Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Potential-Monke

standardg60 wrote: »

You have done nothing but contradict yourself since you started posting. You claimed to have no knowledge of the case but that gradually unwinded due to your own posts. I am perfectly willing to debate the case in question subject to the evidence available but wading in with 'personal experiences' which are completely irrelevant to the case in question and following that up with biased references deserve the response that i gave you.

Right. When I said I have no knowledge, that's of what is currently happening in the case. I regularly check cases I don't comment in if I've a passing interest in the subject. Being an ex-Garda, I believe I have a better idea of what it's like to arrest aggressive, resisting people, something which most people on here will not have, and as a result I sometimes take an interest in cop related topics.

I "waded in" as you put it, to contradict a blatantly incorrect statement made by the lieutenant regarding the risk level of a handcuffed person, which imo is relevant to the case. Posters were taking that mans evidence as gospel, and I wanted to show that it was an incorrect statement to make, regardless of who he was. I then used my personal experience, something which most posters on here will not have, to advise why I believe it's incorrect.

A statement like that, from a man of his position, is extremely damaging to both the defense case and every single serving front line police officer in America. But because he's a lieutenant, people will take it as gospel. I believe that warranted discussion.

You claim you are willing to debate, but all you did was initially jump to the conclusion that I went from no knowledge to in depth knowledge because of a single googled fact:

"but you seem to have an in-depth knowledge of Floyd's history"

make snide remarks when something didn't agree with you:

"Anyone else get the impression we're dealing with American based trolls here?"

Or just out right made up some crazy story about prompters and underestimating your intelligence:

"Glad you've at least decided (or your prompters), that you're way in over your head here."

That's not debate. That's you, trying to be a smart arse, because someone doesn't agree with your points.

But not to worry, I came for a discussion on the very topic of the threat level of handcuffed persons, due to a blantly incorrect statement made by a lieutenant. I have discussed it, and now I'm leaving the thread. You continue thinking you like to debate. I'll be back when the verdict is given.

Mellor

penny piper wrote: »

i think you are been extremely petty.
Just because someone says a height maybe an inch or two differing to his exact height doesn't mean anything about their faith in the truth.

The point is that the poster in question added 4" to Floyds height, and took a few inches off Chauvins. I believe that was a conscious and bias effort. (had it been reversed, they'd end up at about the same size.

Any one consciously twisting things to suit an agenda is not interested intelligent debate of the trial and facts. And I'd apply that to people on both sides based on thread history.

I only can imagine that someone that height/weight would take alot to restrain especially if in the case of george floyd most of the arresting officers looked very average heights...

There was three of them. They weren't struggleing to hold him down. Some of them stopped prior to chauvin. Chauvin should have been first to relent as per policy.

penny piper wrote: »

What do you think the job of a defense team is? most of it was true surely? didn't he hold a knife to a pregnant woman.?..I'd hardly call him a petty criminal...

The point of the defense team is to defend Chauvins actions.
Present Floyd as negatively as possible isn't a valid legal defense. That's what you are repeatedly are doing, but ignoring the facts of accusations agaisnt Chauvin.


Or are you actually trying to say Floyds past crimes were a factor in Chauvins actions?

penny piper wrote: »

hypothetical question:

If George Floyd had drove off in the car (the car in which the police officer's approached him) high on drugs and killed a number of pedestrians (adults/children) .....was apprehended by the same police officers ....behaved the same way...resisting arrest./saying he can't breathe/he ate too many drugs etc..was restrained the same way (remembering the officer's had to deal with somone unknown to them) and the same ultimate situation arose...he died...

Would you still say Chauvan was a "murderer" as some agree on....or would you have a different view???

This is a hypothetical, obviously.
But if the scene was exactly the same from when Chauvin got to him. Then legally Chauvin is facing the same charges, regardless of what Floyd had done prior.
This is not my opinion btw, that's the law . The fact you even raised the above hypothetical suggests you don't actually understand the charges involved here.
Somebody having a criminal record, like Floyd, doesn't give the police any more justification to commit a homicide. They have a job to do, and it's a difficult one. But action as judge and executioner is not within their remit.

Mellor

Potential-Monke wrote: »

The neck I can't comment on, but it's not unusual to keep someone contained even while handcuffed. Being handcuffed does not immediately make someone a non-threat, they can still bite, kick, headbutt, spit, knee, push, elbow, run...

See above. Being handcuffed does not immediately make someone a non-threat.

Agree with this. I also made the point recently that a person in cuff if not controlled can get up and run away quite easily.

And I added to it, that controlling Floyd while in cuffs in not the issue. It is entirely the manner with which he was controlled

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Does his criminal record not have a part to play in all this?

Did his record influence Chauvin's actions? I don't know, but I woul imagine that's a bad line of defense for him to go down, as it would indicate his actions were intentional based on prior knowledge - again, not what I believe.

Regarding when they go limp do you get off them, usually you would try to make sure they're not faking and then administer help as needed. Obviously didn't happen in this case, but American cops have far more to be worrying about than Irish cops, so I can't say at what point they would/should have.

Should be able to check them without releasing control. ie by controlling the centre mass not the neck.

And on this state, once neck restrianed was needed, they were supposed to put them in recovery position and call medical as soon as cuffs were on. Not even waited until they went limp.

standardg60 wrote: »

A quick Google led you to only Floyd's allegedly violent past then? You must have skipped a lot to get there.
Interesting that you haven't been a guard in years too.
Irish 'cops' is a new one on me too but the most telling thing for me is your use of USofA. I have never heard any one here use that term.

I think you are being absolutely ridiculous here.
Poster has 14 years on the website and 10k posts. The suggestion that he's language is giving away his real identity is hilarious.
People say US of A all the time.

MeMen2_MoRi_

briany wrote: »

I don't understand how he's come to that conclusion. 1st degree murder requires premeditation, and not premeditation in the sense of deciding you're going to kill someone immediately before, which would be 2nd degree, but deliberation and planning.

I'm not sure myself, I just found it interesting that someone with that high of a degree of a legal thought process would come too that conclusion.
There was also him speaking of chauvins demeanor I found interesting also, through the varying degrees of culpability people think chauvin has in the death of George everyone sees nearly the same body language versus those who think this is a witch hunt, being thrown under the bus etc they seem to be disregarding this.

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

The point is that the poster in question added 4" to Floyds height, and took a few inches off Chauvins. I believe that was a conscious and bias effort. (had it been reversed, they'd end up at about the same size.

Any one consciously twisting things to suit an agenda is not interested intelligent debate of the trial and facts. And I'd apply that to people on both sides based on thread history.


There was three of them. They weren't struggleing to hold him down. Some of them stopped prior to chauvin. Chauvin should have been first to relent as per policy.



The point of the defense team is to defend Chauvins actions.
Present Floyd as negatively as possible isn't a valid legal defense. That's what you are repeatedly are doing, but ignoring the facts of accusations agaisnt Chauvin.


Or are you actually trying to say Floyds past crimes were a factor in Chauvins actions?




This is a hypothetical, obviously.
But if the scene was exactly the same from when Chauvin got to him. Then legally Chauvin is facing the same charges, regardless of what Floyd had done prior.
This is not my opinion btw, that's the law . The fact you even raised the above hypothetical suggests you don't actually understand the charges involved here.
Somebody having a criminal record, like Floyd, doesn't give the police any more justification to commit a homicide. They have a job to do, and it's a difficult one. But action as judge and executioner is not within their remit.

Look you are quite right to have your opinion on everything you post.....but don't expect everyone has to agree with you....and I think this is a fair comment to you.....btw I perfectly understand the charges involved here.....
You obviously are just coming from one side.... with the same rhetoric
Personally, I believe that there is doubt in this case and that's my opinion and from watching the trial the prosecution has done nothing as yet other than to bring up text book facts/ from officer's who aren't even on the street.

Two forensic scientists who so far said what for the prosecution???? that there were drugs in the car? the rest of their time the prosecution spent asking their witnesses about their cv.


Prosecution brought in a senior agent who reviewed the case.....Nelson asked him did he hear what Floyd had said in one of the segments when he was on the ground....he hadn't and when played back it was perfectly clear floyd said "I ate too many drugs"and he admitted this....prosecution tried to downplay this ...it didn't work he said that...
Prosecution brought in Nicole Mackenzie who will now be used by the defense to give evidence ...
Prosecution brought in George Floyd's gf....courtney ross ... was it twice that Nelson had to ask her would she like to see her statement again to refresh her memory.....she didn't come across well at all...

Everything the prosecuton team has done so far in this case ...the defense team have been able to counteract.....

The majority of media has only posted on hyped up headlines from the prosecution team...

MeMen2_MoRi_

GF girlfriend...

People having fallible memories isn't that uncommon.. do you remember if she answered yes too rereading the transcript of her statement?

This is a question he asks everyone, he say to the witness everytime "you had an interview with x person/s, you know it was recorded and transcribed, you provided with a copy, did you have a chance to read over it"

Even you recalling it, you are unsure of what took place lol

silverharp

the US media are going to be responsible for riots, they arent prepping the country that it can easily go the defence's way, there is more clicks and ad money when the news is "interesting" I guess

charlie_says

The way the full body cams weren't released until several months after the incident took place was extremely damaging also.

It really helped stoke the emotion unnecessarily.

By all accounts in many places across the states policing, which of couse has issues particularly in large urban areas, has been dealt a potentially crippling blow by the GF case and it's reaction but also by some fairly radical prosecutors.

The police in many places may be in for another few very difficult months due to the result either way of this case.

Mellor

penny piper wrote: »

Look you are quite right to have your opinion on everything you post.....but don't expect everyone has to agree with you....and I think this is a fair comment to you.....btw I perfectly understand the charges involved here.....

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some of what I was is my opinion, some of it is fact. I try and clarify which is which when I post.

I’m not having a go at you about the charges. But the other day you disputed it when I said there was a murder charge.
And just now you post a hypothetical to justify the situation that has no bearing on the criminal charge.

You obviously are just coming from one side.... with the same rhetoric

My focus is on the point of view of the law. And the relevant incident itself.

Not Floyd’spast. Not Chauvin’s past. Not hypotheticals. Just the facts and the law.

[quoye]Personally, I believe that there is doubt in this case and that's my opinion and from watching the trial the prosecution has done nothing as yet other than to bring up text book facts/ from officer's who aren't even on the street.[/quote]
I think the doubts raised are getting thinner and thinner and less and less relevant to the alleged crimes.

A few days ago the angle was that the knee restraint was policy and encouraged.
Then the senior officers confirm it wasn’t followed or endorsed.
Now it’s that policy’s can’t always be followed. But no evidence why not in this case

And the best one for me, undermining the credibility of the senior officers. Because they let a lunatic like Chauvin remain on the force.
Seriously, that’s the angle. Wow.

shil.mar

People do not die by mistake, but with actions.

silverharp

shil.mar wrote: »

People do not die by mistake, but with actions.

Floyd's dealer should be up in court and the President of China for allowing the export of Fentanyl in the first place

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

GF girlfriend...

People having fallible memories isn't that uncommon.. do you remember if she answered yes too rereading the transcript of her statement?

This is a question he asks everyone, he say to the witness everytime "you had an interview with x person/s, you know it was recorded and transcribed, you provided with a copy, did you have a chance to read over it"

Even you recalling it, you are unsure of what took place lol

At times she said yes/also said speculating.... to differing questions.
He actually doesn't ask every witness that, only the one's that can't remember...
I don't know why you are "lol" ....

shil.mar

silverharp wrote: »

Floyd's dealer should be up in court and the President of China for allowing the export of Fentanyl in the first place

I Agree. But unfortunately there is no justice..

penny piper

Mellor wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some of what I was is my opinion, some of it is fact. I try and clarify which is which when I post.
.

I'd like to think I do the same thing /or atleast try.

Look we don't agree at all on this case so I think we should just leave it at that.
I won't comment on your posts again. Hope that's ok.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

At times she said yes/also said speculating.... to differing questions.
He actually doesn't ask every witness that, only the one's that can't remember...
I don't know why you are "lol" ....

When the defense is starting, in the 5 videos I've seen, after pleasantries and before he starts his questioning he asks do they remember being interviewed by FBI? He asks you know that was recorded etc.. this lead me to think he did it with everyone.. it's a reasonable thing to do, he's always seeking cracks he can exploit, if someone says yes they've read over their statement and then he asks a question they then contradict themselves to what they said to the FBI, he's creating doubt for the jurors.

The lol is for your criticism of her for being forgetful, you opened up with "was it twice" you're being unsure of what you remember. her statement she gave was months back, you watching the video of the testimony was 5/6 days ago.. who should have the better memory here..

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

When the defense is starting, in the 5 videos I've seen, after pleasantries and before he starts his questioning he asks do they remember being interviewed by FBI? He asks you know that was recorded etc.. this lead me to think he did it with everyone.. it's a reasonable thing to do, he's always seeking cracks he can exploit, if someone says yes they've read over their statement and then he asks a question they then contradict themselves to what they said to the FBI, he's creating doubt for the jurors.

The lol is for your criticism of her for being forgetful, you opened up with "was it twice" you're being unsure of what you remember. her statement she gave was months back, you watching the video of the testimony was 5/6 days ago.. who should have the better memory here..

So you have basically seen clips? I've watched the trial live.
He does not ask the same question to each witness unless they are having trouble remembering what they said.
He's a defense lawyer he's trying to present a case for his client.

@ the lol remark...I'm not on trial and as I said he asked her that question in the live trial ...she had a chance to look previously at her statement with the prosecution team before she went into actual court (the other day) to remember what she had said...so her memory was lacking/wasn't interested...she certainly didn't cross well/reliable witness...but ofcourse that's only my opinion

Mellor

penny piper wrote: »

I won't comment on your posts again. Hope that's ok.

That’s perfectly ok. Sure you’ve been sidestepping any posts refuted your claims or were too hard to answer.

I’m going to continue to point out contradictions, and claims that are irrelevant and untrue. Hope that’s ok.

Cherry picking facts to suit suit an agenda is not a convincing argument.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

So you have basically seen clips? I've watched the trial live.
He does not ask the same question to each witness unless they are having trouble remembering what they said.
He's a defense lawyer he's trying to present a case for his client.

@ the lol remark...I'm not on trial and as I said he asked her that question in the live trial ...she had a chance to look previously at her statement with the prosecution team before she went into actual court (the other day) to remember what she had said...so her memory was lacking/wasn't interested...she certainly didn't cross well/reliable witness...but ofcourse that's only my opinion

Where did I say "clips" in the quoted post? 5 videos!

I've went too YouTube, searched courtney ross full testimony.. it took me seconds too skip through the video until I seen the defense lawyer show up.. played the clip.. wanna guess what he's asking her?

About being interviewed by the FBI, prosecution.. there's 6 people now that before he begins asking them questions he speaks about the FBI and the transcript's did they have a chance to look over it.

I'm gonna go with he says those lines to everyone.

Edit: she's a character witness, if you're putting weight in her testimony, which I think you are seeing as you're bringing her up I think thats scrapping the end of the barrel stuff.. we all have an idea of George's character, it's based off his criminal history.. his character becomes like a mute point when he dies in the custody of 3 police officers who are on top him.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Where did I say "clips" in the quoted post? 5 videos!

I've went too YouTube, searched courtney ross full testimony.. it took me seconds too skip through the video until I seen the defense lawyer show up.. played the clip.. wanna guess what he's asking her?

About being interviewed by the FBI, prosecution.. there's 6 people now that before he begins asking them questions he speaks about the FBI and the transcript's did they have a chance to look over it.

I'm gonna go with he says those lines to everyone.

Edit: she's a character witness, if you're putting weight in her testimony, which I think you are seeing as you're bringing her up I think thats scrapping the end of the barrel stuff.. we all have an idea of George's character, it's based off his criminal history.. his character becomes like a mute point when he dies in the custody of 3 police officers who are on top him.

So why did the prosecution bring her in to give evidence? she was useless whether you choose to believe that or not at the begining she made him out to be some saint (I'd give her 5star as an actress) by the end of her testimony she was admitting they were two drug addicts (in no way am I saying that warrants any outcome to what happened later) I'm just saying she was a poor witness and just came across as a liability.

Regarding your futile arguement about what nelson does/not say to the witnesses ...I suggest you keep looking at some more of your videos/utube/whatever....because you are mistaken..

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

So why did the prosecution bring her in to give evidence? she was useless whether you choose to believe that or not at the begining she made him out to be some saint (I'd give her 5star as an actress) by the end of her testimony she was admitting they were two drug addicts (in no way am I saying that warrants any outcome to what happened later) I'm just saying she was a poor witness and just came across as a liability.

Regarding your futile arguement about what nelson does/not say to the witnesses ...I suggest you keep looking at some more of your videos/utube/whatever....because you are mistaken..

Dodge my question with a question.

A character witness? Like I said, she wasn't there when all this was going on (was she?) What the character of a dead man was seems silly to me, drug abuser, violent criminal etc etc we all know this, accept it.

Oh, I got you.. we all need to be watching it live. It's a big slice of luck I've watched 5 testimonies and one clip that has the same things being said.. if I'm mistaken okay no biggy, I'll not be taken your word for it.

brendanwalsh

Not guilty verdict incoming IMO

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Dodge my question with a question.

A character witness? Like I said, she wasn't there when all this was going on (was she?) What the character of a dead man was seems silly to me, drug abuser, violent criminal etc etc we all know this, accept it.

Oh, I got you.. we all need to be watching it live. It's a big slice of luck I've watched 5 testimonies and one clip that has the same things being said.. if I'm mistaken okay no biggy, I'll not be taken your word for it.

Look, idk how many posts ago I just used Courtney Ross as an example that she came across poorly as a witness for the state.....if you are a prosecutor you don't want someone who will build up someone who you are representing (george floyd) ie:make him sound like a "saint"...five mins later admit he was a drug addict/like her/using other people's prescriptions etc.....it just isn't something a prosecutor would want her saying....
Look idc whether anyone/you watches it live...that's up to you/them...and I also have no problem with you not taking my word for it.....ok?

briany

charlie_says wrote: »

The way the full body cams weren't released until several months after the incident took place was extremely damaging also.

It really helped stoke the emotion unnecessarily.

I'm assuming there are legal reasons why they have to wait to release that stuff.

Watching the raw bodycam footage on Youtube, you see loads of comments about how the media were being very selective in what they were showing, but to be honest, you're always going to be selective unless you're showing full unedited video all the time. It's a problem documentary makers run into, being accused of creating a misleading version of events, but they have to edit down dozens or even hundreds of hours of footage into a feature of watchable length, so yeah they are going to be selective. They have to be, pretty much.

Watching the bodycam, I'm not really sure what makes this look much better for Chauvin. The defence will have to make as much of an argument as they can out of Floyd saying he couldn't breathe before the knee, and therefore the knee had little to do with his death. However, this didn't stop both autopsies ruling the death as a homicide and doesn't exonerate Chauvin from not getting Floyd any help, and basically ignoring Floyd's pleas.

BattleCorp

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Not guilty verdict incoming IMO

I'm probably about 51:49 on it being a not guilty verdict. I think the defence are just about shading it, but it could go either way.

bazermc

An Irish doctor. God us Irish are everywhere.

GreeBo

I don't see the relevance of any drugs or medical issues Floyd had, anyone who has their carotid artery knelt on for 9 mins is probably going to die.

brendanwalsh

This doctor really not good for prosecution.seems to be suggesting it is more than just the neck issues and also the handcuffs and Way George is lying

briany

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't see the relevance of any drugs or medical issues Floyd had, anyone who has their carotid artery knelt on for 9 mins is probably going to die.

Yeah, but if there was clear evidence that he was on the carotid artery, this would be a much more open and shut case. It doesn't seem to be a concept that the prosecution are basing their arguments around, though.

penny piper

briany wrote: »

However, this didn't stop both autopsies ruling the death as a homicide and doesn't exonerate Chauvin from not getting Floyd any help, and basically ignoring Floyd's pleas.[/QUOTD


Didn't the autopsy from the Hannepen Medical office ...add that the amount of drugs/health issues floyd had contributed plus the neck restraint? I agree they both called homicide but slightly differing from the floyd family private autopsy..

Also I read that the prosecution does not the Hannepen Medical office who performed the original autopsy to testify at the trial because they want the admission of drugs/health condition not added in.

Seemingly the prosecution have called atleast 15 medical experts which the original dr. who performed the autopsy is extremely annoyed about..

Call me Al

He's very concise.
And he sounds so so Irish. Not a hint of an American accent.

He testified that Mr Floyd essentially had a pneumonectomy done to him. Crikey!