Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

ohnonotgmail

penny piper wrote: »

It didn't end there infact when he was out on the ground he was kicking the police officers....you can still bite/kick when you are on the ground...

stopping somebody from kicking while they are on the ground is trivial. it doesn't involve kneeling on their neck.

BorneTobyWilde

penny piper wrote: »

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

That day,,, I believe 100% at some point from when he arrived on the scene that he set out to kill him using his badge as protection from the law.
As soon as Floyd didn't want to be in that car he dragged him out THE OTHER DOOR??
MAKES NO ****ING SENSE.... He was totally in car if he dragged him out other side. Why not just keep that door closed and concentrate on closing other door, the one he was sat at.
But no, a clear decision was made, dragged him out, kneel on neck, even when told he's dying, he's unresponsive, he kept on. That in my book is setting out to kill him.
OTHER choice was to simply close a door.

penny piper

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

stopping somebody from kicking while they are on the ground is trivial. it doesn't involve kneeling on their neck.

Well that's what the minneapolis police dept advocate...

ohnonotgmail

penny piper wrote: »

Well that's what the minneapolis police dept advocate...

no they don't. both the chief of police and another senior officer said otherwise.

BorneTobyWilde

bazermc wrote: »

What exactly is Chauvin doing writing all those notes. Surely he’ll have access to the transcript. I could understand a few notes but he seems to be continuously writing during any testimony including cross examination

BattleCorp

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116815144&postcount=887

change his height and weight.. 6'4 223 pounds. he still needed to be restrained with force.

Still biased?

I've no problem with you saying that he needed to be restrained. I agree that he needed to be restrained.

My point regarding you being biased is that you are accusing the defence of purposely lying by saying 'the next lying picture the defence has lined up'. So, because of that statement, I am sticking with my assertion that you are biased.

penny piper

penny piper wrote: »

Personally, I think alot of people would be grateful to the officer's for doing their duty in a difficult situation....I think the charges against the officers wouldn't go ahead......that's been completely honest....

Maybe so but that would make the negligence of the officer, no less criminal. You seem to be making every effort to distract from the fact that Chauvin continued to restrain a person who had lost consciousness for a number of minutes. That's criminal negligence that led to his death. It seems like you're now actually trying to spin it as him being a hero for doing his duty of killing a man in cuffs...

penny piper

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no they don't. both the chief of police and another senior officer said otherwise.

if you've been watching the trial at all...you will know that the chief of police/other senior officer are just "office workers" have barely any knowledge of what is happening on the streets of minneapolis to their police/quote what they would have done in their day...the senior officer you mentioned hadn't even been a patrol officer in 25 years....text book talk won't run a city...and their officers are known to use a dangerous technique which other forces don't advocate.

standardg60

penny piper wrote: »

Well ...again that is what a defense team will do.....and at times there ..it can't be denied he could have been considered a danger....high on drugs.(it's just be recorded in court how he said "I ate too many drugs" in the police car..resisting arrest...look to be straight it's not like he didn't know that he should have got into the car as requested... ...hadn't he been arrested numerous times before?.....you have to look at it from what he could have done/possibilities/safety of police and what decisions officers have to make quickly.
The medic, Nicole Mackenzie explained yesterday that sometimes for certain reasons officers do not give medical assistance until an ambulance arrives for varying reason... ...prosecution witnesses are agreeing with the prosecution...then when eric nelson questions them ...they basically agree with him....

He did make a quick decision, he realised he could gain retribution for a long held grudge he held against someone he knew, and he continued to make that quick decision for nine minutes.

ohnonotgmail

penny piper wrote: »

if you've been watching the trial at all...you will know that the chief of police/other senior officer are just "office workers" have barely any knowledge of what is happening on the streets of minneapolis to their police/quote what they would have done in their day...the senior officer you mentioned hadn't even been a patrol officer in 25 years....text book talk won't run a city...and their officers are known to use a dangerous technique which other forces don't advocate.

irrelevant. chauvin did not follow procedure. he was trying to say that he was just doing as he was trained to do. this has been shown to be a lie.

Ha Long Bay

standardg60 wrote: »

He did make a quick decision, he realised he could gain retribution for a long held grudge he held against someone he knew, and he continued to make that quick decision for nine minutes.

I can't understand why the other officers didn't stop him.

Imagine watching a UFC fight where the opponent is knocked out and the referee allows the other fighter to continue to apply a choke hold for 5 minutes after.

Nozebleed

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

I can't understand why the other officers didn't stop him.

Imagine watching a UFC fight where the opponent is knocked out and the referee allows the other fighter to continue to apply a choke hold for 5 minutes after.

probably because its common practice...the difference here is floyd took a drug overdose.

standardg60

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That day,,, I believe 100% at some point from when he arrived on the scene that he set out to kill him using his badge as protection from the law.
As soon as Floyd didn't want to be in that car he dragged him out THE OTHER DOOR??
MAKES NO ****ING SENSE.... He was totally in car if he dragged him out other side. Why not just keep that door closed and concentrate on closing other door, the one he was sat at.
But no, a clear decision was made, dragged him out, kneel on neck, even when told he's dying, he's unresponsive, he kept on. That in my book is setting out to kill him.
OTHER choice was to simply close a door.

!00% agree.

Floyd was already cuffed and in the car. Chauvin went round, opened the other door and dragged him out.
He knew who he was ffs.

MeMen2_MoRi_

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've no problem with you saying that he needed to be restrained. I agree that he needed to be restrained.

My point regarding you being biased is that you are accusing the defence of purposely lying by saying 'the next lying picture the defence has lined up'. So, because of that statement, I am sticking with my assertion that you are biased.

Ah the innocence, you think defence lawyers tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Stating the obvious isn't bias.

Let's take the defenses point that chauvin was distracted?
I've pointed too one of the 3 that were on top of George that asked chauvin to roll George over and chauvin declined to do this.. you have an officer showing concern and raising this with chauvin and chauvin saying no, continue to restrain a man that was need of medical attention.

See the lie?

Ha Long Bay

Nozebleed wrote: »

probably because its common practice...the difference here is floyd took a drug overdose.

Its common practice to treat someone who is suffering a drug overdose by kneeling on their neck for minutes after they are unconscious?

standardg60

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

I can't understand why the other officers didn't stop him.

Imagine watching a UFC fight where the opponent is knocked out and the referee allows the other fighter to continue to apply a choke hold for 5 minutes after.

They were rookies, both suggested rolling him over, but were overruled by 'an experienced' colleague.

As for Chauvin's partner, he has his own questionable history.

penny piper

standardg60 wrote: »

He did make a quick decision, he realised he could gain retribution for a long held grudge he held against someone he knew, and he continued to make that quick decision for nine minutes.

Where's your evidence he knew floyd? I understood that the owner of the nightclub where they both were on security said they did different shifts and probably never crossed paths..

standardg60

Originally Posted by bazermc View Post
What exactly is Chauvin doing writing all those notes. Surely he’ll have access to the transcript. I could understand a few notes but he seems to be continuously writing during any testimony including cross examination

This is pure psychology btw, obviously advocated by the defence. The jurors are most likely doing the same thing, and as they all know they are innocent, it subconsciously gives them the impression he think's he is too.

Nozebleed

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

Its common practice to treat someone who is suffering a drug overdose by kneeling on their neck for minutes after they are unconscious?

GF dies due to ingestion of drugs..that is the main reason. " i ate too many drugs!" he said it himself. i agree the police officers should have noticed but they were pre'occupied with virtue signalling retards screaming and shouting from the kerb. they are just as responsible for his death as the drug dealer and the officers on duty that day.

standardg60

penny piper wrote: »

Where's your evidence he knew floyd? I understood that the owner of the nightclub where they both were on security said they did different shifts and probably never crossed paths..

I like your use of the word 'probably' there.

A former co-worker of both said he saw them arguing with each other, instigated by Floyd.

ohnonotgmail

Nozebleed wrote: »

GF dies due to ingestion of drugs..that is the main reason. " i ate too many drugs!" he said it himself. i agree the police officers should have noticed but they were pre'occupied with virtue signalling retards screaming and shouting from the kerb. they are just as responsible for his death as the drug dealer and the officers on duty that day.

they were shouting and screaming because chauvin was kneeling on floyds neck when there was no need to do that. the only person responsible for floyds death is chauvin.

Ha Long Bay

Nozebleed wrote: »

GF dies due to ingestion of drugs..that is the main reason. " i ate too many drugs!" he said it himself. i agree the police officers should have noticed but they were pre'occupied with virtue signalling retards screaming and shouting from the kerb. they are just as responsible for his death as the drug dealer and the officers on duty that day.

Sorry hadn't seen your previous posts on the topic. I'm out, there is no debate here when you use terms like that.

standardg60

Hạ Long Bay wrote: »

Sorry hadn't seen your previous posts on the topic. I'm out, there is no debate here when you use terms like that.

You just have to let that sort of stuff go over your head, and debate with the rational people instead.

That post didn't deserve a reply.

Potential-Monke

Haven't read the last few pages so just picking out a point I have experience with. People, when arrested, will say literally anything to not be arrested. The claims of "can't breathe" are up there with shouts of "abuse of power" and all the other stuff people who are resisting arrest will say to get a crowd and start recording. 99.9.% of the time when someone is saying they can't breathe, it's BS to get the officer to release a hold in a hope to do something else. Obviously it was a bit different this time (helped in no part by the possible after affects of Covid and his history of drug misuse, and high levels of fentanyl in his system). All that played a part, along with the knee on his neck.

Not excusing it, no defending it, but unless you've actually been a cop and have dealt with hundreds of arrests, about 50% of which are usually resisting or aggressive, it's completely unfair to say that just because he was claiming he couldn't breath, doesn't mean he actually couldn't breathe. This case ended badly, obviously, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've let up on aggressive, resisting criminals only to be met with an attempted flee or assault on myself or others.

Plus, it's 'Merica, while trying to arrest someone over there, you will have the mentality that nearly anyone could just come up and shoot you, because that just happens in 'Merica. Especially when black people are getting arrested, because of the history and gun laws over there. None of this is an excuse, only an attempt to show that people getting arrested will do nearly anything to prevent it, and in 'Merica with their 3 strike system, I'm sure it's even worse.

All_in_Flynn

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Haven't read the last few pages so just picking out a point I have experience with. People, when arrested, will say literally anything to not be arrested. The claims of "can't breathe" are up there with shouts of "abuse of power" and all the other stuff people who are resisting arrest will say to get a crowd and start recording. 99.9.% of the time when someone is saying they can't breathe, it's BS to get the officer to release a hold in a hope to do something else. Obviously it was a bit different this time (helped in no part by the possible after affects of Covid and his history of drug misuse, and high levels of fentanyl in his system). All that played a part, along with the knee on his neck.

Not excusing it, no defending it, but unless you've actually been a cop and have dealt with hundreds of arrests, about 50% of which are usually resisting or aggressive, it's completely unfair to say that just because he was claiming he couldn't breath, doesn't mean he actually couldn't breathe. This case ended badly, obviously, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've let up on aggressive, resisting criminals only to be met with an attempted flee or assault on myself or others.

Plus, it's 'Merica, while trying to arrest someone over there, you will have the mentality that nearly anyone could just come up and shoot you, because that just happens in 'Merica. Especially when black people are getting arrested, because of the history and gun laws over there. None of this is an excuse, only an attempt to show that people getting arrested will do nearly anything to prevent it, and in 'Merica with their 3 strike system, I'm sure it's even worse.

Can you explain why he didn't take his knee off his neck after Floyd lost consciousness?

I've yet to see a single valid or even semi reasonable theory as to why he kept his knee on his neck even after Floyd clearly was no longer responsive.

ohnonotgmail

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Can you explain why he didn't take his knee off his neck after Floyd lost consciousness?

I've yet to see a single valid or even semi reasonable theory as to why he kept his knee on his neck even after Floyd clearly was no longer responsive.

I've yet to see a valid reason as to why he kept his knee on his neck after floyd was handcuffed on the ground.

standardg60

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Haven't read the last few pages so just picking out a point I have experience with. People, when arrested, will say literally anything to not be arrested. The claims of "can't breathe" are up there with shouts of "abuse of power" and all the other stuff people who are resisting arrest will say to get a crowd and start recording. 99.9.% of the time when someone is saying they can't breathe, it's BS to get the officer to release a hold in a hope to do something else. Obviously it was a bit different this time (helped in no part by the possible after affects of Covid and his history of drug misuse, and high levels of fentanyl in his system). All that played a part, along with the knee on his neck.

Not excusing it, no defending it, but unless you've actually been a cop and have dealt with hundreds of arrests, about 50% of which are usually resisting or aggressive, it's completely unfair to say that just because he was claiming he couldn't breath, doesn't mean he actually couldn't breathe. This case ended badly, obviously, but I've lost count of the amount of times I've let up on aggressive, resisting criminals only to be met with an attempted flee or assault on myself or others.

Plus, it's 'Merica, while trying to arrest someone over there, you will have the mentality that nearly anyone could just come up and shoot you, because that just happens in 'Merica. Especially when black people are getting arrested, because of the history and gun laws over there. None of this is an excuse, only an attempt to show that people getting arrested will do nearly anything to prevent it, and in 'Merica with their 3 strike system, I'm sure it's even worse.

None of that applies here given the simple fact he was hand-cuffed.

briany

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That day,,, I believe 100% at some point from when he arrived on the scene that he set out to kill him using his badge as protection from the law.
As soon as Floyd didn't want to be in that car he dragged him out THE OTHER DOOR??
MAKES NO ****ING SENSE.... He was totally in car if he dragged him out other side. Why not just keep that door closed and concentrate on closing other door, the one he was sat at.
But no, a clear decision was made, dragged him out, kneel on neck, even when told he's dying, he's unresponsive, he kept on. That in my book is setting out to kill him.
OTHER choice was to simply close a door.

It would be extremely hard to prove that Chauvin was consciously thinking, "I'm gonna kill this m'fer." even if that indeed was what he was thinking. None of us are telepathic, and even if we were, we can't travel back in time and place to read his thoughts. Even a bad cop capable of thinking such a thing and doing such a thing would have to have completely lost his reason to do it in front of a crowd who were filming his actions because that's his a$$, professionally, personally and legally.

Having said that, the actions did defy logic and professional protocol, imo. Like you said, is it not possible they could have closed the car doors on him anyway? Him saying saying he couldn't breathe wasn't a barrier to holding him on the ground with a knee to the neck, and his physicality wasn't a barrier to restraining him because they were able to handcuff him and get him on the ground.

But let's take the argument that it's impossible to get a man of Floyd's size and resistance into the back of a police car - the knee restraint as Chauvin employed it still seems illogical.

Was it meant to be used up until Floyd stopped resisting? Floyd had stopped moving, and still the knee was held there. So, that's out.

Was it meant to restrain Floyd until a backup unit, or perhaps a police van arrived? It's been noted that no backup was called to the scene between the time that the knee hold was applied and paramedics arrived, so that's out as well.

The net result is that you had Chauvin applying that knee hold with no apparent intent of letting up. Even on the raw bodycam footage, one of the officers says "I think he passed out...", and yet this did not prompt the hold being released. No doubt the prosecution and defence will go back and forth on how much the knee really contributed to Floyd's death, but it's hard to argue that continuing to hold the knee to the neck of an unconscious and, as we now know, dying man is callous behaviour in the extreme, for a cop especially.

Laurenf35

The defense lawyer nelson is like a character out of a John grishem book

standardg60

briany wrote: »

It would be extremely hard to prove that Chauvin was consciously thinking, "I'm gonna kill this m'fer." even if that indeed was what he was thinking. None of us are telepathic, and even if we were, we can't travel back in time and place to read his thoughts. Even a bad cop capable of thinking such a thing and doing such a thing would have to have completely lost his reason to do it in front of a crowd who were filming his actions because that's his a$$, professionally, personally and legally.

Having said that, the actions did defy logic and professional protocol, imo. Like you said, is it not possible they could have closed the car doors on him anyway? Him saying saying he couldn't breathe wasn't a barrier to holding him on the ground with a knee to the neck, and his physicality wasn't a barrier to restraining him because they were able to handcuff him and get him on the ground.

But let's take the argument that it's impossible to get a man of Floyd's size and resistance into the back of a police car - the knee restraint as Chauvin employed it still seems illogical.

Was it meant to be used up until Floyd stopped resisting? Floyd had stopped moving, and still the knee was held there. So, that's out.

Was it meant to restrain Floyd until a backup unit, or perhaps a police van arrived? It's been noted that no backup was called to the scene between the time that the knee hold was applied and paramedics arrived, so that's out as well.

The net result is that you had Chauvin applying that knee hold with no apparent intent of letting up. Even on the raw bodycam footage, one of the officers says "I think he passed out...", and yet this did not prompt the hold being released. No doubt the prosecution and defence will go back and forth on how much the knee really contributed to Floyd's death, but it's hard to argue that continuing to hold the knee to the neck of an unconscious and, as we now know, dying man is callous behaviour in the extreme, for a cop especially.

Completely agree. For me any one with an ounce of sense can see that this was anything other than a random act, but clearly the prosecution decided that it would be easier to secure a conviction based on the understanding that it was.

To be honest, i'm not sure that was the right way to go.
Time will tell.