Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)

[muon]

If there is reasonable doubt there then...

But that isn't what happened. If nothing else was involved then obviously it would have to bs an OD. Someone doesn't just drop dead.

It's a meaningless statement.

If I'm found dead after taking some kind of drug then it is obviously a reaction to that drug. But people aren't all dying instantly after taking drugs.

 

[deuse]

You know in the same report

"Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker will be a central figure. He ruled Floyd’s death a homicide, saying he died when his heart stopped as police restrained him, compressing his neck."

The report basically says it was a combination of factors which led to his death. Including the actions of the police officer.

There is 2 reports.
I quoted from the banned by the DA report.

 

[dowie]

Lol. Gang culture, tribalism and crime?

Wow, you have no clue about what happened here. He allegedly paid with a fake $20 note. That was it.

No, that wasn't it. Why are you deliberately ignoring the drugs and the fact he was totally wasted and behind the wheel of a car when they found him, I pointed this out in a post you were quoted in earlier today.

If it was just a $20 note they wouldn't necessarily need to arrest him, wasted behind the wheel of a car though and they pretty much have to.

But that isn't what happened. If nothing else was involved then obviously it would have to bs an OD. Someone doesn't just drop dead.

It's a meaningless statement.

If I'm found dead after taking some kind of drug then it is obviously a reaction to that drug. But people aren't all dying instantly after taking drugs.

It's not meaningless though, the poiitn is that he might well have died form the drugs regardless - or indeed have died from a combination of the drugs and being arrested/restrained before we even get into the knee on the neck. The arrest itself panicked him, caused anxiety.

The point here should be obvious - the defence have that statement from the medical examiner which gives some reasonable doubt.

 

[muon]

There is 2 reports.
I quoted from the banned by the DA report.

What's the banned one. There was one by the county medical examiner which I'm looking at and a private one done by George Floyd's family. I'm looking at the first which says it is a homicide.

What's this other dodgy one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd#Autopsies

 

[danlightbulb]

Lol. Gang culture, tribalism and crime?

Wow, you have no clue about what happened here. He allegedly paid with a fake $20 note. That was it.

That may have been the 'crime of the day' but do you believe the offender was a good citizen, that him or the people around him had never been involved in, or were currently involved, in other crime, either detected or undetected?

The guy had a violent criminal history. I dare say the people he was with at the time also did. I don't have sympathy for people like that.

From wikipedia:

Between 1997 and 2005, Floyd served eight jail terms on various minor charges, including drug possession, theft, and trespass. In 2007, Floyd faced charges for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. According to investigators, Floyd had entered an apartment by impersonating a water department worker and barging in, and he pointed a pistol at a woman. Floyd was arrested three months later during a traffic stop and victims of the robbery identified him from a photo array. In 2009, he was sentenced to five years in prison as part of a plea deal and was paroled in January 2013.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It was morally correct to arrest him. It was morally incorrect to the continue to torture a fully restrained person.

Torture is emotionally charged language, it was not torture. Torture specifically defined as inflicting pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. This come back to intent, what was Chauvins intent here, and it's clearly to restrain Floyd in the course of performing his duties as a policeman. And not to "torture" him, there is a distinction between these 2 actions that you're ignoring.

The bottom line is that if you resist arrest the policemen involved in the arrest have to use an increasing amount of force to subdue you and that force typically involves inflicting pain at the very least through physical restraint. They didn't take out batons and beat the guy to the ground, they didn't taze him or pepper spray him, they weren't punching or kicking, they tackled him to the ground and pinned him there which I'd argue is about the physically minimum amount of force needed.

If he was a healthy person with no preexisting conditions and was not already struggling to breathe then I'd say that death on its own would be indication that the hold was excessive force. However there's a lot of very serious preexisting medical conditions which relate to the health of his lungs, heart and cardiovascular system. He was already complaining he couldn't breath prior to being pinned, and so at the very least the force used against him contributed to his death rather than directly causing it. And that brings up the thorny questions which is if someone is vulnerable medically and they resist arrest how do you modulate the amount of force you use? How to policemen even make that assessment on the spot when arresting? And what to do with criminals who fake conditions like not being able to breath in order to struggle free and reach for a weapon?

I think the answer really is something like, the police escalate the force used slowly and incrementally until the perpetrator is arrested, up to and including using deadly force if required. And if you were frail and vulnerable and the force required to subdue you was enough to kill you, then tough luck. Any other standard would be insane.

 

[muon]

That may have been the 'crime of the day' but do you believe the offender was a good citizen, that him or the people around him had never been involved in, or were currently involved, in other crime, either detected or undetected?

The guy had a violent criminal history. I dare say the people he was with at the time also did. I don't have sympathy for people like that.

From wikipedia:

Lol. This is typical of some people. Instead of considering whether the police officer committed a crime, you try attack someone who has already served their sentence over 7 years ago.

The police officers were saints (let's ignore the 18 internal affairs complaints against chauvin and the many more against the others) though working in very difficult conditions. It's fine for them to use excessive force resulting in a death as judged by the county medical examiner. I don't get this Shylock defense. Shouldn't be a police officer if they can't act lawfully without having to be given leeway.

 

[hurfdurf]

I think the answer really is something like, the police escalate the force used slowly and incrementally until the perpetrator is arrested, up to and including using deadly force if required. And if you were frail and vulnerable and the force required to subdue you was enough to kill you, then tough luck. Any other standard would be insane.

That’s a fairly reasonable answer for arresting someone. You seem to have missed the point where by he was successfully restrained, in cuffs, and had 4 officers surrounding him, no longer a threat.

You have police officers in this very thread explaining why putting the knee on someone’s neck, who is face down, in handcuffs, and had been for 9 minutes, is a very silly idea. I would hope most non brain donor posters would be able to figure this out for themselves but that’s not been the case (I even invited one wimp to try it out in the ring with me but he declined, sans handcuffs and him fully allowed to fight back)

Why then did these officers continue to apply pressure to his neck, long after his struggling had ended, even past the point he had gone unconscious and bystanders were alerting them to this fact, and urging them to check his pulse...

 

[hurfdurf]

That may have been the 'crime of the day' but do you believe the offender was a good citizen, that him or the people around him had never been involved in, or were currently involved, in other crime, either detected or undetected?

The guy had a violent criminal history. I dare say the people he was with at the time also did. I don't have sympathy for people like that.

The guy was murdered but it’s ok in your mind? Has anyone actually said George was a good citizen? Are cops allowed to murder non good citizens?

Lol. This is typical of some people. Instead of considering whether the police officer committed a crime, you try attack someone who has already served their sentence over 7 years ago.

The police officers were saints (let's ignore the 18 internal affairs complaints against chauvin and the many more against the others) though working in very difficult conditions. It's fine for them to use excessive force resulting in a death as judged by the county medical examiner. I don't get this Shylock defense. Shouldn't be a police officer if they can't act lawfully without having to be given leeway.

Indeed. A lot of people in this thread are truly terrified in society and so lick the boots of the authority figures no matter what, because it makes them feel safer. It’s genuinely pathetic. Some posters will even quote my posts asking mods on this forum to intervene. It’s like they never got past being in school and having to tell a teacher because they aren’t getting their way.

 

[Malevolence]

"A preliminary autopsy report cited earlier by prosecutors said the county medical examiner's review "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

You did know this?

Indeed. But the toxicology report is kind of interesting.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Why then did these officers continue to apply pressure to his neck, long after his struggling had ended, even past the point he had gone unconscious and bystanders were alerting them to this fact, and urging them to check his pulse...

It's like people watched a different film or didn't watch it at all.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

But it's not just one man is it? It's part of a wider pattern of oppression of people of colour.

Yeah but that's just not true.

The people that push this narrative tend to be the social justice types who have very blank slate theory of humanity, which is to say they believe that everyone is equal. They are the kind of people that think men are equal to women and therefore any difference in things for example average pay, is due to oppression. Once you acknowledge that there's real differences between men and women on average, and you control for those differences in the statistics, you find that men and women are paid basically the same.

Same is true for violence, crime, arrests and sentencing in the US. If your ideological presupposition is that everyone is exactly equal then you see clear disparities in the data because people of colour are over represented. But if you control for things like criminality, behaviour, recidivism then those disparities go away.

The idea that everyone is the same is an ideological one, it's not actually true when you look at the data. And that kind of makes sense because what these activists are taught by social science professors is largely doctrine of equality, they don't learn things like basic statistical analysis. You only need a GCSE in statistics to understand how to do things like control for variables when comparing data, in fact a good science or maths course would likely teach you the same because it's absolutely fundamental for comparing data.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

in fact a good science or maths course would likely teach you the same because it's absolutely fundamental for comparing data.

Haha, you know what I'm currently doing at the moment don't you?

 

[deuse]

What's the banned one. There was one by the county medical examiner which I'm looking at and a private one done by George Floyd's family. I'm looking at the first which says it is a homicide.

What's this other dodgy one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_George_Floyd#Autopsies

The links are somewhere is this thread.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

That’s a fairly reasonable answer for arresting someone. You seem to have missed the point where by he was successfully restrained, in cuffs, and had 4 officers surrounding him, no longer a threat.

The knee to the neck is itself part of the restraint. It's weird circular logic to say he's restrained therefore don't restrain him anymore. It's common for people to stop fighting back once they realize they're pinned and can't get away but it doesn't mean they wont continue to resist if you remove that restraint. He's obviously a bad faith actor in all of this, they gave him countless attempts to behave and come peacefully and when he refused and they resorted to force he physically resisted them which resulted in the escallation of force against him. There's every reason to believe that if they removed the restraint on him before backup arrived that he would continue to fight them. The police act in a way to preserve the safety of themselves and those around them and that is their primary priority when dealing with someone being violent.

The guy was murdered but it’s ok in your mind?

This is a begging the question fallacy, you're assuming the conclusion of a trial to determine if this was murder or not, when that has not been decided. Things like Murder are legal conclusions. It's not even completely clear yet that he was killed, the preliminary autopsy at most says that the restraint was a contributing factor to cause of death. But that's just a preliminary autopsy and doesn't factor in other evidence from the crime such as the body cams capturing his inability to breathe prior to the restraint.

Anyway this is why we have courts of law to consider all the evidence not just some viral video that people are upset about, and hopefully whatever happens the facts are considered as impartially a possible and we get a fair trial and a fair outcome, whatever that ends up being. I suspect at this stage it could go either way because the evidence is not a clear cut, there's many mitigating factors that cannot and should not be ignored.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Haha, you know what I'm currently doing at the moment don't you?

I have no idea. A stats course?

 

[Malevolence]

Haha, you know what I'm currently doing at the moment don't you?

Anything to avoid paying back your substantial student loans?

 

[danlightbulb]

Lol. This is typical of some people. Instead of considering whether the police officer committed a crime, you try attack someone who has already served their sentence over 7 years ago.

The police officers were saints (let's ignore the 18 internal affairs complaints against chauvin and the many more against the others) though working in very difficult conditions. It's fine for them to use excessive force resulting in a death as judged by the county medical examiner. I don't get this Shylock defense. Shouldn't be a police officer if they can't act lawfully without having to be given leeway.

I dont think you are taking account of the difficulty of policing these gang communities in the US. PrincessFrosty said it better than me - significant force is a necessity of restraining someone who could turn on you the minute you let up. If he hadnt resisted arrest he would still be alive and he resisted arrest because he was a criminal and/or a non-compliant agressive citizen.

I would bet that you supported the criminal who got shot by Tony Martin when he broke into his home as well.

The world is better without criminals in it.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

Manslaughter requires someone to die surely? I was asking about the technique in general not the specific incident, we already know what the officers have been charged with.

As for continuing to choke him, that isn't clear at all - I think they probably should have started CPR sooner but as for the use of the technique, I wasn't there and I don't know how much force was actually applied. It's, again, a technique that they've been trained to use - that city/police department has approved it knowing it has risks. We don't know that the technique itself was the cause here though.

That's getting into conspiracies and is conflating their roles here - Floyd worked as a bouncer inside the club, Chauvin worked shifts as a police officer outside - clubs could pay for a police vehicle to be deployed outside so they'd be available to be called upon - they don't directly employ the police officers, it's via the police force AFAIK - they're just making sure they have an easy response time and a visible deterrent to trouble makers etc...

It's possible they did recognise each other but neither seems to acknowledge that in the video AFAIK - I've not seen any footage or dialogue along those lines.

Other people have died from the same chokehold. It is a chokehold they're trained to use, they shouldn't be though.

"A preliminary autopsy report cited earlier by prosecutors said the county medical examiner's review "revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

You did know this?

I did, it was an autopsy carried out by the police department looking to cover up the case. A private autopsy contradicted this report. Asphyxia and strangulation isn't actually something measurable unless there is a neck breakage. Even if he had a heart attack, the heart attack would have occured in conguction with the oxygen loss after being choked for 10 minutes.

The police department has accepted blame for the death of GF. Civil is a lesser level of evidence but all the same.

 

[platinum87]

Asphyxia and strangulation isn't actually something measurable unless there is a neck breakage. Even if he had a heart attack, the heart attack would have occured in conguction with the oxygen loss after being choked for 10 minutes.
.

Its like you are saying there is no way to prove the power supply on the PC broke without clear signs of an asteroid impact.