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

Smee_Again

Deleted User wrote: »

You're heavily abusing hindsight. They wanted him to testify and he pleaded the fifth.

It's absurd that you think my suggestion makes no sense.

Well we're after the fact and you're saying in hindsight he should have been offered immunity to testify, but to what end? Chauvin was convicted on all counts.

Had you said this before the result then fair enough, but you're not. It makes no sense.

ohnonotgmail

Jequ0n wrote: »

I agree that there was only one way the trial could go given the intense media coverage and pressure, so hardly a surprising outcome.

there was only one way it could have gone given the evidence presented.

Fandymo

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Wake me up when a US President eggs his supporters to storm the capital in an act of treason and insurrection, and kill a few police officers while they are at it by caving their heads in with fire extinguishers.

Lies help no one. No police officer was murdered by having his head caved in with a fire extinguisher.

Five people died during or after the event: one was a Capitol Police officer, and four were among those who stormed or protested.

Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, 42, a 13-year veteran of the force, had a thromboembolic stroke the next day. On April 19, Sicknick's death was ruled to be from natural causes.

[Deleted User]

176207033_10165113916250258_1052207111800165278_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=b9115d&_nc_ohc=TW2MB2lUMPoAX9Hw-x9&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=33cc79dfe973ee55c6b05d24b87a98ed&oe=60A3A5A1

[Deleted User]

Why does the appearance of a juror matter? Seems pretty silly to attack a person based on their appearance, the defense are perfectly free to object to jurors. Although doing so based on their appearance would be a tad stupid...

Jequ0n

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was only one way it could have gone given the evidence presented.

Probably, but the jury is supposed to be neutral, which is near to impossible when there is such intense pressure from outside.

This isn’t over yet and you can bet that this argument will used in an appeal

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lol shows the intelligence of the Chauvin cheerleaders to buy that nonsense.

If its on the tweeter its must be true. Justice for DeRek!

ohnonotgmail

Jequ0n wrote: »

Probably, but the jury is supposed to be neutral, which is near to impossible when there is such intense pressure from outside.

This isn’t over yet and you can bet that this argument will used in an appeal

the jury is supposed to decide based on the evidence presented. with the evidence presented there is no other verdict they could have reached.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does the appearance of a juror matter? Seems pretty silly to attack a person based on their appearance, the defense are perfectly free to object to jurors. Although doing so based on their appearance would be a tad stupid...

well if they aren't middle-aged, white and male how are they supposed to make the right decision? everybody knows that.

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

I respect the decision, I just don't necessarily think it was the right one. Just like OJ Simpson, people respected the decision, no right wing riots occurred, but deep down everyone knows it was a bit iffy.

Why would the OJ trial have caused right wing riots? Bizarre comment.
The consensus was he got away with murder

Yellow_Fern

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well if they aren't middle-aged, white and male how are they supposed to make the right decision? everybody knows that.

You are letting yourself down by assuming people who disagree with you are motivated by racism. Lazy lazy.

Oranage2

I can't see how people can't see this as anything other than murder. Imagine you're handcuffed, 3 men holding down, a fourth man kneeling on your neck for 9 minutes. You're whole body goes limp, the man crushing your windpipe continues to do it uptil you died.

I don't care if the person on the ground is black, white, rapist etc. The person doing the kneeling is a killer and should be punished.

ohnonotgmail

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are letting yourself down by assuming people who disagree with you are motivated by racism. Lazy lazy.

if the cap fits ...

seamus

Oh no! One of the jurors is a young person on social media! Clearly because she's not in her 40s, wearing a virtue-saving neckline dress while praying to god, that must mean she is incapable of coming to a reasonable and rational conclusion.

I bet she used her witchcraft to influence the other 12 jurors too.

We have a 9-minute video of a man being murdered by a cop kneeling on his neck on the ground while he is completely restrained otherwise, begging to be able to breathe.
If that wasn't enough, we were presented with a gigantic mountain of evidence which not only removed the reasonable doubts (this is standard practice), they also eliminated the unreasonable doubts (he died from a drug overdose).
12 independent jurors, after hearing all of the evidence over several days, came to the same conclusion in a relatively short space of time.

And yet, you still have some people who think that the conviction is unsafe or otherwise an error or a conspiracy. Because it doesn't suit their own personal bias.

Absolute detachment from reality.

Tork

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are letting yourself down by assuming people who disagree with you are motivated by racism. Lazy lazy.

I think your sarcasm detector hasn't kicked in yet this morning.

Green Peter

pjohnson wrote: »

Still kinda amusing to see Chauvin fans still insisting that Floyd was resisting while he was unconscious.

Great point , we will all forget about the time before that and then your argument is good. You win

[Deleted User]

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are letting yourself down by assuming people who disagree with you are motivated by racism. Lazy lazy.

In fairness, getting in strops about the appearance of jurors is incredibly stupid which is what we're discussing..

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so he should just shut up when his opinion is one you dislike? He is entitled to state his opinion. his opinion was entirely reasonable.

What?

Where did I suggest he should shut up if it’s an opinion “I don’t like?”

He should shut up, period. No matter what side one is on.

is_that_so

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are letting yourself down by assuming people who disagree with you are motivated by racism. Lazy lazy.

When that counterargument is punctuated by equally lazy race tropes the point is valid. Even with such a jury the evidence still points the same way but some would still find other faults with it.

ohnonotgmail

Green Peter wrote: »

Great point , we will all forget about the time before that and then your argument is good. You win

chauvin was on trial for one incident, not something prior.

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

What?

Where did I suggest he should shut up if it’s an opinion “I don’t like?”

He should shut up, period. No matter what side one is on.

you wouldn't have objected if you agreed with what he said.

Yellow_Fern

seamus wrote: »

Oh no! One of the jurors is a young person on social media! Clearly because she's not in her 40s, wearing a virtue-saving neckline dress while praying to god, that must mean she is incapable of coming to a reasonable and rational conclusion.

I bet she used her witchcraft to influence the other 12 jurors too.

We have a 9-minute video of a man being murdered by a cop kneeling on his neck on the ground while he is completely restrained otherwise, begging to be able to breathe.

Absolute detachment from reality.

Cameras lie...
https://twitter.com/LouRaguse/status/1379171775876055042

PhlegmyMoses

Wait, people really think that this decision was wrong? Lol

[Deleted User]

Oranage2 wrote: »

I can't see how people can't see this as anything other than murder. Imagine you're handcuffed, 3 men holding down, a fourth man kneeling on your neck for 9 minutes. You're whole body goes limp, the man crushing your windpipe continues to do it uptil you died.

I don't care if the person on the ground is black, white, rapist etc. The person doing the kneeling is a killer and should be punished.

If you saw any of the extended bodycam footage..the dude was having a heart attack from too many drugs while being arrested..he couldn't breathe before Chauvin ever went near him..He wanted to be put on the ground..he was lashing out.. yeah, it was unfortunate they didn't realize earlier.. but to call it murder is ridiculous..

The only outcome of this is the next generation of police won't join.. with all the knock on consequences of that..

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you wouldn't have objected if you agreed with what he said.

This is absurd..

And you have nothing to back it up.

I absolutely would have objected. I clearly said that his commenting here is wrong, period.

A U.S. President should not be giving his opinion on what verdict he wants from any trial..

This point is completely lost in you. Maybe because you are too involved on what you wanted to happen..

Green Peter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

chauvin was on trial for one incident, not something prior.

You know what I mean, prior to going onconsious, you are not that silly.

briany

Jequ0n wrote: »

Probably, but the jury is supposed to be neutral, which is near to impossible when there is such intense pressure from outside.

This isn’t over yet and you can bet that this argument will used in an appeal

The burden of proof is on the defence in this case.

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

This is absurd..

And you have nothing to back it up.

I absolutely would have objected. I clearly said that his commenting here is wrong, period.

A U.S. President should not be giving his opinion on what verdict he wants from any trial..

This point is completely lost in you. Maybe because you are too involved on what you wanted to happen..

so a president can never comment on a specific crime?

Jequ0n

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the jury is supposed to decide based on the evidence presented. with the evidence presented there is no other verdict they could have reached.

There is no debate that Chauvin caused the death of the man, but you seem to be very sure that murder is the right term and not manslaughter.

Anyway, we weren’t on the jury, but I don’t envy the jurors given the pressure on them

ohnonotgmail

Green Peter wrote: »

You know what I mean, prior to going onconsious, you are not that silly.

chauvin was convicted for what he did after floyd became unconscious. if he stopped at that point he would still be a police officer. what happened prior to that is irrelevant.