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

[Deleted User 234324]

I think he's guilty of second degree murder because chauvin consciously never put him in the recovery position despite being told the guy is lights out. Did no CPR and showed no remorse. For me this is very telling and I struggle to get past this black and white point.

However the high bar of requiring a unanimous decision means he will be found not guilty.
The judge does not seem impartial enough to call a mistrial verdict.

But it was established in the trial that they didn't have to do that based on his behavior and the fact he was under the influence, under those circumstances, they were allowed to keep him in prone control until the ambulance arrived.

 

[kindai]

Cross is going miserably, just pick and chose from an affidavit... which given the experts comments before he was cut off... agreed with what he was saying.

 

[deuse]

What do you think would happen if he did not get charged with murder La riots all over again does not bare thinking about Nike's and 65 inch Tellies getting nicked left right and center shop next door that sells work boots untouched.

It's ok.

Minneapolis mayor said it was a peaceful protest.
Nothing to see here

 

[Felon]

I think he's guilty of second degree murder because chauvin consciously never put him in the recovery position despite being told the guy is lights out. Did no CPR and showed no remorse. For me this is very telling and I struggle to get past this black and white point

I'd have a hard time ever agreeing that the things mentioned above, actually prove intent to kill. Certainly there's a degree of negligence, incompetence and bad practise - but actual intent to kill, I don't think it's there.

For comparison, if Floyd had initally cooperated, got out of the vehicle, was sober, obeyed all commands - then was subsequently thrown to the ground for no good reason and ended up dying, I think there'd be some weight in a second degree murder charge. Essentially there would have been no good reason to use that level of restraint with a cooperative individual, other than to give him a good hiding, in those circumstances it would be easier to show that Chauvin set out with intent to harm Floyd.

 

[pallys]

But it was established in the trial that they didn't have to do that based on his behavior and the fact he was under the influence, under those circumstances, they were allowed to keep him in prone control until the ambulance arrived.

When you say established are you saying the judge agreed that putting someone in a recovery position when his lights are out is not required?

If so, what a strange country.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

When you say established are you saying the judge agreed that putting someone in a recovery position when his lights are out is not required?

If so, what a strange country.

Established as in, police procedure/training stated that. It was also established that had DC chosen to use his taser or pepper spray, it would have been well within his rights based soley on GFs actions. He chose not to do that.

 

[pallys]

I'd have a hard time ever agreeing that the things mentioned above, actually prove intent to kill. Certainly there's a degree of negligence, incompetence and bad practise - but actual intent to kill, I don't think it's there.

I agree it may have started out with no intent to kill but following the notification of unconsciousness he made a decision to continue the neck compression. That decision and execution of the continuation of the move by definition is murder. I can't see nothing accidental about it, not with his experience.

 

[pallys]

Established as in, police procedure/training stated that. It was also established that had DC chosen to use his taser or pepper spray, it would have been well within his rights based soley on GFs actions. He chose not to do that.

Strange because what I'm reading is that the police training states detainees should be put in a recovery position once under control and he was literally a handcuffed vegetable.

 

[Felon]

That decision and execution of the continuation of the move by definition is murder.

I don't agree, it doesn't show that the intent was to kill - simply to continue restraining somebody, who up until that point had resisted the entire time, but I mean - that's what the jury will have to decide, so we'll have to agree to disagree I imagine.

 

[FoxEye]

And remember it requires unanimous verdicts EITHER WAY. If its a hung jury then its back to square 1 if the prosecution wishes to re-try the case.

I imagine if you took 12 random people from this forum you'd be incredibly unlikely to get unanimous agreement on any of the charges!

Hung jury would seem quite a high possibility.

 

[pallys]

I don't agree, it doesn't show that the intent was to kill - simply to continue restraining somebody, who up until that point had resisted the entire time, but I mean - that's what the jury will have to decide, so we'll have to agree to disagree I imagine.

If I have my hands around someone's throat and then after a few minutes he went unconscious I know I would need to let go to give him a chance of living. I also know if I hold on he is a dead man.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

Strange because what I'm reading is that the police training states detainees should be put in a recovery position once under control and he was literally a handcuffed vegetable.

That is true for someone who is compliant, but as they determined, there was still active resistance right up until the last couple minutes. I can agree it was at that point they should have atleast eased up on him, but as testified with people who are under the influence, if they let up and he suddenly tried to fight back, he could have injured himself or someone else, or even been hit by a vehicle as it was a busy junction.

Now of course with hindsight we know that wasn't going to happen and he infact died at some point within that couple minutes. The cause of which is imho undertermined as there are many different possible reasons for that. It was also established that from looking at the autopsy report and photos the only markings where on his chest as a result of abrasion from the rough surface of the road. There was no damage and/or bruising on his back or neck dismissing the argument about DC having is body weight on his neck.

 

[Felon]

If I have my hands around someone's throat and then after a few minutes he went unconscious I know I would need to let go to give him a chance of living with cpr. I also know if I hold on he is a dead man.

Facile argument. Having your hands around someone's throat isn't even remotely close to what happened with Chauvin/Floyd. Having your hands around somebody's throat, would serve only as an intent to kill, you only do it to kill someone - not to restrain them.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I imagine if you took 12 random people from this forum you'd be incredibly unlikely to get unanimous agreement on any of the charges!

Hung jury would seem quite a high possibility.

Haha this forum really isn't what I would describe as a fair sample of society, far from it in fact. I could name a few posters that would/should be struck from the jury by the defence and prosecution. There are some proper nut cases on here with wild beliefs in conspiracy theories. I wouldn't want them anywhere near a jury if I or anyone I knew was on trial.

 

[pallys]

Facile argument. Having your hands around someone's throat isn't even remotely close to what happened with Chauvin/Floyd. Having your hands around somebody's throat, would serve only as an intent to kill, you only do it to kill someone - not to restrain them.

In the point I was trying to make it didn't really matter what bodily parts were used to execute the compression. My focal point was that whatever move was used, if the outcome resulted in unconsciousness and I carried on doing it I knew he was gonna be a dead man.
My hypothesis is that chauvin knew this too based on his experience, and at that point he's made a precall to carry on thus is murder.

 

[Deleted User 234324]

In the point I was trying to make it didn't really matter what bodily parts were used to execute the compression. My focal point was that whatever move was used, if the outcome resulted in unconsciousness and I carried on doing it I knew he was gonna be a dead man.
My hypothesis is that chauvin knew this too based on his experience, and at that point he's made a precall to carry on thus is murder.

Except from autopsy data and images, there were no signs of trauma/bruising to his neck area or back, meaning the pressure applied was insignificant and could not have prevented GF from breathing.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Except from autopsy data and images, there were no signs of trauma/bruising to his neck area or back, meaning the pressure applied was insignificant and could not have prevented GF from breathing.

That very point was covered today. There doesn't have to be marks in asphyxiation, the expert confirmed on cross today that there very often isn't.

 

[Felon]

In the point I was trying to make it didn't really matter what bodily parts were used to execute the compression. My focal point was that whatever move was used, if the outcome resulted in unconsciousness and I carried on doing it I knew he was gonna be a dead man.

That could just as easily come down to incompetence, or neglgence though, it doesn't really mean it's murder. If it's something you've been trainied to do and there are other extenuating circumstances (such as heat of the moment, a struggling detainee, high on drugs, unruly crowds, etc) , then it might not be obvious that what you're doing will kill somebody outright, when you take the context of the whole incident into account, from start to finish.

My hypothesis is that chauvin knew this too based on his experience, and at that point he's made a precall to carry on thus is murder.

I haven't seen any evidence, that Chauvin actually intentionally did this to kill. I've seen evidence that what he did was excessive and negligent, but there's nothing that I've seen - which directly shows him intending to kill George Floyd.

 

[kindai]

I haven't seen any evidence, that Chauvin actually intentionally did this to kill. I've seen evidence that what he did was excessive and negligent, but there's nothing that I've seen - which directly shows him intending to kill George Floyd.

Same.

Todays expert was highly persuasive as well. Did a very good job, the cross did a horrible job, trying to pick out those single moments again.

Even the manslaughter charge in the larger context is looking less likely by the day.

 

[FoxEye]

That very point was covered today. There doesn't have to be marks in asphyxiation, the expert confirmed on cross today that there very often isn't.

The trouble is we're talking about a man who could have almost dropped dead at any moment, because of his medical conditions. Who had apparently just done a ton of drugs. And even on a regular day, without being stopped by the police (and eating his stash), was doing a ton of drugs. The chap's body was knackered. Chauvin could have farted and killed him, almost.

Don't mean to be crude but the guy wasn't in peak condition, let's say.