the second degree", as he is being charged with under Minnesota law?

If that is the case, do you not believe the restraint Chauvin used on Floyd was a significant contributor to his death? Or do you not believe that Chauvin's use of force was unjustified? Because if it *was* an unjustified use of force that contributed to his death, then it would be murder 2, unintentional in Minnesota.

Or perhaps you mean "murder" as is is more generally understood in the sense of "intentional homicide", where you simply don't believe it was intentional?

 

[Rhea]

You know full well that I do.

No.
Really I don't.

Nonsense. I and many other have been quite clear that our intent is too prevent recurence. You may disagree with our way of achieving that goal, but our intentions are quite obvious.

I am not sure that you care as much about what really happened as you care about a narrative you've already created, and simply refuse to discuss anything that interferes with your narrative.

The “narrative” is a discussion about DEREK CHAUVIN’S murder trial. The idea that I “simply refuse” to talk about George Floyd’s trial instead is absolutely true. No apologies.

If we are ever to stop police fuck-ups, we need to actually talk about the police fuck-ups.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Which clearly was an unsupported assumption. Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

Um, those things include being restrained in that way by Chauvin. It is my opinion that this restraint was not justified, in which case, this is a felonious assault. Since this felonious assault was a significant contributor to Floyd's death, then by Minnesota law, it is unintentional murder 2...

It seems like you have made an argument that is both relevant to the thread and follows from the stated premises.

 

[J842P]

Nonsense. I and many other have been quite clear that our intent is too prevent recurence. You may disagree with our way of achieving that goal, but our intentions are quite obvious.

I am not sure that you care as much about what really happened as you care about a narrative you've already created, and simply refuse to discuss anything that interferes with your narrative.

The “narrative” is a discussion about DEREK CHAUVIN’S murder trial. The idea that I “simply refuse” to talk about George Floyd’s trial instead is absolutely true. No apologies.

If we are ever to stop police fuck-ups, we need to actually talk about the police fuck-ups.

Well, Floyd's actions wouldn't necessarily be irrelevant, but the actions that Tom seems to want to bring up aren't relevant. The crux of the matter, as far as I can tell, comes down to two factors:

1) Was Chauvin's restraint justified? I think Floyd's actions could have conceivably been relevant here. But I don't think anything that has been brought up would make Chauvin's restraint justified.

2) Did Chauvin's restraint contribute to Floyd's death?

To me, I am convinced (beyond a reasonable doubt) that those are both true. Thus, under Minnesota law, it's unintentional murder 2. Would people feel better if we just called it "criminal homicide constituting aggravated manslaughter" or whatever the equivalent crime would be called in other jurisdictions? Is it really the word "murder" that is tripping everything up?

Because I'm perfectly happy to call it aggravated manslaughter if that's all.

 

[abaddon]

The “narrative” is a discussion about DEREK CHAUVIN’S murder trial. The idea that I “simply refuse” to talk about George Floyd’s trial instead is absolutely true. No apologies.

If we are ever to stop police fuck-ups, we need to actually talk about the police fuck-ups.

Yeah, but then (in the view of THEIR narrative) polite society isn't protected against the "thugs" if we do anything to change policing. The reason some persons in the thread need to blame Floyd for 'getting himself murdered' so to speak, is that they are more fearful of the Floyds of the world than of the police. They see the police as the barricade against the people who threaten their way of life and their property.

 

[TomC]

So Tom, I asked this in another thread, but it got buried in the noise. It belongs in this thread anyway, so I'll repost it. When you say Chauvin is not guilty of murder (as he is being charged), then what *exactly* do you mean?



Are you saying you don't think Chauvin is guilty of "unintentional murder in the second degree", as he is being charged with under Minnesota law?

If that is the case, do you not believe the restraint Chauvin used on Floyd was a significant contributor to his death? Or do you not believe that Chauvin's use of force was unjustified? Because if it *was* an unjustified use of force that contributed to his death, then it would be murder 2, unintentional in Minnesota.

Or perhaps you mean "murder" as is is more generally understood in the sense of "intentional homicide", where you simply don't believe it was intentional?

Sorry I didn't respond to that. I remember it, and meant to clarify.

I am not a lawyer. To me, murder means deliberately killing someone. Maybe in the indirect way of "torching somebody's house, knowing people are in there, but assuming they'll get out". That's still murder.

"Unintentional murder" seems like a contradiction of terms. But, again, I'm not a lawyer. Some kind of homicide, for sure. "Professional malfeasance" maybe. Like a surgeon who kills a patient on the operating table. Performing dangerous operations, like bypass surgery, will result in some deaths. That's why surgeons have huge insurance policies. But if you do enough of them, it's inevitable that one will go badly and someone dies. It's nearly guaranteed. But not murder. Botch enough surgeries and you really need your license revoked.

Chauvin, apparently, hadn't actually killed anyone before. But he had a history of "excessive force". Now he has killed someone with his tactics. He's gotta go, permanently and everywhere. So do the people who kept him on staff, despite the warning signs. But no, I don't think he "tortured Floyd to death for passing a fake $20." Nor do I think Chauvin was the only relevant player in this debacle.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

.Several people, TomC among them, take this trial and take this thread and say,

“You know what, let’s not talk about what Chauvin did. Can we change the subject, please? I would like to talk instead about what George Floyd did wrong. I want to change the subject because (we the readers wonder, perhaps,) I do not have anything at all to say on the topic of what DEREK CHAUVIN did wrong, and that’s why I want to change the subject.”

I suppose the fact that I said nothing of the sort doesn't really matter to your "argument".
Tom

The salient fact is that you did exactly what Rhea described, actually.
Again, with that stunning lack of self awareness...

 

[Rhea]

So Tom, I asked this in another thread, but it got buried in the noise. It belongs in this thread anyway, so I'll repost it. When you say Chauvin is not guilty of murder (as he is being charged), then what *exactly* do you mean?



Are you saying you don't think Chauvin is guilty of "unintentional murder in the second degree", as he is being charged with under Minnesota law?
[...]
Or perhaps you mean "murder" as is is more generally understood in the sense of "intentional homicide", where you simply don't believe it was intentional?

I am not a lawyer. To me, murder means deliberately killing someone.

So what murder means “to you” ...
... and what murder actually means in the actual trial being actually tried...

Means that you are just fine, and you have bravely slain that epic straw-man that you constructed! He’s not being charged with or tried for the thing you’re worried about, and no one here or in court ever said he was. Phew.
Your work here is done.

You may be interested in starting a new thread about re-opening the case against George Floyd and what he did wrong in his arrest. But it is not relevant in any way to the charge that CHAUVIN is not charged with that you don’t think he should be charged with that requires discussion of Floyd’s behavior to exculpate.


Glad that’s cleared up. You can rest easy now.

 

[Rhea]

I do feel bad for letting the snark out. And I apologize for that disruption. But TomC, people have been trying to tell you this for 280 posts now.

 

[TomC]

Your work here is done.

I do not, and never have had, any work here.
I've shared my opinions, that's about all.

And frankly, they've mostly been reinforced. That's why I get so much strawman and rhetorical b.s. Because people who have different opinions commonly don't say why they think I'm wrong. They just make it clear that they do.

Seriously, I appear to be a Trump supporter posing as a liberal.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I do feel bad for letting the snark out. And I apologize for that disruption. But TomC, people have been trying to tell you this for 280 posts now.

Was "Chauvin tortured Floyd to death for passing a fake $20" in this thread?
I don't remember what thread that was in, myself.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Maybe something different is going on in your headd when you do that. But what we see is you changing the subject.

Something entirely different from that is going on in my head. And I'm pretty sure I've said so. There's a bunch of threads on this issue, so maybe I wasn't clear in this particular thread.
So I'll explain.

I definitely think Chauvin was wrong. So wrong, he shouldn't ever be entrusted with a security position, much less a police job, ever again. There should be penalties for what he did.
But not murder.

HOWEVER, Floyd contributed hugely to his own demise. An emotive video that went viral doesn't begin to cover the whole situation, but it did convince a bunch of people that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death for allegedly passing a fake $20. The video doesn't show Floyd's health issues, or that Floyd took enough drugs to kill some people, or that Floyd was safely in a car demanding to be restrained physically on the ground instead. The video only shows Floyd's death. Which I doubt would have happened if Floyd had made a few choices differently.

Floyd certainly wouldn't have been restrained by the knee on the neck if he'd stayed in the car. But he didn't want to stay safely in the car.
And he got his way.

What I'm pointing out is that there's plenty of blame to spread around. Blaming everything on Chauvin is ridiculous.
Tom

What makes you think Floyd would have survived being in the back seat of Chauvin's car? I am not nearly so certain. Floyd was panicking at the idea. Maybe there was a reason besides his fear of arrest and/or any drugs he may have taken.

The truth is that even if you or I down every single pill in our homes, chase it down with half a bottle of scotch and stand in the street naked screaming "Just kill me now!" and someone does it: shoots you or me dead in the street--that person has committed murder, even though we amply demonstrated our willingness to die (or profound mental health crisis).

George Floyd did not do that. He had a problem with addiction, which is harder to quit than I can imagine. He definitely should not have had a counterfeit bill or taken illegal drugs or resisted arrest. But he shouldn't have died. Chauvin was responsible for his death. What sort of responsibility he bears depends on how you read statutes and how you weigh testimony. He declined to testify on his own behalf. My personal opinion, based on what I saw on the video and what I've read is that he's responsible at least for 3rd degree murder and manslaughter. He had a duty to know the dangers involved in the restraint he decided to use--and he disregarded those dangers. That makes him culpable.

 

[TomC]

What makes you think Floyd would have survived being in the back seat of Chauvin's car?

Where did I say that?

I stopped reading at that point. I'm not finding much point in responding to posts that misrepresent me.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

What makes you think Floyd would have survived being in the back seat of Chauvin's car?

Where did I say that?

I stopped reading at that point. I'm not finding much point in responding to posts that misrepresent me.
Tom

Toni made a reasonable inference that when you said this:

Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently. He may still have died, but who knows. He demanded to be let out of the car, and he got his way. And things happened that turned out badly for everyone.
Tom

... that you thought things would have worked out very differently. It was reasonable for her to infer that you meant he would survive, as that is the most different thing that could have happened, and one wouldn’t write “ things would have worked out very differently,” if one were merely implying he’d have died in a different way.

If you didn’t mean that he would have survived, what on earth could you have possibly meant when you typed that?

(P.S. you are developing a pattern where you claim a thing wasn’t said, and it is quoted that it WAS said. This is like the thrid time in two days. You should consider investing some time in doing your own look-back work before you declare these things, perhaps.)