Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

penny piper · 17-04-2021 11:05AM

[QUOTE=All_in_Flynn;116917407

[/QUOTE]How have you come to the conclusion that calling for an ambulance fulfills their duty of care? [/QUOTE]

It actually does ....did you not listen to Nicole Mackenzie who gave evidence for both the state/defense?

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

So before the trial ...did you know Floyd ...had an enlarged heart??? blocked arteries? hypertension? a tumour? ... was high on drugs at the time of his arrest? I didn't ........
You must be living under a bush if you think this is not a show trial and that even if chauvan is innocent/or not..............he will face a long time in prison...
Even the prosecution trying to bring in results at the last moment into court...was really pushing how desperate the state is to get chauvan. He is to be made example of and that's it.................

Mellor · 17-04-2021 11:07AM

Sand wrote: »

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.

I think you’re missing the point. The cause is irrelevant in the hypothetical. Even if he want into cardiac arrest of his own accorded. The cops failed in their duty of cate to a suspect in custody.

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.

This is some terrible logic. If that’s the best defence, then LOL.

A duty of care is ongoing.
By the time his pulse had stopped he was dead. They called medical response after it was too late.
Neglecting somebody until they die, then calling an ambulance does not retrospectively fulfill a duty of care.

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.

I’ve never once mentioned any thing like that in any of my posts. Pathetic strawman tbh.

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.

I beg to differ, I believe he did commit a crime. Luckily, there’s been an lengthy legal process to decide that. And we’ll to see which one of us if right.
But he hasn’t been accused of assault. So not sure why you are being up that. He also didn’t rape or steal from Floyd. The accusations are very clear.

None of the other officers had any concern? I think you’ll find that’s not true.
Chauvin was the senior officer. He was in command. One of the officers said to put Floyd onto his side - which is the correct procedure by police policy - Chauvin overruled him.
The other two officers where trainees, a few days on the job. They are going to order their superior to get off Floyd.

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 in this thread haven’t sat through all the evidence in court.
Do any of the jurors think that? I doubt it. So your point is pretty Irene.

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.

The jurors were approved by both prosecution and defence.
The fact there are no Chauvin supporters on the jury should tell you a lot.

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,.

Chauvin’s defence did as best they could defending somebody who was clearly guilty of some of the charges.
Regardless of the media. He’d have been convicted on the evidence. That’s not hard to see.

All_in_Flynn · 17-04-2021 11:16AM

penny piper wrote: »

How have you come to the conclusion that calling for an ambulance fulfills their duty of care?

It actually does ....did you not listen to Nicole Mackenzie who gave evidence for both the state/defense?

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

So before the trial ...did you know Floyd ...had an enlarged heart??? blocked arteries? hypertension? a tumour? ... was high on drugs at the time of his arrest? I didn't ........
You must be living under a bush if you think this is not a show trial and that even if chauvan is innocent/or not..............he will face a long time in prison...
Even the prosecution trying to bring in results at the last moment into court...was really pushing how desperate the state is to get chauvan. He is to be made example of and that's it.................[/QUOTE]

No, calling an ambulance alone does not alone fulfill a duty of care and yes I did see her testimony.

No, before the trial I obviously did not know any of his medical history. Not for the first time on this thread though, you've missed the point. After hearing all the medical history and evidence in the trial as pointed out in my post, I'm even more convinced that Chauvin was negligent and responsible for his death.

Biker79 · 17-04-2021 11:21AM

Mellor wrote: »

It’s by no means a simple concept. But that’s why there’s a length legal process at hand here.

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?

The Guards have a euphemism: ' known to police ' .

It means when someone has a criminal past which makes them more likely to reoffend. Violent criminals are more likely to commit violent crimes in the future.
The data on that is very clear.

' known to police ' allows police to exercise good judgement when dealing with a suspect.

I believe Chauvin decided on firm action with Floyd, on that basis, assuming he knew Floyds past ( I think he did ), but Floyds health wasn't up to this firm handling.

Sand · 17-04-2021 11:28AM

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Evidence provided by the prosecution directly contradicts this. Not sure why you're even mentioning handcuffs?

Please reference the evidence you're pointing to. I'm mentioning handcuffs because the post I responded to mentioned handcuffs.

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.

Again, reference the evidence you are pointing to.

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.

They called for an ambulance 1 minute after removing him from the vehicle, long before checking for a pulse.

The medical examiner testified that the prone position is not inherently dangerous. He also testified that he found no evidence of bruising or other injuries to Floyds neck. He also testified that he didn't think think Chauvin's knee was in a position to occlude the carotid artery, and even if it had been human beings have two carotid arteries so the second artery would have continued to supply oxygen to GF's brain.

He also testified that in his opinion of viewing the video Chauvin's knee was not on Floyd's neck. It's time for people to give up on the whole 'knee on neck' narrative.

How have you come to the conclusion that the jury have been conditioned to believe the above? Unsubstantiated nonsense to be honest.

Well you still believe the knee on neck narrative don't you?

Well we are going to find out next week if it was a crime or not.

Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6 were convicted in a court too.

Testimony from prosecution concluded that a perfectly healthy person would have died if restrained the same way in which George Floyd was that day.

And Canadian studies have shown 3,000 or more real arrests where the criminal was restrained in a similar manner and survived. Christ, that insufferable Crowder chap did it a week ago and he is still alive.

Any reasonable person would rather than Chauvin restrain them for 8-9 minutes than run flat out with a bad heart and lifestyle like Floyd's topped up by meth and fentanyl.

bazermc · 17-04-2021 11:28AM

I see the jury are going to be allowed deliberating from 10am until 10pm each night so we could possibly have a verdict in the middle of the night Irish time.

There will be a 2 hour call from the time they confirm the have reached a verdict until it is delivered in court.

I’ll try set my phone to alert me during the night in case there is a jury verdict.

Sand · 17-04-2021 11:37AM

Mellor wrote: »

By the time his pulse had stopped he was dead. They called medical response after it was too late.

Neglecting somebody until they die, then calling an ambulance does not retrospectively fulfill a duty of care.

The medical support was called at 8:20, 1 minute after police pulled Floyd out of the car and restrained him, and several minutes before they checked his pulse. Medics were on scene at 8:27.

You're completely uninformed on the events. The police called for medics while Floyd was still talking, struggling and breathing.

I beg to differ, I believe he did commit a crime.

And as we can see above, you've done so on a mistaken understanding of what happened.

The fact there are no Chauvin supporters on the jury should tell you a lot.

Yes, the media has done a good job convicting him long before the trial.

All_in_Flynn · 17-04-2021 11:39AM

Sand wrote: »

Please reference the evidence you're pointing to. I'm mentioning handcuffs because the post I responded to mentioned handcuffs.

Again, reference the evidence you are pointing to.

They called for an ambulance 1 minute after removing him from the vehicle, long before checking for a pulse.

The medical examiner testified that the prone position is not inherently dangerous. He also testified that he found no evidence of bruising or other injuries to Floyds neck. He also testified that he didn't think think Chauvin's knee was in a position to occlude the carotid artery, and even if it had been human beings have two carotid arteries so the second artery would have continued to supply oxygen to GF's brain.

He also testified that in his opinion of viewing the video Chauvin's knee was not on Floyd's neck. It's time for people to give up on the whole 'knee on neck' narrative.

Well you still believe the knee on neck narrative don't you?

Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6 were convicted in a court too.

And Canadian studies have shown 3,000 or more real arrests where the criminal was restrained in a similar manner and survived. Christ, that insufferable Crowder chap did it a week ago and he is still alive.

Any reasonable person would rather than Chauvin restrain them for 8-9 minutes than run flat out with a bad heart and lifestyle like Floyd's topped up by meth and fentanyl.

Hang on a second, before I go any further here. Are you claiming that Chauvin did not have his knee on Floyd's neck?

Also, the testimony you reference to support your claim. Did you see the cross examination of that witness. In particular the part about where his knee was placed?

Mellor · 17-04-2021 11:41AM

Biker79 wrote: »

The Guards have a euphemism: ' known to police ' .

It means when someone has a criminal past which makes them more likely to reoffend. Violent criminals are more likely to commit violent crimes in the future.
The data on that is very clear.

