Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you keep pressing on his neck to make sure?

I'm not Chauvin. I don't know what he was thinking. Like I said earlier in the thread, Chauvin used the same technique on someone else for 17 minutes and that person didn't die.

I find it very hard to believe that Chauvin knew he was killing Floyd. I doubt he would have continued with that course of action if he thought that. Especially with him knowing he was being filmed.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not Chauvin. I don't know what he was thinking. Like I said earlier in the thread, Chauvin used the same technique on someone else for 17 minutes and that person didn't die.

I find it very hard to believe that Chauvin knew he was killing Floyd. I doubt he would have continued with that course of action if he thought that. Especially with him knowing he was being filmed.

That's not exactly a good argument in favour of doing it. He continued to kneel on the neck of a person who lost consciousness. So he was either aware of this or was not. Neither reflect well upon him. Both are examples of negligence.

The fact he kneeled on a teenager's neck for seventeen minutes is more a sign of a history of negligence.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not exactly a good argument in favour of doing it. He continued to kneel on the neck of a person who lost consciousness. So he was either aware of this or was not. Neither reflect well upon him. Both are examples of negligence.

I agree with you. Neither reflect well upon him.

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not exactly a good argument in favour of doing it. He continued to kneel on the neck of a person who lost consciousness. So he was either aware of this or was not. Neither reflect well upon him. Both are examples of negligence.

The fact he kneeled on a teenager's neck for seventeen minutes is more a sign of a history of negligence.

So he was still a police officer even though as you say he was a negligent one for kneeling on the neck of a teenager for 17 mins??? another example of how MInneapolis police dept operates.....I'd say it's more the fact Minneapolis police dept act ad hoc with their officers. They don't follow what they preach...officers have to act on the situation they are in.....not the text book...



Did you see the testimony from the minneapolis medic trainer who operates the course on how minneapolis police deal with cases of "excited delirium"? she gave evidence yesterday for the state....she handed exactly what Nelson needed in her answers....she's actually back as witness next tuesday requested by the defense....

All_in_Flynn

BattleCorp wrote: »

When you don't know he's dead possibly.

So he's gone from a violent man resisting arrest, whilst continuously saying he couldn't breath, calling for his mother and asking for help to stopping all of that and laying motionless. How probable do you think it was that Chauvin didn't notice this?

All_in_Flynn

penny piper wrote: »

So he was still a police officer even though as you say he was a negligent one for kneeling on the neck of a teenager for 17 mins??? another example of how MInneapolis police dept operates.....

Did you see the testimony from the minneapolis medic trainer who operates the course on how minneapolis police deal with cases of "excited delirium"? she gave evidence yesterday for the state....she handed exactly what Nelson needed in her questions....she's actually back as witness next tuesday requested by the defense....

What did she hand them out of interest that they needed? I personally think that yesterday was another really bad day for the defence. They are going to really have to come up with something to show that he died as a result of something other than Chauvin kneeling on his neck. I feel they have a massive hill to climb.

MeMen2_MoRi_

BattleCorp wrote: »

When you don't know he's dead possibly.

One of the cops beside chauvin suggested to put george in the recovery position as they are thought to do..

You also have a lot of people saying that he wasn't being responsive..

Remember what Tau said "if he's able too talk, he's able too breathe"... The bystanders also pointed out that he hasn't spoken for x amount of minutes..

I guess I can hop in my car, go kill someone and use the I was distracted defense.. a lot of people here would have my back and not want to see me go too prison? Am I right..

BattleCorp

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

So he's gone from a violent man resisting arrest, whilst continuously saying he couldn't breath, calling for his mother and asking for help to stopping all of that and laying motionless. How probable do you think it was that Chauvin didn't notice this?

Saying he couldn't breathe and calling for his mama happened long before he was put on the ground and restrained. I saw a previous arrest of Floyd where he was in a car and he was doing the same thing, calling for his mama etc. It seemed to be his modus operandi when he was arrested. It may be a case of 'the boy who cried wolf'.

I'm not a spokesperson for Chauvin, I've no idea what he was thinking but it's possible he thought Floyd was acting the bo11ix. I'm not stating that as fact, I'm just stating that it's a possibility.

Again, another possibility is that when (or if) Chauvin noticed that Floyd was motionless, he might have thought that Floyd had stopped resisting.

I'm not championing the behaviour of Chauvin by the way, I'm just trying to look at it from all angles.

