Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you think he’s not guilty of manslaughter?

Chauvin doesn't have to be proven innocent, he has to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. My initial reaction (last year) to the video was negative. I don't have any particular regard for US law enforcement (why should I?). But the initial narrative - repeated in the post above - that Floyd died because Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd's neck has been shown by the evidence to be wholly unproven.

Going by the evidence, Floyd died because he lived an extremely unhealthy life and violently resisting arrest put a strain on him that his body simply couldn't meet. Chauvin might not be cop of the year, but it takes more than that to qualify for murder/manslaughter.

All of this is irrelevant though because it is a showtrial. Ironically enough Chauvin devoted his life to upholding a system that is going to lynch him. Lesson for us all there.

osarusan wrote: »

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

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.

Indeed- but even leaving aside “depraved mind” for a minute which is obviously a significantly more difficult thing to prove, “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others” means that they have to prove Chauvin did something greatly different to what the restraint procedures stated- I think he followed a lot of the procedures but made serious mistakes and errors of judgement in the crucial final minutes of Floyds life-that’s why I think 3rd degree will be a difficult verdict for the jury to find-

penny piper

Seems strange the prosecution lawyer said "Maybe, it was his enlarged heart, maybe not"....hasn't he described reasonable doubt?

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

Indeed- but even leaving aside “depraved mind” for a minute which is obviously a significantly more difficult thing to prove, “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others” means that they have to prove Chauvin did something greatly different to what the restraint procedures stated- I think he followed a lot of the procedures but made serious mistakes and errors of judgement in the crucial final minutes of Floyds life-that’s why I think 3rd degree will be a difficult verdict for the jury to find-

Maybe so. I can see a jury selecting the charge with the least amount of prison time also.

Sandor Clegane

https://news.sky.com/story/pigs-head-left-outside-former-home-of-expert-barry-brodd-who-testified-in-derek-chauvins-defence-12280076

This is only a taste of things to come...anything other than making an example of Chauvin and Id expect to see mass riots/acts of violence.

But Americans only have themselves to blame for the mess the country is in.

Sand wrote: »

Chauvin doesn't have to be proven innocent, he has to be proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. My initial reaction (last year) to the video was negative. I don't have any particular regard for US law enforcement (why should I?). But the initial narrative - repeated in the post above - that Floyd died because Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd's neck has been shown by the evidence to be wholly unproven.

Going by the evidence, Floyd died because he lived an extremely unhealthy life and violently resisting arrest put a strain on him that his body simply couldn't meet. Chauvin might not be cop of the year, but it takes more than that to qualify for murder/manslaughter.

All of this is irrelevant though because it is a showtrial. Ironically enough Chauvin devoted his life to upholding a system that is going to lynch him. Lesson for us all there.

So the defence has won you over- fair enough - but I don’t agree this is a “show-trail” - there are serious questions here to answer here around the restraint procedure he used, how long he used it for, and what evaluation of that decision he made throughout- personally I think he moved away from procedure and made serious errors of judgement, had contempt for the crowd who gathered urging him to back off and it’s totally his doing that he finds himself in this current situation

osarusan wrote: »

Maybe so. I can see a jury selecting the charge with the least amount of prison time also.

It's very possible. It meets the political requirement to convict him of something. Whereas they might be better able to deal with the dishonesty of it all if its a shorter sentence.

Deleted User wrote: »

So the defence has won you over- fair enough - but I don’t agree this is a “show-trail” - there are serious questions here to answer here around the restraint procedure he used, how long he used it for, and what evaluation of that decision he made throughout- personally I think he moved away from procedure and made serious errors of judgement, had contempt for the crowd who gathered urging him to back off and it’s totally his doing that he finds himself in this current situation

Not being cop of the year - and I'm in no position to judge - has been decisively resolved by him being fired, right? As job performance reviews go, he is no longer a cop.

But the claim is Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyds neck for 9 minutes to such an extent it killed him? There is no evidence of bruising or other injuries that would sustain that media driven theory.

