Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)
Options
Comments
-
penny piper wrote: »You are clutching at straws sorry ..... didn't he get arrested multiple times in the past (9 of atleast I know of) for drug offenses???? Floyd left prison in 2009 after an armed robbery charge and moved from houston to minnesota with a christian work program/also to complete a drug program. He seemingly got a job for a short period of time truck driving and also worked at the salvation army where he met Courtney Ross (who was visiting her ex husband)...
As I said before ...he/she began their drug usage/along with falsyfying drug prescriptions/involvement with morris halls a drug dealer......look for the amount of time he spent without drugs was minimal....he wasn't reformed/drug addicts need to keep away from other drug addicts he didn't ...I'm a reasonable person and
I'm not in anyway trying to say that what happened to george floyd should have any bearing on the man's past ...but to make him out as some kind of saint as some people do on here is quite pathetic....
I think the element discussing his past to somehow justify or excuse an extra judicial killing is more pathetic.0 -
penny piper wrote: »I've actually never said it did...where did you get that from?
I was replying to someone who has the opinion george floyd was reformed.
I've actually never said you did... I'm simply pointing out that Floyd's history has no bearing on the case. Not even the defence have tried to introduce it as they know it won't help their case.
He was no saint, and I don't think anyone is painting him as such. Nor is Chauvin the devil, nobody here thinks Chauvin had any intent to kill Floyd.0 -
penny piper wrote: »You are clutching at straws sorry ..... didn't he get arrested multiple times in the past (9 of atleast I know of) for drug offenses???? Floyd left prison in 2009 after an armed robbery charge and moved from houston to minnesota with a christian work program/also to complete a drug program. He seemingly got a job for a short period of time truck driving and also worked at the salvation army where he met Courtney Ross (who was visiting her ex husband)...
As I said before ...he/she began their drug usage/along with falsyfying drug prescriptions/involvement with morris halls a drug dealer......look for the amount of time he spent without drugs was minimal....he wasn't reformed/drug addicts need to keep away from other drug addicts he didn't ...I'm a reasonable person and
I'm not in anyway trying to say that what happened to george floyd should have any bearing on the man's past ...but to make him out as some kind of saint as some people do on here is quite pathetic....
Who in this thread was making him out to be a saint? The mention of attending rehab, working straight jobs and doing work with Christian ministries isn't intended to make him out to be so, but rather to point out that he wasn't entirely one thing or the other. Just because someone of the opinion that he wasn't making enough progress in any of these areas doesn't mean it objectively counts for nothing.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I think the element discussing his past to somehow justify or excuse an extra judicial killing is more pathetic.
I wasn't trying to do that at all.... I was stating that I don't believe George Floyd was reformed as previously posted by Briany...that's all...it has nothing to do with trying to justify anything else regarding what happened to him. It's a point of view that's all.
I stand by what I posted that to say he was reformed was wrong...regarding his drug useage/involvement with drug dealers....you don't have a drug addict mixing/with other drug addicts/dealers (doesn't reform anyone) fact.0 -
Who in this thread was making him out to be a saint? The mention of attending rehab, working straight jobs and doing work with Christian ministries isn't intended to make him out to be so, but rather to point out that he wasn't entirely one thing or the other. Just because someone of the opinion that he wasn't making enough progress in any of these areas doesn't mean it objectively counts for nothing.
To be honest whatever christian program he did/drug program he did/short truck driving job/salvation army job....it actually did account for nothing....he never reformed...he was still in the company of drug addicts/drug dealers/ driving whilst high on drugs/(blatant disregard for other people's lives) still committing criminal acts. Do you not agree the very day this awful situation happened he was committing an offense? high on drugs whilst driving a car??
I do apologise but sometimes maybe your posts come across that way regarding "saint" idk it's just my opinion...0 -
Advertisement
-
I've actually never said you did... I'm simply pointing out that Floyd's history has no bearing on the case. Not even the defence have tried to introduce it as they know it won't help their case.
He was no saint, and I don't think anyone is painting him as such. Nor is Chauvin the devil, nobody here thinks Chauvin had any intent to kill Floyd.
You're just been trivial there....You certainly don't need to point out to me that floyd's history has nothing to do with the case. I've watched the trial. You also don't know who thinks what here either..fyi
but in hindsight ..
Didn't the defense lawyer actual show footage of a previous arrest of floyd in 2019 to show floyd had a history of been under the influence of drugs and failing to co-operate with the police ?..hmm .the body cam footage of a police officer who arrested floyd scott creighton a former minneapolis police officer who testified that he stopped a vehicle in which floyd was a passenger ...he said he found him incoherant/unable to obey orders. So essentially his past did come into play to a certain extent0 -
Actual photo of Chauvin next week0
-
I've actually never said you did... I'm simply pointing out that Floyd's history has no bearing on the case. Not even the defence have tried to introduce it as they know it won't help their case.
