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
Comments
-
-
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.
...0 -
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.
Thats pretty damning evidence from a very senior police officer“Totally unnecessary,” Lieutenant Richard Zimmerman told the jury when prosecutors asked what he thought of Chauvin pressing his knee on Floyd’s neck for about nine minutes. “If your knee is on a person’s neck, that can kill them.”
Zimmerman said officers were responsible for the care of anyone they arrested and are trained to give first aid to an injured or distressed detainee even if they know an ambulance is coming.
“His safety is your responsibility, his wellbeing is your responsibility,” he told the jury. He described how officers are trained only to respond to any threat with a proportionate amount of force.
“Once a person is cuffed, the threat level goes down all the way,” Zimmerman testified. “They’re cuffed. How can they really hurt you, you know?”
He warned of the dangers of leaving a person in a prone position.
“Once you’ve secured or handcuffed a person you need to get them out of the prone position as soon as possible because it restricts their breathing,” he said.
He offered harsh testimony against the way his former colleague and other officers at the scene restrained Floyd.
“Pulling him down to the ground face down, and putting your knee on the neck for that amount of time is just uncalled for,” Zimmerman said. “I saw no reason why the officers felt they were in danger, if that’s what they felt, and that’s what they would have to feel in order to use that kind of force.”
Kind of destroys the argument made on here that they needed to have a knee on his neck in the first place. He was cuffed lying face down with three cops restraining him, he was no longer a danger at that point as the Lieutenant has now testified0 -
Thats pretty damning evidence from a very senior police officer
Kind of destroys the argument made on here that they needed to have a knee on his neck in the first place. He was cuffed lying face down with three cops restraining him, he was no longer a danger at that point as the Lieutenant has now testified
No, no, no, he was hopped up on drugs, so he had super strength...
... while simultaneously being so weak that he died under the totally textbook restraint used, for the totally reasonable length of time.
There's a contradiction in there somewhere...0 -
I'm surprised at how honest the police are being.Thats pretty damning evidence from a very senior police officer
Kind of destroys the argument made on here that they needed to have a knee on his neck in the first place. He was cuffed lying face down with three cops restraining him, he was no longer a danger at that point as the Lieutenant has now testified
Actually looks like they are not trying to just cover this up and sweep it away.0 -
Advertisement
-
Kind of destroys the argument made on here that they needed to have a knee on his neck in the first place. He was cuffed lying face down with three cops restraining him, he was no longer a danger at that point as the Lieutenant has now testified
Not defending the officers here at all, I think they definitely didn't do it properly, but I can speak from personal experience here as a Garda. Just because someone is handcuffed, does not mean they are a minimal threat. Yes, one should get them to their feet, but I personally have had people handcuffed and they still try and assault you. You keep them on the ground in those cases. But not with a knee on their neck. I've had to get the help of 4 other Gardai to restrain some people, as have some of the strongest Gardai I've known.
People like to think they'd know exactly how to act and react in these situations, but your perception and reality often do not agree. I will agree that the knee was unnecessary, and can't be defended in the slightest, but I think that Lieutenant is doing his members a disservice by saying stupid things like “They’re cuffed. How can they really hurt you, you know?”. That bangs of someone who hasn't done actual front line policing in a long time. And I believe statements like that leave the rest of his testimony open to speculation, having being in those positions where "how can they really hurt you" turns into a Garda getting hurt while in those positions.
Not defending the officers, just commenting on the testimony is all.0 -
You need to look at the totality of his evidence and not just selective lines0
-
Your post came across as if you were saying the charges didn't reflect a murder charge. That statement is factually incorrect. Even if you meant first degree only, another poster also claimed there was no murder charge.The poster meant intentional murder as you well know.
The fact is, under US law, there are two murder charges here.
Previously in the thread, I have also pointed out that the prosecutors are not alleging he intentionally or premediated a murder on that day. But that doesn't change the fact that 2 out of 3 charges are murder, and carry a sentence commensurate with murder.0 -
Potential-Monke wrote: »Not defending the officers here at all, I think they definitely didn't do it properly, but I can speak from personal experience here as a Garda. Just because someone is handcuffed, does not mean they are a minimal threat. Yes, one should get them to their feet, but I personally have had people handcuffed and they still try and assault you. You keep them on the ground in those cases. But not with a knee on their neck. I've had to get the help of 4 other Gardai to restrain some people, as have some of the strongest Gardai I've known.
People like to think they'd know exactly how to act and react in these situations, but your perception and reality often do not agree. I will agree that the knee was unnecessary, and can't be defended in the slightest, but I think that Lieutenant is doing his members a disservice by saying stupid things like “They’re cuffed. How can they really hurt you, you know?”. That bangs of someone who hasn't done actual front line policing in a long time. And I believe statements like that leave the rest of his testimony open to speculation, having being in those positions where "how can they really hurt you" turns into a Garda getting hurt while in those positions.
Not defending the officers, just commenting on the testimony is all.
We seem to have a bit of a contradiction here. Let's say the cops thought Floyd was such a potential threat that they deemed it necessary to add in this extra restraint of the knee. They would have had to let him up at some point to complete their original objective of getting him in the car. But if the knee is not supposed to be a choke out maneuver, then Floyd would still have been conscious when let up and potentially liable to do whatever Chauvin and Co were afraid he'd try that they felt made the knee restraint necessary in the first place.
So that makes me ask what the point of the knee really was as Chauvin used it. I can understand how it can be used to subdue a suspect who's being resistant, but wouldn't you release it after they stop struggling? I can also understand how it could be used to subdue a suspect while you wait for backup. But in this case, Chauvin had not called for backup. So this all makes me wonder where the hell Chauvin *was* going with this, because the optics are that he was kneeling on the neck of a prone man who had gone limp after a point, with no apparent intention of letting up. That's not a good look.0 -
Potential-Monke wrote: »Not defending the officers here at all, I think they definitely didn't do it properly, but I can speak from personal experience here as a Garda. Just because someone is handcuffed, does not mean they are a minimal threat. Yes, one should get them to their feet, but I personally have had people handcuffed and they still try and assault you. You keep them on the ground in those cases. But not with a knee on their neck. I've had to get the help of 4 other Gardai to restrain some people, as have some of the strongest Gardai I've known.
People like to think they'd know exactly how to act and react in these situations, but your perception and reality often do not agree. I will agree that the knee was unnecessary, and can't be defended in the slightest, but I think that Lieutenant is doing his members a disservice by saying stupid things like “They’re cuffed. How can they really hurt you, you know?”. That bangs of someone who hasn't done actual front line policing in a long time. And I believe statements like that leave the rest of his testimony open to speculation, having being in those positions where "how can they really hurt you" turns into a Garda getting hurt while in those positions.
Not defending the officers, just commenting on the testimony is all.
I don't think people have an issue with people restraining him, while being in cuffs - or at least they shouldn't imo. Without some control there is little stopping somebody getting up and running away. Or even attacking somebody.
I also don't think it's unreasonable to have more than one person restrain somebody. Just because a single person can do it, doesn't mean they should take help.
The issue is that the manner is which he was restrained.
He was already in cuffs. There were multiple cops. One, with help, took him down, face down and pinned his torso. And other controlled his hips - at this point it was all very text book and more importantly effectively controlling him.
Enter Chauvin with a knee on the neck. This added very little help to the situation. His body was already pinned. It did not help get him under control. The training manual for Minnesota says that the knee restraint should be removed as soon as they are in cuffs (he was already in cuffs before it did it).
It's really obvious that of the three cops holding him down. Chauvin should have got up first, and as soon as possible. The fact he did not is what damns him here. Not the fact he used a neck restraint in the heat of the moment.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
I may be wring but was the chief of police not asked about it being policy and did he not flatly say no it was/is not policy?0 -
Police Chief Medaria Arradondo:
Taken from here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56642582Mr Arradondo told the court Mr Floyd should not have been restrained in the manner used by the officers after he stopped resisting, "and certainly once he was in distress".
