Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

patnor1011

He killed him that is without a question. There was plenty of time to cuff him or perhaps soften him up with taser or batons. Kneeling on someone's neck for 9 minutes is brutal.
He got what he deserved for that but Maxine being who she is and trying to score some political points just handed him get out of jail card when he appeals.

Morgans

Fandymo wrote: »

In the USA, Black people are more likely to be involved in violent crimes in comparison to white people. These stats have been posted multiple times on multiple threads on Boards.

And that's enough justification for killing unarmed black people, cos you know, just in case.

And people have the cheek to call it racist.

mcmoustache

walshb wrote: »

I see. So it targets people. Not colors.

That’s all I need to know..

That's very simple minded though. You can't discriminate on colour in the United States. They had to stop doing it but the racism didn't just go away. It doesn't work like that.


While you can't discriminate against colour, you can discriminate against things that are done mostly by black people. It allows you to pretend that it's not racist and will be convincing enough for the lower percentiles. A good example is weed. Before it became popular with white people, the US criminalised the crap out of it. Sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine versus regular rich-person cocaine is another.


These examples are obvious to anyone with something between the ears but at the same time, there are enough people who will be convinced that those laws just target people and not black people.

Overheal

walshb wrote: »

No idea what you are on about as regards my specific point..

Simple: anyone, please show me a single law in the U.S. today that is racist? That targets colors.

Just one..

If you can’t, fine. But quit the nonsense trying to find racism/color in these laws when it is not there.

So unless the law in plain text says it is discriminating toward blacks, you see no means by which racists have been able to write laws that are inherently racist?

Police still to this day fight Richard Nixon's war on drugs, and yes, he is a notable racist.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

- John Ehrlichman, Nixon's chief of domestic policy.

briany

patnor1011 wrote: »

He killed him that is without a question. There was plenty of time to cuff him or perhaps soften him up with taser or batons. Kneeling on someone's neck for 9 minutes is brutal.
He got what he deserved for that but Maxine being who she is and trying to score some political points just handed him get out of jail card when he appeals.

Judge Cahill certainly didn't have a high opinion of Waters' words, but he also said that he didn't think it prejudiced the jury.

The people talking about juror bias and outside pressure don't seem to want to contemplate the idea that maybe the jurors simply found the evidence presented against Chauvin to be enough to find him guilty on all three charges. We must assume that jurors act in good faith, otherwise the whole justice system is open for question. The burden of proof is on those who say the jurors did not simply act on the evidence presented in court.

MisterAnarchy

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Are you even willing to accept the fact 12 unarmed blacks were shot, or are you going to pretend it's 1000s?

Alot of people have been brainwashed on this topic by the media and politicians.

A recent survey revealed the extent to which the public is misinformed on the issue of police violence.

Participants across the political spectrum in the nationally representative survey were asked how many unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019.
The results were revealing.
Overall, nearly half of surveyed liberals (44 percent) estimated roughly between 1,000 and 10,000 unarmed black men were killed whereas 20 percent of conservatives estimated the same.
The actual number of unarmed black men killed by the police in 2019 is 14.

The second question the survey asked was: “In 2019, what percentage of people killed by police were Black?” While the survey states that the actual percentage is around 25 percent, the average survey respondent guessed 50 percent (58 percent for liberals and 41 percent for conservatives).

The disconnect between perception and reality couldn’t be starker.

https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/cases-...estimated/amp/

The average liberal was out by a factor of over 70.

Morgans

Overheal wrote: »

So unless the law in plain text says it is discriminating toward blacks, you see no means by which racists have been able to write laws that are inherently racist?

Police still to this day fight Richard Nixon's war on drugs, and yes, he is a notable racist.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

- John Ehrlichman, Nixon's chief of domestic policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

fullstop

Real Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you have anything better to do than give out about Trump all the time?

He's been gone for months, yet you can't stop moaning about him 24/7. True, Trump derangement syndrome in play, folks

The lashings of salt dripping off this are delicious.

Tell me how

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You need to understand, the sort of people defending Floyd are actual racists.

They will tell you they 100% support Affirmative Action.

