George Floyd murderer's trial

[Gospel]

Don't forget that there are people on the other end of the messages posted on this forum. With that said, there are people at the other end of the news article the posts are about.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Don't forget that there are people on the other end of the messages posted on this forum. With that said, there are people at the other end of the news article the posts are about.

Sorry, but I'm not following you?

 

[Gospel]

Don't forget that there are people on the other end of the messages posted on this forum. With that said, there are people at the other end of the news article the posts are about.

Sorry, but I'm not following you?

I've learned that it's not followed and will be way less active as a result.

 

[Rhea]

Don't forget that there are people on the other end of the messages posted on this forum. With that said, there are people at the other end of the news article the posts are about.

Sorry, but I'm not following you?

I think he means, “be kind when you reply, there’s a real person with feelings reading it. And be kind when you discuss, because the people in the news stories, they are also real people with feelings, and for all you know they or their families could be reading here.”


It’s good advice because even if those particular people about whom the articles are written may not be here, other people who “could be them” are here. And example is when Black people who read here are watching people discuss Black people in the news - won’t that hit home?

 

[Gospel]

I am not defending Chauvin, he was a bad cop. But I bet it was not the first time he used this maneuver and nothing bad happened. Floyd had a bad heart and was on drugs, exerting himself fighting the police is what killed him. Police should learn from this, and they won't if you simply ignore the truth in this case.

What he did originally that caused Floyd to complain he couldn't breathe wouldn't have made anything bad happen--you have to be able to breathe to say you can't breathe. It looks like he responded to the complaints by increasing the pressure, completely preventing breathing, shutting him up but also killing him.

It was not pressure on his neck, it was chest restriction due to awkward position and yes pressure on the chest.
People here are fixated on things which look bad on the video but have nothing to do with Floyd's death.

And who was applying pressure to his chest?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Don't forget that there are people on the other end of the messages posted on this forum. With that said, there are people at the other end of the news article the posts are about.

Sorry, but I'm not following you?

I think he means, “be kind when you reply, there’s a real person with feelings reading it. And be kind when you discuss, because the people in the news stories, they are also real people with feelings, and for all you know they or their families could be reading here.”


It’s good advice because even if those particular people about whom the articles are written may not be here, other people who “could be them” are here. And example is when Black people who read here are watching people discuss Black people in the news - won’t that hit home?

What did I say that was un-nice? I said that the news is reporting the two women commended him. They were not one of the people who filed a complaint against him.

 

[Rhea]

I think he means, “be kind when you reply, there’s a real person with feelings reading it. And be kind when you discuss, because the people in the news stories, they are also real people with feelings, and for all you know they or their families could be reading here.”


It’s good advice because even if those particular people about whom the articles are written may not be here, other people who “could be them” are here. And example is when Black people who read here are watching people discuss Black people in the news - won’t that hit home?

What did I say that was un-nice? I said that the news is reporting the two women commended him. They were not one of the people who filed a complaint against him.

He may not have been replying to you?

 

[TomC]

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.

It was on TFT.
No, I don't remember who claimed it, or what thread.

Maybe someone assumed that Floyd's death counted, and made the number 19, instead of merely 18. I don't know. Maybe someone just said something they thought must be true, but isn't. I don't know.

It's an internet forum.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I think he means, “be kind when you reply, there’s a real person with feelings reading it. And be kind when you discuss, because the people in the news stories, they are also real people with feelings, and for all you know they or their families could be reading here.”


It’s good advice because even if those particular people about whom the articles are written may not be here, other people who “could be them” are here. And example is when Black people who read here are watching people discuss Black people in the news - won’t that hit home?

What did I say that was un-nice? I said that the news is reporting the two women commended him. They were not one of the people who filed a complaint against him.

He may not have been replying to you?

I wasn't. I was making the point that it's ok for people to say stuff about someone who is not a member of this board but anyone who says something about a person that is a member of this board (who can defend themselves) some mystical line is drawn.

 

[J842P]

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.

Why is everyone ignoring the relevant law? What you are saying isn't true in Minnesota.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Here’s an article on several of the cases

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...detail-allegations-abuse-officer-who-n1259207

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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 ~

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.

He had 19 years on the force and so there was probably a mixup by Tom or somebody else.

 

[Rhea]

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

Without intent to kill, you just have manslaughter.
[...]
All of the above is dated, but I assume that murder still requires intent to kill.

Why is everyone ignoring the relevant law? What you are saying isn't true in Minnesota.

I’m baffled by this as well. The relevant charges and their definitions have been posted multiple times.
And still several people keep repeating that they have a definition of murder in their heads and that’s what the court should be judging on?

The law has been posted.
“Murder” in the secod and third degree, as has been shown, does NOT require intent.


I get that most of us are not lawyers,
But the definition has been posted multiple times.
And THAT is the definition the trial is using, should be using and will use.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Having complaints proves nothing. What matters is if he actually did things wrong. Plenty of people complain about things that didn't happen.

 

[Wiploc]

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/

Thanks.

"Unintentional Murder" is right there in the name of the crime.

Almost all of my information about this case comes from this thread.

And my prejudice about murder being intentional dates from the 1980s.

I didn't like the way the statute is drafted. It seemed to undermine the concept of the lesser included offense. That is, the defense could wind up arguing that the defendant should be acquitted because the state failed to prove the defendant's lack of intent to kill.

But, again, that could be covered by case law or by another part of the statute.

I am not a lawyer.

Nor am I.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Having complaints proves nothing. What matters is if he actually did things wrong. Plenty of people complain about things that didn't happen.

Having complaints when engaged in some business gives the appearance of impropriety. The mere appearance of impropriety is, in the vast majority of workplace settings, an impropriety.

I do not accept that cops, when they have such complaints against them in such numbers, ought continue in the roles those complaints were filed pertaining to without independent investigation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Judge is reading jury instructions. Closing arguments will be next.

 

[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.

Having complaints proves nothing. What matters is if he actually did things wrong. Plenty of people complain about things that didn't happen.

I did assume that the reason the complaints came up at all is because they were at least credible. I suppose someone might have complained that he yelled at her dog.
Tom

ETA ~based on his behavior, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption ~

 

[Rhea]

Having complaints proves nothing. What matters is if he actually did things wrong. Plenty of people complain about things that didn't happen.

Having complaints when engaged in some business gives the appearance of impropriety. The mere appearance of impropriety is, in the vast majority of workplace settings, an impropriety.

I do not accept that cops, when they have such complaints against them in such numbers, ought continue in the roles those complaints were filed pertaining to without independent investigation.

This.


Since the cops have demonstrated their willingness and ability to bury legitimate complaints without investigation, then the complaints themselves are currently the best possible metric for police misbehavior and crimes. No better metric is available.

And the FACT that no other metric is available makes the complaints that do exist more credible, given the hurdle they have to clear in order to even exist.

 

[Rhea]

Prosecutor closing arguments:

Atty making a point of being clear that this is not a case against the polive dept, it is against Derek Chauvin. I think this is wise as some jurors may be reluctant to judge Chauvin on the evidence because they feel it judges the Police as an institution. “The defendant is not on trial for being a police officer, he is on trial for what he did. He was trained and he did not follow that training. He knew better, but he did not do better. What the defendant did was not policing, what the defendant did was assault. He betrayed the badge.”