He said the type of restraint Mr Chauvin, 45, was using came "once there was no longer any resistance and clearly after Mr Floyd was no longer responsive - and even motionless".
"That is, in no way, shape or form, by policy, is not part of our training, and is certainly not part of our ethics and our values."
The same article reports that the defence had some success with their argument that Chauvin had shifted the position of his knee from the neck to the shoulder blade, and also reports that the prosecution are offering a different cause of death than the medical examiner.0 -
It really does seem that alot of posters on here have been looking at the footage from the same angle (the one which is continuously used).
The evidence Eric Nelson showed the Minneapolis police chief clearly showed Chauvan had his knee on Mr.Floyd's left shoulder and you can see this not only in the footage Eric Nelson used but on many other videos if you choose to look. It really didn't look like he was exerting much pressure at all.
The prosecution lawyer spent atleast two hours drawing out a cv from the police chief. Yes, we know that's to build up the case of how an experienced officer he was but I'm sure the jury must have been bored witless.
You had a firefighter gave evidence...that said she saw a small slim guy and that she understood bodily fluid (urine) was coming from him.
We all know Mr.Floyd was over 6ft6 . I thought it was fairly obvious he was a big guy from looking at him. The bodily fluid she described hadn't come from him because if you saw previous officer's footage that fluid was on the ground under the police car before Floyd went on the ground.
How many people have cited that Chauvan had his hands in his pockets , the officer was wearing black gloves against black trousers it looked that way from a distance, he had his hand on his own thigh.
I also find it strange that as Chief of Police this guy didn't go all out to exonherate his staff. He should be aware of all footage regarding the restraint of mr.floyd...and not admit in court that he wasn't aware of the footage and even agreed it was the case mr.chauvan had his knee on mr.floyd's left shoulder..
Having two previous officers as witnesses who haven't been patrol officers in atleast 25 years plus was not showing what happens in circumstances what police officers face today. Their methods of restraint wouldn't work in today's society. The chief/two other officers are quoting "text book talk" not reality.
Mr.Chauvan is been "hung out to dry"...
Surely, it's a case of reasonable doubt?0 -
Minneapolis police dept are doing all they can to distance themselves from Chauvin..the have no choice really...if anyone one of those officers came out and agreed with the retrait technique...their job is gone,no doubt their house burned to a crisp and death threats would come thick and fast..its all fairly obvious really.
i still think a ruling of reasonable doubt will prevail..0 -
Didn't the autopsy show Floyd had Covid at the time of death - that along with fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system.
If the police policy in anyway encouraged restraint with a knee to the neck - it's going to be very hard to prove Chauvin guilty of anything.
Not saying he isn't guilty or not guilty - just don't see how in a court they will be able to find him guilty of much.0 -
Minneapolis police dept are doing all they can to distance themselves from Chauvin..the have no choice really...if anyone one of those officers came out and agreed with the retrait technique...their job is gone,no doubt their house burned to a crisp and death threats would come thick and fast..its all fairly obvious really.
i still think a ruling of reasonable doubt will prevail..
I totally agree with you ...
I agree with reasonable doubt as I posted....but personally, I think Chauvan will receive a very high sentence that is purely based on what happened in Minneapolis re:riots/protests/previous damage done to the city/likely damage done unless he is found guilty...
The shop where the incident originally took place the owners were intimidated because they opened too soon...It says alot when you have to have razor fencing round a courthouse....not the usually case ....
That's not justice to me...it's mob rule ....0 -
He had Covid antibodies. Which means he had Covid at some time before that. Could have been day before or 2 months before.Didn't the autopsy show Floyd had Covid at the time of death - that along with fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system.
I don’t know if there is any test history that narrows it down further. There may be.
