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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Listened to an episode of Cafe Insider today where Preet Bharara and Anne Milgram discussed the first week of this. Both former prosecutors, Preet running the prestigious SDNY and they both think the Prosecution has the very strong case. The full episode is behind a paywall but the first 12 mins is free.

https://podcasts.apple.com/lv/podca...-v-derek-chauvin/id1265845136?i=1000515077800

A strong case for what though? 2nd-degree murder? 3rd-degree murder? Manslaughter?

Remember the original local prosecutor, the one with actual skin in the game, didn't even go with a 2nd-degree murder charge and wanted the press that this would be a difficult case. The 2nd-degree murder charge came later when this got super political and had resources thrown at it - that latter part might increase the chances of a conviction but if people think there is a strong case of 2nd-degree murder then I suspect they're just pandering to populist opinion based on current media narratives surrounding this case.
 
Never heard of a character witness?

The Defence will focus on his crimes, drug use, failings etc

The Prosecution will tell you what a wonderful guy he was.

Nope not relevant, Floyd isn't on trial here Chauvin is, likewise the defence can't bring up his past crimes. The relevance is his past drug use, the prosecution will use it to try and portray the regular drug use as not being so much of a drama, try to pre-empt the defence's arguments re: the drug use killing him.
 
Tell me.
How does one know if any of them have a gun?
Case in point


I think that is what people forget a lot of the time.

On one hand you do get US police videos (inc shootings) that are completely unreasonable and indeed there is a general lack of training compared to UK police let alone UK armed police.

Plus there is a big cultural difference where they escalate and use much more force (tasers etc..) for compliance purposes rather than self-defence.

On the other hand some of the cultural differences are driven by the obvious difference in environment. If you have a traffic stop in the UK you can just get out of the car right away and have a casual chat with the officer, if they need a driving license or insurance you can be requested to turn up at a police station in the near future and provide those if you don't have them with you at the time. If you have a traffic stop in the US you'd best not even attempt to leave the car unless instructed and you need to keep you license and insurance with you and have them ready to immediately hand over to the officer... not much casual about it, can't just get out and have a friendly chat.

This is why when Floyd was stopped and started acting crazy, didn't respond well to instructions etc.. guns were drawn pretty quickly whereas in the UK police would more likely just try a different approach, chat to him and try to reassure him etc.. with hindsight that would have been a better approach too but when there is that gun threat police in the US can't necessarily afford to be too relaxed.
 
Devastating testimony from the head of homicide earlier, he testified that kneeling on a neck like that can kill - and he’d never been trained to do that in his career.

Also lots of testimony related to the use of force and proportion.

I think the defence could lose the case on that testimony alone, for a jury to sit and listen to a seasoned head of homicide give that kind of info the way he did.

Presumably more relevant if that came from say a uniform Sgt or Lt regularly making street arrests etc... rather than some detective involved with investigating murders. Or better still an instructor from whatever academy trained Chauvin or whoever is involved in whatever annual training they go through (if applicable).

Generally, it seems to be the uniformed sergeants who are called first when a police officer needs a "superior" on scene etc..
 
Didn't he state he joined the Police in 2004, moved to homicide in 2008, so 4 years on the beat. Question is, is the training he is given the same as that of a street copper, or as I suspect, is the training more relevant to his role with only minor aspects from general policing.

Well exactly - he's had less time patrolling or being involved in general uniformed policing than two of the officers involved in the incident and he's not an instructor either. I'm not quite sure why he is being called as a witness.

Yeah its not like homicide detectives have to apprehend violent offenders, like murderers... oh wait.

But they're not generally reacting to incidents/first on the scene etc.. they're called when a body is found, in some cases the murderer is already in custody. In others, they might need to make a planned arrest of someone following an investigation but that is rather different and frankly, if they're planning to arrest someone who is known to be dangerous then they have resources available to them.
 
Oh so they travel everywhere with SWAT do they? When they are knocking on doors, following up leads they have a SWAT truck at their back? Could it be this cop isn't following the narrative you are trying to paint on this case? Its clear as day this guy is guilty of at least 3rd degree murder. George Floyd being a scumbag is irrelevant.

It isn’t clear at all, could easily be manslaughter or not guilty.

Usung hyperbole doesn’t negate the point that this was a detective in homicide not a trainer or experienced uniform Sgt or Lt.
 
Third degree murder requires prosecutors to prove that Chauvin showed a reckless disregard for human life. Kneeling on someone's neck for 9 minutes even after they've lost consciousness is a reckless disregard for human life.

