Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Doggos

This cop was not scared of George Floyd. While he was kneeling on his neck in an illegal manner, the look on his face seemed to be one drunk on power maybe even enjoying it. His hand was in his pocket casual like. That's not how someone postures when you're afraid to be overpowered.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F05%2F29%2Fus%2Fderek-chauvin-criminal-complaint.html&psig=AOvVaw11jqo-1Y_-EL5Ml8mg2N-T&ust=1618220051262000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCNj43s3x9e8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD[/IMG]

osarusan

Doggos wrote: »

This cop was not scared of George Floyd. While he was kneeling on his neck in an illegal manner, the look on his face seemed to be one drunk on power maybe even enjoying it. His hand was in his pocket casual like. That's not how someone postures when you're afraid to be overpowered.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F05%2F29%2Fus%2Fderek-chauvin-criminal-complaint.html&psig=AOvVaw11jqo-1Y_-EL5Ml8mg2N-T&ust=1618220051262000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCNj43s3x9e8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD[/IMG]

His hand isn't in his pocket, he's just wearing gloves.


I don't know about him being drunk on power either, though I do agree with whoever said earlier that there may have been an attitude from him that he can't be seen to agree with or bow down to the onlookers because it looks weak or less dominant, so when they were shouting at him to get off of Floyd, check his pulse, etc, then that became the thing he just wouldn't do.

Doggos

osarusan wrote: »

His hand isn't in his pocket, he's just wearing gloves.


I don't know about him being drunk on power either, though I do agree with whoever said earlier that there may have been an attitude from him that he can't be seen to agree with or bow down to the onlookers because it looks weak or less dominant, so when they were shouting at him to get off of Floyd, check his pulse, etc, then that became the thing he just wouldn't do.

Sorry but I think you are incorrect.

The firefighter at the scene who tried to intervene gave testimony under oath his hand was in his pocket.

"Hansen, who video recorded some of the episode, said Chauvin, who did not speak to her, "seemed very comfortable" with the majority of his weight balanced on top of Floyd's neck.

"In my memory, he had his hand in his pocket he looked so comfortable," Hansen said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mixed-martial-arts-fighter-derek-chauvin-george-floyd/story?id=76766623

But to me it's clear from video and witnesses, Chauvin's demeanour and actions were not those of one who is scared or worried.

penny piper

Doggos wrote: »

Sorry but I think you are incorrect.

The firefighter at the scene who tried to intervene gave testimony under oath his hand was in his pocket.

"Hansen, who video recorded some of the episode, said Chauvin, who did not speak to her, "seemed very comfortable" with the majority of his weight balanced on top of Floyd's neck.

"In my memory, he had his hand in his pocket he looked so comfortable," Hansen said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/mixed-martial-arts-fighter-derek-chauvin-george-floyd/story?id=76766623

But to me it's clear from video and witnesses, Chauvin's demeanour and actions were not those of one who is scared or worried.

Is that the same fire fighter that thought floyd was a small slim man? ...

Is that the same fire fighter who thought the fluid that was on the ground was bodily fluid (urine) but was not? and was quite clearly seen on another officer's cam that the fluid was there before floyd was on the ground?

The police officer's hand was resting on his own thigh ...he had black gloves on against his black trousers...hence from a distance it did look like he had in his hand in his pocket ...but it wasn't.....she was mostly over on the sidewalk ....using her iphone.

Doggos

penny piper wrote: »

Is that the same fire fighter that thought floyd was a small slim man? ...

Is that the same fire fighter who thought the fluid that was on the ground was bodily fluid (urine) but was not? and was quite clearly seen on another officer's cam that the fluid was there before floyd was on the ground?

The police officer's hand was resting on his own thigh ...he had black gloves on against his black trousers...hence from a distance it did look like he had in his hand in his pocket ...but it wasn't.....she was mostly over on the sidewalk ....using her iphone.

I don't know, but have you a link about any of that? Does it matter? Is it odd to assume fluid near someone who is past distress could be bodily fluid? It comes across like you're trying to discredit the witness. I don't think any one person's perspective has the monopoly on the truth, it's the compilation of accounts and evidence that can get to as accurate a picture as possible.

It's possible his hand was in/out of his pocket. It's possible it was never in the pocket, but appeared to be. Regardless, the look on his face, the casual demeanour and the disregard of training and life says a lot to me.

Call me Al

penny piper wrote: »

Is that the same fire fighter that thought floyd was a small slim man? ...

Is that the same fire fighter who thought the fluid that was on the ground was bodily fluid (urine) but was not? and was quite clearly seen on another officer's cam that the fluid was there before floyd was on the ground?

The police officer's hand was resting on his own thigh ...he had black gloves on against his black trousers...hence from a distance it did look like he had in his hand in his pocket ...but it wasn't.....she was mostly over on the sidewalk ....using her iphone.

Where was her opinion about the urine discounted?
I've not seen that discussed.

penny piper

Doggos wrote: »

I don't know, but have you a link about any of that? Does it matter? Is it odd to assume fluid near someone who is past distress could be bodily fluid? It comes across like you're trying to discredit the witness. I don't think any one person's perspective has the monopoly on the truth, it's the compilation of accounts and evidence that can get to as accurate a picture as possible.

It's possible his hand was in/out of his pocket. It's possible it was never in the pocket, but appeared to be. Regardless, the look on his face, the casual demeanour and the disregard of training and life says a lot to me.

She testified that in court regarding how she thought he was a small,slim guy.
I'm sorry I can't remember what officer's body cam showed the fluid clearly before floyd was on the ground.
If you are in court and trying to defend someone I should imagine every shred of evidence counts...not maybe's/not sure/ you need to bring up an accurate picture of what happened that day....to defend your client.

I don't need to discredit the witness there because that is what she said and that was proved to be wrong in court by chauvan's defense lawyer. (not all of what she said but just the facts I quoted).

Regarding his hand in his pocket ...that was used by many to show he wasn't bothered/casual about the whole situation when it's quite clear his hand wasn't in his pocket.....

I didn't think any of those officers acted in a "casual" manner at all...
Not everyone when they are doing a job of any kind will act "to the book"...you act how the circumstances dictate.

penny piper

Call me Al wrote: »

Where was her opinion about the urine discounted?
I've not seen that discussed.

In court it was discussed/brought up by nelson the defense lawyer and agreed it came from the car ....idk condensation or something ....and also one of the officer's body cam showed before floyd ever went near the ground the fluid was on the ground.

Biker79

Doggos wrote: »

It's possible his hand was in/out of his pocket. It's possible it was never in the pocket, but appeared to be. Regardless, the look on his face, the casual demeanour and the disregard of training and life says a lot to me.

The look on Chauvins face can be interpreted in different ways. Thats why its important to gather all of the facts of the situation first.

People need to be more visually literate. Another example of visual/ narrative incongruence - fiery but mostly peaceful protests

MeMen2_MoRi_

I'm interested in seeing if the defence have their own pulmonologist coming in to counter the testimony from Dr. Tobin. Do they just accept that and move on and keep focus on the heart condition, drugs consumed, the threat the cops may of felt with the crowd, maybe they were distracted by the crowd..

osarusan

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I'm interested in seeing if the defence have their own pulmonologist coming in to counter the testimony from Dr. Tobin. Do they just accept that and move on and keep focus on the heart condition, drugs consumed, the threat the cops may of felt with the crowd, maybe they were distracted by the crowd..

Just my layman's opinion, but I think the defence's best chance is to cast enough doubt on the 'homicide' verdict.

If they don't do that, they either have to justify it, or else provide convincing evidence that it was something other than negligence, and I can't see how they are going to do that.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

I'm interested in seeing if the defence have their own pulmonologist coming in to counter the testimony from Dr. Tobin. Do they just accept that and move on and keep focus on the heart condition, drugs consumed, the threat the cops may of felt with the crowd, maybe they were distracted by the crowd..

I'd imagine the defense team will bring in experts to answer the question how did floyd die.. The defense team will argue he died due to his heart condition/drug use....and the experts they will bring in will argue this point making it more technical in nature and less emotional.
I read that there was only expected to be two days of defense witnesses so there can't be many experts/or witnesses idk ......