What is Affirmative Action? Every black person, regardless of family wealth, doesn't need the same exam scores as whites and Asians as they're not smart enough to compete on a level playing field.

It's literally woke people admitting they think blacks are less intelligent than everyone else.

What's amazing is these people are so dumb they think this makes them anti-racist.

You need to realise that none of this is true.

fullstop

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolute showtrial to stop the city burning

Unlucky Eric. He was rightfully convicted and will rot in jail like the scum he is.

Scarlet for a few of the lads jumping through hoops to try to defend this murderer, some very loose fitting masks. bUt bIdEn cOMmEnTEd on the case :pac:

political analyst

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-56833484

Sgt Geraint Jones of Devon and Cornwall Police was off duty when he forwarded an altered image of Mr Floyd's fatal arrest in May 2020.

It went to a private WhatsApp group that included other officers.

The judge at Plymouth Magistrates' Court cleared him on the grounds the prosecution failed to prove the image was not "intended as a joke".

Sgt Jones was charged with sending an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing image via a public electronic communications network, contrary to the Communications Act 2003.

Obviously, Sgt Jones remains suspended pending a disciplinary hearing.

I haven't come across an update on the Gateshead case in which 3 young men were arrested last June for that Snapchat video in which they mocked the murder.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolute showtrial to stop the city burning

Even all his colleagues who appeared on the stand during the trial said that Chauvins actions were unnecessary and contrary to how he had been trained.

Judge Jeanine Pirro of Fox News even said it was a just result.

whysobecause

Faugheen wrote: »

The black president who faced allegations that he was born in Africa?

Talk to Candidate Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, she and her gang started the " Born in Africa " rumor.

Overheal

whysobecause wrote: »

Talk to Candidate Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, she and her gang started the " Born in Africa " rumor.

True or not does that change that Obama received that reception?

whysobecause

Faugheen wrote: »

And if there wasn't systemic, deep-rooted racism in the US then the black man isn't going to be accused of being born in Kenya, is he?

Just because the black man got to the top job doesn't mean the racism stopped. Anyone who even tries to suggest otherwise is either deluded or stupid.

Barack Hussein Obama II has only himself to blame for the whole "born in Africa" problem.
He shouldn't haven't lied in the Bio in one of his books, saying on the back cover that he was born in Africa.

Tell me how

whysobecause wrote: »

Barack Hussein Obama II has only himself to blame for the whole "born in Africa" problem.
He shouldn't haven't lied in the Bio in one of his books, saying on the back cover that he was born in Africa.

Wrong.

In May 2012 the web site Breitbart published a copy of a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by the literary agency Acton & Dystel showcasing their roster of writers, among whom was a young man named Barack Obama. This booklet was of particular interest because it included a brief biographical sketch which described the future President as having been born in Kenya:

..............


The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself:

mcmoustache

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Alot of people have been brainwashed on this topic by the media and politicians.



https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/cases-...estimated/amp/

The average liberal was out by a factor of over 70.

These guys?


https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1384564370307420169

mcmoustache

whysobecause wrote: »

Barack Hussein Obama II has only himself to blame for the whole "born in Africa" problem.
He shouldn't haven't lied in the Bio in one of his books, saying on the back cover that he was born in Africa.

How does one become as misinformed about life as you've managed it?


Seriously, that takes some amount of effort. Do you dismiss everything from places with a good track record as fake news in favour of alternate reality media? I wouldn't mind so much but people like yourself, the chronically misinformed, are multiplying. I know we're not supposed to attack the poster here but there has to be some limit on the level of stupidity that we should be expected to tolerate.

suicide_circus

It's possible that the correct verdict was reached AND that it was impossible for him to receive a fair trial.

If i was in that jury in the knowledge that i would be doxed if i came forth with the wrong verdict...

Once the police chief witness said that the neck kneeling was outside of policy he was done to be fair.

whysobecause

[The editor of the biographical text about Barack Obama which was included in the booklet maintained that the mention of Kenya was an error on her part and was not based on any information provided to her by Obama himself:QUOTE=Tell me how;116965556]Wrong.[/QUOTE]


Well someone came up with the idea to mention born in Africa.
Obama wrote the book and would have supplied information for the Bio.
He is the only person who could have given her any notion of were he was born.
See the problem.
By the way, I personal think, he was born in the US, and just gave some Bullsh!t to the editor about were he was born.

Tell me how

whysobecause wrote: »

Well someone came up with the idea to mention born in Africa.
Obama wrote the book and would have supplied information for the Bio.
He is the only person who could have given her any notion of were he was born.
See the problem.
By the way, I personal think, he was born in the US, and just gave some Bullsh!t to the editor about were he was born.

She literally said he had nothing to do with the error.

Mellor

mcmoustache wrote: »

These guys?


https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1384564370307420169

What point is this account on Twitter trying to make? I’m not following.
Did the NYPost make the entire thing up, or are they criticising the picture. Possibly both.

Mellor

CalisGirl wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think the "superhuman strength" argument was in any way related to his being Black. The superhuman strength seems connected to him having drugs in his system. Drugs can impair a persons perception of the damage they are doing to themselves and others, so they can appear to have super human strength while high. Simply because they care less about the physical consequence of their actions and so won't hold back due to increased pain resistance, adrenaline, etc.

Drugs can numb pain. This means somebody can disregard consequences. An example would be punching a wall full force disregarding the damage it causes to their hands. It doesn't however mean the punch harder or that their strength increases.

Floyd was not stronger because he was high. The same people arguing that also argued that he was he the verged of an opiate overdose. If the latter where true he's be a limp kitten, it's an anaesthetic.

The excuses and justification rolled out by the defence where complete detatched from biology. They couldn't even get the mechanics of the car excuse right.

Quantum Erasure

mcmoustache wrote: »

These guys?


https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/status/1384564370307420169

No, these guys...
https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/civil-unrest-presidential-election-study/

CUPES 007 wrote:

Summary of Findings
1. The available data on police shootings of unarmed Black men is
incomplete; however, existing data indicate that somewhere
between 13-27 unarmed black men were killed by police in
2019. Adjusted for the number of law enforcement agencies that
have yet to provide data, this number may be higher, perhaps
between 60-100.
• Yet, over half (53.5%) of those reporting “very liberal”
political views estimated that 1,000 or more unarmed Black
men were killed, a likely error of at least an order of
magnitude (see Figure 1).
2. The available data suggest that 24.9% of people killed by police
in 2019 were Black. However, across the political spectrum,
survey participants overestimated this number.
• Those who reported being “liberal” or “very liberal” were
particularly inaccurate, estimating the proportion to be 56%
and 60%, respectively (see Figure 2).

Why would you try to discredit the study before even looking at the source?

Quantum Erasure

Oh, and also

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/herpes-covid-vaccine
We asked experts to break down the results of a small new study, which found that herpes zoster might be a side effect of getting vaccinated.


https://www.healthline.com/health/shingles-pictures
Shingles, or herpes zoster, is a common viral infection

OMM 0000

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Why would you try to discredit the study before even looking at the source?

Also, most "unarmed" black men are still attacking police. For example, driving over police with your car is "unarmed".

It is beyond amazing that so many people here don't want to believe the data but instead want to pretend there are hundreds or thousands of unarmed blacks being murdered by police each year. It's literally inventing a fantasy and living in it. Why

punisher5112

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Also, most "unarmed" black men are still attacking police. For example, driving over police with your car is "unarmed".

It is beyond amazing that so many people here don't want to believe the data but instead want to pretend there are hundreds or thousands of unarmed blacks being murdered by police each year. It's literally inventing a fantasy and living in it. Why

Keyboard warrior comes to mind....

Look at the crime rates and how different it is too.

I don't get the big fascination of America here in Ireland, we aren't anything like it and yesterday I hear a guy in Ireland who set up some black Irish group and how this verdict will change how they are treated here in Ireland and how the black people never get justice......

I'm completely gob smacked to be fair as I see no reason for this sh1te in Ireland.

walshb

punisher5112 wrote: »

Keyboard warrior comes to mind....

Look at the crime rates and how different it is too.

I don't get the big fascination of America here in Ireland, we aren't anything like it and yesterday I hear a guy in Ireland who set up some black Irish group and how this verdict will change how they are treated here in Ireland and how the black people never get justice......

