nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Muahahaha

Officer Derek Chavin goes on trial today charged with the homicide of George Floyd, if found guilty he is facing up to 40 years in prison.

The prosecution is largely based on the 9 minute long video of Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyds neck. The defence is going to claim that Chavin did nothing outside of his police training and that Floyds death came about because of drugs in his system and an underlying heart condition. The official autopsy found that his death was a homicide.

Witnesses include a then 17 year old girl who filmed the video on her phone and a police dispatcher who watched events unfold live on CCTV and alerted her supervisor about his treatment.

Its unknown if Chavin himself will take the stand. The trial will also open up answers about the previous relationship between Floyd and Chavin- they both worked as security together for a bar in Minnesota. The trial itself is expected to last 4-5 weeks. The other three police officers involved in the incident will face trial themselves in August.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I wonder if plea deals should be kept quiet.

Personally I'm having trouble not believing that there won't be a murder 3 conviction because I know he has agreed a plea deal for that even if it didn't go ahead.

My personal view is that the defence sowed enough doubt for a 3rd degree murder charge to be rejected by the jury- obviously time will tell- but the sort of comments made by that Democrat politician certainly won’t make this an easy decision making process for the jury no less the fallout they must feel is resting on their shoulders - so I think if they do convict there’s every chance of a successful appeal. I guess we have to have faith in the judicial process but the media circus, the whole situation over there right now, must be so stressful on the jurors

conorhal

Penn wrote: »

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).

Seriously? Where have you been for the last year of violent non stop riots following this incident? You would have to be the single most nieve person on the planet to think to think that you would face no blowback for defending that position.

[Deleted User]

A strong pre-trial argument as to why 3rd degree murder is the appropriate outcome- not sure the prosecution proved this beyond reasonable doubt myself but I’d subscribe to the sentiment, that it’s what happened on the day - he had many minutes to engage with and talk down the victim and he instead relentlessly pursued a fatal strategy long after the victim stopped resisting

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/why-derek-chauvin-should-plead-guilty

Itssoeasy

bazermc wrote: »

Yikes indeed. Can you imagine if jury heard that

It’s not just Maxine waters. It’s many guests and contributors on cnn and msnbc who IMO gone way too far in comments they make about this case especially when the jury wasn’t sequestered. But if the defence do appeal whatever sentence is given then George floods family should rightly blame her and many others and maybe they’ll shut up in future and not go as far as they do.

[Deleted User]

Who is paying for Chauvins lawyer,the lad with the beard and glasses?
He seems too good for legal aid

cheezums

Marine Layer wrote: »

Who is paying for Chauvins lawyer,the lad with the beard and glasses?
He seems too good for legal aid

Police union. He's entitled to him even after he was fired.

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

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 -.

None of the two murder charges require an intent to kill.

Murder 2 is an intentional malicious act, but not intent to kill.
Murder 3 is basically a total disregard for human life.
Manslaughter 2 is accidentally killing via reckless behavious.

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.'

We are talking about Chauvin. The person on trial.
The point at which he began to check on or provide care it was too late.

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.

Yes another officer called an ambulance. Know that he man needed a medical check, and that that was police policy. Chauvin continued to restrain him by kneeling on him. That is categorically neglect and a disregard for his safety.
Chauvin did not meet his duty of care during the 9 minutes.

Another officers called an ambulance doesn't absolve Chauvin.

There is no evidence Chauvin pressed his knee into Floyd's neck.

Apart from it being on video

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.

This argument has already been debunked.
Closing off a carotid doesn't leave a bruise in the vast majority of cases. The pressure is spread over a wide area, not on a point like the way finger tips can leave makes.

It's also possible to close of the carotid on the far side from pressure into the far shoulder.

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.

What you are doing to highlighting your own bias.

The evidence paints him as guilt of some of the charges.

If the jury is hijacked by BLM. Then he'll get murder 2 and the max sentence. I don't think he will, but we'll see.

penny piper wrote: »

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

I believe he was describing the fact that a medical condition doesn't negate criminal action.

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.

Maybe you wouldn't have died. But that's not a valid legal defense. Period.
This has been pointed out numerous times. In common law it's known as eggshell skull rule. In criminal law a defendant must "take their victims as they find them".

In criminal law, the general maxim is that defendants must "take their victims as they find them". Defendants cannot simply rely on the victim's own vulnerability to avoid liability. The court will have to determine whether it is reasonable and fair to conclude that the damage suffered by the Plaintiff and particularly the extent thereof, was caused by the Defendant’s conduct. The aggressor must take the victim as he or she is found and cannot speculate on what might have happened if the victim had “normal” health or did not have the particular condition that predisposed them to a severe injury.

I do understand where your logic is coming from. It simply isn't a valid defense - as it would allow many crimes to get off on a technicality.

ILoveYourVibes

Does it have to be unanimous?

Mellor

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Does it have to be unanimous?

A verdict needs to be unanimous. But they don't need to reach a verdict on all charges to declare him guilty/not guilty of any charge.

[Deleted User]

Mellor wrote: »

None of the two murder charges require an intent to kill.

Murder 2 is an intentional malicious act, but not intent to kill.
Murder 3 is basically a total disregard for human life.
Manslaughter 2 is accidentally killing via reckless behavious.

.

Yep I had spotted that since posting and have since posted and explanation of the 3 charges-thanks.

penny piper

I suppose no one else noticed but it really did come across that Mr.Blackwell (prosecution lawyer) was undermining Eric Nelson personally as a lawyer...disputing Nelson's closing arguement in the way he did.. (basically saying you couldn't believe anything nelson was saying...it was all a story) .... I found Mr.Blackwell incredibly unprofessional in his manner.

I also find it so strange the the Judge...doesn't think the jury will be influenced in any manner by what has been happening outside the courtroom/minneapolis ...even here in Ireland today's news showing the protests in minneapolis. Not sequestering that jury from the begining..nor should any witness from either defense/prosecution should have been made visible...infact the whole thing shouldn't have been held in minnepolis/televised.

Fix of a trial....as I've posted from the begining.

ACitizenErased

penny piper wrote: »

I suppose no one else noticed but it really did come across that Mr.Blackwell (prosecution lawyer) was undermining Eric Nelson personally as a lawyer...disputing Nelson's closing arguement in the way he did.. (basically saying you couldn't believe anything nelson was saying...it was all a story) .... I found Mr.Blackwell incredibly unprofessional in his manner.

I also find it so strange the the Judge...doesn't think the jury will be influenced in any manner by what has been happening outside the courtroom/minneapolis ...even here in Ireland today's news showing the protests in minneapolis. Not sequestering that jury from the begining..nor should any witness from either defense/prosecution should have been made visible...infact the whole thing shouldn't have been held in minnepolis/televised.

Fix of a trial....as I've posted from the begining.

I don't think it's a "fix of a trial" as I'm not a conspiracy theorist but agree there's no way they could stay away from the telly and Mr. Blackwell's comments were incredibly strange. As I mentioned on a previous post I was fully convinced a mistrial would be granted yesterday.

penny piper

bazermc wrote: »

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

A judge talking about appeals already.....especially when the guy hasn't even been found innocent/guilty :rolleyes:

BattleCorp

penny piper wrote: »

A judge talking about appeals already.....especially when the guy hasn't even been found innocent/guilty :rolleyes:

The judge must be pretty certain Chauvin will be convicted if he made that comment as there would be no need for an appeal if he is found 'not guilty'.

Penn

penny piper wrote: »

A judge talking about appeals already.....especially when the guy hasn't even been found innocent/guilty :rolleyes:

BattleCorp wrote: »

The judge must be pretty certain Chauvin will be convicted if he made that comment as there would be no need for an appeal if he is found 'not guilty'.

He was responding to the defence's request for a mistrial based on Waters' comments. He was saying that it doesn't warrant declaring a mistrial, but could possibly be used in an appeal. He didn't introduce comments about an appeal apropos of nothing.

penny piper

BattleCorp wrote: »

The judge must be pretty certain Chauvin will be convicted if he made that comment as there would be no need for an appeal if he is found 'not guilty'.

To be honest, I think it's pretty obvious chauvan is going to get convicted/long jail term.

I can't understand why the judge didn't call a mis-trial though.

I understood that if there is conduct inside/outside of a courtroom
resulting in substancial and irreparable predudice to the defendant's case
a judge must order a mis-trial.

I should have thought with the involvement of maxine waters/blm protestor's demands etc idk....rioting/looting/threats... seems like a mis-trial should have been granted..

penny piper

Penn wrote: »

He was responding to the defence's request for a mistrial based on Waters' comments. He was saying that it doesn't warrant declaring a mistrial, but could possibly be used in an appeal. He didn't introduce comments about an appeal apropos of nothing.

I have watched the trial and I was only been sarcastic there in my previous post.

I still think there were grounds for a mis-trial re my other post/reasons.

BattleCorp

penny piper wrote: »

I should have thought with the involvement of maxine waters/blm protestor's demands etc idk....rioting/looting/threats... seems like a mis-trial should have been granted..

I wouldn't be inclined to call a mistrial in those circumstances but I would have sequestered the jury from day 1.

Eric Cartman

BattleCorp wrote: »

The judge must be pretty certain Chauvin will be convicted if he made that comment as there would be no need for an appeal if he is found 'not guilty'.

As a lot of us have said from the outset, show trial. Chauvin 95% going to get convicted, just hopefully of manslaughter and not full on murder, cities will burn for it but its the right thing to do and not just hand him a full blown intentional murder charge just to appease thugs and maxine.

TomTomTim

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As a lot of us have said from the outset, show trial. Chauvin 95% going to get convicted, just hopefully of manslaughter and not full on murder, cities will burn for it but its the right thing to do and not just hand him a full blown intentional murder charge just to appease thugs and maxine.

Just seen this. Disgusting. How the left can downplay stuff like this and still think that they are righteous is beyond me. They are simply bad people who've somehow managed to convince themselves that they are the good guys.

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1384439195746197507

[Deleted User]

TomTomTim wrote: »

Just seen this. Disgusting. How the left can downplay stuff like this and still think that they are righteous is beyond me. They are simply bad people who've somehow managed to convince themselves that they are the good guys.

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1384439195746197507

A quick Google of the fire, the cause of it is under investigation. I've seen no attribution of it to protesters at this point in time... So y'know don't believe everything you read in Russia Today of all things...

https://kstp.com/minnesota-news/firefighters-respond-to-fire-at-church-in-northeast-minneapolis/6080299/

penny piper

BattleCorp wrote: »

I wouldn't be inclined to call a mistrial in those circumstances but I would have sequestered the jury from day 1.

I agree the jury should have been sequestered from the begining.

The reasons I quoted in a previous post (above) they are actual genuine reasons for a mis-trial ordered by a judge ...behaviour outside/inside a courtroom that maybe preducidical to a defendant's case etc...

I suppose it's easier for the judge /state/jury to end this trial as quickly as possible .....in view of the situation ...not that it will end the problem america has at the moment.

ek motor

penny piper wrote: »

To be honest, I think it's pretty obvious chauvan is going to get convicted/long jail term.

I can't understand why the judge didn't call a mis-trial though.

I understood that if there is conduct inside/outside of a courtroom
resulting in substancial and irreparable predudice to the defendant's case
a judge must order a mis-trial.

I should have thought with the involvement of maxine waters/blm protestor's demands etc idk....rioting/looting/threats... seems like a mis-trial should have been granted..

If a mis trial was declared, many US urban areas would be torn asunder. It is a powder keg.

livia21

Deleted User wrote: »

A quick Google of the fire, the cause of it is under investigation. I've seen no attribution of it to protesters at this point in time... So y'know don't believe everything you read in Russia Today of all things...

https://kstp.com/minnesota-news/firefighters-respond-to-fire-at-church-in-northeast-minneapolis/6080299/

Yip even The Russian Times link state's it's unclear how fire started

ek motor

TomTomTim wrote: »

Just seen this. Disgusting. How the left can downplay stuff like this and still think that they are righteous is beyond me. They are simply bad people who've somehow managed to convince themselves that they are the good guys.

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1384439195746197507

Just remember it was never about righteousness, it's about revenge. BLM and associated sympathisers are up to their necks in victimhood. 'Whitey bad'.

BattleCorp

What would have happened if it had been called a mistrial? Does that mean he has to be retried or is that the end of it, he gets to walk free?

Although no matter what verdict is given, he will never be able to walk free. He's a dead man walking.

[Deleted User]

Yeah, it's tragic really..
Elements of the democratic party have a lot to answer for..
Once you unleash these forces they don't just go back in the box..

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

A quick Google of the fire, the cause of it is under investigation. I've seen no attribution of it to protesters at this point in time... So y'know don't believe everything you read in Russia Today of all things...

https://kstp.com/minnesota-news/firefighters-respond-to-fire-at-church-in-northeast-minneapolis/6080299/

Do you think it's bad to see that 3,000 members of minnesota national guard have been activated to deal with protestors marching through the streets of minneapolis amid fears of nationwide violence?

htttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

penny piper

ek motor wrote: »

If a mis trial was declared, many US urban areas would be torn asunder. It is a powder keg.

So basically, you are saying there is no justice in america at the moment?

[Deleted User]

penny piper wrote: »

Do you think it's bad to see that 3,000 members of minnesota national guard have been activated to deal with protestors marching through the streets of minneapolis amid fears of nationwide violence?

htttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Yep I think it's terrible that history is repeating and that the US still has serious issues in terms of Police conduct and that it has incensed the public. Anyway, funnily you actually ignored the substance of my post. The poster claimed something that wasn't true and you and other posters lap it up...