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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Screeeech said:
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.
.
Click to expand...
Seems like there was pride mixed in there as well. He was trying to "show off"/send a message to the onlookers that he can do as he please because he is a cop.

I think the reason he kept his knee on GF after he died was probably because his pride wouldn't let him admit fault in front of those onlookers. Instead of sucking it up taking the lambasting he would have got while trying to resuscitate GF, he decided to double down.

I do wonder if the crowd wasn't their would they have done more to try and keep GF alive.

Or maybe I am overthinking this
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Seems like there was pride mixed in there as well. He was trying to "show off"/send a message to the onlookers that he can do as he please because he is a cop.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you’re overthinking it, I think it’s very possible the jury may see it this way.

The images / video of him sat there looking back at the crowd with his knee firmly on the neck, aren’t going to go away. And let’s be honest - you’d have to be pretty ignorant to think thats reasonable, justified force.
 
Screeeech said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
rubberduck said:
If reasonable doubt allowed OJ Simpson to avoid murder charges, I dare say Chauvin shouldn't be having any trouble sleeping!
Click to expand...

Both cases are racial-political, though. OJ Simpson was acquitted in large part because of his "race". Maybe solely because of his "race". Chauvin will probably be convicted for the same reason.
 
dowie said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.

Witness lists for both sides. I can't imagine they are calling everyone on these lists or this will drag on for weeks.

Prosecution
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgo...s/27-CR-20-12646/StateWitnessList02082021.pdf

Defence
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/WitnessList02082021.pdf
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
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.

Witness lists for both sides. I can't imagine they are calling everyone on these lists or this will drag on for weeks.

Prosecution
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgo...s/27-CR-20-12646/StateWitnessList02082021.pdf

Defence
https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/WitnessList02082021.pdf
Click to expand...


The defence can re-call people if they want.
As long as they have told the judge.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
dowie said:
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.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't bother with him\her.
He\she never knows what they are talking about.

I've put them right many times in this thread.

As I have said. He will do about 5 years. Then move to florida.
 
Angilion said:
Both cases are racial-political, though. OJ Simpson was acquitted in large part because of his "race". Maybe solely because of his "race". Chauvin will probably be convicted for the same reason.
Click to expand...

OJ was acquitted because they proved various police officers there were full blown racists and the investigation was botched I always thought.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Seems like there was pride mixed in there as well. He was trying to "show off"/send a message to the onlookers that he can do as he please because he is a cop.

I think the reason he kept his knee on GF after he died was probably because his pride wouldn't let him admit fault in front of those onlookers. Instead of sucking it up taking the lambasting he would have got while trying to resuscitate GF, he decided to double down.

I do wonder if the crowd wasn't their would they have done more to try and keep GF alive.

Or maybe I am overthinking this
Click to expand...


Screeeech said:
I don’t think you’re overthinking it, I think it’s very possible the jury may see it this way.

The images / video of him sat there looking back at the crowd with his knee firmly on the neck, aren’t going to go away. And let’s be honest - you’d have to be pretty ignorant to think thats reasonable, justified force.
Click to expand...


I also think human emotion (or a mixture of this with crowd/onlooker control procedures) may have affected Chauvin, especially with some onlookers insulting him and beginning to make approaches and having to tell them to get back, making him more determined to not give in to their demands. When they briefly changed tactic from insults to asking that his pulse be checked, one or two of the cops did so seconds later after some initial hesitancy (embarrassment? Fear of what they might find?) and then Chauvin himself did so.

Would I convict* him on this belief? No. But I would need him to be asked questions about those moments, and consider his responses.

* Whatever the case, this is different from premeditated murder.

For those who believe in the existence of a malignant force and its ability to stir massive **** up well beyond the first act, like in Stephen King's "Needful Things", it was on display there. Beginning with Floyd refusing to return his purchase and acting out, refusing police orders and demanding to be put on the ground where he ended up dying, continuing with some of the onlookers possibly triggering Chauvin, and then the media/political/race grifter machinery spinning into action to whip a nation up into a frenzy and excuse any and all violence ensuing from it (far greater number of victims than just George Floyd).
 
Screeeech said:
I don’t think you’re overthinking it, I think it’s very possible the jury may see it this way.

The images / video of him sat there looking back at the crowd with his knee firmly on the neck, aren’t going to go away. And let’s be honest - you’d have to be pretty ignorant to think thats reasonable, justified force.
Click to expand...

It's a legitimate restraint method in the USA though and it doesn't matter what colour your skin is (white people have been killed by it also). Haven't the police already paid out compensation to his family?

If police in the UK tasered someone who kept resisting and for whatever reason it killed them do you think the officer in question should be convicted of murder? or should policing methods be changed?

It's easy to talk about justified force sitting at a keyboard though, American police are at risk of being killed on a daily basis I'm sure there's been cases where a suspect has broken free from such a restraint and then killed the officer in order to escape.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
It's a legitimate restraint method in the USA though and it doesn't matter what colour your skin is (white people have been killed by it also). Haven't the police already paid out compensation to his family?
Click to expand...

I’m not questioning whether or not it’s a legitimate restraining method.

I also think the police paying out that money ahead of the trial is dubious.

The big problem is trying to ascertain whether or not the restraining method was the cause of death and/or was excessive, that’s why there’s a jury.

Looking forward to hearing from the defence witnesses though.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I'm assuming this is from road traffic collisions rather than being shot at by the people they interact with?
Click to expand...


6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Plenty of delivery drivers get robbed or shot delivering to dodgy areas. Plenty of Police are from collisions, 20% or so. Another 30% are from work related illnesses like having a heart attack on the job.
 
Raikiri said:
You're twice as likely to die on the job as a delivery driver in America than as a police officer.
Click to expand...


But they don't get shot at.

Delivery\drivers
"Most common accident: Overexertion and bodily reaction"

Police
"Most common accident: Intentional injury by other person"

That puts it in to context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom