Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Options
1…1112141617…111

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,229 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Mellor wrote: »
    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.

    He was 6'3. Hardly a giant.

    All of this height nonsense is just another level of excuse making to try and absolve Chauvin of an wrongdoing.


  • Options
    #393
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Surely if Chauvin has done this many times before and for longer without killing anyone then it only helps his innocence ... thought it was the right thing to do and nobody ever trained him differently ?

    No, if anything it says that he took extreme measures that put other people in danger. Do you really think kneeling on a fourteen year old's neck amounts to "sure he didn't kill him ergo perfectly safe"?


  • Options
    #394
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,302 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    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.

    In which case he failed to meet that proviso. Which would move it to the unacceptable category.
    I would say that once a person is cuffed, they are restrained and should be move. He didn’t.

    Even the most generous allowance, would have you concede that an unconscious person is sufficiently restrained.
    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.
    On what legal basis?
    Do you think the junkie who, hypothetically, killed my granny is less culpable? I don’t.

    I fully get you’re not defending anyone btw. You’re just raising points to consider. Good ones. It’s feels reasonable thats condition plays a part. But the law says different.
    Killing an old person, a sick person, a newborn baby is no less criminal than killing a young, fit, healthy adult. And rightfully so.

    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.
    If he spontaneously died without warning and o time to react. The above would be relevant. But that didn’t happen. He’s death was long and drawn out. With signs he needed assistance. Signs that a cop training restraint holds was is trained to recognise.
    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.
    It was legal, when used in the way the guides said to use it. But he didn’t use it in the way he was legally allowed to use it.

    The basebat was an example, highlighting how condition of the victim is not relevant when to the degree of a crime.
    If Chavin is responsible for the death. None of the other stuff matters


  • Options
    #395
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,436 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Tony EH wrote: »
    He was 6'3. Hardly a giant.

    All of this height nonsense is just another level of excuse making to try and absolve Chauvin of an wrongdoing.
    6'4 (6'6 reported in some places) and well built...


  • Options
    #396
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    6'4 (6'6 reported in some places) and well built...

    Ok, so one person was bigger than the other.

    Do you believe that Mr Chauvin killed Mr Floyd?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,436 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Ok, so one person was bigger than the other.

    Do you believe that Mr Chauvin killed Mr Floyd?
    You seem very invested in this, I don't particularly have an opinion one way or the other


  • Options
    #398
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,302 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    osarusan wrote: »
    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.
    I imagine it would apply to policemen, or anyone carrying out permitted actions in line with hold they can be performed.

    Chavin crossed that line when he went beyond the permitted use of the knee restraint. And ignored his duty of care. Once he goes passed it. He should lose any protection the badge affords him.
    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.
    Yes you would be responsible of manslaughter.

    I think you are mistaken on the second point.
    If the police tried to help, in vain. They likely are not responsible. However;
    If the person died in the back seat, while the police sat there, watching them die. Making no attempt to help them, or alleviate the issue. They’ve shown an abject disregard for human life, and Minnesota, they’d possibly be guilty of murder 3.
    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.
    Based on the info that you provide, plus BattkeCorp’s info above.
    He didn’t do the technique as permitted. That’s the clincher for me.
    Having a driving license doesn’t absolve you from going through a red light and killing somebody.
    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.
    Agreed. That would be an idiotic defence (some tried it here).
    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.

    This is probably better, but it’s not without risk.
    As it requires admitting that Chavin wasn’t monitoring him like he should of been. It’s almost an admission of partial guilt, with extenuating circumstances.


  • Options
    #399
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Mellor wrote: »
    In which case he failed to meet that proviso. Which would move it to the unacceptable category.
    I would say that once a person is cuffed, they are restrained and should be move. He didn’t.

    I did qualify my remark by asking if there are exceptions to the requirement for allowed such as if the officer feels that they may be in danger/distracted by the crowd. The defence lawyer raised this point so I think it is relevant.
    Even the most generous allowance, would have you concede that an unconscious person is sufficiently restrained.

    You are assuming that Chauvin knew that Floyd was unconscious. He may or may not have been aware that Floyd was out for the count.

    But yes, I'd agree with you there.
    On what legal basis?
    Do you think the junkie who, hypothetically, killed my granny is less culpable? I don’t.

    Yes, the person who hits your granny with a baseball bat is doing something that is 100% illegal and is more culpable than a police officer who (possibly) accidentally kills someone with a technique that the police force allow to be used (albeit with other requirements).

    I fully get you’re not defending anyone btw. You’re just raising points to consider. Good ones. It’s feels reasonable thats condition plays a part. But the law says different.
    Killing an old person, a sick person, a newborn baby is no less criminal than killing a young, fit, healthy adult. And rightfully so.

    The manner of the killing plays a big part though. Not all killings are criminal, one example being self defence.
    If he spontaneously died without warning and o time to react. The above would be relevant. But that didn’t happen. He’s death was long and drawn out. With signs he needed assistance. Signs that a cop training restraint holds was is trained to recognise.

    It's possible Chauvin didn't notice (or care for that matter). I'm not saying that's a fact, just a possibility.

    Do I think nearly 9 minutes kneeling on his neck is excessive, yep. I sure do. But is it criminal, depends on the circumstances and that leaves a little room for doubt.
    It was legal, when used in the way the guides said to use it. But he didn’t use it in the way he was legally allowed to use it.

    As I asked earlier, are there exceptions such as if the police officer fees there's a threat/distracted by a crowd?
    The basebat was an example, highlighting how condition of the victim is not relevant when to the degree of a crime.
    If Chavin is responsible for the death. None of the other stuff matters

    I disagree here. I think it does matter.

    I'll give a ridiculous but not impossible example. Supposing I'm very claustrophobic and have a very weak heart. I act the boll1x and get put into the back of police car in handcuffs. I get very stressed because I'm handcuffed and claustrophobic and have a heart attack as I've a weak heart. I die. Should the cops be charged with killing me in that example? Their actions caused my death........didn't they? Or was it their actions along with my claustrohobia and my weak heart. I mean if they didn't handcuff me and put me in the back of a police car I wouldn't be dead now. And if I didn't have claustrophobia and a weak heart I might be alive right now. See how someone's condition can contribute to their death?


  • Options
    #400
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    I don't particularly have an opinion one way or the other

    That's not true though, is it? ;)


  • Options
    #401
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    Is his lawyer going with the Chewbacca defence?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,302 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I did qualify my remark by asking if there are exceptions to the requirement for allowed such as if the officer feels that they may be in danger/distracted by the crowd. The defence lawyer raised this point so I think it is relevant.
    As I above, that angle by the defence is trying to say there was mitigating circumstances. Appealing to the jury rather than the law. But it also admits that he should have been checking. Risky.

    You are assuming that Chauvin knew that Floyd was unconscious. He may or may not have been aware that Floyd was out for the count.
    Not being aware means he failed in his duty to monitor Floyd while using that hold.

    Yes, the person who hits your granny with a baseball bat is doing something that is 100% illegal and is more culpable than a police officer who (possibly) accidentally kills someone with a technique that the police force allow to be used (albeit with other requirements)
    The lack of the other requirements would mean that exactly what he did, was not permitted.

    The manner of the killing plays a big part though. Not all killings are criminal, one example being self defence.
    True.
    The first steps is to prove he acted outside of his allowable actions. That makes it criminal.
    Then it escalates the degrees based on other factors.


    It's possible Chauvin didn't notice (or care for that matter). I'm not saying that's a fact, just a possibility.
    It’s absolutely a possibility.
    But acting without care, for the well-being of Floyd, as he restrained him - is exactly what he is charged with. That’s that’s what happens he’s guilty.

    I disagree here. I think it does matter.

    I'll give a ridiculous but not impossible example. Supposing I'm very claustrophobic and have a very weak heart. I act the boll1x and get put into the back of police car in handcuffs. I get very stressed because I'm handcuffed and claustrophobic and have a heart attack as I've a weak heart. I die. Should the cops be charged with killing me in that example? Their actions caused my death........didn't they? Or was it their actions along with my claustrohobia and my weak heart. I mean if they didn't handcuff me and put me in the back of a police car I wouldn't be dead now. And if I didn't have claustrophobia and a weak heart I might be alive right now. See how someone's condition can contribute to their death?
    Even though they had no intent to kill you or even harm you. If they stood by and watched you die. They’d be guilty of murder 3 in Minnesota.

    It’s a charge that only exist in a few states. It’s an interim between what we commonly know as murder and manslaughter.


  • Options
    #403
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,615 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Mellor wrote: »
    However;
    If the person died in the back seat, while the police sat there, watching them die. Making no attempt to help them, or alleviate the issue. They’ve shown an abject disregard for human life, and Minnesota, they’d possibly be guilty of murder 3.


    I agree with you. And that's why I think he will be found guilty on the 3rd degree murder charge.


    Even if the defence makes the argument that Floyd was unexpectedly vulnerable due to drugs or whatever else, it doesn't change the fact that the knee restraint should be used only as much as necessary and with constant monitoring of the condition of the person being restrained.


    That didn't happen in this case. I think all Chauvin's defence can do is argue that his failure to monitor Floyd and stop the knee restraint when it was no longer necessary is due to factors other than recklessness or sheer indifference.


    From seeing the video, I don't think they will convince the jury that Chauvin was distracted enough, or feared for his own safety enough, to be unable to check on Floyd.


  • Options
    #404
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    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 ;)


    A miscarriage of justice is when an innocent person is wrongfully convicted.
    You're thinking of a different scenario. OJ was found innocent by a jury in a court of law. The Juice was set loose and no retrials.


    It will be fun listening to internet lawers over the next while, and then the press feigning shock if the guy walks, the inevitable riots (which are NOT attempted coups lol)

    Clowns, Ted, clowns.


  • Options
    #405
    BanditLuke
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭BanditLuke


    Fingers crossed Chavin is found innocent. Floyd was no angel and i have a lot of sympathy for the US police force having to deal with people like him.


  • Options
    #406
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,161 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Fingers crossed Chavin is found innocent. Floyd was no angel and i have a lot of sympathy for the US police force having to deal with people like him.

    :eek:


  • Options
    #407
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,161 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Fingers crossed Chavin is found innocent. Floyd was no angel and i have a lot of sympathy for the US police force having to deal with people like him.


    Fingers crossed Chavin is found guilty. Floyd was no angel and i have a lot of sympathy for people like him having to deal with the US police force.


  • Options
    #408
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Bambi wrote: »
    A miscarriage of justice is when an innocent person is wrongfully convicted.
    You're thinking of a different scenario. OJ was found innocent by a jury in a court of law. The Juice was set loose and no retrials.

    The fact that you corrected the words I used to describe the scenario, but not the scenario itself, speaks volumes!


  • Options
    #409
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    BanditLuke wrote: »
    Fingers crossed Chavin is found innocent. Floyd was no angel and i have a lot of sympathy for the US police force having to deal with people like him.

    You want a killer to walk free because the person he killed was "no angel"?

    Thankfully that's not how justice works


  • Options
    #410
    penny piper
    Registered Users Posts: 524 ✭✭✭penny piper


    Why is there a racial element been put through this trial???? what's the evidence for it???


  • Options
    #411
    penny piper
    Registered Users Posts: 524 ✭✭✭penny piper


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    You want a killer to walk free because the person he killed was "no angel"?

    Thankfully that's not how justice works

    You have already assumed the police officer is guilty...that's not justice....what happened to innocent until proven guilty?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    penny piper wrote: »
    Why is there a racial element been put through this trial???? what's the evidence for it???

    Lol!
    penny piper wrote: »
    You have already assumed the police officer is guilty...that's not justice....what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    Two autopsies have found that he killed the man, plus there is video evidence.

    "Innocent until proven guilty" and "justice" are for the court room. This is not a court room, it's a discussion forum.


  • Options
    #413
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Lol!



    Two autopsies have found that he killed the man, plus there is video evidence.

    "Innocent until proven guilty" and "justice" are for the court room. This is not a court room, it's a discussion forum.

    They haven't. Autopsies don't determine who killed him. They found that he died due to the actions of another person.


  • Options
    #414
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,302 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    penny piper wrote: »
    You have already assumed the police officer is guilty...that's not justice....what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
    Innocent until proven guilty refers to how the justice system treats the accused.
    It in no way or form extends to people not involved in the trial having a opinion.

    Individuals are entitled to have an opinion.


  • Options
    #415
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,302 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    irelandrover wrote: »
    They haven't. Autopsies don't determine who killed him. They found that he died due to the actions of another person.
    And which person was that, in your opinion?


  • Options
    #416
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Mellor wrote: »
    And which person was that, in your opinion?

    Chavin. I think it will be very easy to show that. However the autopsies haven't found that he killed Floyd.


  • Options
    #417
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    irelandrover wrote: »
    They haven't. Autopsies don't determine who killed him. They found that he died due to the actions of another person.

    Yes.

    And it was caught on video. The man on the video is Mr Chauvin.


  • Options
    #418
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,281 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    penny piper wrote: »
    Why is there a racial element been put through this trial???? what's the evidence for it???

    Only on social media, race had no part in any if this except in the outrage.


  • Options
    #419
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,192 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Only on social media, race had no part in any if this except in the outrage.

    The race narrative has definitely been used by many of Mr Floyd's supporters.

    But on the other hand, race is a very strong component with many of Mr. Chauvin's supporters also.

    it's a double edged sword!


  • Options
    #420
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    The race narrative has definitely been used by many of Mr Floyd's supporters.

    But on the other hand, race is a very strong component with many of Mr. Chauvin's supporters also.

    it's a double edged sword!

    Let's be honest here if it was a black cop on trial it wouldn't get nearly as much media coverage!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    startrek56
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 89 ✭✭startrek56


    he kneeled on a mans neck for 9 minutes, he was probably dead after 6 or 7 of them and yet he stayed on top of him for another 2 or 3 minutes. he would have known at the time there was no force against his knee

    he is guilty


Advertisement