BattleCorp

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I guess I can hop in my car, go kill someone and use the I was distracted defense.. a lot of people here would have my back and not want to see me go too prison? Am I right..

What makes you think I don't want Chauvin to go to jail? Where have I championed for his release?

Like I said, I'm still 50:50 on the matter because I think Floyd's medical history and drug taking played a huge role in his death, as did Chauvin. I'm still not 100% on whether what Chauvin did was criminal. He used an approved technique but didn't follow that according to the letter. Does that mean he acted criminally, I'm not 100% sure.

briany

BattleCorp wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that Chauvin knew he was killing Floyd.

You'd think Floyd saying to Chauvin "I can't breathe" would have been a clue that, at the very least, something was wrong. Or when members of the assembled crowd pointed out that Floyd wasn't moving. That could have been another clue.

People keep on bringing up the point that Floyd had said, "I can't breathe" before the knee was applied, but that makes me question the wisdom of applying that knee restraint to someone making such a claim. The best defence Chauvin really has is that he believed Floyd's now-famous exclamation to be a lie and a ploy to escape, but even at that, he should have realised it was no such thing when Floyd went limp.

MeMen2_MoRi_

BattleCorp wrote: »

What makes you think I don't want Chauvin to go to jail? Where have I championed for his release?

Like I said, I'm still 50:50 on the matter because I think Floyd's medical history and drug taking played a huge role in his death, as did Chauvin. I'm still not 100% on whether what Chauvin did was criminal. He used an approved technique but didn't follow that according to the letter. Does that mean he acted criminally, I'm not 100% sure.

Your quoting a general comment that's not specifically about you and making out that it is specifically for you.

wicklowstevo

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? Are? You? Using? So? Many? Question? Marks?

because sandor refused to answer any on my many valid questions.

its the difference between an discussion board and a opinion board.

Mellor

penny piper wrote: »

Wasn't it also confirmed in court that dependent on what the situation is also contributes to how an officer will act.....you can't always "follow policy" and if you did see the trial you would have seen several officers agree with what Nelson said on this...

What aspect of the situation made it advisable to not follow policy? Absolutely none.
He was distracted/forgot what he should have done is not a valid reason.

You posts are really starting to clutch at straws now. I don’t think you’re at all interested in the legality of the actions.
For the record I’d also apply the same criticism to people saying it was premeditated murder.

Penn

Mellor wrote: »

What aspect of the situation made it advisable to not follow policy? Absolutely none.
He was distracted/forgot what he should have done is not a valid reason.

Also, he was distracted from having his knee on Floyd's neck and Floyd not moving/resisting by.... people shouting that he had his knee on Floyd's neck and Floyd not moving/resisting.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

We clearly disagree on the relevance of Floyd's medical history/drug use when it comes to this case so we'll leave it at that. We aren't going to find any common ground there.

Clearly we are. However, this isn’t a difference of opinion. I’m not saying that in my opinion it’s not relevant to the death.
I’m saying that legally it’s not grounds to justify criminal actions.

Yes, his laywer stated it in court. Not strong evidence admittedly, but still evidence all the stame.

Statements in court are not evidence.
I don’t think it even counts as testimony.

I don't think the other officers were between Chauvin and the crowd, not all the time at least so maybe he had right to be concerned.

Two other cops were restraining Floyd. If Chauvin didn’t feel safe he could have stood up and stood back to have a better view.

I'm not saying I believe Chauvin when he says he was distracted, but it is a possibility.

I’m saying breaking the law because he was distracted is still breaking the law.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that Chauvin knew he was killing Floyd. I doubt he would have continued with that course of action if he thought that. Especially with him knowing he was being filmed.

I agree with that. He must likely didn’t realise.
I also pointed this out when somebody said it was an intentional act.

If he knew what he was doing, it would have been murder 1. So the prosecution aren’t alleging he knew either.

MeMen2_MoRi_

For sake of discussion..

I agree with he needed to be restrained, he was a huge man 6'8 250+ pounds forceful restraint was needed, high as a kite on drugs..

Does all the above take away from that man who is now dead under 3 cops, a 4th standing off to the side doing absolutely nothing to help him?

Anyone with a bit of common sense zero bias would say they did a wrong and a wrong that went on for nearly 4 minutes..
What would chest compressions being applied for 3 of those minutes do? 2 of those minutes..
Knowing his medical history now maybe fcuk all, but now we'll never know.. what it would of showed the public and now everyone around the world that they were doing their duty of providing care/first aid to a person in need and in their custody. they stopped doing their duty for nearly 4 minutes.


A bit of relevance about their duty of care..

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20repeatedly,custody%2C”%20he%20pointed%20out.&text=Gonzales%2C%20the%20supreme%20court%20has,to%20provide%20protection%20of%20citizens.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out."

All_in_Flynn

BattleCorp wrote: »

Saying he couldn't breathe and calling for his mama happened long before he was put on the ground and restrained. I saw a previous arrest of Floyd where he was in a car and he was doing the same thing, calling for his mama etc. It seemed to be his modus operandi when he was arrested. It may be a case of 'the boy who cried wolf'.

I'm not a spokesperson for Chauvin, I've no idea what he was thinking but it's possible he thought Floyd was acting the bo11ix. I'm not stating that as fact, I'm just stating that it's a possibility.

Again, another possibility is that when (or if) Chauvin noticed that Floyd was motionless, he might have thought that Floyd had stopped resisting.

I'm not championing the behaviour of Chauvin by the way, I'm just trying to look at it from all angles.

I think its a real reach to claim that Chauvin thought he had just 'stopped resisting' and I think the jury would be thinking the same. He had a duty of care to Floyd. Even if he thought 'he was acting the bo11ix', he still had to check to confirm but he didn't. Instead he kept his knee on his neck until the man was dead.

I'm sure you've watched the video in full. I accept that there was more to the situation than we are privy to but what do your eye's tell you on that video? How anyone, after watching it, can come to the conclusion that what Chauvin did was ok is hard for me to understand and I know Floyd was no angel.

penny piper

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

What did she hand them out of interest that they needed? I personally think that yesterday was another really bad day for the defence. They are going to really have to come up with something to show that he died as a result of something other than Chauvin kneeling on his neck. I feel they have a massive hill to climb.

I personally think concerning the medic who instructs the minneapolis police dept it turned out a very bad day for the state..
She practically agreed with everything Nelson asked her....everything that was an advantage to Chauvan's defence. why do you think they are bringing her back again?
The only problem/probably biggest problem was that Morries Hall claimed the 5th and the limitation of what questions could be asked by Nelson regarding the drug/supply/etc. but then again most see that as an admission of guilt ...

All_in_Flynn

penny piper wrote: »

I personally think concerning the medic who instructs the minneapolis police dept it turned out a very bad day for the state..
She practically agreed with everything Nelson asked her....everything that was an advantage to Chauvan's defence. why do you think they are bringing her back again?
The only problem/probably biggest problem was that Morries Hall claimed the 5th and the limitation of what questions could be asked by Nelson regarding the drug/supply/etc. but then again most see that as an admission of guilt ...

Give me specifics of what exactly you think the medic gave the state that was so helpful to them? I'm aware she is being brought back in as a witness for the defence.

Why is it a problem that Morries Hall will plead the 5th? We already know Floyd was on drugs. I may be wrong, but I think Morries is just worried about having to admit he gave Floyd the drugs and doesn't want to incriminate himself.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

When you don't know he's dead possibly.

Why would you not stop restraining him like that if he is not doing anything?
He was literally lying dead still, what restraining did he need exactly?

GreeBo

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

I think its a real reach to claim that Chauvin thought he had just 'stopped resisting' and I think the jury would be thinking the same. He had a duty of care to Floyd. Even if he thought 'he was acting the bo11ix', he still had to check to confirm but he didn't. Instead he kept his knee on his neck until the man was dead.

I'm sure you've watched the video in full. I accept that there was more to the situation than we are privy to but what do your eye's tell you on that video? How anyone, after watching it, can come to the conclusion that what Chauvin did was ok is hard for me to understand and I know Floyd was no angel.

But even if he had thought he had stopped resisting, surely he no longer needs to be actively restrained in that manner?
Unless he going to kneel on this neck in the back of the car also...

All_in_Flynn

GreeBo wrote: »

But even if he had thought he had stopped resisting, surely he no longer needs to be actively restrained in that manner?
Unless he going to kneel on this neck in the back of the car also...

Yes of course he didn't need to be actively restrained in that manner. I've yet to see a single poster put forward a plausible reason as to why he kept his knee on his throat even after he 'stopped resisting'/was dead!?

Every witness so far has either confirmed that the technique used was not taught to police, was not policy and the force was excessive. These witnesses are trainers and the most senior police in the force. I'm not sure it can get more damning than that.

Like I said, the defence is going to need to somehow convince the jury that Floyd died from the drugs/other illness or Chauvin is going away for a long stretch.

penny piper

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Give me specifics of what exactly you think the medic gave the state that was so helpful to them? I'm aware she is being brought back in as a witness for the defence. co

Why is it a problem that Morries Hall will plead the 5th? We already know Floyd was on drugs. I may be wrong, but I think Morries is just worried about having to admit he gave Floyd the drugs and doesn't want to incriminate himself.

The officer who spoke was called Nicole Mackenzie....I'm sure if you are that interested you can look most up yourself.... small Sample of what she said..
She acknowledged during questioning from eric nelson that the presence of drugs of drugs/hostile crowd, both of which occurred during mr.floyd's arrest could complicate the offering of medical aid.
She also said you have feel/make sure the scene you are in feels safe...an officer has a duty to both the arrested as well as his fellow officers/public.. She acknowledged the officers did call for medical help.
If you remember the ambulance crew even took mr.floyd away from the scene stating about the crowd gathering..
She also explained that she was an instructor for minneapolis police dept. regarding the state of excited delerium and how that should be taken into account....

Personally, I hope Nelson gets to question Morries Hall....

Mellor

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

he was a huge man 6'8 250+ pounds forceful restraint was needed,

The other day I asked how tall he was.
I was told 6’2”, then 6’4” then another poster repeated over and over that he was a 6’8” African.
That’s the height that most people are now posting.
Has been verified? As the same posted that first posted knocked a few inches off Chauvind height for good measure. :rolleyes:

A bit of relevance about their duty of care.

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out."

Correct. It’s not a constitutional duty of care. And he’s not accused of violating the constitution.
The duty of cate comes from the fact he was in police custody.
From the above link;

“Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own...”

I would imagine being arrested and restrained falls under the above.

biko

Mellor wrote: »

The other day I asked how tall he was.
I was told 6’2”, then 6’4” then another poster repeated over and over that he was a 6’8” African.
That’s the height that most people are now posting.
Has been verified? As the same posted that first posted knocked a few inches off Chauvind height for good measure. :rolleyes:

Start asking people for sources. It's all out there on the net.

6 feet, 6 inches https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-george-floyd-minnesota
6 feet, 7 inches https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/864410788/a-look-at-george-floyds-life-that-ended-in-the-police-custody?t=1617804095859

Mellor

biko wrote: »

Start asking people for sources. It's all out there on the net.

6 feet, 6 inches https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-george-floyd-minnesota
6 feet, 7 inches https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/864410788/a-look-at-george-floyds-life-that-ended-in-the-police-custody?t=1617804095859

I did nobody had a verified source.
News reports are not verified.

Some news said he was 6’6” when playing basketball. Which could have been a few decades ago.

I’d have though the autopsy would over height abd weight.

ohnonotgmail

biko wrote: »

Start asking people for sources. It's all out there on the net.

6 feet, 6 inches https://www.foxnews.com/us/who-is-george-floyd-minnesota
6 feet, 7 inches https://www.npr.org/2020/05/28/864410788/a-look-at-george-floyds-life-that-ended-in-the-police-custody?t=1617804095859

does it really matter if he was 6'2" or 6'8"? Not really relevant when you are lying handcuffed on the ground with somebody kneeling on your neck.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Mellor wrote: »

The other day I asked how tall he was.
I was told 6’2”, then 6’4” then another poster repeated over and over that he was a 6’8” African.
That’s the height that most people are now posting.
Has been verified? As the same posted that first posted knocked a few inches off Chauvind height for good measure. :rolleyes:



Correct. It’s not a constitutional duty of care. And he’s not accused of violating the constitution.
The duty of cate comes from the fact he was in police custody.
From the above link;

“Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own...”

I would imagine being arrested and restrained falls under the above.

His height and weight are being used as a distraction point.
I'm just repeating what I read in one post, the one that had "African" in it.

George could be 10ft tall, it's pretty useless being that height when you are dead under 3 cops.

charlie_says

Did George Floyd have an unusual anatomy where his trachea was located at the side of his neck where the knee was not at the front as normal for homo sapiens?

ohnonotgmail

charlie_says wrote: »

Did George Floyd have an unusual anatomy where his trachea was located at the side of his neck where the knee was not at the front as normal for homo sapiens?

i'm sure his trachea is in the normal place. His carotid artery is also in the normal position on the side of his neck and pressing on that will stop blood flow to the brain and death in very short order.