George Floyd murderer's trial

[TomC]

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.)

The fact remains I didn't say that or mean it.

I don't know what would have happened. Floyd had a very good chance of survival if he'd stayed in the car. But he'd done a lot of drugs and had a lot of health issues. He might not have survived.

While he was in the car he started saying "I can't breathe". Maybe his lungs were already filling with fluid. He got violently belligerent. So they let him out.

Whatever else, he wouldn't have died with a cop's knee on his neck being videoed.

Things would definitely have worked out very differently. Which is what I said. Probably better for Floyd, certainly for Chauvin.
I try to be precise. I'm not always successful. But usually the problem is my attempts to be nuanced about a complex and chaotic issue, when most posters have already made up their minds.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

..

 

[Wiploc]

He definitely should not have had a counterfeit bill ...

There's no presumption that he shouldn't have had such a bill. If the counterfeiting is well done, any one of us could carry one and pass it without knowing.

 

[Jarhyn]

He definitely should not have had a counterfeit bill ...

There's no presumption that he shouldn't have had such a bill. If the counterfeiting is well done, any one of us could carry one and pass it without knowing.

No clue why he had it. He did work at a strip club so someone could have been passing 20's there, with some kind of tip sharing, and it made it past their checks from the club.

Like, he's directly adjacent to a potential vector for funny money, for which his innocence is well established.

 

[TomC]

He definitely should not have had a counterfeit bill ...

There's no presumption that he shouldn't have had such a bill. If the counterfeiting is well done, any one of us could carry one and pass it without knowing.

This is one of things that makes this case peculiarly complex.
Passing a fake 20 isn't a $20 crime, it's a felony. It undermines the currency. But with modern printing and scanning technology*, it's really easy to make fake currency that the large majority of folks won't recognize. It's entirely possible that Floyd committed a felony, while having no idea that he had done so.
Tom


* Once a buddy and I made a batch of fake $20s. He's in the high end custom printing business. I went to Office Max and bought their paper that most resembled currency. He scanned a $20, copied it 6 times, digitally altered the serial numbers, then printed out $120 in fake bills. They were superb, I would have accepted one in my store.

We considered promotional possibilities, like stamping them FAKE along with his contact information. But decided to burn them and delete the files instead.

 

[Rhea]

Toni: What makes you think Floyd would have survived being in the back seat of Chauvin's car?
TomC: Where did I say that?
Rhea: you said this:

Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently.

TomC: The fact remains I didn't say that or mean it.
(Rhea, in her head: No, you literally said it. I quoted you. You can read it.)
TomC: I try to be precise. I'm not always successful. But usually the problem is my attempts to be nuanced about a complex and chaotic issue, when most posters have already made up their minds.

I don’t know what to tell you, Tom. But I don’t think this is you trying to be nuanced and us refusing to hear you.

It sounds like you’re now trying to say that you meant he would have died differently and/or it’s his own fault he got a knee on his neck.
I refer you to my earlier post #310 where I point out how you and others are trying to change the subject and not talk about DEREK CHAUVIN’s actions, absolving him by blaming Floyd for DEREK CHAUVIN’s actions.

 

[TomC]

..

 

[Toni]

He definitely should not have had a counterfeit bill ...

There's no presumption that he shouldn't have had such a bill. If the counterfeiting is well done, any one of us could carry one and pass it without knowing.

This is true.

 

[TomC]

Toni: What makes you think Floyd would have survived being in the back seat of Chauvin's car?
TomC: Where did I say that?
Rhea: you said this:

Floyd was safely in a patrol car. Had he stayed there, things would have worked out very differently.

TomC: The fact remains I didn't say that or mean it.
(Rhea, in her head: No, you literally said it. I quoted you. You can read it.)
TomC: I try to be precise. I'm not always successful. But usually the problem is my attempts to be nuanced about a complex and chaotic issue, when most posters have already made up their minds.

I don’t know what to tell you, Tom. But I don’t think this is you trying to be nuanced and us refusing to hear you.

I still do.

It sounds like you’re now trying to say that you meant he would have died differently and/or it’s his own fault he got a knee on his neck.
I refer you to my earlier post #310 where I point out how you and others are trying to change the subject and not talk about DEREK CHAUVIN’s actions, absolving him by blaming Floyd for DEREK CHAUVIN’s actions.