Yes the data on that is very clear. It allows detectives to establish most likely suspects abd also factors into sentencing in court.
It course doesn’t give police like Chauvin extra judicial powers.

I believe Chauvin decided on firm action with Floyd, on that basis, assuming he knew Floyds past ( I think he did ), but Floyds health wasn't up to this firm handling.

If that where true, it would mean his actions where intentionally and not in relation to the need to restrain a man. That’s doesn’t help his defence.

Mellor · 17-04-2021 12:12PM

Sand wrote: »

The medical support was called at 8:20, 1 minute after police pulled Floyd out of the car and restrained him, and several minutes before they checked his pulse. Medics were on scene at 8:27.

After he was dead was in relation to his pulse.
And I think you mean 1 minute after Chauvin kneeled on his neck.

Calling medics on a forcably restrained subject is standard police procedure. The rest of the procedure is to put him into recovery position.
Chauvin didn’t do that. That’s not meeting his duty of care. Clearly.

You're completely uninformed on the events. The police called for medics while Floyd was still talking, struggling and breathing.

I’m aware that the call came in just after he was restrained. We’re taking about Chauvin’s actions. Chauvin didn’t give assistance, or follow procedure.

And think about what you just acknowledged.
The other officers decided Floyd needed medical assistance. Knowing this, Chauvin continued to press his knee into his neck for almost 9 minutes more.
You really thought that proves he met his duty of care. WTF? It literally proves the opposite.

And as we can see above, you've done so on a mistaken understanding of what happened.

Nope. What we actually see is you just proved the case against Chauvin.
He continued to kneel on Floyds neck, knowing he needed medical care. I think you’ve just upgraded his actions from negligent to malicious.

Biker79 · 17-04-2021 12:15PM

Mellor wrote: »

Yes the data on that is very clear. It allows detectives to establish most likely suspects abd also factors into sentencing in court.
It course doesn’t give police like Chauvin extra judicial powers.

If that where true, it would mean his actions where intentionally and not in relation to the need to restrain a man. That’s doesn’t help his defence.

It absolutely does, when you consider efforts had already been made for up to an hour prior to Chauvin arriving. Those efforts were met with stiff resistance. Floyd had plenty of opportunity to comply with police.

His intentional actions were in neutralising Floyd until the ambulance arrived, while facing down the possible threat of bystanders. Anything else makes no sense. Why would he deliberately harm/ neglect Floyd while surrounded by witnesses making video recordings? He was looking straight at at people recording him. He would have to be pretty stupid to think he'd get away with anything illegal.

Sure look - if we were all to base our impressions on a sensationalised video clip that deliberately did not provide context, then we would all have an emotional reaction to this incident.

Mellor · 17-04-2021 12:44PM

Biker79 wrote: »

It absolutely does, when you consider efforts had already been made for up to an hour prior to Chauvin arriving. Those efforts were met with stiff resistance. Floyd had plenty of opportunity to comply with police.

Floyd absolutely should have complied with police. His actions were also criminal. I’ve never claimed otherwise.
But none of that gives Chauvin premised to act outside the law or outside of police policy.

His intentional actions were in neutralising Floyd until the ambulance arrived, while facing down the possible threat of bystanders. Anything else makes no sense.

So intentionally not following procedure then?
Intentionally continuing to kneel on the neck of a man who needed medical care?
That’s not helping his case.

Why would he deliberately harm/ neglect Floyd while surrounded by witnesses making video recordings? He was looking straight at at people recording him. He would have to be pretty stupid to think he'd get away with anything illegal.

He isn’t charged with doing it deliberately.

Sure look - if we were all to base our impressions on a sensationalised video clip that deliberately did not provide context, then we would all have an emotional reaction to this incident.

Good thing the mountain of evidence amounts to far more than initial media reports.

17-04-2021 12:54PM

Biker79 wrote: »

It absolutely does, when you consider efforts had already been made for up to an hour prior to Chauvin arriving. Those efforts were met with stiff resistance. Floyd had plenty of opportunity to comply with police.

His intentional actions were in neutralising Floyd until the ambulance arrived, while facing down the possible threat of bystanders. Anything else makes no sense. Why would he deliberately harm/ neglect Floyd while surrounded by witnesses making video recordings? He was looking straight at at people recording him. He would have to be pretty stupid to think he'd get away with anything illegal.

Sure look - if we were all to base our impressions on a sensationalised video clip that deliberately did not provide context, then we would all have an emotional reaction to this incident.

You can claim it offers such powers but legally it doesn't...

Penn · 17-04-2021 01:06PM

Mellor wrote: »

Good thing the mountain of evidence amounts to far more than initial media reports.

This is a point that seems to be escaping a lot of people here. As well as the fact both the prosecution and defence had a role in picking the jury, that the media attention on the case also means there could be a greater push to do everything as impartially as possible (as much as impartiality is a requirement in the courts anyway), and that the judge knows better as to whether a jury is supposed to be sequestered or not than people here.

Instead we have claims that the jury are more likely to believe the prosecutors "expert" because he's a charming Irish man, that the prosecutors tried to introduce evidence to rebut something a defence expert said which is unfair even though the judge denied their request anyway, and that because Floyd was "known to police" Chauvin was justified in his actions even though several high-ranking police and police-trainers have said he wasn't.

Chauvin is on trial because there's a strong case against him.

Biker79 · 17-04-2021 02:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You can claim it offers such powers but legally it doesn't...

It amounts to reasonable doubt.

penny piper · 17-04-2021 02:36PM

Could someone kindly explain this to me as I'm so stupid ..I'm not trying to justify anything ...just general curiousity...

When George Floyd was arrested by the car he was in.....he had an object in his mouth?? the defense lawyer Nelson insinuated this was a drug/tablet??? am I right?? ..[.the prosecution then later basically made Dr.Fowler agree it was chewing gum that that Floyd had previously in the shop?]

He was then handcuffed ...brought to the other side of the road...stood/sat against the wall handcuffed.

The police officers then tried to get floyd into the police car....the time he was resisting arrest.

Later it was found there were/was a tablet/tablet residue in the police car which had belonged to floyd had his saliva on it?

How did Floyd keep the chewing gum/tablet separate in his mouth???? in the first picture it looks like one object.....and if that was the case how did he place another object in his mouth after been handcuffed?

penny piper · 17-04-2021 02:40PM

Biker79 wrote: »

It amounts to reasonable doubt.

I agree.

I have another question....if the medical examiner had put "undetermined" (like Dr.Fowler indicated) would Chauvan have ever faced charges of anything? just out of curiousity

Biker79 · 17-04-2021 02:48PM

penny piper wrote: »

I agree.

I have another question....if the medical examiner had put "undetermined" (like Dr.Fowler indicated) would Chauvan have ever faced charges of anything? just out of curiousity

Good question. Probably not.

It's hard to ignore the political forces at work in this case.

Penn · 17-04-2021 02:52PM

penny piper wrote: »

I agree.

I have another question....if the medical examiner had put "undetermined" (like Dr.Fowler indicated) would Chauvan have ever faced charges of anything? just out of curiousity

I would say he'd probably still face some form of manslaughter charges. The vast majority of the possible exact causes of Floyd's death all stemmed from Chauvin's actions which caused the different stresses on Floyd's body (which either caused the death or triggered underlying factors which caused the death), as per the various medical and police experts who testified in this trial.

penny piper · 17-04-2021 03:21PM

Penn wrote: »

I would say he'd probably still face some form of manslaughter charges. The vast majority of the possible exact causes of Floyd's death all stemmed from Chauvin's actions which caused the different stresses on Floyd's body (which either caused the death or triggered underlying factors which caused the death), as per the various medical and police experts who testified in this trial.

Yes, but would the police ever have held an investigation if it hadn't been other than a homicide verdict?

17-04-2021 03:23PM

Biker79 wrote: »

It amounts to reasonable doubt.

It may in your eyes but the reality is the defence was incredibly weak. And I suspect we'll see some form of a conviction of Chauvin thankfully.

Penn · 17-04-2021 03:26PM

penny piper wrote: »

Yes, but would the police ever have held an investigation if it hadn't been other than a homicide verdict?

Of course. A man died while being arrested by one of their officers. Of course there would have been an investigation. The medical examiners report is only one part of that investigation.

Are you suggesting that had the medical examiner's report stated the cause of death was undetermined, that Chauvin never should have been charged with anything?

penny piper · 17-04-2021 03:35PM

Penn wrote: »

Of course. A man died while being arrested by one of their officers. Of course there would have been an investigation. The medical examiners report is only one part of that investigation.

Are you suggesting that had the medical examiner's report stated the cause of death was undetermined, that Chauvin never should have been charged with anything?

I actually didn't know the answer that's why I asked the question.

I also didn't know whether if an autopsy report shows a death is undetermined someone is charged or not.... I wasn't suggesting anything other than asking some general questions out of my own curiousity.

briany · 17-04-2021 03:41PM

penny piper wrote: »

I actually didn't know the answer that's why I asked the question.

I also didn't know whether if an autopsy report shows a death is undetermined someone is charged or not.... I wasn't suggesting anything other than asking some general questions out of my own curiousity.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

penny piper · 17-04-2021 03:48PM

briany wrote: »

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Are you trying to insuate I'm suggesting something? woops another question...

Penn · 17-04-2021 03:54PM

penny piper wrote: »

I actually didn't know the answer that's why I asked the question.

I also didn't know whether if an autopsy report shows a death is undetermined someone is charged or not.... I wasn't suggesting anything other than asking some general questions out of my own curiousity.

Yeah, and that's fair enough as a general question. Either way I'm sure we can both probably agree that it's a moot point in this particular case because Dr.Fowler who said the cause of death should have been "Undetermined" didn't perform the autopsy on Floyd's body, whereas the doctors who did perform the two autopsies (a quick Google say they were performed by chief medical examiner for Hennepin County, and the second by former New York City chief medical examiner, and a pathologist and director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School) both ruled the cause of death as homicide.

penny piper · 17-04-2021 04:04PM

Penn wrote: »

Yeah, and that's fair enough as a general question. Either way I'm sure we can both probably agree that it's a moot point in this particular case because Dr.Fowler who said the cause of death should have been "Undetermined" didn't perform the autopsy on Floyd's body, whereas the doctors who did perform the two autopsies (a quick Google say they were performed by chief medical examiner for Hennepin County, and the second by former New York City chief medical examiner, and a pathologist and director of autopsy and forensic services at the University of Michigan Medical School) both ruled the cause of death as homicide.

As I posted before it was a general question.

MeMen2_MoRi_ · 17-04-2021 04:09PM

Any one else notice how eminently Fowler's name has become in posts since his testimony.. Before hand Dr Baker, the guy who did the autopsy was supposedly the go to guy, he did the autopsy after all..

The forever ending of excuses to protect chauvin.

Penn · 17-04-2021 04:19PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Any one else notice how eminently Fowler's name has become in posts since his testimony.. Before hand Dr Baker, the guy who did the autopsy was supposedly the go to guy, he did the autopsy after all..

The forever ending of excuses to protect chauvin.

What surprises me is that all Dr.Fowler did is try to cause reasonable doubt, by offering alternative reasons why Floyd may have died in ways that exculpate Chauvin. Yet he had no actual definitive proof of same, simply theories. Which in fairness, that's his role as a witness for the defence, to try cast reasonable doubt. But why his testimony should be considered as expert testimony whereas the witnesses for the prosecution should be considered "expert" testimony with aspertions cast on some of them regarding future book deals or just simply being charming and Irish and therefore influencing the jury in that manner, all of that is beyond me.

penny piper · 17-04-2021 04:31PM

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Any one else notice how eminently Fowler's name has become in posts since his testimony.. Before hand Dr Baker, the guy who did the autopsy was supposedly the go to guy, he did the autopsy after all..

The forever ending of excuses to protect chauvin.

No, I hadn't noticed that all.... I see alot posters mentioning the irish expert dr.tobin that's all ...very few mentions of dr.fowler...
Don't you think yourself in your opinion dr.baker was not important?

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Comments