I'm completely gob smacked to be fair as I see no reason for this sh1te in Ireland.

It’s nothing but trouble making attention seeking...

Quantum Erasure

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

No, these guys...
https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/civil-unrest-presidential-election-study/




Why would you try to discredit the study before even looking at the source?

A self published study that faces no review of any kind... Ya it's pretty clear why it didn't go beyond the NY post.

Mellor

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

No, these guys...
https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/civil-unrest-presidential-election-study/

Obviously peoples estimates are off. But the data doesn't back up the claim.

Overall, nearly half of surveyed liberals (44 percent) estimated roughly between 1,000 and 10,000 unarmed black men were killed whereas 20 percent of conservatives estimated the same.

30% of Very liberals guess 1000. They are wrong. But it's ridiculous and dishonest to re-categorise their answer as "between 1,000 and 10,000". That wasn't their answer.
You can't merge options and rename them to suit an agenda.

Also, using presenting "very liberal" answers as "liberals". Undermines the point they were making.

As des the footnote that acknowledges that 14 is possible not the actual total.

Fandymo

Morgans wrote: »

And that's enough justification for killing unarmed black people, cos you know, just in case.

And people have the cheek to call it racist.

Ok, Cathy Newman, the rest of us will discuss/debate things and you can just make up/twist what we’re saying by pre-fixing it “so you’re saying.......”

AudreyHepburn

The correct verdict in my opinion. I don’t think anyone can dispute that Chauvin got what he deserves.

I would question however whether he actually got, and could ever really have gotten, a fair trial. And before anyone jumps down my throat I mean fair only in the sense of facing an unbiased jury. I honestly don’t believe there is a single juror anywhere in the States that wouldn’t have convicted him.

Once again he deserves his punishment, I am not in any way disputing that.

Also is it asking to much of people to stop acting as though George Floyd was a saint or some innocent man minding his own business who was attacked out of nowhere by the big bad cops.

He was far from a saint as evidenced by his criminal record and on the day in question he was clearly on drugs and causing problems for the store staff. They were within their rights to call the police and the police were within their rights to restrain him when he resisted arrest.

Chauvin went over and above restraint though - there is never any need to press your knee into some-ones neck.

Ultimately though only Chauvin truly knows why he did it. My own inkling is it was racially motivated but I doubt we will ever know sure.

walshb

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The correct verdict in my opinion. I don’t think anyone can dispute that Chauvin got what he deserves.

I would question however whether he actually got, and could ever really have gotten, a fair trial. And before anyone jumps down my throat I mean fair only in the sense of facing an unbiased jury. I honestly don’t believe there is a single juror anywhere in the States that wouldn’t have convicted him.

Once again he deserves his punishment, I am not in any way disputing that.

Also is it asking to much of people to stop acting as though George Floyd was a saint or some innocent man minding his own business who was attacked out of nowhere by the big bad cops.

He was far from a saint as evidenced by his criminal record and on the day in question he was clearly on drugs and causing problems for the store staff. They were within their rights to call the police and the police were within their rights to restrain him when he resisted arrest.

Chauvin went over and above restraint though - there is never any need to press your knee into some-ones neck.

Ultimately though only Chauvin truly knows why he did it. My own inkling is it was racially motivated but I doubt we will ever know sure.

This post makes a lot of sense. Common sense. Balanced.

The racially motivated part, as in, Chauvin kneeling on George like he did because Chauvin is racist? Nobody can know. I think it was not the reason.

I have always felt that had there been no crowd badgering Chauvin and verbally challenging him, that George would be alive.

Chauvin was sticking it to the crowd. He was clearly irked by their temerity in telling him how to do his job..

Before anyone jumps in. The crowd did not kill George. I am proposing that Chauvin’s reaction/response to the crowd was a factor in George dying.

That doesn’t excuse the OTT restraining. It is simply trying to say why he did it..

Circumstances conspired here to come to the end whereby George died.

Chauvin did not set out to end George’s life. A situation occurred, and things happened during it to end in George dying.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Within hours of the video we've all seen George Floyd's criminal history was known, not sure why it has to be repeated and repeated that he wasn't a Saint, who is saying he was.. I haven't read on the thread or the previous threads.

