Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

penny piper

bazermc wrote: »

Isn’t it a case the prosecution lawyers weren’t too happy with the ME report so that is why they hired so many third party investigators.

Yes, supposidly the prosecution didn't like about the contributory factors/health/drug issue that Hannepin Medical Examiner had on the autopsy report he submitted.

Mellor

BattleCorp wrote: »

The jury might be swayed to believe that Chauvin was distracted by the hostile crowd etc. That might, just might, prove to be a mitigating factor and keep him out of jail..............in which case Minneapolis will burn.

The distraction argument could be a credible defence to the Murder 2 charge. But at the same time, using it essentially admits the manslaughter charge.

I’ve always felt that murder 2 would be hard to prove here, as it involves more than we can see on tape.
But the Murder 3 charge is fully in play. Essentially that’s the trial imo.

penny piper

Personally, I think that Hannepin's medical examiner worked out really well for the defense ....you only had to look at the prosecutor's face when he explained about Floyd's heart condition was a big factor ..in that he would need more oxygen than a "normal" person in the same situation.....it really makes you think that how are arresting officer's to know if someone has an underlying medical condition that might impact on the restraint they are using.....
The previous pathologist Ms.Thomas mentioned blood ... she didn't seem to know/mention that there was blood inside the police car only bringing up that it might have been from when floyd was on the ground (no doubt could be) she also didn't know when questioned by Nelson which directions his abrasions were on the body.
The very idea that the state will try to persistantly undermine the Doctor/Medical Examiner's findings by bringing up more/more experts looks very bad for the state.

Movementarian

penny piper wrote: »

Personally, I think that Hannepin's medical examiner worked out really well for the defense ....you only had to look at the prosecutor's face when he explained about Floyd's heart condition was a big factor ..in that he would need more oxygen than a "normal" person in the same situation.....it really makes you think that how are arresting officer's to know if someone has an underlying medical condition that might impact on the restraint they are using.....
The previous pathologist Ms.Thomas mentioned blood ... she didn't seem to know/mention that there was blood inside the police car only bringing up that it might have been from when floyd was on the ground (no doubt could be) she also didn't know when questioned by Nelson which directions his abrasions were on the body.
The very idea that the state will try to persistantly undermine the Doctor/Medical Examiner's findings by bringing up more/more experts looks very bad for the state.

Have to disagree. You don't need to be a rocket surgeryist to know that kneeling on someones neck for 9 mins is lethal regardless of what condition someone is in.

Add that to the simple facts that the man was handcuffed behind his back, prone on the ground with 3 men leaning on him. There is zero defence for the knee to the neck action and I think all this bluff about condition/drugs etc will be and should be seen through easily.

penny piper

Movementarian wrote: »

Have to disagree. You don't need to be a rocket surgeryist to know that kneeling on someones neck for 9 mins is lethal regardless of what condition someone is in.

Add that to the simple facts that the man was handcuffed behind his back, prone on the ground with 3 men leaning on him. There is zero defence for the knee to the neck action and I think all this bluff about condition/drugs etc will be and should be seen through easily.

It's only my opinion and I accept everyone has their own.

This is a problem with the case you will have experts disagreeing with experts ...like Dr.Baker (dr.who actucally perfermed the autopsy) differing with the other patholigist Dr.Thomas on certain things. He also said Chauvan's knee would not cut off oxygen to floyd's neck.

You can't call it "bluff" if the medical examiner who performed the autopsy said Floyd's heart condition contributed/also the drugs could have.

Dr.Tobin mentioned about handcuffs where they were placed on floyd's back....do minneapolis police officer's have a directive on that when using the prone/restraint position?..idk

Lots of experts will come up with differing conclusions in this case.

Everyone will say the police officers shouldn't have done/this/that but none of us were/have been in that situation...depending on the circumstances people will act usually with the best intent.......

The restraint is dangerous and Minneapolis police dept do allow their officer's to use it ....that's who I hold to account.

Biker79

I'm sure the police procedures on dealing with how to contain suspects are based around more regular situations when suspects are resisting arrest.

But when you have someone who is actively trying to sabotage the situation by overdosing on drugs, is there a procedure for that?

Drug addicts know police may not be inclined to pursue an arrest if it means causing injury, and all the hassle that could go with that - personal injury claims, civil rights lawyers etc. Floyd did exactly this in 2019 and managed to avoid being arrested. It's a common strategy among drug addicts, they use their poor health as a defense mechanism for their criminal behavior. Another example of this strategy is addicts threatening to throw blood at police - not unheard of in Dublin during the Heroin/ HIV crises of the 80s.

Do you let them away with their criminal behavior on that basis, or do you risk your/ their life & health by following through with the arrest?

My guess is that Chauvin arrived on the scene and thought not today champ. You had your chance. It's now a question of whether Floyds health was so bad that containing him would have been fatal not matter what. Or, if it can be proven the same outcome would come about for anyone being held in that position.

Very tough situation for police to make a call on.

Perhaps what's needed from this case is a review of how to engage with these kind of drug compromised criminals. Perhaps the knee to the neck is only suitable for criminals who haven't compromised their health with drugs.

briany

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd say the defence will make a big deal of Floyd claiming he couldn't breathe long before he was put on the ground.

Whether it'll be enough to help Chauvin, I don't know.

There's a long way to go before the end of it.

Will be hard to hold up. The testimony by dr. Tobin was pretty in depth in showing how Floyd's ability to breath unobstructed would have been close to normal for a man of his age. At this point, my suspicion is that the jurors are unconvinced that Floyd would have died anyway, which would make the knee, and the weight behind it the greatest contributing factor, and Chauvin culpable.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Mellor wrote: »

The distraction argument could be a credible defence to the Murder 2 charge. But at the same time, using it essentially admits the manslaughter charge.

I’ve always felt that murder 2 would be hard to prove here, as it involves more than we can see on tape.
But the Murder 3 charge is fully in play. Essentially that’s the trial imo.

Agreed. This is one reason I thought it was a little silly that the federal da turned down the plea bargain for murder 3 that the state da and Chauvin agreed to.

penny piper

Biker79 wrote: »

I'm sure the police procedures on dealing with how to contain suspects are based around more regular situations when suspects are resisting arrest.

But when you have someone who is actively trying to sabotage the situation by overdosing on drugs, is there a procedure for that?

Drug addicts know police may not be inclined to pursue an arrest if it means causing injury, and all the hassle that could go with that - personal injury claims, civil rights lawyers etc. Floyd did exactly this in 2019 and managed to avoid being arrested. It's a common strategy among drug addicts, they use their poor health as a defense mechanism for their criminal behavior. Another example of this strategy is addicts threatening to throw blood at police - not unheard of in Dublin during the Heroin/ HIV crises of the 80s.

Do you let them away with their criminal behavior on that basis, or do you risk your/ their life & health by following through with the arrest?

My guess is that Chauvin arrived on the scene and thought not today champ. You had your chance. It's now a question of whether Floyds health was so bad that containing him would have been fatal not matter what. Or, if it can be proven the same outcome would come about for anyone being held in that position.

Very tough situation for police to make a call on.

Perhaps what's needed from this case is a review of how to engage with these kind of drug compromised criminals. Perhaps the knee to the neck is only suitable for criminals who haven't compromised their health with drugs.

I'd agree with you.....I'd also describe Floyd as a "ticking timebomb"....in other words he could have taken drugs that day had an altercation with anyone and died....
Problem is how are ordinary police officers suppose to know the criminal you are dealing/restraining with has an underlying health condition.
i also heard that one of the trainers called Johnny? (forget his second name) said he had restrained someone for 10 mins in that restraint.
I don't understand why chauvan ever was going to accep/look for a plea deal either previously... I think about 10years? to me that would be like an admission of guilt unless he knows he's going to get a much higher sentence because of the situation regarding blm involvement/riots/protests expected across minnepolis /usa if he doesn't get found guilty....

Penn

penny piper wrote: »

I'd agree with you.....I'd also describe Floyd as a "ticking timebomb"....in other words he could have taken drugs that day had an altercation with anyone and died....
Problem is how are ordinary police officers suppose to know the criminal you are dealing/restraining with has an underlying health condition.
i also heard that one of the trainers called Johnny? (forget his second name) said he had restrained someone for 10 mins in that restraint.
I don't understand why chauvan ever was going to accept a plea deal either previously... I think about 10years? to me that would be like an admission of guilt unless he knows he's going to get a much higher sentence because of the situation regarding blm involvement/riots/protests expected across minnepolis /usa if he doesn't get found guilty....

The thing about restraining someone in that type of restraint for ten minutes, or like someone here repeatedly mentions how Chauvin once restrained someone like that for about 15 minutes, is that a difference in knee position of about an inch could make all the difference. Given how dangerous a maneuver it is if it goes wrong, the onus is on the officer to ensure the person being restrained doesn't come to harm. Chauvin did not do that.

Regardless, the officers may not have known whether Floyd had taken drugs or how much, they wouldn't have known if he had underlying health conditions, and may not have known if he had a criminal past or not. But none of that matters because Chauvin kept his knee in a dangerous position on Floyd for far longer than was necessary and without exercising due care.

And the fact they continued to maintain that position after he lost consciousness is a pretty big deal...

Biker79

He was already given duty of care for up to 45 mins/ 1 hour. He chose not to avail of this and pursued a strategy of sabotaging the arrest.

At the very least he shares responsibility for the outcome, on that basis.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

He was already given duty of care for up to 45 mins/ 1 hour. He chose not to avail of this and pursued a strategy of sabotaging the arrest.

At the very least he shares responsibility for the outcome, on that basis.

And now you're inventing a strange basis where duty of care ceased to apply. So it no longer applies even if the person entirely ceased to pose a risk? Suspect they'll struggle to argue that it no longer applies.

penny piper

Penn wrote: »

The thing about restraining someone in that type of restraint for ten minutes, or like someone here repeatedly mentions how Chauvin once restrained someone like that for about 15 minutes, is that a difference in knee position of about an inch could make all the difference. Given how dangerous a maneuver it is if it goes wrong, the onus is on the officer to ensure the person being restrained doesn't come to harm. Chauvin did not do that.

Regardless, the officers may not have known whether Floyd had taken drugs or how much, they wouldn't have known if he had underlying health conditions, and may not have known if he had a criminal past or not. But none of that matters because Chauvin kept his knee in a dangerous position on Floyd for far longer than was necessary and without exercising due care.

Didn't Hannepin medical examiner who performed the autopsy say he died from having his neck compressed because of an underlying health/heart condition and that Chauvan's Knee would not cut off Floyd's oxygen?

The police officers called for help twice...didn't Nicole Mackenzie a police instructor for Minneapolis police dept say that in certain situations police will not give medical aid ...until an ambulance arrives? The defense team are to question her again on Tuesday....

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

And now you're inventing a strange basis where duty of care ceased to apply. So it no longer applies even if the person entirely ceased to pose a risk? Suspect they'll struggle to argue that it no longer applies.

It doesn't cease to apply.

But duty of care had been demonstrated for most the duration of the incident. It didn't get them anywhere. So therefore its less of an argument that the police were negligent/ failing in duty of care.

For 85% of the time, they were so polite you could invite them around to your mums for tea. But in the end, this only emboldens criminals, as the police well know.

penny piper

penny piper wrote: »

Personally, I think that Hannepin's medical examiner worked out really well for the defense ....you only had to look at the prosecutor's face when he explained about Floyd's heart condition was a big factor ..in that he would need more oxygen than a "normal" person in the same situation.....it really makes you think that how are arresting officer's to know if someone has an underlying medical condition that might impact on the restraint they are using.....
The previous pathologist Ms.Thomas mentioned blood ... she didn't seem to know/mention that there was blood inside the police car only bringing up that it might have been from when floyd was on the ground (no doubt could be) she also didn't know when questioned by Nelson which directions his abrasions were on the body.
The very idea that the state will try to persistantly undermine the Doctor/Medical Examiner's findings by bringing up more/more experts looks very bad for the state.

Eggshell skull rule applies.

Arguing a certain person would be easier to kill, does not absolve the perpetrator if they commit the action that ultimately caused the death.

penny piper

Biker79 wrote: »

It doesn't cease to apply.

But duty of care had been demonstrated for most the duration of the incident. It didn't get them anywhere. So therefore its less of an argument that the police were negligent/ failing in duty of care.

For 85% of the time, they were so polite you could invite them around to your mums for tea. But in the end, this only emboldens criminals, as the police well know.

I seem to recall the police officers telling floyd they would open windows for him in the car/air conditioning etc....he wanted to get out of the car....was kicking the officers when he first went on the ground....had remains of some tablet/froth/foam on his lips......
The police called for medical help for him twice.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

It doesn't cease to apply.

But duty of care had been demonstrated for most the duration of the incident. It didn't get them anywhere. So therefore its less of an argument that the police were negligent/ failing in duty of care.

For 85% of the time, they were so polite you could invite them around to your mums for tea. But in the end, this only emboldens criminals, as the police well know.

Continuing to kneel on an unconscious man's neck for a number of minutes is negligent. By continuing to do so, he basically eliminated any chance of survival. Also the fact you've previously tried to blame his death on the crowd of onlookers doesn't exactly indicate you're the most confident in your own arguments...

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

Continuing to kneel on an unconscious man's neck for a number of minutes is negligent. By continuing to do so, he basically eliminated any chance of survival. Also the fact you've previously tried to blame his death on the crowd of onlookers doesn't exactly indicate you're the most confident in your own arguments...

Did you listen to any of the testimony from Nicole Mackenzie? the minneapolis police instructor who was called to give evidence by the state and will now come back tuesday at the request of the defense?

Munstergirl854

How long is the trial.expected to last?

I wouldnt care to be a Minneapolis business owner waiting on that result...

penny piper

Munstergirl854 wrote: »

How long is the trial.expected to last?

I wouldnt care to be a Minneapolis business owner waiting on that result...

I think it's suppose to last 4 weeks..

McCrack

Leaving aside all the legal, technical and medical expert evidence for a moment just the mere fact that ordinary bystanders witnessing this incident felt there was something occurring that was very wrong.. That cannot be overlooked and the jury are also ordinary members of society. For that reason alone Chauvin is going to be convicted, it's just a matter of what degree of culpability

penny piper

[HTML][/HTML]

Deleted User wrote: »

Eggshell skull rule applies.

Arguing a certain person would be easier to kill, does not absolve the perpetrator if they commit the action that ultimately caused the death.

Does that not only apply to personal injury lawsuits?

penny piper

penny piper wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]

Does that not only apply to personal injury lawsuits?

No it's a part of criminal law too.

bazermc

I’m really looking forward to seeing who exactly Eric Nelson is going to call Chauvins defence on this one.

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

Continuing to kneel on an unconscious man's neck for a number of minutes is negligent. By continuing to do so, he basically eliminated any chance of survival. Also the fact you've previously tried to blame his death on the crowd of onlookers doesn't exactly indicate you're the most confident in your own arguments...

Back to your old word twisting again. :rolleyes:

I didnt - I said the crowd could have been a threat as they could in any similar situation, or words to that effect.

No offense but you're making some very poor points here.

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

Continuing to kneel on an unconscious man's neck for a number of minutes is negligent. By continuing to do so, he basically eliminated any chance of survival. Also the fact you've previously tried to blame his death on the crowd of onlookers doesn't exactly indicate you're the most confident in your own arguments...

Just a general question you might know what stage did the police officer say that floyd had no pulse, what time was that at?

Nicole Mackenzie training officer with minneapolis police dept...did say that crowds/situations did affect how officers would deal with situations...even the paramedics moved the ambulance because of the crowd/noise they testified that../she also spoke about how officers in certain circumstances would not give medical treatment until an ambulance arrived ...

George floyd could have died at any time/agitation....he had a serious heart problem also .needed more oxygen than someone else who would have been put in that restraint position.....it throws doubt ...imo...don't worry chauvan will receive the max sentence no matter what.....outside the courtroom circumstances dictate.

Lemon Davis lll

Folks, it's Hennepin County

newhouse87

Irish expert was brilliant to watch, i didn't know Chauvin had kneeled on his neck for minutes after he stopped breathing, that is simply inexcusable, he will be done for minimum manslaughter and rightly so.

bazermc

Lemon Davis lll wrote: »

Folks, it's Hennepin County

And that means?? Not being smart but I’ve no idea.