It was dumb of the Defense not to give him a deal. Looking at his record he would have something else soon enough to get him banged up anyway
Last edited:
Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
It was dumb of the Defense not to give him a deal. Looking at his record he would have something else soon enough to get him banged up anyway
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
In the testimony by the pathologist they bought up a series of images spread over a 3-5 second time span when the Officer approached the vehicle GF was in, in the images it looked like he had a white pill in his mouth, the same pill it is believed to be the one found in the squad car. Which was confirmed to have fentanyl and meth, the meth was new in his system as there were no signs of methabolic byproduct.
Based on his condition alone, he was likely to be in serious trouble from the meth alone based on what it could do to his body.
Based on his condition alone, he was likely to be in serious trouble from the meth alone based on what it could do to his body.
Last edited:
Pretty sure chewing guns isn't great for your health either
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
They found a pill in the back of the cruiser with GF's saliva on it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
That is the defence teams line yeah. The prosecution just need to prove that Chauvin's actions played a part in his death. Would he have been alive that night if Chauvin hadn't knelt on his his neck/back for 9.5 minutes, even after he'd stopped being responsive and didn't have a pulse. He was a drug addict, drug addicts can take amount of drugs that would kill you or I and be fine. His breathing rate was that of a normal person right before he stops breathing and not of someone overdosing on fentanyl. Chauvin was completely indifferent to whether he lived or died. I think he'll get convicted of manslaughter, maybe 3rd degree murder. Although no one knows which way the jury will go, we are all guessing.
My hypothesis is based on him being an experienced policeman and training others so I find it difficult to square he was incompetent and didn't know what he was doing.
It's also based on a previous case of his where a medic commended chauvin for albeit making another detainee unconscious he put him in a recovery position and medic said that saved his life.
I think this is just world play here and the kind of stuff Lincoln had to wade through. Mankind needs to be greater than this.
Pulling a move that makes a human unconscious and then carrying on doing it is not intending to kill? Hmm I'll try over the next day or so to try and square that perspective, I'm struggling right now, as I'm sure many are.
Too young at 44 to claim that imo and also cardiologist disagrees, https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...ologist_n_6074706de4b02375ab41eed7?ri18n=true
What move did Chauvin and colleague "pull" that is intended or expected to render a person unconscious?
Also btw age is no predictor of health. Believing that somebody who is 44 and a life-long drug user must be in good health is a bit naïve.
e2: The biggest hole in that position (that Chauvin essentially asphyxiated him) is that Floyd was saying he "couldn't breathe" whilst he was standing upright, before they eventually put him prone on the ground.
Last edited:
I don't know what to call it, a compression technique of some sort - it's the outcome of it that's key at the first state, unconsciousness, and then continuing it - death state
Your line of questioning seems to infer there was no intent of unconsciousness with his technique but chauvin does have expertise in this move it seems:
Most unfortunate decision by the judge, it was video evidence too.
You ignore the fact that GF said he couldn't breath BEFORE anyone put him in the "hold" in question" while simultaneously declaring him healthy. Do you think most healthy people complain that they cannot breath?
I'd say the fact that GF states he can't breath BEFORE he got anywhere near the ground seems consistent with: 1 the impact the drugs have on his breathing(slowing it down), 2 his general heart condition ie enlarged and arteries having severely reduced capacity, 3 heightened level of stress caused by the actual arrest, 4 his increased need for oxygen due the physical resistance he is exerting by resisting arrest.
The "i can't breath" while standing up/back of the car was probably true due to the above in that he's breathing but not getting the oxygen his body needs and he can feel it.
DC and the other coppers can't possibly have know any of the above but will i'm sure have dealt with people saying " I cant breath/Cuffs are hurting/arm is breaking/gonna be sick/gonna die" plenty of times before when arresting someone who then are suddenly fine and try and escape/attack/jump back in car and drive off
I had pneumonia a few years ago and i can remember the main symptom which i explained to my local GP and then the emergency GP i ended up seeing that referred me straight to hospital was that "I could'nt take a deep breath". No matter how i tried all i could manage was a shallow breath, and had to almost sleep upright as i felt like i was drowning when i laid flat in bed
The "i can't breath" while standing up/back of the car was probably true due to the above in that he's breathing but not getting the oxygen his body needs and he can feel it.
DC and the other coppers can't possibly have know any of the above but will i'm sure have dealt with people saying " I cant breath/Cuffs are hurting/arm is breaking/gonna be sick/gonna die" plenty of times before when arresting someone who then are suddenly fine and try and escape/attack/jump back in car and drive off
I had pneumonia a few years ago and i can remember the main symptom which i explained to my local GP and then the emergency GP i ended up seeing that referred me straight to hospital was that "I could'nt take a deep breath". No matter how i tried all i could manage was a shallow breath, and had to almost sleep upright as i felt like i was drowning when i laid flat in bed
As far as I know, they can't give him a deal. As far as I know, a deal regarding prosecution is issued under the same authority under which the person would be prosecuted (or a higher one). In a criminal trial, the prosecution represents that authority and the defence doesn't. In at least some ways, they're the opposition to it in that context even if they're employed by it. The system is adversarial and for criminal cases it's authority vs defendant. If, for example, I was on trial accused of stealing your car the case would be Regina vs Angilion, not robgmun vs Angilion.
Each one of these charges have beyond reasonable doubt built in right?
I would hazard to guess that the defence have clearly proved there's some major doubt.
The prosecution have set a high bar for a conviction here guess it all depends if the jury had him going down before the trial started like most of the world.
I've served on a jury twice. Drugs and road accidents death. You will get jury members pushing for a guilty verdict just to get out of the situation. You will also get members crying that they cannot send somebody to jail and then you will get some who will take it seriously and look at the overall picture.
What ratio do they need for a conviction?
I would hazard to guess that the defence have clearly proved there's some major doubt.
The prosecution have set a high bar for a conviction here guess it all depends if the jury had him going down before the trial started like most of the world.
I've served on a jury twice. Drugs and road accidents death. You will get jury members pushing for a guilty verdict just to get out of the situation. You will also get members crying that they cannot send somebody to jail and then you will get some who will take it seriously and look at the overall picture.
What ratio do they need for a conviction?
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
The officers being on top of GF as well, would not have been enough weight to obstruct his breathing, as established by the pathologist, during lab testing it took an average of 210lbs on the back before someones breathing was impacted, DC was 140lbs (around 170-180lbs with gear) only around 25% of his body weight is transferred based on the position he is using so thats around 40lbs, spread over multiple contact points. There was also ZERO sign of trauma to the areas of contact meaning the "weight" involved was insignificant.
Unanimous either way.
100%. Same for acquittal.
No, it isn't. The BBC is being very careful to stick to the prearranged narrative of guilt.
Manslaughter then me thinks.
Can the yanks have a hung Jury or are they sent away for a final decision.
AFAIK it is fairly standard in the US - they're going to be encouraged to find a unanimous verdict between them I presume... this is where it might come down to come holdouts.
A mistrial (at least under normal circumstances) doesn't necessarily meant there definitely will be a new trial, a mistrial verdict can be enough for the prosecution to just drop the case... might be a bit different here though given the focus on it or it might lead to the federal government attempting to charge Chauvin under the guise of some civil rights thing...
I think there are similar odds of a manslaughter conviction here and a mistrial but even in the event there is either a mistrial or not guilty verdict from this I presume some non-murder/non-manslaughter federal charge would apply.
- Status