The policy permits it but doesn’t encourage it. It warns of the risk of cardiac arrest when using it.If the police policy in anyway encouraged restraint with a knee to the neck - it's going to be very hard to prove Chauvin guilty of anything.
It’s not banned. The police manual does permit it as a means to get on cuffs. With the proviso that once cuffs are on, knee restraint is removed, then you put suspect in recovery position, and call paramedics due to the risk of cardiac arrest.
Floyd was already in cuffs, and under the control of others when Chauvin started. He failed to meet the requirements of due care, and stay in place for 9 minutes, dispute being aware of the risk of it causing cardiac arrest.
There’s a lot there that aligns to his charges.0 -
Didn't the autopsy show Floyd had Covid at the time of death - that along with fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system.
If the police policy in anyway encouraged restraint with a knee to the neck - it's going to be very hard to prove Chauvin guilty of anything.
Not saying he isn't guilty or not guilty - just don't see how in a court they will be able to find him guilty of much.
He's a trained professional that knelt on a prone mans neck for nine minutes watching and feeling the life go out of him, 9 minutes is a long time, he was way over the top and reckless and it contributed to a mans death.
Don't no if it'll be enough to secure a murder charge but he's without a doubt guilty of manslaughter.0 -
Sandor Clegane wrote: »He's a trained professional that knelt on a prone mans neck for nine minutes watching and feeling the life go out of him, 9 minutes is a long time, he was way over the top and reckless and it contributed to a mans death.
Don't no if it'll be enough to secure a murder charge but he's without a doubt guilty of manslaughter.
Trained professional - but trained to do what? - Not clear from the conflicting reports in the news and media - I would hope that it becomes clear what these officers were trained to do in such circumstances.0 -
He had Covid antibodies. Which means he had Covid at some time before that. Could have been day before or 2 months before.
I don’t know if there is any test history that narrows it down further. There may be.
Yes also unclear how Covid effected his breathing/other body function - surely autopsy would try and establish this?0 -
Advertisement
-
Sandor Clegane wrote: »He's a trained professional that knelt on a prone mans neck for nine minutes watching and feeling the life go out of him, 9 minutes is a long time, he was way over the top and reckless and it contributed to a mans death.
Don't no if it'll be enough to secure a murder charge but he's without a doubt guilty of manslaughter.
9mins??? does that include the time in which he had his knee on Mr.floyd's left shoulder or not????
Eric Nelson( defense lawyer) showed mr.chauvan placing his knee on Floyd's left shoulder, which the chief of police agreed with and stated he hadn't seen the footage before.0 -
It’s been confirmed that he was was trained in the safe use of that technique. Including getting off once restrained, putting in recovery position, calling EMS due the risk of positional asphyxiation and cardiac arrest.Trained professional - but trained to do what? - Not clear from the conflicting reports in the news and media - I would hope that it becomes clear what these officers were trained to do in such circumstances.
None of which he complied with. Despite knowledge of the risks. Cause of death on the autopsy reports. Asphyxiation and cardiac arrest, respectively.
That is pretty damming evidence in regards to the murder 3 charge.
If there was extensive lung damage due to Covid. The autopsy would have shown it. Or any physical effects.Yes also unclear how Covid effected his breathing/other body function - surely autopsy would try and establish this?
But minor symptoms from weeks ago. I don’t know if they could determine.0 -
Cause of death on the autopsy reports. Asphyxiation and cardiac arrest, respectively.
That is pretty damming evidence in regards to the murder 3 charge.
Covid and drugs can be argued as factors for the asphyxiation and cardiac arrest along with the restraint he was under. So it's not clear cut.
Covid is known to cause problems with breathing and I think Floyd himself told the arresting officers he had covid and that he couldn't breath. This can cut both ways in trial.If there was extensive lung damage due to Covid. The autopsy would have shown it. Or any physical effects.
But minor symptoms from weeks ago. I don’t know if they could determine.0 -
penny piper wrote: »9mins??? does that include the time in which he had his knee on Mr.floyd's left shoulder or not????
Eric Nelson( defense lawyer) showed mr.chauvan placing his knee on Floyd's left shoulder, which the chief of police agreed with and stated he hadn't seen the footage before.
No that was just at the moment the first paramedics arrived, his knee had moved towards the shoulder blade
Before that his knee was quite firmly pressed down on Mr Floyd's neck (carotid artery)0 -
No that was just at the moment the first paramedics arrived, his knee had moved towards the shoulder blade
Before that his knee was quite firmly pressed down on Mr Floyd's neck (carotid artery)
My point is really how are you basing this?? Is it from the footage you have seen tv/online or was it pointed out in the trial?0 -
If there was extensive lung damage due to Covid. The autopsy would have shown it. Or any physical effects.
But minor symptoms from weeks ago. I don’t know if they could determine.
There was extensive heart damage though. And COVID-19 has been known to weaken the heart.
My thinking is that the drug use, combined with Floyd's enlarged and diseased heart, and COVID-19 all played a significant part in Floyd's death.
I'm not denying Chauvin didn't play a part, far from it, but these are important factors.
It's interesting that the autopsy shows no bruising whatsoever from Chauvin's knee. You'd expect if someone was kneeling on someone's neck with excessive force for an extensive period of time that there would have been bruising of some sort.
My personal view is that if Chauvin did that to me or you for 9 minutes (or thereabouts), we wouldn't have died. I think Floyd's medical history, drug use, COVID etc. played a significant role in his death. Whether that's enough for Chauvin to walk, I don't know. Chauvin certainly could have paid more attention to Floyd but I also see merit in Chauvin saying the crowd distracted him. Hard not to watch for danger from the crowd in those circumstances. Hindsight, as they say, is 20:20. Different story in the heat of battle.0 -
If somebody is weak due to illness. It doesn’t diminish the criminality of manslaughter or murder.Covid and drugs can be argued as factors for the asphyxiation and cardiac arrest along with the restraint he was under. So it's not clear cut.
If Chauvin broke the law, the above is not relevant.Covid is known to cause problems with breathing and I think Floyd himself told the arresting officers he had covid and that he couldn't breath. This can cut both ways in trial.
If Chauvin follow the policy. Put Floyd into the recovery position. Checked on him. Called EMS. Tried to help, but he unavoidably died. Then he has met his duty of care. And not broken the law.
Which didn’t happen.
But if he contributed to his death by kneeling on his neck, and failed in his duty of care. That’s at the very least involuntary manslaughter, legally.0 -
Covid causes myocarditis in the heart. Which is a concern even for fit athletes who’ve cause Covid.BattleCorp wrote: »There was extensive heart damage though. And COVID-19 has been known to weaken the heart.
Neither of the autopsies mention George Floyd suffering from myocarditis. So can likely rule that out.
I understand your logic. But legally, they do not reduce the culpability of criminal actions.My thinking is that the drug use, combined with Floyd's enlarged and diseased heart, and COVID-19 all played a significant part in Floyd's death.
I'm not denying Chauvin didn't play a part, far from it, but these are important factors.
If you assault a weak sick person and they die, it’s legally the same as if they were healthy.
Therefore all the court is concerned with is whether an assault took place.
The same applies here. If Chauvin acted criminal, then he is guilty. Illness doesn’t reduce his guilt. Which is why the trial focused on whether he acted criminal and not ill-health.
Not really surprising. Carotid strangulation doesn’t typically leave bruises.It's interesting that the autopsy shows no bruising whatsoever from Chauvin's knee. You'd expect if someone was kneeling on someone's neck with excessive force for an extensive period of time that there would have been bruising of some sort.
If the knee cut off air/circulation, we went unconscious, say at the 5 or 6 minute mark. And it was held for a few minutes more. Death would occur often imo.My personal view is that if Chauvin did that to me or you for 9 minutes (or thereabouts), we wouldn't have died. I think Floyd's medical history, drug use, COVID etc. played a significant role in his death.
If released when we went unconscious, we’d walk up without issue. As Floyd would have.
Not checking on him, holding the choke longer than he should. Is what the criminal charge is based on.Chauvin certainly could have paid more attention to Floyd but I also see merit in Chauvin saying the crowd distracted him. Hard not to watch for danger from the crowd in those circumstances.
I don’t think distraction is a valid defence.
If you get distracted on the road, mount the path and hit an old lady killing her. It’s manslaughter.
The fact you were distracted, and she was ok and sick doesn’t affect your guilt.0 -
First I'd like to be clear I never said it would - "diminish the criminality of manslaughter or murder". My point is that it could very possibly be a factor in the mans death. Every little detail will be relevant in a case like this.If somebody is weak due to illness. It doesn’t diminish the criminality of manslaughter or murder.
If Chauvin broke the law, the above is not relevant.
The judiciary have a very tough job ahead of them. As I already pointed out it can swing either way - against Chauvin and for Chauvin. I don't think this case is as clear cut as you think.If Chauvin follow the policy. Put Floyd into the recovery position. Checked on him. Called EMS. Tried to help, but he unavoidably died. Then he has met his duty of care. And not broken the law.
Which didn’t happen.
But if he contributed to his death by kneeling on his neck, and failed in his duty of care. That’s at the very least involuntary manslaughter, legally.
That all depends on what police policy was - if the restraint can be proven to be policy - then Chauvin could get off any manslaughter or murder charge.0 -
Advertisement
-
Covid causes myocarditis in the heart. Which is a concern even for fit athletes who’ve cause Covid.
Neither of the autopsies mention George Floyd suffering from myocarditis. So can likely rule that out.
He did have other heart problems though. He had cardiomegaly and arteriosclerotic heart disease that was multifocal and severe. He also had hypertension. We are still learning about how COVID affects the heart but it is known to put the heart under pressure and a person who was suffering from a raft of heart issues would be more likely to suffer cardiacpulmonary arrest. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-we-know-about-covid-19-and-long-term-heart-damage#Those-with-preexisting-heart-issues-have-a-greater-riskI understand your logic. But legally, they do not reduce the culpability of criminal actions.
If you assault a weak sick person and they die, it’s legally the same as if they were healthy.
The example of assaulting a sick person isn't a fair comparison. Assault is an illegal action. A police officer restraining someone (normally) isn't an assault nor is it illegal (unless the officer goes too far). My point being that the initial restraint isn't illegal nor is it assault.Therefore all the court is concerned with is whether an assault took place.
The same applies here. If Chauvin acted criminal, then he is guilty. Illness doesn’t reduce his guilt. Which is why the trial focused on whether he acted criminal and not ill-health.
I see your point above but don't agree 100% with it. There are many factors at play. Even if the court deem that Chauvin didn't show enough care or follow procedure exactly, that mightn't be enough to secure a conviction. They may decide that there were mitigating circumstances such as the crowd distracting the officer etc.Not really surprising. Carotid strangulation doesn’t typically leave bruises.
If the knee cut off air/circulation, we went unconscious, say at the 5 or 6 minute mark. And it was held for a few minutes more. Death would occur often imo.
If released when we went unconscious, we’d walk up without issue. As Floyd would have.
I guess this is one for the medical people.I don’t think distraction is a valid defence.
If you get distracted on the road, mount the path and hit an old lady killing her. It’s manslaughter.
The fact you were distracted, and she was ok and sick doesn’t affect your guilt.
If I'm driving my car, I'm unlikely to be assaulted. If I'm arresting someone, I have to be aware that I could get a boot in the face (or even shot) so I'd be a lot more likely to be distracted by a crowd in that situation.
I'm not saying any of your points don't have merit, they do. But there are many ways to argue the same points. I wouldn't like to be on the jury making a decision on this case.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement