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

[muon]

Following training is not a defence against breaking the law. Nor is following orders.

The guy was handcuffed and on the floor. In the training photo above the situation shown is clearly different where the restraining is happening carefully with multiple people.

You also don't need to break the law to lose your job. If there were more competent officers there the argument is that this would not have happened.

 

[dowie]

Following training is not a defence against breaking the law.

That's a rather flawed statement surely - if they were following the correct training procedures then are they necessarily breaking the law?

It's not a defence against breaking the law, it's a defence against the charge that they broke the law in the first place!

I mean they're also trained to shoot people - often someone shooting another person dead in the street is breaking the law, not necessarily if you're a police officer though and the law permits you to carry a firearm and use it within certain scenarios, according to your training.

If they can argue that what they did is consistent with their training then why wouldn't that be a reasonable part of a defence here?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I'm sure there are, but for the purpose of this discussion re: the trial it's literally what they were trained to do - is the blame to be placed on the officer or is a lot of the blame on the institution he was working for and their training/procedures.

The rookie cop (of which there were two) also cited his training/procedures in the motion his lawyer filed.

For the rookies this seems to have been especially bad, they weren't the ones with a knee on the neck and one of them questioned it a couple of times but (presumably, as it was an authorised technique) accepted the answer from Chauvin, an officer with many years experience who was supervising them - that same rookie cop performed CPR on Floyd in the ambulance yet he was sacked by the city and is now facing trial as an accomplice. I don't see how it is particularly fair for either of them to face charges here, to have been fired or to have their pictures plastered nationwide, it was weak leadership and caving to the mob on the part of the city.

There is a valid case to answer for the main officer involved, the subject of this thread, for at least two of the other three (if not all three tbh..) I don't see why they're not still employed and/or were simply subject to an investigation here - they would quite clearly have been if this weren't such a huge story and powerful people in their city felt they had to be seen to do something.

Well it's fairly common in America to trial and sentence accomplices as if they were the perpertrator. I find myself with little sympathy for anyone involved other than the deceased, however.

Regarding your comment above about them following their training, is that not the same statement that was usde by many Germans in WW2? They should question the morality of what they're doing at the time, and if it's found wanting, they could well have intervened.

I don't believe they should be shooting people either.

 

[muon]

That's a rather flawed statement surely - if they were following the correct training procedures then are they necessarily breaking the law?

It's not a defence against breaking the law, it's a defence against the charge that they broke the law in the first place!

I mean they're also trained to shoot people - often someone shooting another person dead in the street is breaking the law, not necessarily if you're a police officer though and the law permits you to carry a firearm and use it within certain scenarios, according to your training.

If they can argue that what they did is consistent with their training then why wouldn't that be a reasonable part of a defence here?

The order or training could be illegal. The person following that order or training is culpable. Not just the person giving the order or training.

Training guidelines also isn't the law. Hopefully they have taken the law into account when creating it.

Also the police authorities will do all they can to show they weren't following the training to the letter.

They didn't pay out $27m for the sake of it. In a civil court they would have lost, i.e. the officers more likely acted illegally than not.

 

[hurfdurf]

You do know he was married to a non white person?
You're really embracing yourself in this and other threads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman

What are you talking about? I think your post is rather more telling on yourself than anything I’ve posted.

 

[mmj_uk]

Exactly, Tony Timpa was killed by police in the same manner, in arguably worse circumstances but no one cared because he was white. That's white privilege for you.

Most people today are only outraged about the stuff corporate media tell them to be outraged about, if corporate media don't opine about something then they aren't interested because they aren't independent minded enough to know what to think about it.

 

[Vulcan]

Regarding your comment above about them following their training, is that not the same statement that was usde by many Germans in WW2? They should question the morality of what they're doing at the time, and if it's found wanting, they could well have intervened.

Using force to restrain someone and ethnic cleansing aren't comparable.

I don't believe they should be shooting people either.

So, just get shot instead then?

 

[deuse]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman

What are you talking about? I think your post is rather more telling on yourself than anything I’ve posted.

Nothing to do with this case.
Grow up and read up.

 

[deuse]

Most people today are only outraged about the stuff corporate media tell them to be outraged about, if corporate media don't opine about something then they aren't interested because they aren't independent minded enough to know what to think about it.

This.

I reckon @hurfdurf watches cnn and then comes on here spouting the same rubbish.

 

[PlacidCasual]

They didn't pay out $27m for the sake of it. In a civil court they would have lost, i.e. the officers more likely acted illegally than not.

There is a different threshold for civil cases. The defending barristers might have thought a jury would be happier "punishing" a local authority in a civil case so better to concede than be open to a highly politicised trial. No principle just expediency.


Also thanks to many of the posters who have added some detail to this thread with many sources of information. Much appreciated.

 

[hurfdurf]

Nothing to do with this case.
Grow up and read up.

Uhhh, I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. I was replying to Rotty’s post...

The jury selection is going to be very important. Sadly race will probably determine to the trail outcome rather then objective evidence much like the OJ Simpson case.

The medical examiner concluded George Floyd died of a heart attack not asphyxiation which would make proving murder difficult. If this was in the UK would say manslaughter is the most likely outcome but in the US? God only knows.

yep and that ended fairly

In which comparisons to OJ were made and very relevant to the discussion.

Mayhaps it’s you who needs to read the thread and grow up before you try point scoring in such a pathetic way deuse? I’ll await your apology.

Edit:

This.

I reckon @hurfdurf watches cnn and then comes on here spouting the same rubbish.

Try being able to read correctly before slinging insults about other people’s posting.

 

[deuse]

Uhhh, I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. I was replying to Rotty’s post...
.

And I quoted you by telling facts.

I thought you said in a post you was going to keep yourself updated from now on?

edit

Thanks for doing this, it’s a good way for me to keep up with what’s going on.

You can't even follow your own advice.
Your a troll

 

[hurfdurf]

Nothing to do with this case.
Grow up and read up.

First you said this....

And I quoted you by telling facts.

I thought you said in a post you was going to keep yourself updated from now on?

edit



You can't even follow your own advice.
Your a troll

Now you are saying this?

I think you’ve been caught out as being very mistaken and are resorting to throwing your toys out of your pram to cover it up.

what does him being married to a non-white have anything to do with him not being racist?!

Or are you the kind of racist who believes the “I can’t be racist I have black friends!” trope?

 

[200sols]

Regarding your comment above about them following their training, is that not the same statement that was usde by many Germans in WW2? They should question the morality of what they're doing at the time, and if it's found wanting, they could well have intervened.

How would you have intervened then? If you disagreed with the nazis you were shot...

 

[SexyGreyFox]

How would you have intervened then? If you disagreed with the nazis you were shot...

A bit of a myth that one because they needed everybody they could fighting.
Many witness statements said that if you eg refused to shoot Jews in the back of the head while they fell into a mass grave they would end up finding somebody else to do it but the refuser could find themselves on the frontline very quickly (or similar).

 

[hurfdurf]

How would you have intervened then? If you disagreed with the nazis you were shot...

Could you live with yourself if you weren’t actively fighting against people doing bad things? Better to be shot by a Nazi than facilitate it.

And let’s face it, this officer, despite being told to knee on the neck, didn’t have to, he wasn’t going to get shot for not doing so. In fact, police officers in this thread have posted showing that.

I’ve even offered to get in the ring with a particular poster and show them how kneeling on the neck can strangle someone, I’d also demonstrate how to pin someone down without having to resort to that. And that would have been one on one without the said poster in handcuffs. Why you would ever kneel on the neck of someone in handcuffs is beyond me.

 

[Skunkworks]

He very clearly wasn't kneeling on his neck with any force as there was no damage. Just stop this emotional nonsense.

 

[deuse]

First you said this....



Now you are saying this?

I think you’ve been caught out as being very mistaken and are resorting to throwing your toys out of your pram to cover it up.

what does him being married to a non-white have anything to do with him not being racist?!

Or are you the kind of racist who believes the “I can’t be racist I have black friends!” trope?

Either you can't put 2 posts together or?

I will leave you to it.

 

[deuse]

Could you live with yourself if you weren’t actively fighting against people doing bad things? Better to be shot by a Nazi than facilitate it.

And let’s face it, this officer, despite being told to knee on the neck, didn’t have to, he wasn’t going to get shot for not doing so. In fact, police officers in this thread have posted showing that.

I’ve even offered to get in the ring with a particular poster and show them how kneeling on the neck can strangle someone, I’d also demonstrate how to pin someone down without having to resort to that. And that would have been one on one without the said poster in handcuffs. Why you would ever kneel on the neck of someone in handcuffs is beyond me.

just a bit of a joke

swearing in the video

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Using force to restrain someone and ethnic cleansing aren't comparable.

Well it kind of is when we're debating the murder of a person of colour.