That post was exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I've never defended Chauvin's knee restraint. I've repeatedly said he shouldn't be on a police force. What I've tried to do is point out that there's a lot more to this story than the 8 minutes of video that many TFT posters used to determine that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death. But posters, including you in the post #310, have commonly misrepresented me. Attributing statements and motivations to me that are completely false.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

I've never defended Chauvin's knee restraint. I've repeatedly said he shouldn't be on a police force. What I've tried to do is point out that there's a lot more to this story than the 8 minutes of video that many TFT posters used to determine that Chauvin tortured Floyd to death. But posters, including you in the post #310, have commonly misrepresented me. Attributing statements and motivations to me that are completely false.
Tom

Each of those “what I’ve tried to do is point out,“ posts is an attempt to stop talking about DEREK CHAUVIN and talk instead about what Floyd did wrong.

Perhaps you don’t see the reason why this is problematic during a trial for DEREK CHAUVIN. Perhaps you fail to see why asking people to talk about what the dead George Floyd did wrong, claiming that it influenced his own death at the hands of DEREK CHAUVIN’S actions, why this represents an attempt to change the subject and give DEREK CHAUVIN a break from the spotlight during his murder trial.

DEREK CHAUVIN does not deserve a break from the spotlight during his murder trial, and he does not need a break from the spotlight in a thread about his murder trial.

If you’d like to stop talking about DEREK CHAUVIN, you should consider starting a thread that is not about DEREK CHAUVIN’S murder trial, and then post your thoughts about George Floyd over there.

But in this trial and in this thread, your discussion about the blame George Floyd’s memory should take in being unable to survive DEREK CHAUVIN’S actions is merely an exercise in giving CHAUVIN a break that he does not deserve.

New threads are 100% free. You should start one.

 

[TomC]

Each of those “what I’ve tried to do is point out,“ posts is an attempt to stop talking about DEREK CHAUVIN and talk instead about what Floyd did wrong.

You're still misrepresenting me, but I'm coming to expect that.

Let's discuss Chauvin. He had multiple "excessive force" accusations. But he was still on the police force. Why do you suppose that was?
I think it's an important question. Especially, if the goal is to avoid a repeat of this ugly tragedy.

I'm not claiming to have an answer, so please don't assume that it's because I support excessive force. I don't. I also doubt that the Minneapolis police do either. You could go the "Because Racism" route. Plenty of TFT posters seem to do that. It's irrational, but feeds the narrative, "Black men tend to be killed more than white men Because Racism".
But I doubt it's that simple.

I'm sure that there's multiple, complex, reasons.

Getting back to Chauvin, maybe the reason that he was kept on the PD was because he was effective at protecting us peaceful types. He was judged by the bigwigs as better at protecting Law abiding citizens(black, white, or other) from criminals(black, white, or other).

I don't claim to know why Chauvin was still on the force after 19 accusations of excessive force. But he was. Do you know why? Want to venture a guess?


Tom

ETA ~

New threads are 100% free. You should start one.

ETA ~ There's already too many threads on this one issue, IMHO. I don't want to start another echo chamber ~

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"Unintentional murder" seems like a contradiction of terms.

Unintentional murder is not a contradiction in terms. Like most things in life, things reside on a continuum or spectrum. The features of murder have multiple parameters and some of the parameters are continua (numerical residing on a line) and some are more or less binary, but together they create a large spectrum like most things in life. Consider some basic things about the murderer. Was he or she engaging in illegal activity at the time, how illegal, how violent? Right there--you already have a spectrum of permutations of things to consider...a diverse set. That isn't considering the additional parameters of the murderer's intent--what was it? Then, also, did the murderer have professional training they were ignoring or reason to suspect what they were doing was wrong? Was the murderer engaging in reckless activity and how reckless? Did the murderer create a plan beforehand? Was the plan concrete or abstract, how abstract or concrete? What was the murderer's emotional state upon killing another human being--again a whole spectrum of answers. Of course, some of the answers will lead to no crime, some to manslaughter, and some to murder---but showing a whole spectrum here, not merely a switch of intended/unintended.

In the case of unintentional murder, it would appear that we look at if the murderer was committing a felony. And the felony also has a spectrum we could examine, at least mathematically, even if not legally. For example, many of the above questions apply to a felon inasmuch as they apply to a murderer above. What was the intent of Chauvin, for example, when being told over and over he was hurting Floyd and being irrational to continue to hold him in a prone position with his knee and weight grinding into him? There was no professional reason to commit to that violent act. But additionally, there are other parameters around that assault, such as all the people telling Chauvin he was wrong--professional people, even. What were Chauvin's reasons for ignoring them?

Now, you've pointed out that Floyd had said once he couldn't breathe as he was muttering many things in a very anxious state about getting in the back of a police car. He said he was feeling claustrophobic. He also said he had had covid. An autopsy reveals that he did indeed have covid. So after the human being revealed he had all these various medical conditions and symptoms, what was Chauvin's intent in getting on top of him?

Lastly, Floyd says over and over in the video he is not resisting. He says over and over things like "please." He does not try to bolt, break the cuffs with super human strength, punch an officer--none of that happens. Yet, you classified that as violently belligerent. This is a human being who had covid and was getting extremely anxious after guns pointed at him, which is natural. One could argue that drugs are somehow related, too, and maybe they were, but what I am saying is regardless of drugs, a human being will start to panic when guns are pointed at them. Of course why were guns pointed at them for an issue of an ALLEGED counterfeit $20, is yet another thing that possibly ought not have been there. But we can ignore that one.

Now, when Chauvin calls his superior, he also talks about Floyd in a similar way as you--to say he was being all violent which he wasn't. Then he hides exactly what he was doing. What was the reason Chauvin was doing that? Just another dimension and parameter of this diverse set of things to consider in a murder.

But how about you? What is YOUR reason to frame this a human being panicking as violent and belligerent when they are using their strength to resist while explaining their medical conditions, not being violent against police at all?

 

[TomC]

..

 

[Wiploc]

Passing a fake 20 isn't a $20 crime, it's a felony. It undermines the currency. But with modern printing and scanning technology*, it's really easy to make fake currency that the large majority of folks won't recognize. It's entirely possible that Floyd committed a felony, while having no idea that he had done so.

I'm skeptical.

There are crimes that don't require mens rea*, but the only one I know of (in a jurisdiction long ago and far far away) is providing alcohol to minors.

I assume that passing counterfeit bills isn't a crime unless you know they are counterfeit. Otherwise, depending on how common such bills are, we may all be criminals.

 

[Wiploc]

Unintentional murder is not a contradiction in terms.

I think it is a contradiction.

Murder is the killing of a human being with intent to kill.

Without intent to kill, you just have manslaughter.

If it's not illegal, it's just homicide.


Felony murder is an exception, that just requires you to get somebody killed by doing a dangerous crime.

But if Chauvin didn't intend to kill, and if he isn't charged with felony murder, then the prosecution will have to prove intent to kill to get a murder conviction.

-

All of the above is dated, but I assume that murder still requires intent to kill.

 

[Toni]

Unintentional murder is not a contradiction in terms.

I think it is a contradiction.

Murder is the killing of a human being with intent to kill.

Without intent to kill, you just have manslaughter.

If it's not illegal, it's just homicide.


Felony murder is an exception, that just requires you to get somebody killed by doing a dangerous crime.

But if Chauvin didn't intend to kill, and if he isn't charged with felony murder, then the prosecution will have to prove intent to kill to get a murder conviction.

-

All of the above is dated, but I assume that murder still requires intent to kill.

Here is a link to the actual charges, along with a brief description:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935897-Derek-Chauvin-Second-degree-murder-charge

Here's a link to the news article that outlines the charges with more verbiage:

https://www.startribune.com/derek-c...ghter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/

 

[TomC]

Passing a fake 20 isn't a $20 crime, it's a felony. It undermines the currency. But with modern printing and scanning technology*, it's really easy to make fake currency that the large majority of folks won't recognize. It's entirely possible that Floyd committed a felony, while having no idea that he had done so.

I'm skeptical.

There are crimes that don't require mens rea*, but the only one I know of (in a jurisdiction long ago and far far away) is providing alcohol to minors.

I assume that passing counterfeit bills isn't a crime unless you know they are counterfeit. Otherwise, depending on how common such bills are, we may all be criminals.

I am not a lawyer.

And maybe someone who got a bogus bill, honestly, is still a felon if they spent it, even if they explain who they got the bill from. I doubt it, but I'm not sure.

But the cops cannot know that.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Unintentional murder is not a contradiction in terms.

I think it is a contradiction.

Murder is the killing of a human being with intent to kill.

I don't for the myriad of reasons I stated in my post. I think the essential part of it is that a person can intend to do something violent and illegal, knowing it can lead to death, and in some of those circumstances it can be murder. One instance and this is not comprehensive is that those actions can be done with malice and in the cases where malice is involved while knowing that the actions might result in death, then it is also murder.* Therefore, in my view, it isn't an exception. It's just part of the nuances of definitions that we tend to over-simplify.

This, however, is merely a discussion of semantics, not actual laws that Chauvin was an expert on--to include the statutory definition of murder in the jurisdictions in question. I gave links to these earlier and so have others.

*I will try to give an example here: a person is in a bar brawl with another person. They are extremely angry. One person hates the other. A ground and pound situation occurs. Person X punches Person Y in the face 100 times while they are on the ground. They did not intend to murder them but they ought to have known that such violence MIGHT result in death and while they committed to the violent actions, they did those actions with malice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Passing a fake 20 isn't a $20 crime, it's a felony. It undermines the currency. But with modern printing and scanning technology*, it's really easy to make fake currency that the large majority of folks won't recognize. It's entirely possible that Floyd committed a felony, while having no idea that he had done so.

I'm skeptical.

There are crimes that don't require mens rea*, but the only one I know of (in a jurisdiction long ago and far far away) is providing alcohol to minors.

I assume that passing counterfeit bills isn't a crime unless you know they are counterfeit. Otherwise, depending on how common such bills are, we may all be criminals.

Federal law prohibits anyone from “forg[ing], counterfeit[ing], or alter[ing] any obligation or security of the United States” with the “intent to defraud” any other person. It further prohibits any attempt, with fraudulent intent, to use or introduce counterfeit currency in commerce, such as by using it to make a purchase, depositing it with a bank, or selling it to another person. The requirement that a person act with “intent to defraud” is intended to protect people who unknowingly receive counterfeit money and then try to use it to buy something.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/white-collar-crimes/money-counterfeiting/

 

[Harry Bosch]

Each of those “what I’ve tried to do is point out,“ posts is an attempt to stop talking about DEREK CHAUVIN and talk instead about what Floyd did wrong.

You're still misrepresenting me, but I'm coming to expect that.

Let's discuss Chauvin. He had multiple "excessive force" accusations. But he was still on the police force. Why do you suppose that was?
I think it's an important question. Especially, if the goal is to avoid a repeat of this ugly tragedy.

I'm not claiming to have an answer, so please don't assume that it's because I support excessive force. I don't. I also doubt that the Minneapolis police do either. You could go the "Because Racism" route. Plenty of TFT posters seem to do that. It's irrational, but feeds the narrative, "Black men tend to be killed more than white men Because Racism".
But I doubt it's that simple.

I'm sure that there's multiple, complex, reasons.

Getting back to Chauvin, maybe the reason that he was kept on the PD was because he was effective at protecting us peaceful types. He was judged by the bigwigs as better at protecting Law abiding citizens(black, white, or other) from criminals(black, white, or other).

I don't claim to know why Chauvin was still on the force after 19 accusations of excessive force. But he was. Do you know why? Want to venture a guess?


Tom

ETA ~

New threads are 100% free. You should start one.

ETA ~ There's already too many threads on this one issue, IMHO. I don't want to start another echo chamber ~

Tom: where did you get the information that he had "19 accusations of excessive force"? I'd like to get more information. The most that I could find was that he had "18 complaints against him"; but only two resulted in discipline. So, I don't that it should be assumed that the complaints were all excessive force. There were two separate women who commended him in 2008 and 2013 after he handled their domestic-violence calls.