People have to remember, the media was telling us last year that Smollet was the victim of a racist attack (later shown to be an anti-white hoax/libel). And that a NASCAR driver found a KKK noose in his garage (later shown to be a garage door pull). And that Chauvin murdered George Floyd (later shown to be a hugely unhealthy individual attempting strenuous activity he wasnt able to do).

Fandymo

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.

That’s pretty certain no matter what.

Fandymo wrote: »

That’s pretty certain no matter what.

Yep, white people in the US would be well advised to stay indoors and stay safe regardless of what happens.

Varik

Sandor Clegane wrote: »

https://news.sky.com/story/pigs-head-left-outside-former-home-of-expert-barry-brodd-who-testified-in-derek-chauvins-defence-12280076

This is only a taste of things to come...anything other than making an example of Chauvin and Id expect to see mass riots/acts of violence.

But Americans only have themselves to blame for the mess the country is in.

Wouldn't be putting that down the same as the riots.

Quick google tells me Santa Rosa is a pretty well off place, and very much lacking in black people in general (70% white, 20% latino).

Seems like some privilege white idiots "fighting" racism.

Penn

Sand wrote: »

But the claim is Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyds neck for 9 minutes to such an extent it killed him? There is no evidence of bruising or other injuries that would sustain that media driven theory.

The defence's own witness:

“The majority of cases where somebody dies of asphyxia are very subtle, and in fact no traumatic manifestations are visible at all,” prosecutor Jerry Blackwell said, echoing the previous testimony of medical experts so far. Dr Fowler agreed, though said every case is different.

Lack of bruising doesn't always indicate lack of force.

Itssoeasy

I didn’t hear all of the defenses closing argument but it was interesting that the judge felt the need to clarify something.

Sand wrote: »

Not being cop of the year - and I'm in no position to judge - has been decisively resolved by him being fired, right? As job performance reviews go, he is no longer a cop.

But the claim is Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyds neck for 9 minutes to such an extent it killed him? There is no evidence of bruising or other injuries that would sustain that media driven theory.

People have to remember, the media was telling us last year that Smollet was the victim of a racist attack (later shown to be an anti-white hoax/libel). And that a NASCAR driver found a KKK noose in his garage (later shown to be a garage door pull). And that Chauvin murdered George Floyd (later shown to be a hugely unhealthy individual attempting strenuous activity he wasnt able to do).

Plenty of bruising here- I’m not interested in what the media said- I think it’s important to place 2nd and 3rd degree murder charges in front of a jury so they have the choice- I personally don’t think they will convict on those charges as it’s not at all proven and people will riot regardless because that’s what rioters do- they won’t be happy even with a 2nd degree murder charge- just because you lose your job doesn’t absolve you from any criminal responsibility - you’re trivialising the situation calling Chauvin “not cop of the year” - he was in charge of a suspect who died in his custody under horrific conditions - questions need to be asked here and a court of law is the mechanism for asking those questions

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9487167/Derek-Chauvin-trial-Judge-tells-jurors-stick-considering-evidence-presented-court.html#newcomment

cheezums

very interesting watching the trial. i think nelson is simply outclassed. i thought he muddled and rambled too much. some key points i thought he should have hammered over and over again (the visible effects of the drugs, passed out in the car, foaming, veins popping out, saying he couldn't breath multiple times before he was put on the ground etc). a better lawyer could have got him off i think.

i think chauvin is clearly guilty of manslaughter. the other charges are not clear cut at all. i doubt a manslaughter charge would be enough to placate the masses though. it could get very ugly in the states.

cheezums wrote: »

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

That's a new one on me too to be honest.

Deleted User wrote: »

you’re trivialising the situation calling Chauvin “not cop of the year” - he was in charge of a suspect who died in his custody under horrific conditions - questions need to be asked here and a court of law is the mechanism for asking those questions[

A doctor decapitated a child during it's birth, ignoring the mothers requests to stop, and was cleared to return to work. And yet a desperately unhealthy drug addict collapsing and dying whilst resisting lawful arrest means the cop restraining them killed them?