Overly simplistic, he was following a police procedure - argument then becomes how unreasonable was it, we’re then talking about maybe the first 5 mins being reasonable but Chauvin going a bit too far. That doesn’t necessarily warrant 3rd degree murder.

Secondly there is the obvious issue of reasonable doubt re: the drugs, those + the anxiety re: the arrest could have been the cause regardless of any knee.

It’s not as simple as you try to make out.
 
Whatever I mean by it, it's not the Nazis :)

I'm talking about socialist policies, values etc[...]

That’s a non answer to be fair, he’s essentially asking what you consider to be socialist policies, it is somewhat circular to then just refer to them without any new information beyond not the Nazis. Might be better if you guys could carry on this discussion in a separate thread though :)
 
The problem here, is that he continued to kneel on his neck long after he became unresponsive, I’m struggling to see (now I’ve listened to many of the arguments) that this level of force was justified and reasonable.

I don’t think it was reasonable, I think if an assault charge was in the table too (and frankly should have been) then he’d be guilty of that. He may be guilty of manslaughter.

Thing is the first bit of it probs was reasonable so we’re now talking about a bit longer than necessary, that’s doesn’t necessarily constitute felony assault/2nd degree murder etc...

Plus we still have the reasonable doubt re: the medical evidence and what happened to Floyd during his similar arrest in 2019. Will be interesting to see when the defence present that. So far we’ve had lots of prosecution witnesses/arguments and lots of it emotive etc...
 
Yeah this seems to be the dilemma, it’s quite clear to me that Chauvin didn’t go out intent on killing George floyd, and I don’t think he was actually trying to kill him. It seems things just went way too far and floyd was way more fragile and weak than he appeared to be.

Whether or not the jury will think that constitutes 2nd degree or not we’ll have to wait and see.

Id say 2nd degree is highly unlikely, manslaughter is plausible and so is not guilty or indeed a mistrial.


Another thing to keep in mind re that latter point, this requires a unanimous verdict, the defence only really need convince a stubborn juror or two that there is reasonable doubt here.

Remember also, for everyone watching events unfold in court and being like “oh that Sgt sounded convincing”, “ah the homicide detective guy’s testimony was damning” etc.. these are all prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence etc... We haven’t got to the bit where the Defence brings in the snippets of the 2019 arrest video or presumably expert witnesses re that or indeed perhaps police witnesses who will testify in favour of the defence re the legality of the restraint used etc... (haven’t checked the witness lists yet but I’d be surprised if they didn’t have at least expert medical testimony re: the drugs, an expert police witness should presumably be a no brainer too).
 
You do realise the defence can question witnesses right? They might be called by the prosecution but the defence can question them to try and call into doubt their testimony.

It’s called cross examination and that’s rather obvious to anyone who has watched parts of the trial so far and laterally seen that happen.

It doesn’t change that at this stage it is the prosecution making the case, bringing forwards witnesses and evidence. That the defence can question them is beside the point. We’ll see the defence arguments, witnesses in due course.
 
You're twice as likely to die on the job as a delivery driver in America than as a police officer.

Without context this is rather irrelevant - it seems like a naive attempt to downplay the obvious risk police have in making an arrest in a high crime rate area.

Plenty of US police officers don't patrol, have desk jobs or mostly do investigations etc.. Plenty of police officers are working in rural areas, low crime rates etc..

The incident here involves uniformed officers who do patrol/respond to calls and responding to one of those calls in a high crime rate, urban area - in particular that specific junction has a CCTV camera because it is a high crime rate area... (even during the build up to this recent trial someone was shot and killed there).

So it's rather a meaningless comparison to make when there is rather more additional context that clearly changes things.
 
But those that do die in Police Custody the majority are black.

No they're not - why do people post stuff like this?

The majority of deaths in police custody are white people, not black. When you look at the number of black people in custody vs population, there is certainly an imbalance.

That imbalance could be as a result of many different things, like poverty, education and upbringing etc etc.

In the case of the UK there is quite a simple explanation for most of it, there are more black people in police custody relative to the general population! Black people are circa 3% of the population but 10% of crime suspects are black.

When you actually look at deaths in comparison to portion who end up in custody then in fact you'll find it is white people who die in custody at a higher rate in the UK - perhaps more white smack heads or others with health conditions, perhaps black suspects are younger and fitter etc..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52890363

FNQFMj4.jpg
 
Anyone watching the testimony today? I've been watching the defence cross examine the prosecutions expert witness, he's pretty good...

Have missed it today - was there a particular prosecution witness worth watching/reading about? I might try and find some clips.
 
He cross examined SGT Jody Stiger, a prosecution expert witness from the LAPD... [...]

thanks - just seen a short clip with the defence questioning him - noting that Floyd seems to be saying (mumbling) that he "ate too many drugs" - the prosecution witness doesn't hear it. Also that they opted not to use a hobble restraint (a belt-type device that ties up the hands and feet) and in doing so deescalated.


I might go through (some of) this (though it seems to be 3 hours! )

 
I wouldn't call that mumbling. Maybe the perceived clarity of the speech depends on what accents the person listening to it is used to hearing, but to me the only thing that sounds unusual about it is the length of the 'u' in 'drugs'.

Interestingly just got to the bit in the longer clip where there is some news reporters/journalists and some other commentator commenting on it - none of them seem to acknowledge that it was said, instead they're just questioning whether the defence could actually even admit it on the record unchallenged/questioning why the prosecution didn't object.

Starts about 1:37

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ddPW2HRjcs

then at 1:38:24 reporter's only comment is that clearly a lot of their views would say you couldn't make out what he was saying... none of them seem to acknowledge what it sounds like

Have just replayed the short clip here setting the speed to 0.5 on youtube and it certainly does sound like "I ate too many drugs" (also tried it set at 0.75 and it is pretty clear then too)


I wonder if the defence should slow down the clip and play it again with another (possibly defence?) witness.
 
Last edited:
That might be it. I seem to be more comfortable with faster speech than many people. I often see comments on some of the Youtube channels I watch complaining about the person speaking too fast.

I mean it can be heard at normal speed, it's just clearer if dialed down a bit - I'm not sure if they can do that or not for the jury though?

Bearing in mind, George Floyd was a; already high as a kite when police arrived, then b; swallowed more pills as the police tried to arrest him, is pretty troubling stuff.

I think it's probably extremely likely that the root cause of death here, is drug related - it might have been exasberated by the police restraint, but honestly - with large quantities of drugs like that, I wouldn't be suprised if it's what did most of the damage.

Yup same here - really I think there should be some sort of assault charge for Chauvin - if there is reasonable doubt re: the cause there is still the issue of how Floyd was treated, Chauvin probably deserves to be punished for that.

re: the drugs - interestingly we know - he was already high (or seemed to be) in the store - as noted by the store on the 911 call.

We also know from his two friends that he consumed two pills before the police even arrived. There were two attempts by the store to get him to come back inside and pay for his cigarettes.

This bit is interesting though - his friend Maurice Hall was in the car with him and seemingly both the defence and the prosecution want him to take the stand as a witness - Maurice is actively trying to avoid this by pleading the 5th. Defence/Chauving has a 6th amendment right to call him but he has a 5th amendment right to not incriminate himself.

Importantly there is the question of whether he supplied the drugs to Floyd (and possible charges there) and also if he had and they were the cause of death then there is also the possibility under MN law of a murder charge for him (politically though that doesn't seem realistic at all though).

Can't find the video I saw yesterday but a USlawyer went through the options - firstly judge could get defence/prosecution and Maurice Hall's lawyers to thrash out what they intend to cover. Secondly, they could get a statement or something to avoid him testifying directly. Thirdly the prosecution could offer him immunity if he testifies (they probs won't want to do this - not necessarily because they're actually going to charge him but because it probably helps the defence more) lastly though the Judge could go for a nuclear option of pausing the trail until the prosecution sorts something out with Hall to enable him to testify.

Incidentally - Floyd's wonderful alleged drug dealing "friend" who was in the car with him currently appears to be in custody right now on domestic violence charges. Does seem odd how they're trying to portray Floyd as turning his life around when he's handing over forged banknotes and seemingly not caring when the store points this out, high on drugs, hanging out with a drug dealer/violent individual etc.. I appreciate he isn't on trial here and died in horrible circumstances - the narrative about him being some sort of hero here or that this incident with the forged bill could happen to anyone is just utter bunk - most people would be apologetic when a store points it out if it were an accident - they'd not go back to sitting behind the wheel of a car and proceed to consume more drugs.
 
It’s not looking good for the prosecution. For every good point the prosecution makes, the defence makes 5. The def lawyer doesn’t even have to be good, he just has to convey reality in a calm and clear way.

Meanwhile the MSM are priming the public to think a conviction is assured so when the opposite happens they’ll have plenty of riots to report on.

I'm not sure I'd go with it being some sort of conspiracy here to have riots to report on, more that that narrative is already set here and that is shaping the reporting on this case... which seems to be very unbalanced,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom