Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Penn · 19-04-2021 02:06PM

penny piper wrote: »

I'm sure the defense could have got a cardiologist to testify that floyd's heart was a contributory factor in his death..(it was)...but do you really think any cardiologist would want to actually testify considering what could happen if you were a witness for the defense?????

You're attributing knowledge of later events to previous decisions. A cardiologist would not have known that if they testified, some arseholes would throw a pigs head and blood at their house (and in case it needs to be stated, the people who did that should be found and arrested for same).

The defence could have gotten a cardiologist to testify that Floyd's heart was a contributory factor. Undoubtedly they could. The reason they didn't is because no cardiologist could testify under oath with their professional reputation on the line that Floyd's heart was definitively a contributory factor in his death because no cardiologist has proof of same. It's simply not been borne by the evidence. If it were, the defence would have found someone to state so.

ELM327 · 19-04-2021 02:36PM

tayto lover wrote: »

So a mob becomes the real Judge and Jury?

Worryingly that seems to be happening more and more.
The incitement of hatred tweets are concerning and the author should be cancelled IMO.

silverharp · 19-04-2021 02:48PM

Suggestion I saw, The jury should all vote guilty with a note to the judge they are doing this for their personal safety and adise the judge to follow through for his safety but include a FU to the judge for putting the jury in this position

19-04-2021 02:54PM

Ah yes, the excuses to explain away a conviction are coming in fast... While ignoring that the defence struggled to provide any reasonable doubt.

Penn · 19-04-2021 03:01PM

silverharp wrote: »

Suggestion I saw, The jury should all vote guilty with a note to the judge they are doing this for their personal safety and adise the judge to follow through for his safety but include a FU to the judge for putting the jury in this position

Was the suggestion made by Lionel Hutz? Maybe they should call for a bad court thingy?

silverharp · 19-04-2021 03:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah yes, the excuses to explain away a conviction are coming in fast... While ignoring that the defence struggled to provide any reasonable doubt.

closing comments yet to come, totally open at the moment

silverharp · 19-04-2021 03:05PM

Penn wrote: »

Was the suggestion made by Lionel Hutz? Maybe they should call for a bad court thingy?

sarcasm right?

19-04-2021 03:18PM

Watching the prosecutor's closing.. he's coming across as actually stupid..

Relying on dodgy influence techniques..

penny piper · 19-04-2021 03:41PM

prosecution closing arguement;

Dr. Tobin....Dr.Tobin....Dr. Tobin......Dr.Tobin...Dr.Tobin and on and on.....

19-04-2021 03:46PM

penny piper wrote: »

prosecution closing arguement;

Dr. Tobin....Dr.Tobin....Dr. Tobin......Dr.Tobin...Dr.Tobin and on and on.....

Like, he is coming across as actually stupid.. Not only that he thinks the jury are stupid..he actually is..

Penn · 19-04-2021 04:38PM

silverharp wrote: »

sarcasm right?

A reference to a Simpsons quote rather than sarcasm. Just trying to make the point that the suggestion that the jury should give the judge a note saying "We're only voting guilty because we're scared, just go along with it, and also f*ck you" is obvious nonsense, and whoever made the suggestion likely has the same amount of legal knowledge and expertise, as Lionel Hutz.

cheezums · 19-04-2021 04:40PM

didn't realise the prosecution can do a rebuttal to the defense closing statement. strikes me as pretty unfair no?

lawrencesummers · 19-04-2021 04:44PM

There is only one country where it’s possible that this trial could return a not guilty verdict, and god help Minneapolis if Chauvin gets off because it will be wall to wall rioting.

All of the other countries that don’t have a fair and balanced justice system wouldn’t even have brought this to trial, the irony of the USA pretending they have a fair and democratic society could however continue.

cheezums · 19-04-2021 04:46PM

it's scary how much is riding on the result here. you're talking certain nationwide rioting and looting if he goes free.

penny piper · 19-04-2021 05:35PM

cheezums wrote: »

it's scary how much is riding on the result here. you're talking certain nationwide rioting and looting if he goes free.

Well what's the alternative put an innocent man to jail? At the moment the defense lawyer Nelson has done a far better closing arguement than the prosecution...until blackwell comes with his rebut....showing the same picture...repeating 9mins plus ....how his hands were handcuffed etc

I just saw the footage of four officers who were completely unable to contain mr.floyd.....police car shaking etc.... but don't worry if he's innocent
or guilty he will still go to jail....and riots will still continue

bazermc · 19-04-2021 05:38PM

cheezums wrote: »

didn't realise the prosecution can do a rebuttal to the defense closing statement. strikes me as pretty unfair no?

I was just thinking the same. Defense should be allowed to rebut that

bazermc · 19-04-2021 05:39PM

Interesting Chauvin no longer wearing his mask

penny piper · 19-04-2021 05:41PM

bazermc wrote: »

Interesting Chauvin no longer wearing his mask

I suppose that's to appeal to the jury somehow...think he was abit foolish to smile though....that can look like he's uncaring...smug /confident.

19-04-2021 05:52PM

I’m engrossed in the defence summary on BBC news now- he’s not convincing me as to innocence although I don’t believe it was murder and never did but definitely manslaughter IMHO

CIARAN_BOYLE · 19-04-2021 06:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m engrossed in the defence summary on BBC news now- he’s not convincing me as to innocence although I don’t believe it was murder and never did but definitely manslaughter IMHO

I suppose mansalughter is a win for them as he already pleaded to murder 3 (da refused the deal).

19-04-2021 06:05PM

Defence heavily relying on a “reasonable police officer” following processes of detainment and continually evaluating the situation.

He’s putting down the eye witness testimony as basically uninformed lack of professional judgment and that the jury should rely on the police officers reasonable actions.

For me , having listened to the eyewitnesses on the day and what they said, they could totally see what was going on and what was happening to the deceased victim - in my view they were absolutely spot on and actually quite restrained- they were accused as being an aggressive crowd- they were far from aggressive, they were extremely concerned - the cops totally messed up on the day, applied unreasonable force and this poor man died.

19-04-2021 06:10PM

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I suppose mansalughter is a win for them as he already pleaded to murder 3 (da refused the deal).

is murder 3 essentially manslaughter or am I missing something here?

Penn · 19-04-2021 06:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

is murder 3 essentially manslaughter or am I missing something here?

Short summary of the different charges

The first charge is of second-degree unintentional murder, which means the person was killed without prior intent to kill while inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm on the victim.

The second charge is second-degree manslaughter, which is when a person knowingly or consciously takes a risk that results in the death of a person.

He is also facing a third-degree murder charge, which is killing someone without intent by carrying out an act dangerous to others due to "a depraved mind" and without regard for human life.

Sandor Clegane · 19-04-2021 06:20PM

When are we likely to hear the verdict?

19-04-2021 06:27PM

Penn wrote: »

Short summary of the different charges

Thanks- I think “murder” of any degree will be a tough ask here for the jury- it implies intent I believe which I think is difficult to prove here - in plain mans language I think the guy was grossly incompetent on the day, did not take proper cognisance of how his restraint actions had on the victim, and as a result the victim died- and thank god I’m not on the jury, as this is going to be a very tough decision for them, considering the fallout their verdict may have.

19-04-2021 06:29PM

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

When are we likely to hear the verdict?

Jury hasn’t retired yet- given the duration of the trial and volume of evidence it’s predicted likely to be a few days of deliberation at least but you never know- it could be less than a day depending on how well their minds are made up vs agreement

19-04-2021 06:39PM

Here’s a list and explanation of charges - second degree manslaughter or not-guilty of all charges is my prediction here- I definitely haven’t heard a convincing argument for 2nd degree or 3rd degree murder.

https://m.startribune.com/derek-chauvin-charges-trial-george-floyd-murder-manslaughter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/

Sand · 19-04-2021 06:56PM

Mellor wrote: »

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.

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.

No, you said they called medical support when it was too late. You said 'Neglecting somebody until they die, then calling an ambulance does not retrospectively fulfill a duty of care.'

They called an ambulance before he died. You were wrong about that and you don't now get to suddenly redefine your argument without acknowledging you were wrong.

The other officers decided Floyd needed medical assistance. Knowing this, Chauvin continued to press his knee into his neck for almost 9 minutes more.

There is no evidence Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. Andrew Brown, the only medical expert to actually examine the body, testified there was no bruising or other injuries on Floyd's neck or back, whereas there was injuries on his hands, his face and his shoulders. He testified additionally that having viewed the video he didn't believe Chauvin's knee could have occluded Floyd's caotid artery. And even if it did, Floyd had a second artery which would have continued to operate. So again, the whole knee on neck thing is a false narrative.

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.

I think what you're demonstrating is this is a show trial and people can't leave bias aside when reviewing evidence. You can rest assured Chauvin will be convicted because the jury is friendly to the BLM narrative, regardless of the evidence.

19-04-2021 07:01PM

Sand wrote: »

No, you said they called medical support when it was too late. You said 'Neglecting somebody until they die, then calling an ambulance does not retrospectively fulfill a duty of care.'

They called an ambulance before he died. You were wrong about that and you don't now get to suddenly redefine your argument without acknowledging you were wrong.

There is no evidence Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. Andrew Brown, the only medical expert to actually examine the body, testified there was no bruising or other injuries on Floyd's neck or back, whereas there was injuries on his hands, his face and his shoulders. He testified additionally that having viewed the video he didn't believe Chauvin's knee could have occluded Floyd's caotid artery. And even if it did, Floyd had a second artery which would have continued to operate. So again, the whole knee on neck thing is a false narrative.

I think what you're demonstrating is this is a show trial and people can't leave bias aside when reviewing evidence. You can rest assured Chauvin will be convicted because the jury is friendly to the BLM narrative, regardless of the evidence.

Do you think he’s not guilty of manslaughter?

osarusan · 19-04-2021 07:02PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Here’s a list and explanation of charges - second degree manslaughter or not-guilty of all charges is my prediction here- I definitely haven’t heard a convincing argument for 2nd degree or 3rd degree murder.

https://m.startribune.com/derek-chauvin-charges-trial-george-floyd-murder-manslaughter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/

In a way there is very little difference in the definitions for 2nd degree manslaughter and 3rd degree murder.

In order to convict Chauvin of second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors will need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "culpably negligent" and took an "unreasonable risk" with Floyd's life when he restrained him and that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great harm. Prosecutors do not have to prove that Chauvin's actions intended to cause Floyd's death, only that his actions put Floyd at risk of death or great bodily harm.

Third-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that someone caused the death of another "by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

I don't see it as too much of a stretch that the jury can be convinced that restraining Floyd in the way that he did was eminently dangerous and without regard for human life.

But what (legally) constitues a 'depraved mind' seems to be an issue there, according to your link.

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Comments