How can Derek Chauvin expect a fair trial in Minneapolis?

[TomC]

He was saying he couldn't breathE.

He said that while he was sitting in a car.
Tom

 

[untermensche]

He was saying he couldn't breathE.

He said that while he was sitting in a car.
Tom

George Floyd told officers 'I can't breathe' more than 20 times, transcripts show

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...loyd-police-killing-transcript-i-cant-breathe

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Keeping repeating this doesn't make it so.

Besides the fact that if opiods are going to take you down they do it fast there's the little issue that they depress respiration, they don't keep you from inhaling. Thus someone who has ODed isn't going to be saying "I can't breathe". That is from obstruction, not drugs.

If his airway was obstructed he would not be able to push air past the vocal cords. Inability to breathe while being able to speak indicates that ventilation works but gas exchange does not, or not efficiently. As would happen if alveoli were filled with liquid. Which they were. He had so much liquid in his lungs, the lungs were twice their normal weight.

If his airway were completely obstructed he couldn't say anything, but if it is was merely restricted he could complain. And the response was to press harder--killing him.

 

[Patooka]

So basically you're saying the premise of the OP is, "How can Derek Chauvin get a fair trial where the jury absolutely agrees with everything I think?"

No flaw in that reasoning, no siree.

Except that I did not say anything like that. But nice try at misrepresentation.

It's adorable how you keep trying to pretend your mind isn't already made up as to how this trial should end. Fuck, you're already convinced you know how George Floyd died without any evidence being presented in court. You know, along with "the city burning" when, "the truth comes out".

 

[Toni]

Pulmonary edema is a reason the man was struggling to breath.

Why are you (and others) so eager to drop the final "e" off "breathe"?

The reason he died is because he was not allowed to take a deep breath by an insane murderous sociopath.

You are assuming Chauvin knew that Floyd is in grave danger of dying and not just malingering in order to avoid going to jail.

I do not see any evidence of that.

Only an idiot does not see the danger in kneeling on someone's neck.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So how is this anything but a show trial? A conviction is a foregone conclusion

Is it, though? Sure the media has done it’s bit to inflame and misinform. But methinks when the truth comes out the verdict will be surprising to some.

Yea, it's completely a foregone conclusion. I'm a big supporter of the cops. But Chauvin was dramatically wrong. He makes good cops (and the vast majority are good) look bad. The cops that I know were very very upset about what Chauvin did.

 

[TSwizzle]

Why are you (and others) so eager to drop the final "e" off "breathe"?


You are assuming Chauvin knew that Floyd is in grave danger of dying and not just malingering in order to avoid going to jail.

I do not see any evidence of that.

Only an idiot does not see the danger in kneeling on someone's neck.

Agreed but this method of restraining a non compliant suspect is used (or was used) by police forces all over the country. Similar tactics such as choke holds were also widely used. It’s the idiots at the top that need to be in the dock.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why are you (and others) so eager to drop the final "e" off "breathe"?


You are assuming Chauvin knew that Floyd is in grave danger of dying and not just malingering in order to avoid going to jail.

I do not see any evidence of that.

Only an idiot does not see the danger in kneeling on someone's neck.

Agreed but this method of restraining a non compliant suspect is used (or was used) by police forces all over the country. Similar tactics such as choke holds were also widely used. It’s the idiots at the top that need to be in the dock.

Link?

 

[Toni]

Why are you (and others) so eager to drop the final "e" off "breathe"?


You are assuming Chauvin knew that Floyd is in grave danger of dying and not just malingering in order to avoid going to jail.

I do not see any evidence of that.

Only an idiot does not see the danger in kneeling on someone's neck.

Agreed but this method of restraining a non compliant suspect is used (or was used) by police forces all over the country. Similar tactics such as choke holds were also widely used. It’s the idiots at the top that need to be in the dock.

The idiots at the top were not kneeling on necks.

PD policy does not compel kneeling on necks.

 

[TSwizzle]

The idiots at the top were not kneeling on necks.

What an asinine response, I never said they were. But the ones at the top are the ones that design the training and procedures for officers.

PD policy does not compel kneeling on necks.

I think in some departments it does, it is part of the officer training. Obviously Chauvin went beyond what was necessary but I believe that type of restraint is (or was) part of their training.

 

[Elixir]

So how is this anything but a show trial? A conviction is a foregone conclusion

Is it, though? Sure the media has done it’s bit to inflame and misinform. But methinks when the truth comes out the verdict will be surprising to some.

Yea, it's completely a foregone conclusion. I'm a big supporter of the cops. But Chauvin was dramatically wrong. He makes good cops (and the vast majority are good) look bad. The cops that I know were very very upset about what Chauvin did.

Mostly ... same. Some cops are among the really good people I have ever met. But ...
There are a lot of "bad" cops if you include the ones who fail to turn on their corrupt "brothers".
More than a few of them would like to, but rationalize not doing so the same way "good people" rationalized staying in the Trump administration: "If I leave, I'll be replaced by someone worse".

 

[laughing dog]

Why are you (and others) so eager to drop the final "e" off "breathe"?


You are assuming Chauvin knew that Floyd is in grave danger of dying and not just malingering in order to avoid going to jail.

I do not see any evidence of that.

Only an idiot does not see the danger in kneeling on someone's neck.

Or someone who simply does not respect the humanity of that person.

 

[Bronzeage]

The "I was only following orders," defense has been supplanted by the "I was only following procedures," defense.

There's no reason Chauvin can't receive a fair trial, which sucks for him, because he made the mistake of kneeling on a man's neck, on camera, and the guy dies. The only reason there is any issue to this is because he was a policeman. If a civilian did the same thing, no one would think there was any circumstances which justify this action.

We give special allowances to policemen. That's a simple fact, usually based on the idea that their job is so dangerous and split second decisions have to be made. Chauvin can't make that appeal after he had 8 minutes to think about it.

In one sense, Chauvin's trial will not be fair, because he is the only person on trial. He didn't drop out of the sky and onto Floyd's neck. He had been on the job for quiet a while and his propensity for this kind of act was well known to his co-workers and supervisors. None of them will be on trial.

An interesting side note: In the past few weeks, scandal has rocked the great Louisiana State University. It was revealed that former football coach, Les Miles, sexually harassed female students who worked in the athletic department. It was covered up and a settlement was made. Miles was later fired in the middle of a losing season. The story came to light recently. Miles lost his current coaching job, and in a surprise move, F. King Alexander, LSU President who approved the settlement, was fired from the job he moved onto. This will go a long way toward ending sexual harassment in these situations.

The unjustified deaths of civilians by police will continue until the police management learns that the responsibility for the corporate culture they promulgate and tolerate will follow them through their career and possibly end it, even though they didn't have a knee on anyone's neck.

 

[Jayjay]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the defendants in America have the right to waive jury trial, and leave it to the judge? If so, the venue shouldn't matter.

 

[TomC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the defendants in America have the right to waive jury trial, and leave it to the judge? If so, the venue shouldn't matter.

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure that defendants always have that option. Maybe so.
Nor am I sure that it would be to Chauvin's advantage. Finding a judge that hasn't got a political dog in that fight might be more difficult and complex than an impartial jury.

The media has already so thoroughly poisoned the wells it's hard to think a fair trial can be held anywhere by anyone.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The media has already so thoroughly poisoned the wells it's hard to think a fair trial can be held anywhere by anyone.

That opinion reflects more on the utterer that it does on the reality of the situation.

 

[ZiprHead]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the defendants in America have the right to waive jury trial, and leave it to the judge? If so, the venue shouldn't matter.

I would go with a jury trial. All you need is one sympathetic juror.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just heard Chauvin has had 19 complaints of brutality against him.

 

[Terrell]

I don't see the problem with denying him a change of venue. Let a jury in the location where the crime is alleged to occur decide his fate. The tapes went viral and pretty much anyone in the world that has wanted to has or had the ability to see them. IMO this cop's request for a change of venue, was nothing more than jury shopping. I'm glad the judge told him no.

 

[TomC]

The media has already so thoroughly poisoned the wells it's hard to think a fair trial can be held anywhere by anyone.

That opinion reflects more on the utterer that it does on the reality of the situation.

Feel free to explain why you think this is true.

I'm not even sure what you mean. What it looks like is the vague assertion, "Anyone who disagrees with me is Obviously wrong!" Please explain what you meant.
Tom