He was no saint, and I don't think anyone is painting him as such. Nor is Chauvin the devil, nobody here thinks Chauvin had any intent to kill Floyd.
You can't say what everybody here thinks nor can you say officer chauvin did not have intent to incapacitate Mr Floyd by asphyxiation. You don't know what was going through his mind when he was pressing down on Mr Floyd with his knee0 -
You can't say what everybody here thinks nor can you say officer chauvin did not have intent to incapacitate Mr Floyd by asphyxiation. You don't know what was going through his mind when he was pressing down on Mr Floyd with his knee
If you can point out a previous post here where someone says Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd, I'll be happy to retract my comment. I didn't see such a post.
But fine, I'm also happy to reword my statement as "...I haven't seen anyone here say Chauvin had any intent to kill Floyd." I don't really see how that changes anything about the actual point I made, but happy to add a qualifying statement if that satisfies things.0 -
Whether bystanders or acting as paramedics they are citizens and only citizens, not officers of the law.penny piper wrote: »Yes they are citizens but they were acting as paramedics at that time...not bystanders.
I agree it has nothing to do with the case.2. why should chauvan have anything to do with a question that someone said that george floyd was reformed??? I was merely replying to what Brainy posted.
it has nothing to do with chauvan or the case.
So makes me wonder why your keep bringing up a duty of care if paramedics, clouds past, Chauvin’s intent, etc etc All irrelevant.
All these things that are irrelevant. Doesn’t paint a string picture for the defence if these very little ace card to cling to.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Sure, nobody knows what he was taking.
But we can said that he’s not charged with intentionally murdering him. That’s a fact that doesn’t required psychic.
Doesn't mean he didn't have the malice aforethought/ intention but we will never know that because as you correctly point the DA didn't charge him with that - they felt safer charging him with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.0 -
If you can point out a previous post here where someone says Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd, I'll be happy to retract my comment. I didn't see such a post.
But fine, I'm also happy to reword my statement as "...I haven't seen anyone here say Chauvin had any intent to kill Floyd." I don't really see how that changes anything about the actual point I made, but happy to add a qualifying statement if that satisfies things.
Yes better to be more accurate in your posts0 -
penny piper wrote: »To be honest whatever christian program he did/drug program he did/short truck driving job/salvation army job....it actually did account for nothing....he never reformed...he was still in the company of drug addicts/drug dealers/ driving whilst high on drugs/(blatant disregard for other people's lives) still committing criminal acts. Do you not agree the very day this awful situation happened he was committing an offense? high on drugs whilst driving a car??
I do apologise but sometimes maybe your posts come across that way regarding "saint" idk it's just my opinion...
At no point did I say he was a fully reformed character, so your statement in bold is irrelevant and comes across to me like you trying to twist words. Have a read of what I said in previous posts and see where I said he was a fully reformed man, if you can find such an example. What I did say was that there had been efforts at reform on his part. And these efforts do not count for nothing as it shows that he knew right from wrong and wasn't merely some unrepentant career criminal. He was neither an angel from Heaven nor a devil from Hell, but a human being, and was entitled to treatment a little more humane than what he got in the day he died.0 -
He was neither an angel from Heaven nor a devil from Hell, but a human being, and was entitled to treatment a little more humane than what he got in the day he died.
No doubt he was definitely a human being.
No doubt he shouldn't be dead today.
There's also no doubt he was driving/about to drive off intoxicated with drugs...you don't agree???
There's also no doubt he should have complied with police officers when he was asked to get into the police car. You don't agree?
Look I feel extremely sorry for mr.floyd/mr.chauvan it's a very sad situation all round.
I'm also not entering into an arguement either ...
btw there is one thing I never do which is to try to twist words....0 -
The jurors were questioned on this topic and one did respond that they supported BLM, but in the wider context of all lives mattering, and another said they support the idea, but not what the movement has become.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/jurors-derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-case
There's actually a lot of nuance to their views on this topic.
Chemist, white man in his 20s: Wrote Floyd had been "killed" by Chauvin on his questionnaire.
Mixed race woman in her 20s : "I like the idea of what [BLM] is supposed to be about".
Business auditor, white man in his 30s: "I believe Black lives matter"
Info Tech Manager, Black man in his 30s: "It could have been me". He wrote on his jury questionnaire that he had a "somewhat negative" opinion of Chauvin.