MeMen2_MoRi_

osarusan wrote: »

Just my layman's opinion, but I think the defence's best chance is to cast enough doubt on the 'homicide' verdict.

If they don't do that, they either have to justify it, or else provide convincing evidence that it was something other than negligence, and I can't see how they are going to do that.

Yeah I agree with, before seeing Dr tobin's testimony I was giving the murder charges little hope because the high bar the state has to jump over to convict cops murder 2/3 what ever.. the manslaughter one o feel it isn't justice yet it's something.

With some of witnesses the defence has tried too lead the case to it was their fault for being there, cursing at the cops/being loud obstructing cops from doing their duty etc

With the forensic pathologist.. the defence creates a situation that if you remove the cops/drugs from the facts and George is at home and he dies, she looks at things would she come to the conclusion that it was the heart condition that killed him, she answered yes. Prosecution made sh!te of that argument when they re questioned her.

The amount of detail tobin put into the testimony he provided it needs too be put into question, defence did feck all when questioning him. The jurors taking part in his "if you touch here and here" I'd say will sit long with them.

Sand

penny piper wrote: »

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.

This is the core issue. Chauvin's defence lawyers are doing a very good job embarrassing the prosecution but this is a political show trial with a foregone conclusion.

The deck is completely stacked against Chauvin. Even in the case of the jury, the selected jurists are all either very positive, somewhat positive or at worst neutral towards BLM. To that you have to add the cities wrongful death settlement with the Floyd family, which seemed to be timed to influence the trial. At the end of the day, the jury is primarily constructed from people who are no different from Genevieve Hansen. The defence can do a good job, but the outcome is predetermined.

briany

Sand wrote: »

This is the core issue. Chauvin's defence lawyers are doing a very good job embarrassing the prosecution but this is a political show trial with a foregone conclusion.

The deck is completely stacked against Chauvin. Even in the case of the jury, the selected jurists are all either very positive, somewhat positive or at worst neutral towards BLM. To that you have to add the cities wrongful death settlement with the Floyd family, which seemed to be timed to influence the trial. At the end of the day, the jury is primarily constructed from people who are no different from Genevieve Hansen. The defence can do a good job, but the outcome is predetermined.

The jurors were questioned on this topic and one did respond that they supported BLM, but in the wider context of all lives mattering, and another said they support the idea, but not what the movement has become.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/jurors-derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-case

There's actually a lot of nuance to their views on this topic. Anyone coming in with a BLM t-shirt on, shouting "Defund the police!" would obviously have been struck off the jury. Several on the jury also wrote on the questionnaire that they felt favourable towards Blue Lives Matter. At least one juror returned a negative view of Black Lives Matter. Obviously, getting jurors to be as neutral as possible is tough in a case like this where the incident is so publicised, but if that makes it unfair, then it could be that every high profile jury case in the USA is potentially unfair.

The case against Chauvin is already strong enough that his team offered a plea deal. Maybe, *gasp* he'll be convicted because he's actually guilty of a crime.

Mellor

Sand wrote: »

Even in the case of the jury, the selected jurists are all either very positive, somewhat positive or at worst neutral towards BLM.

The defense had the ability to reject jurors. And strong BLM supporters would have been obvious rejections

Sand

Sand wrote: »

This is the core issue. Chauvin's defence lawyers are doing a very good job embarrassing the prosecution but this is a political show trial with a foregone conclusion.

The deck is completely stacked against Chauvin. Even in the case of the jury, the selected jurists are all either very positive, somewhat positive or at worst neutral towards BLM. To that you have to add the cities wrongful death settlement with the Floyd family, which seemed to be timed to influence the trial. At the end of the day, the jury is primarily constructed from people who are no different from Genevieve Hansen. The defence can do a good job, but the outcome is predetermined.

So basically you think the trial is inherently unfair?

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

So basically you think the trial is inherently unfair?

Yes ...

penny piper

briany wrote: »

The jurors were questioned on this topic and one did respond that they supported BLM, but in the wider context of all lives mattering, and another said they support the idea, but not what the movement has become.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/jurors-derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-case

There's actually a lot of nuance to their views on this topic. Anyone coming in with a BLM t-shirt on, shouting "Defund the police!" would obviously have been struck off the jury. Several on the jury also wrote on the questionnaire that they felt favourable towards Blue Lives Matter. At least one juror returned a negative view of Black Lives Matter. Obviously, getting jurors to be as neutral as possible is tough in a case like this where the incident is so publicised, but if that makes it unfair, then it could be that every high profile jury case in the USA is potentially unfair.

Why is this a "high profile case"? don't they have other cases of police in america brought to court for their actions?

Why did one of the jurors when questioned said "This is one of the most historic cases of my lifetime and I want to be part of it?


I don't understand

ek motor

Irrespective of his guilt or innocence, this man cannot possibly get a fair trial given the angle of the media coverage. Saturation coverage at that.

penny piper

Is it often that you get the national guard/razor fencing protecting a courthouse/riots/intimidation in cases involving police officers in the usa?
What makes Derek Chauvan's case so different?

ek motor

penny piper wrote: »

Is it often that you get the national guard/razor fencing protecting a courthouse/riots/intimidation in cases involving police officers in the usa?
What makes Derek Chauvan's case so different?

His case is a foregone conclusion. The media has set this up as n 'historic' trial. If he were to be acquitted there would be utter carnage across major US cities.

Mellor

ek motor wrote: »

Irrespective of his guilt or innocence, this man cannot possibly get a fair trial given the angle of the media coverage. Saturation coverage at that.

Can you explain how media coverage of the trial impacts the fairness - ie the outcome?

All_in_Flynn

Ah I see the usual suspects have now come full circle. They were lecturing people about burning city's etc last week as they were full sure he was going to get off. After a week of testimony that punched holes in their arguments it's now got to the point where the trial is rigged.

briany

There is a high likelihood that Chauvin will be convicted of something. I'd have to think he'll at least get convicted on one of the lesser manslaughter charges. All this talk of the deck being stacked against Chauvin and trying to downplay his own responsibility in the matter is just weaselly. Sometimes you have to accept you stack the deck against yourself with poor actions that have negative consequences. Some will say that it was George Floyd's actions that got him killed, but nothing of what he did was a capital crime, and it didn't even warrant his cries for breath being ignored, if he was having a heart attack or OD. You can dance around it all you want, and bring in all your red herrings and all your strawmen, but it doesn't really change that Chauvin's on video, with his hands in his pockets, knee on Floyd's neck, casual as you like, while Floyd dies under him.

Fandymo

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Ah I see the usual suspects have now come full circle. They were lecturing people about burning city's etc last week as they were full sure he was going to get off. After a week of testimony that punched holes in their arguments it's now got to the point where the trial is rigged.

Guilty, not Guilty, hung jury. Doesn't matter. Cities will burn. It's what BLM and Antifa do.

Guilty: there will be celebrations which will turn into looting and rioting once it gets dark.

Not Guilty: there will be riots and looting.

Hung jury: there will be riots and looting.

ek motor

ek motor wrote: »

His case is a foregone conclusion. The media has set this up as n 'historic' trial. If he were to be acquitted there would be utter carnage across major US cities.

I suspect you guys ordinarily don't say a single word about other high profile cases...

penny piper

briany wrote: »

There is a high likelihood that Chauvin will be convicted of something. I'd have to think he'll at least get convicted on one of the lesser manslaughter charges. All this talk of the deck being stacked against Chauvin and trying to downplay his own responsibility in the matter is just weaselly. Sometimes you have to accept you stack the deck against yourself with poor actions that have negative consequences. Some will say that it was George Floyd's actions that got him killed, but nothing of what he did was a capital crime, and it didn't even warrant his cries for breath being ignored, if he was having a heart attack or OD. You can dance around it all you want, and bring in all your red herrings and all your strawmen, but it doesn't really change that Chauvin's on video, with his hands in his pockets, knee on Floyd's neck, casual as you like, while Floyd dies under him.

note: his hands were not in his pockets/and he wasn't acting casual....

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect you guys ordinarily don't say a single word about other high profile cases...

Why should it be labeled a "high profile case"???what's the reason?

penny piper

penny piper wrote: »

Why should it be labeled a "high profile case"???what's the reason?

It was filmed and the accused is a police officer.