Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Chauvin is guilty of a crime, i don't think it is murder but what he did was reckless and would probably come under manslaughter here.

I wouldn't like to think the jury would make their decision with one eye on the potential unrest outside.

There has obviously been massive controversy about the death of George Floyd in the media and on the streets of the US, and in other countries to a lesser extent. I would like to think that jurors have been reminded to only deliberate on the arguments presented by the prosecution and by the defence in court and not consider the absolute galaxy of opinion and talking points outside of that.

Pa ElGrande

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Chauvin is guilty of a crime, i don't think it is murder but what he did was reckless and would probably come under manslaughter here.

I wouldn't like to think the jury would make their decision with one eye on the potential unrest outside.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdk48L_HzE4

George Szamuely and attorney and political analyst Robert Barnes discuss the Chauvin trial (up to first 30 minutes) - You can start 15 minutes in if you want to listen to the lead up about the jury which is covered in the last 10 minutes. The psychology may not go exactly as you might anticipate.

Mellor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think Chauvin is guilty of a crime, i don't think it is murder but what he did was reckless and would probably come under manslaughter here.

In Ireland, the charges would be different. As we don’t have the same range of homicide charges.
But he’s not in Ireland. In Minnesota, murder 3 exists as a charge. It’s a very real possibility that he gets convicted of that one based on the definition and criteria.

penny piper

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Eh just cuffs, which he willingly put on. At that point he was no danger, and didn't need 4 cops on him until he died.

He didn't willingly put on those cuffs nor did he willingly get into a police car...

that was his problem he wouldn't co-operate at all....and a person with handcuffs can still be a danger....you can bite /kick....the latter he did do...

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

Why should he show remorse if he's not pleading guilty?

Yeah why should a man who restraint a dead man for going on 4 minutes show a semblance of remorse.

osarusan

BattleCorp wrote: »

Or, and I'm not saying this is the case, but maybe the crowd distracted him from paying enough care to George Floyd.

Footage from the body cam showed about 8-12 people looking on (number grew as time went by), some of whom were doing the filming from their phones that made all the news at the time. They were saying/shouting at the police to get off of him, he's not breathing, check his pulse, and so on.


For sure, there was some anger/hostility there, but I still think it's a real stretch to argue that such a group of people shouting things like that distracted the police enough that they didn't check on Floyd, check if he was breathing. I can't see a jury believing it myself.


In my opinion, as long as the autopsy that said the cause of death was homocide (albeit with the other health and drug issues) goes unchallenged, I think Chauvin is f**ked. I think the defence's best shot is to cast doubt on the cause of death itself, and to introduce the possibility of another cause of death, such as that Floyd suddenly died of cardiac arrest while being appropriately restrained, rather than slow asphyxiation because of a knee on his neck even after he had lost consciousness.

Mellor

osarusan wrote: »

For sure, there was some anger/hostility there, but I still think it's a real stretch to argue that such a group of people shouting things like that distracted the police enough that they didn't check on Floyd, check if he was breathing. I can't see a jury believing it myself.

“He was distracted and didn’t check on Floyd because of all the people pointing out that he should check on him”.

It’s a pretty hard one to swallow tbh.

In my opinion, as long as the autopsy that said the cause of death was homocide (albeit with the other health and drug issues) goes unchallenged, I think Chauvin is f**ked. I think the defence's best shot is to cast doubt on the cause of death itself, and to introduce the possibility of another cause of death, such as that Floyd suddenly died of a heart attack while being appropriately restrained, rather than slow asphyxiation because of a knee on his neck even after he had lost consciousness.

I think trying to play off the ridiculous restraint position as being coincidental timing with a spontaneous cardiac arrest would be an equally hard swallow tbh.

osarusan

Mellor wrote: »

I think trying to play off the ridiculous restraint position as being coincidental timing with a spontaneous cardiac arrest would be an equally hard swallow tbh.

They don't have to be coincidental, and it doesn't have to be spontaneous. The police have the right to restrain somebody.

If Floyd had had a cardiac arrest during his resisting the police in the police car, this wouldn't even be going to trial. Even if the stress of being forcefully restrained/arrested obviously caused the cardiac arrest, there wouldn't even be a question as to whether the police had the right to be doing what they were doing when the heart attack happened.

It's much easier to argue that the police couldn't reasonably foresee a man being restrained would suddenly have a cardiac arrest (linked to underlying health and drug issues) than to argue that the police couldn't reasonably foresee that when you kneel on somebody's neck, they will slowly die of asphyxiation.

Biker79

I think trying to play off the ridiculous restraint position as being coincidental timing with a spontaneous cardiac arrest would be an equally hard swallow tbh.

The argument against that is, if a person has so much drugs in their system, that in itself would amount to reasonable doubt ( if the autopsy report doesn't specifically address it in detail ) .

With that much drugs in a persons system, they have taken a high risk with their own health, no matter what situation they find themselves in.

Muahahaha

osarusan wrote: »

It's much easier to argue that the police couldn't reasonably foresee a man being restrained would suddenly have a heart attack (linked to underlying health and drug issues) than to argue that the police couldn't reasonably foresee that when you kneel on somebody's neck, they will slowly die of asphyxiation.

just on that Im pretty sure it was written that Chauvin had training that the outcome was forseeable.

Also the Chief of Police is set to testify against Chauvin

“He is going to tell you that Mr Chauvin’s conduct was not consistent with Minneapolis police department training,” Blackwell said. “He will not mince any words. He’s very clear. He will be very decisive, that this was excessive force.”

Would imagine the Chief of Police saying that Chavin used excessive force will carry a lot of weight with the jury

Is that knee hold actually policy then, or not?

McCrack

osarusan wrote: »

They don't have to be coincidental, and it doesn't have to be spontaneous. The police have the right to restrain somebody.

If Floyd had had a heart attack during his resisting the police in the police car, this wouldn't even be going to trial. Even if the stress of being forcefully restrained/arrested obviously caused the heart attack, there wouldn't even be a question as to whether the police had the right to be doing what they were doing when the heart attack happened.

It's much easier to argue that the police couldn't reasonably foresee a man being restrained would suddenly have a heart attack (linked to underlying health and drug issues) than to argue that the police couldn't reasonably foresee that when you kneel on somebody's neck, they will slowly die of asphyxiation.

The fact you refer to "heart attack" demonstrates you don't really know what you're talking about

osarusan

Muahahaha wrote: »

just on that Im pretty sure it was written that Chauvin had training that the outcome was forseeable.

Yes, I posted a link earlier that Chauvin had received training that dealy explicitly with positional asphyxiation.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Also the Chief of Police is set to testify against Chauvin

Would imagine the Chief of Police saying that Chavin used excessive force will carry a lot of weight with the jury

Agreed. Both the top homicide investigator for the city, and the chief of police make very strong witnesses.

osarusan

McCrack wrote: »

The fact you refer to "heart attack" demonstrates you don't really know what you're talking about

Fair enough, I changed it to 'cardiac arrest' to be more accurate.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that knee hold actually policy then, or not?

Yes. At the time of the incident a knee to neck restrain was policy.

The officers were supposed to monitor the person being restrained and were trained how to react should the suspect go unconscious.

One of the other officers on the scene pointed out to Chauvin that Floyd should be moved into a recovery position. Chauvin told that officer that there was no need for that.

Criminal charges are more based on the fact that Chauvin did not give due care and attention to the restraint than the restraint itself.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Yeah why should a man who restraint a dead man for going on 4 minutes show a semblance of remorse.

If I was in his position and was pleading not guilty no I don't think I would need to show remorse especially if I thought I was only carrying out my duty/circumstance involved.

Do you believe this restraint method should be allowed by the minneapolis police dept in the first place?

Mellor

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Yes. At the time of the incident a knee to neck restrain was policy.

The officers were supposed to monitor the person being restrained and were trained how to react should the suspect go unconscious.

One of the other officers on the scene pointed out to Chauvin that Floyd should be moved into a recovery position. Chauvin told that officer that there was no need for that.

Criminal charges are more based on the fact that Chauvin did not give due care and attention to the restraint than the restraint itself.

It was permitted at the time, but I’m not sure that it was policy - has there been any evidence to that effect?

Agree with the rest. Chavin failed to use the technique as permitted, which is where the negligence comes into it. On that basis I think the manslaughter charge is a lock.

penny piper wrote: »

Do you believe this restraint method should be allowed by the minneapolis police dept in the first place?

That’s outside the scope of the trial.
But realistically it shouldn’t be allowed. There are more effective ways to control a person on the ground. There are also more effective ways of choking somebody out if you need to.
By blurring the two into one you lose whatever control they have over what they are doing. Which is very little at the best of times.

BorneTobyWilde

It was murder, George had stopped moving and breathing , and he didn't let up,he was told by onlookers, hes dying, hes unresponsive, and he would not let up. To call it an accident is a joke.

TomTomTim

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It was murder, George had stopped moving and breathing , and he didn't let up,he was told by onlookers, hes dying, hes unresponsive, and he would not let up. To call it an accident is a joke.

I wonder why that wasn't reflected in the charges then? Do you know something that the prosecutors didn't?

Mellor

TomTomTim wrote: »

I wonder why that wasn't reflected in the charges then? Do you know something that the prosecutors didn't?

But it was reflected in the charges.

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

But it was reflected in the charges.

You genuine believe that Derek Chauvan set out to "murder" George Floyd that day??????

Mellor

penny piper wrote: »

You genuine believe that Derek Chauvan set out to "murder" George Floyd that day??????

How is that relevant to anything in my post that you’ve quoted.

He’s facing multiple charges. Are you genuinely saying thats not the case?

BattleCorp

Mellor wrote: »

How is that relevant to anything in my post that you’ve quoted.

Given that this is an Irish thread, I think Mellor that you need to clarify (again) that Murder 3 is nothing like what we would call murder here in Ireland.

I think there's huge confusion around what murder is here and what murder 3 is in the US.

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

How is that relevant to anything in my post that you’ve quoted.

Didn't you just agree with the previous poster it was "murder" reflected in his charges?

I'm just asking a genuine question ....do you believe Derek Chauvin set out to "murder" George Floyd that day?

what additonal charges do you think he should he face?

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

Given that this is an Irish thread, I think Mellor that you need to clarify (again) that Murder 3 is nothing like what we would call murder here in Ireland.

I think there's huge confusion around what murder is here and what murder 3 is in the US.

I agree there is massive confusion and ignorance about what the murder 2 and 3charge actually means.
But it’s quite baffling that people at this point in the trial (and thread) are saying those charges don’t exist.

Mellor

penny piper wrote: »

Didn't you just agree with the previous poster it was "murder" reflected in his charges?

I'm just asking a genuine question ....do you believe set out to "murder" George Floyd that day?

what additonal charges do you think he should he face?

What charges do you think Derek Chauvin is facing right now in this trial?

rosser44

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-georgefloyd/senior-officer-says-chauvin-used-totally-unnecessary-force-on-george-floyd-idUSKBN2BP16O

The depts own investigator testified that Chauvin used "totally unnecessary force" when George Floyd was cuffed prone on the ground.

The mental gymnastics being used to justify kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes by some here is utter bull.

Tony EH

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It was murder, George had stopped moving and breathing , and he didn't let up,he was told by onlookers, hes dying, hes unresponsive, and he would not let up. To call it an accident is a joke.

TomTomTim wrote: »

I wonder why that wasn't reflected in the charges then? Do you know something that the prosecutors didn't?

Chauvin was charged with second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter.

https://www.startribune.com/derek-chauvin-charges-trial-george-floyd-murder-manslaughter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/

TomTomTim

Tony EH wrote: »

Chauvin was charged with second degree unintentional murder, third degree murder and second degree manslaughter.

https://www.startribune.com/derek-chauvin-charges-trial-george-floyd-murder-manslaughter-police-minneapolis-minnesota/600030691/

The poster meant intentional murder as you well know.

Tony EH

TomTomTim wrote: »

The poster meant intentional murder as you well know.

Did they?

Maybe they can answer that.