Health care, white woman in her 50s "I never thought about that [mythology about black parents discussion about racist police death squads with son] for my son"
Banking professional, Black man in his 30s: He voiced "strong opinions" in his juror questionnaire, but in court said he could assess the trial evidence impartially.
Executive assistant, white woman in her 50s: She described the police response to a young black man she witnessed as being "harassment".
Management professional, black man in his 40s: Knew about the wrongful death settlement reached by the city with Floyds family. Claims "I will put it aside".
Company reorganisation employee, mixed race woman in her 40s: Also knew about wrongful death settlement. Noted the police officers took "little to no action" about Floyd's condition. Claimed BLM protests/riots gave a voice to people who "didn't really feel heard".
Nurse, white woman in her 50s: Also knows about wrongful death settlement. "I suppose knowing that Mr Floyd died, I would say, yes, it [time Chauvin restrained Floyd] was too long". She strongly agreed that minorities receive unequal treatment in the criminal justice system. She did not automatically trust police officers.
Marketing retiree, Black woman in her 60s: Also heard about the wrongful death settlement. "I am Black, and my life matters".
Insurance Company client advocate, white woman in her 40s: Concerned about her personal safety. Had formed a somewhat negative view toward Chauvin. "I don't believe he deserved to die, but the police used excessive force...it's obvious that change has to happen.
Former custody service rep, white woman in her 50s: "This restraint ultimately was responsible for Mr. Floyd's demise".
Social worker, white woman in her 20s: Also aware of wrongful death settlement. She has formed a somewhat negative to neutral view of Chauvin.
These are the people that are judging Chauvin. Its an entirely uphill struggle and one has to accept that after 12 months or more of an all out global media onslaught portraying GF as a saint cruelly murdered by the evil racist Chauvin this is the best jury the defence could hope to find.
This is ultimately a show trial. Ironically enough, I think the black jurors may be fairer to Chauvin than the white jurors. In that they may encounter men like GF on a daily basis. Whereas the white jurors live as far away from people like GF as they can. Same as BLM co-founders.Anyone coming in with a BLM t-shirt on, shouting "Defund the police!" would obviously have been struck off the jury.
See above. You're thinking that only you realize that.The case against Chauvin is already strong enough that his team offered a plea deal. Maybe, *gasp* he'll be convicted because he's actually guilty of a crime.
He clearly isnt though. Even the state witness Dr Baker (the only medical witness to actually examine the body) would only go so far as to say that GF died from a sudden heart/lung failure during police restraint. As he explained in court, GF's violent resistance to lawful police arrest led to a physical demand on his heart that his heart - given its diseased state - simply couldn't answer. Canadian studies have shown 3,000 or more police restraints of a similar type carried out with zero deaths. The issue here isnt the non-lethal police restraint, it is GF's heart being hugely damaged by his own lifestyle. He could have keeled over under any sudden physical stress or strain. It just so happened Chauvin was the unfortunate who stepped on that landmine.The defense had the ability to reject jurors. And strong BLM supporters would have been obvious rejections
If the entire country is forcefed mass media telling them BLM is the new Christianity to remember the death and resurrection of GF, whereas Chauvin is the new Judas....how exactly do you find a neutral jury?0 -
-
Wonder does court require an unanimous verdict or will it be a case that if jury deliberation keep going without a verdict on, will he accept say 10 to 2 and so on.
I’m not convinced prosecution have proven 2nd degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt.0 -
Let’s say that hypothetically, he was a timebomb and would have keeled over by virtue of the handcuffs being put on him alone.p
He could have keeled over under any sudden physical stress or strain. It just so happened Chauvin was the unfortunate who stepped on that landmine.
If he went into cardiac arrest, while the cops stood there for 9 mins looking at him, not checking or helping. They’d have breached their duty of care.
Focusing on Floyd health does not help these attempts at defending Chauvin as they don’t address Chauvin’s criminal actions - with is what the charges relate to.
By assembling a jury of sufficiently educated and intelligent adults who can separate sensationalist media from the facts of the case.If the entire country is forcefed mass media telling them BLM is the new Christianity to remember the death and resurrection of GF, whereas Chauvin is the new Judas....how exactly do you find a neutral jury?
You insist that people opinions on BLM will decide their opinion on Chauvins actions. But surely you realise that applies to people with opposing prejudiced views too.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was lead to believe that the jury couldn't understand the expert testimonies.0
-
Reasonable doubt of what exactly? Serious question.
Sean’s to be the latest buzzword wheeling out by those defending Chauvin. Reasonable doubt isn’t a magic get out of jail free card. The doubt has to be applicable to the charges laid out in court.
For example, it was suggested that Chauvin was distracted. I don’t believe he was, but even if he was it would rude doubt about the charges as he’s not accused of intentional homicide. Distraction is still negligence.
Negligence is a slippery concept to nail down. It only begins to make some sort of sense in hindsight. Trying to establish police negligence is further compounded by Floyd being negligent in his own duty of care to himself. Floyds clear disregard towards his own well being was manifested by his drug overdosing attempt and his repeated efforts to avoid arrest.
Sabotaging the police efforts at providing duty of care, I guess you could say.
If the defense can show this, then it contributes to reasonable doubt with respect to the charges.
The other elements are Floyds drug related compromised health, his participation in the armed violent assault/ robbery on a pregnant woman and his previous form for evading arrest. Obviously he's still entitled to due process, but resisting arrest while having more red flags than New Years Eve in Tiananmen Square, wasn't going to do him any favors.0 -
Negligence is a slippery concept to nail down. It only begins to make some sort of sense in hindsight. Trying to establish police negligence is further compounded by Floyd being negligent in his own duty of care to himself. Floyds clear disregard towards his own well being was manifested by his drug overdosing attempt and his repeated efforts to avoid arrest.
Sabotaging the police efforts at providing duty of care, I guess you could say.
If the defense can show this, then it contributes to reasonable doubt with respect to the charges.
The other elements are Floyds drug related compromised health, his participation in the armed violent assault/ robbery on a pregnant woman and his previous form for evading arrest. Obviously he's still entitled to due process, but resisting arrest while having more red flags than New Years Eve in Tiananmen Square, wont do him any favors.
The defense aren't going into his criminal history cause it's irrelevant... They've done a pretty shoddy job at claiming he was gonna die regardless as well. The reality is that Chauvin continued to kneel on the neck of a man who lost consciousness for a number of minutes, this was not remotely necessary. On top of that, senior police have said it was unacceptable. It seems more a case of what he'll be convicted for at this point.0 -
Let’s say that hypothetically, he was a timebomb and would have keeled over by virtue of the handcuffs being put on him alone.
It's more likely the event or events that placed impossible stress on his heart/lungs and caused him to keel over was violently resisting arrest and struggling with the officers for several minutes. Handcuffs are not lethal, nor do they cause more physical strain than violently struggling for several minutes.
The retired medical examiner noted that GF's death should have been 'Undetermined' in his opinion because there was so many contributing factors and he didn't think it correct to point to any single cause.If he went into cardiac arrest, while the cops stood there for 9 mins looking at him, not checking or helping. They’d have breached their duty of care.
We know the police did check GF's wellbeing because the trial evidence is that one of the other officers told Chauvin that GF had no pulse. We also know that it was the police who called the medical response to help GF. So their 'duty of care' was fulfilled. Perhaps they would have been able to do more if they didn't have a hostile crowd distracting and threatening them.
The myth that Chauvin stood over GF, hand in pocket, laughing as he died is an example of the media narrative that the jury has been conditioned to believe.Focusing on Floyd health does not help these attempts at defending Chauvin as they don’t address Chauvin’s criminal actions - with is what the charges relate to.
Chauvin didn't carry out any criminal actions. He didn't assault GF. He assisted in restraining a man who was violently resisting lawful arrest. None of the other officers on the scene had any concern with how Chauvin restrained him so there's no reason to believe it was blatantly wrong or lethal. A very unhealthy man then died under the physical strain of resisting arrest. Sad and avoidable, but not a crime.By assembling a jury of sufficiently educated and intelligent adults who can separate sensationalist media from the facts of the case.
I think contributors to this thread might believe they're sufficiently educated and intelligent but still the myth of Chauvin having his hand in his pocket was circulating as recently as last week.
People who pretend they're not influenced by media are deluding themselves.You insist that people opinions on BLM will decide their opinion on Chauvins actions. But surely you realise that applies to people with opposing prejudiced views too.
Sure, but BLM supporters and those with negative views of Chauvin are on the jury. Whereas non-BLM supporters and pro-Chauvin people are not.
Chauvin's defence team has done a very good job but Chauvin was never going to get a fair trial. Regardless of the evidence, he'll be convicted by a jury conditioned by a year of mass media telling them Chauvin is a monster, GF a saint and BLM the new religion of our times. Let alone the fear they must be under of being attacked by BLM 'peaceful protestors' should they give the wrong answer.0 -
It's sort of amusing watching all the posters who are prepared to declare the verdict as unacceptable if Chauvin is convicted...0
-
Deleted User wrote: »It's sort of amusing watching all the posters who are prepared to declare the verdict as unacceptable if Chauvin is convicted...
I don't find it amusing at all.....but then again I think everyone should have a fair trial.0 -
penny piper wrote: »I don't find it amusing at all.....but then again I think everyone should have a fair trial.
So far I'm seeing no evidence of some unfair trial.. He's perfectly free to appeal if he thinks it was unfair etc. The reality is the defence have failed to provide reasonable doubt. As soon as you saw the trial wasn't going his way, you've been trying to find every excuse for a mistrial.
On top of that, there's a fair few posters who simply want him to get off cause they have a long history of downplaying racism so they just want him to get off because they're outraged by the very concept of BLM.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »So far I'm seeing no evidence of some unfair trial.. He's perfectly free to appeal if he thinks it was unfair etc. The reality is the defence have failed to provide reasonable doubt. As soon as you saw the trial wasn't going his way, you've been trying to find every excuse for a mistrial.
On top of that, there's a fair few posters who simply want him to get off cause they have a long history of downplaying racism so they just want him to get off because they're outraged by the very concept of BLM.
I dont see how its possible to downplay racism in a trial about an incident that has nothing to do with race.
The only racial elements to it are the people who are going to torch cities if they dont get the verdict they want because to them its white v black, not cop v criminal0 -
It’s by no means a simple concept. But that’s why there’s a length legal process at hand here.Negligence is a slippery concept to nail down. It only begins to make some sort of sense in hindsight.The other elements are Floyds drug related compromised health, his participation in the armed violent assault/ robbery on a pregnant woman and his previous form for evading arrest
Poor health doesn’t impact whether or not Chauvin acted criminally.
And how is his assault/robbery history relevant?
Are you saying Chauvin was aware of that history?0 -
Advertisement
-
It's more likely the event or events that placed impossible stress on his heart/lungs and caused him to keel over was violently resisting arrest and struggling with the officers for several minutes. Handcuffs are not lethal, nor do they cause more physical strain than violently struggling for several minutes.
Evidence provided by the prosecution directly contradicts this. Not sure why you're even mentioning handcuffs?We know the police did check GF's wellbeing because the trial evidence is that one of the other officers told Chauvin that GF had no pulse. We also know that it was the police who called the medical response to help GF. So their 'duty of care' was fulfilled. Perhaps they would have been able to do more if they didn't have a hostile crowd distracting and threatening them.
How have you come to the conclusion that calling for an ambulance fulfills their duty of care? Again, testimony provided by prosecution directly contradicts this. I also don't recall the defence even trying to defend this angle with any real vigor.
They checked for a pulse, noted he was unconscious and yet continued to leave him in same position and kneel on his neck but were too distracted by the crowd to do anything else? I think most reasonable people would agree this explanation is pretty silly.The myth that Chauvin stood over GF, hand in pocket, laughing as he died is an example of the media narrative that the jury has been conditioned to believe.
How have you come to the conclusion that the jury have been conditioned to believe the above? Unsubstantiated nonsense to be honest.Chauvin didn't carry out any criminal actions. He didn't assault GF. He assisted in restraining a man who was violently resisting lawful arrest. None of the other officers on the scene had any concern with how Chauvin restrained him so there's no reason to believe it was blatantly wrong or lethal. A very unhealthy man then died under the physical strain of resisting arrest. Sad and avoidable, but not a crime.
Well we are going to find out next week if it was a crime or not. Bolded piece is patently false too. One officer suggested that they should move Floyd from the prone position he was in as required per their training.
Testimony from prosecution concluded that a perfectly healthy person would have died if restrained the same way in which George Floyd was that day.
Certainly sad and avoidable.Chauvin's defence team has done a very good job but Chauvin was never going to get a fair trial. Regardless of the evidence, he'll be convicted by a jury conditioned by a year of mass media telling them Chauvin is a monster, GF a saint and BLM the new religion of our times. Let alone the fear they must be under of being attacked by BLM 'peaceful protestors' should they give the wrong answer.
Ye I'm not sure they have to be honest. I think they struggled in cross examining the prosecution witnesses and their own witnesses had real trouble when cross examined. Carbon Monoxide passage was bizarre.
Which part of the trial was unfair? Be specific please. This conditioned by media nonsense is complete rubbish. I'm finding it quite ironic that you are raving about unfair trials due to bias where it's absolutely clear that you have a real disdain for BLM.
I thought before the trial started that Chauvin's actions were responsible for Floyd's death. I'm not sure how any right thinking person could think otherwise personally. After hearing the evidence I'm even more convinced.
However, I will accept whatever result the jury returns.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement