Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

penny piper

Call me Al wrote: »

Apparently we weren't lol.
No doubt seeing someone die when you're prevented from trying to save them focuses the mind.

She was taking none of it Nelson.

Eric Nelson: A stressful situation can impact your memory.

Genevieve Hansen: Absolutely. That's why we're lucky it was videotaped.

Didn't Eric Nelson say that the police had called for an ambulance as the general instruction is? She even admitted she didn't hear what the police were saying to each other.....the video shown clearly showed her on the sidewalk with a police officer blocking the full view of flyod from her...
Eric Nelson told her the medics were called @ 8.21 code 3...she arrived at 8.26 she wouldn't accept that fact....
She said she was confident in her job and when doing it no one would disturb her....nelson was trying to get it across to her...that applied to those police officers equally...

rosser44

Jerrykay6 wrote: »

A 6'8 well-built African could do serious damage with a kick if he was let.

Ya these big strong black men are inherently dangerous??:rolleyes:


The "black brute" and other such terms a well known racist trope used against black men since the days of slavery


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Buck


https://nmaahc.si.edu/blog-post/popular-and-pervasive-stereotypes-african-americans


https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/

KB1980

penny piper wrote: »

Didn't Eric Nelson say that the police had called for an ambulance as the general instruction is? She even admitted she didn't hear what the police were saying to each other.....the video shown clearly showed her on the sidewalk with a police officer blocking the full view of flyod from her...
Eric Nelson told her the medics were called @ 8.21 code 3...she arrived at 8.26 she wouldn't accept that fact....
She said she was confident in her job and when doing it no one would disturb her....nelson was trying to get it across to her...that applied to those police officers equally...

Except the 'job' the police were doing in this case involved putting all their weight on one mans neck while having his hand in his pocket........doesn't really compare to her actively putting out a fire....?? She is trying to save citizens from a burning fire while chauvin was hurting a handcuffed man who was not resisting at all.........so that comparison does not work whatsoever!!

ELM327

MrStuffins wrote: »

I was simply pointing out that the poster I quoted himself thinks that Mr. Chauvin is culpable for the "manslaughter" of Mr. Floyd as he put it.

As do I.
No need for the " " around manslaughter. It's a real word.

Call me Al

penny piper wrote: »

Didn't Eric Nelson say that the police had called for an ambulance as the general instruction is? She even admitted she didn't hear what the police were saying to each other.....the video shown clearly showed her on the sidewalk with a police officer blocking the full view of flyod from her...
Eric Nelson told her the medics were called @ 8.21 code 3...she arrived at 8.26 she wouldn't accept that fact....
She said she was confident in her job and when doing it no one would disturb her....nelson was trying to get it across to her...that applied to those police officers equally...

He certainly was not trying to imply that nothing would disturb them.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1376573842513092608?s=20

Quite the contrary. It's the crowd's fault apparently.

She was standing there looking at him, a firefighter trained in emergency medicine, and he refused to allow her assist.

lawrencesummers

Call me Al wrote: »

He certainly was not trying to imply that nothing would disturb them.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1376573842513092608?s=20

Quite the contrary. It's the crowd's fault apparently.

She was standing there looking at him, a firefighter trained in emergency medicine, and he refused to allow her assist.

The only way to defend the indefensible is with the absurd.

ELM327

rosser44 wrote: »

Ya these big strong black men are inherently dangerous??:rolleyes:


The "black brute" and other such terms a well known racist trope used against black men since the days of slavery


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Buck


https://nmaahc.si.edu/blog-post/popular-and-pervasive-stereotypes-african-americans


https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/brute/

That's a racist stereotype, which no one mentioned but you.




The fact of the situation is that Mr Floyd was a well built tall african american.

Eric Cartman

MrStuffins wrote: »

You admit yourself that you think Mr. Chauvin killed Mr Floyd. So no matter what way you look at it, the man isn't "Innocent".

Saying he did it before and didn't kill anyone is like when there's a dog owner who's excuse when their dog mauls someone's face off is like "Well, he'd never done that before".

Doesn't change the fact that he did it this time.

you keep wanting people to 'admit' things as if they believe what you do but are wilfully telling lies.

No I don't , as the above poster stated, Chauvin did this a lot, he restrained many people this way and none of them died , Floyd had consumed a heap of drugs and had a heart condition , I believe he would have died Chauvin or no Chauvin . But this is for a court to decide.

anyone calling Chauvin a 'murderer' , if the court finds him not guilty on murder but guilty on manslaughter will you stop using the word murder or complain about the verdict ?

Mellor

ELM327 wrote: »

The fact of the situation is that Mr Floyd was a well built tall african american.

How tall was he?

Christy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you keep wanting people to 'admit' things as if they believe what you do but are wilfully telling lies.

No I don't , as the above poster stated, Chauvin did this a lot, he restrained many people this way and none of them died , Floyd had consumed a heap of drugs and had a heart condition , I believe he would have died Chauvin or no Chauvin . But this is for a court to decide.

anyone calling Chauvin a 'murderer' , if the court finds him not guilty on murder but guilty on 'manslaughter' will you stop using the word murder or complain about the verdict ?

Cause of death is for medical professionals to decide. Like really, we don't get 12 random pepole to figure out if someone would have overdosed or not. We get 12 random people to decide whether or not he broke the law and which laws specifically.

Medical experience is not to be replaced by "ah sure it felt like this happened".

I don't think you are suggesting this but since the wording is ambiguous to me at least. It also does not matter if Floyd would have died 5 minutes later. That is also irrelevant to the case.

MrStuffins

ELM327 wrote: »

As do I.
No need for the " " around manslaughter. It's a real word.

I used these quotes because I was quoting the poster. It was a word he used in describing what he thinks Mr. Chauvin will be convicted of.......

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im personally predicting manslaughter

The clue as to why I used quotes, is in the name.

MrStuffins

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you keep wanting people to 'admit' things as if they believe what you do but are wilfully telling lies.

You said yourself you think he'll be convicted of manslaugher

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im personally predicting manslaughter

anyone calling Chauvin a 'murderer' , if the court finds him not guilty on murder but guilty on manslaughter will you stop using the word murder or complain about the verdict ?

I haven't been saying he was murdered. It's clear that Mr Chauvin killed Mr Floyd.

Whether it's murder or not, that's for the court to decide.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a little bit telling that the posters leaping to the defense of Chauvin are ignoring his history of undue force. Doing it to a fourteen year old for seventeen minutes...

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say that Fentanyl may have played a part in Floyd's death.

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say COVID-19 may have played a part in Floyd's death.

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say other drugs may have played a part in Floyd's death.

I'm not defending Chauvin when I'm saying a knee on the neck was an acceptable restraint technique in Minneapolis.

penny piper

KB1980 wrote: »

Except the 'job' the police were doing in this case involved putting all their weight on one mans neck while having his hand in his pocket........doesn't really compare to her actively putting out a fire....?? She is trying to save citizens from a burning fire while chauvin was hurting a handcuffed man who was not resisting at all.........so that comparison does not work whatsoever!!

He was resisting arrest that's why he was handcuffed it was quite clear also he didn't want to get in the police car and stay..and it's a noted fact that he also used used the term " i can't breathe" when he had been arrested in the past......
The technique of restraint used by those police officers has been accepted in how many other cases in minneapolis in the past (and lots of experts disagree on this use of restraint)....look at the cases of david smith...eric parsa.....those officers have not/were not treated the same way as chauvan ...he's a scapegoat

Nelson was making the comparison that she wouldn't (as she said herself) wouldn't be destracted by anyone if she was doing her job.....likewise they were/had been doing their job ....Chauvan hasn't been found guilty of anything yet....

ELM327

Mellor wrote: »

How tall was he?

Over 6ft and a good deal taller than the 5 ft7 chauvin.

MrStuffins

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say that Fentanyl may have played a part in Floyd's death.

Two autopsies found that the cause of death was homicide. Mr. Floyd was killed by another human being.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say COVID-19 may have played a part in Floyd's death.

Two autopsies found that the cause of death was homicide. Mr. Floyd was killed by another human being.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say other drugs may have played a part in Floyd's death.

Two autopsies found that the cause of death was homicide. Mr. Floyd was killed by another human being.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not defending Chauvin when I'm saying a knee on the neck was an acceptable restraint technique in Minneapolis.

Cause of death:

“cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law-enforcement subdual restraint, and neck compression.”

Not acceptable in this case as it killed him.

BattleCorp

penny piper wrote: »

Nelson was making the comparison that she wouldn't (as she said herself) wouldn't be destracted by anyone if she was doing her job.....likewise they were/had been doing their job ....Chauvan hasn't been found guilty yet....

It's not unrealistic to think that someone could easily be distracted by a crowd. Plenty of videos of police arresting someone only to be attacked by a member(s) of a crowd.

One paramedic who was teaching us first aid told us how he was kicked in the face by a bystander while he was attending to someone on the ground in O'Connell Street in Dublin.

BattleCorp

MrStuffins wrote: »

Two autopsies found that the cause of death was homicide. Mr. Floyd was killed by another human being.



Two autopsies found that the cause of death was homicide. Mr. Floyd was killed by another human being.



Two autopsies found that the cause of death was homicide. Mr. Floyd was killed by another human being.



Cause of death:

“cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law-enforcement subdual restraint, and neck compression.”

Not acceptable in this case as it killed him.

I never said Chauvin didn't kill Floyd. I'm just stating what I think are important factors in this case.

If the court finds Chauvin not guilty, will you accept the verdict?

MrStuffins

BattleCorp wrote: »

If the court finds Chauvin not guilty, will you accept the verdict?

Yes

CIARAN_BOYLE

BattleCorp wrote: »

I never said Chauvin didn't kill Floyd. I'm just stating what I think are important factors in this case.

If the court finds Chauvin not guilty, will you accept the verdict?

I dont see much chance of that happening. Its a question of what they find him guilty of in my opinion.

MrStuffins

BattleCorp wrote: »

I never said Chauvin didn't kill Floyd.

Do you think Mr. Chauvin killed Mr Floyd?

Do you accept the findings of the autopsies?

BattleCorp

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I dont see much chance of that happening. Its a question of what they find him guilty of in my opinion.

I'm in two minds to be honest. Yes, Chauvin certainly played a part in Floyd's death. Is it enough to secure a conviction, I'm not 100% sure. I do think that the knee restraint technique being allowed and the cocktail of drugs also played a part in his death. Did they play a big enough part, I don't know.

For example, the 14 year old didn't die after 17 minutes restraint yet Floyd died after approx. 9 minutes. I'm sure the defence will claim the difference being that the 14 year old wasn't on a cocktail of drugs and didn't have any significant medical conditions.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Do you think Mr. Chauvin killed Mr Floyd?

Do you accept the findings of the autopsies?

Chauvin played a part. For sure. See above. I think there are other contributory factors too.

I haven't read the full autopsies but I'd accept the first autopsy much quicker than I'd accept the second one. Simply because a body is wrecked after an autopsy so the second autopsy would be examining an already wrecked corpse.

But bottom line, as I'm not an expert, yes, I accept the findings of the autopsies.

Dyr

Ah yes, I remember the OJ trial, everyone convinced OJ was being sent down despite the fact that there was a point when it became clear that he was home and hosed. Meanwhile the media kept the hype up because it was a meal ticket for them. And that was back the media had some semblance of impartiality.

I wont be following this trial but the verdict should be fun. So many shocked pikachus is my prediction

Mellor

ELM327 wrote: »

Over 6ft and a good deal taller than the 5 ft7 chauvin.

What’s over 6 foot. 6’1”, 6’2”?

The previous post described him as 6’8” (I don’t think it was you). I’m assuming that’s not accurate. Exaggerating his size and strength to pretend he was more of a physical is exactly the idea behind the racist stereotype above. The one you claimed wasn’t happening. We see now that was wrong.

Also, it’s odd that at one minute he was a towering physical specimen of incredible strength.
Then the next minute, the same people are describing him as a junkie, dosed up on opioid anaesthetic, on the brink of death.

MrStuffins

Bambi wrote: »

Ah yes, I remember the OJ trial, everyone convinced OJ was being sent down despite the fact that there was a point when it became clear that he was home and hosed. Meanwhile the media kept the hype up because it was a meal ticket for them. And that was back the media had some semblance of impartiality.

I wont be following this trial but the verdict should be fun. Some many shocked pikachus is my prediction

The fact that the OJ trial keeps coming up as the comparative here is amazing. An almost universally accepted miscarriage of justice. where he was found culpable afterwards in civil court.

It's essentially admitting "Listen, like OJ we know he did it. But hey, there was a huge miscarriage of justice televised before, right? And I think it can happen again".

Why you'd be calling for a miscarriage of justice in this case I have no idea.

Actually I know quite well why, and so do those making the comparison

Quantum Erasure

Yea, it'll be an interesting few weeks..,

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not defending Chauvin when I'm saying a knee on the neck was an acceptable restraint technique in Minneapolis.

According to a post at the top of the thread. It was contrary to the training they had received. I’m not sure of the details on that one.

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say that Fentanyl may have played a part in Floyd's death.

I'm not defending Chauvin when I say COVID-19 may have played a part in Floyd's death.

They could well have played a part. A sick, weak person would, I imagine, be less robust. I wouldn’t suggest otherwise.
But I don’t get where that comes into the charges?
Why is that matter?

Say a junkie broke into my granny’s house. Hit her on the head with a bat. Fracturing her skull, and she dies. The junkies scum bag is responsible for her death.
The fact she was old, frail, with osteoporosis doesn’t change that.
The fact that had he hit me, I’d be less likely to die is irrelevant.
I can see how anyone can air makes the junkie nor responsible.

The fact is two medical report have determined it was homicide. Even Floyds detractors appear agree with that. So at the very least the manslaughter charge seems fulfilled. We’re only arguing where the line is past that.

osarusan

Mellor wrote: »

But I don’t get where that comes into the charges?
Why is that matter?

Say a junkie broke into my granny’s house. Hit her on the head with a bat. Fracturing her skull, and she dies. The junkies scum bag is responsible for her death. The fact she was old, frail, with osteoporosis doesn’t change that.
The fact that had he hit me, I’d be less likely to die is irrelevant.

In general this is true, the eggshell skull theory, that the law takes each victim as it comes.

But I doubt it applies to police officers, who have powers to do things like physically apprehend people, that others do not.

If I kidnap somebody who, unbeknownst to me, is particularly at risk of a heart attack for whatever reason, and they die of a stress-related heart attack while sitting in the back of my car, I would be held responsible. If the police arrest somebody and that person dies of a stress-related heart attack while sitting in the back of the police car, the police would not be held responsible.

The real question here is whether what Chauvin did can be legitimised as part of his training. I think it's way too simplistic to say that 'it's a permitted technique', because, as I linked to earlier, that technique also requires constant monitoring of the apprehended person, and I doubt the manual says the technique is permissable up to and including death.

I think it's next to impossible for Chauvin to convince the jury that Floyd represented an imminent danger that justified that manner of restraint even after he lost consciousness, and thus that he was he was following proper procedure all the way to Floyd's death.

That the defence are introducing the idea of him being distracted, and this being the reason he didn't notice Floyd's deterioration, suggests to me that the defence don't think they can convince a jury of that either. Instead, they are introducing other factors that explain his failure to monitor Floyd and notice his deterioration, rather than recklessness or indifference.

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

According to a post at the top of the thread. It was contrary to the training they had received. I’m not sure of the details on that one.

Not quite. The knee restraint was an acceptable practice. But with the proviso that the cop moves them to an acceptable position that enables breathing. But there are arguable points here. Is there a time limit that says when you should move a restrained person. Are there exceptions allowed if the officer feels they may be in danger etc.

They could well have played a part. A sick, weak person would, I imagine, be less robust. I wouldn’t suggest otherwise.
But I don’t get where that comes into the charges?
Why is that matter?

If they played a part, then that lessens the culpability of Chauvin. I'm not defending him by the way, just pointing out a few things that have to be taken into consideration.

It does matter because knee restraints have probably been used millions of times with only a fraction of a percentage of people dying from them. How is Chauvin supposed to know that Floyd might be a sick, weak person and likely to die if he is restrained in that manner.

Say a junkie broke into my granny’s house. Hit her on the head with a bat. Fracturing her skull, and she dies. The junkies scum bag is responsible for her death. The fact she was old, frail, with osteoporosis doesn’t change that.
The fact that had he hit me, I’d be less likely to die is irrelevant.

It's a legally allowed practice (or at least it was at the time) to use the knee restraint technique in Minneapolis. It's not legally allowed to hit your granny on the head with a bat. They aren't comparable.

Did Chauvin go too far. That's what the court has to decide.

rosser44

Mellor wrote: »

Exaggerating his size and strength to pretend he was more of a physical is exactly the idea behind the racist stereotype above.

I don't think some people even consciously realise that they are doing it its that ingrained. The bigotry is subconscious.


A lot of people seem to think the bar for racism is shouting n****r at POC.