We are way, way, way past the point of normal expectations about reality.

penny piper

cheezums wrote: »

very interesting watching the trial. i think nelson is simply outclassed. i thought he muddled and rambled too much. some key points i thought he should have hammered over and over again (the visible effects of the drugs, passed out in the car, foaming, veins popping out, saying he couldn't breath multiple times before he was put on the ground etc). a better lawyer could have got him off i think.

i think chauvin is clearly guilty of manslaughter. the other charges are not clear cut at all. i doubt a manslaughter charge would be enough to placate the masses though. it could get very ugly in the states.

I have to disagree I think Nelson did an extremely good job.....in saying that NO lawyer would get chauvan off.....Chauvan's a scapegoat to be used...
I don't think Chauvan is guilty of manslaughter either to tell the truth.... I saw 4 police officers unable to restrain someone .... who was high on drugs....resisting arrest...what were they to do?
The situation is ugly already....

Sand wrote: »

A doctor decapitated a child during it's birth, ignoring the mothers requests to stop, and was cleared to return to work. And yet a desperately unhealthy drug addict collapsing and dying whilst resisting lawful arrest means the cop restraining them killed them?

We are way, way, way past the point of normal expectations about reality.

I really can’t see any relevance of what you’ve posted to this trial and I’m not going down rabbit holes here and bringing the threat off topic

My view is that Floyd's medical condition and drug taking played a huge role in his death. I think that if Chauvin did what he did to me instead of Floyd, I'd be alive today as I don't have Floyd's medical conditions or a cocktail of drugs in my system.

That's not to say that I don't think Chauvin did anything wrong, I think he did do some wrong. Whether it's enough to reach the standard to jail him, I'm not 100% certain.

I think it's mental that the jury wasn't sequestered during the trial. The were free to go home every evening and be influenced by the media/families etc. No matter what anyone says, this is a show trial and only an idiot would think Minneapolis won't be wrecked if Chauvin is found 'not-guilty'. That has to have some sort of influence on the jurors seeing as they are probably from the general area.

I'm not using that as an excuse if Chauvin gets convicted, I'm just making a point 'is all'.

BattleCorp wrote: »

My view is that Floyd's medical condition and drug taking played a huge role in his death. I think that if Chauvin did what he did to me instead of Floyd, I'd be alive today as I don't have Floyd's medical conditions or a cocktail of drugs in my system.

That's not to say that I don't think Chauvin did anything wrong, I think he did do some wrong. Whether it's enough to reach the standard to jail him, I'm not 100% certain.

I think it's mental that the jury wasn't sequestered during the trial. The were free to go home every evening and be influenced by the media/families etc. No matter what anyone says, this is a show trial and only an idiot would think Minneapolis won't be wrecked if Chauvin is found 'not-guilty'. That has to have some sort of influence on the jurors seeing as they are probably from the general area.

I'm not using that as an excuse if Chauvin gets convicted, I'm just making a point 'is all'.

How can it be a “show trial” if you believe Chauvin did something wrong?
If he did something wrong Shirley a trial by jury is the way to go here- he’s a public figure.

Deleted User wrote: »

How can it be a “show trial” if you believe Chauvin did something wrong?
If he did something wrong Shirley a trial by jury is the way to go here- he’s a public figure.

I meant 'show trial' as in one that's very important for the public. Kind of like how OJ Simpson's trial caught the public imagination. I guess show trial is the wrong way to describe what I meant. My bad.

Yep, no problem with him being tried for his conduct.

And don't call me Shirley. :mad:

BattleCorp wrote: »

I meant 'show trial' as in one that's very important for the public. Kind of like how OJ Simpson's trial caught the public imagination. I guess show trial is the wrong way to describe what I meant. My bad.

Yep, no problem with him being tried for his conduct.

And don't call me Shirley. :mad:

Fair enough.....Shirley :P

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough.....Shirley :P

Roger Roger.

bazermc

Wow. Judge already saying to Nelson he has a ground to appeal under

cheezums

yikes

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-blm/index.html

Judge Cahill: "I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something that will allow this case to be overturned on appeal."