Just like chauvins previous commendations and 19 year service as an officer it's all going to fade into insignificance when you see a 10 minute video of 4 cops not giving a fcuk as a man lays dying and a crowd of bystanders are asking them to help him.

Baggly

mcmoustache wrote: »

How does one become as misinformed about life as you've managed it?


Seriously, that takes some amount of effort. Do you dismiss everything from places with a good track record as fake news in favour of alternate reality media? I wouldn't mind so much but people like yourself, the chronically misinformed, are multiplying. I know we're not supposed to attack the poster here but there has to be some limit on the level of stupidity that we should be expected to tolerate.

Mod

Threadbanned

Boggles

walshb wrote: »

This post makes a lot of sense. Common sense. Balanced.

The racially motivated part, as in, Chauvin kneeling on George like he did because Chauvin is racist? Nobody can know. I think it was not the reason.

I have always felt that had there been no crowd badgering Chauvin and verbally challenging him, that George would be alive.

Chauvin was sticking it to the crowd. He was clearly irked by their temerity in telling him how to do his job..

Before anyone jumps in. The crowd did not kill George. I am proposing that Chauvin’s reaction/response to the crowd was a factor in George dying.

That doesn’t excuse the OTT restraining. It is simply trying to say why he did it..

Circumstances conspired here to come to the end whereby George died.

Chauvin did not set out to end George’s life. A situation occurred, and things happened during it to end in George dying.

So this absolute psychopath tortured and killed another human to "irk" a crowd, but the notion that he could be racist is completely alien?

:pac:

This is absolutely no fúcking doubt he regarded Floyd as "subhuman".

TomSweeney

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The manuals says to use a variant of the recovery position, which Chauvin did indeed put him on. GF died in this recovery position. The mistake Chauvin made was not checking his pulse and moving him when he became unresponsive. It is also very possible he placed too much pressure on the neck killing him, alternatively it possible he moved to shoulder as GF stopped responding as below and didnt kill him. It is very unclear.

https://twitter.com/louraguse/status/1379171775876055042

Steven Crowder did a pretty cool reconstruction https://youtu.be/5qHLXbVDnkc?t=4681

I like Crowder, I wouldn't agree with him on gun control, pro life and religious issues but he's a good antidote to the woke mob.

MeMen2_MoRi_

walshb wrote: »

This post makes a lot of sense. Common sense. Balanced.

The racially motivated part, as in, Chauvin kneeling on George like he did because Chauvin is racist? Nobody can know. I think it was not the reason.

I have always felt that had there been no crowd badgering Chauvin and verbally challenging him, that George would be alive.

Chauvin was sticking it to the crowd. He was clearly irked by their temerity in telling him how to do his job..

Before anyone jumps in. The crowd did not kill George. I am proposing that Chauvin’s reaction/response to the crowd was a factor in George dying.

That doesn’t excuse the OTT restraining. It is simply trying to say why he did it..

Circumstances conspired here to come to the end whereby George died.

Chauvin did not set out to end George’s life. A situation occurred, and things happened during it to end in George dying.

Can't read his mind for the race part

But we can "read" his mind and what he was thinking about the crowd..

walshb

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

Can't read his mind for the race part

But we can "read" his mind and what he was thinking about the crowd..

No, we cannot. It is something I feel influenced his reaction/behaviour...

Btw, has Chauvin any verifiable incidents of him displaying racist views, behaviours, attitudes about black people.

If so, then the race angle to his behaviour is definitely something to consider..

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

No, we cannot. It is something I feel influenced his reaction/behaviour...

what influenced his behaviour is that he thought the person he was killing was subhuman and not worthy of his consideration. That is just something I feel so is every bit as valid as your feeling.

MeMen2_MoRi_

walshb wrote: »

No, we cannot. It is something I feel influenced his reaction/behaviour...

The racial angle can also be true then surely.. you've railed against the idea it was racially motivated because nobody has proof they have just their thoughts and feelings on it just like you.

walshb

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

The racial angle can also be true then surely.. you've railed against the idea it was racially motivated because nobody has proof they have just their thoughts and feelings on it just like you.

Of course they can..

I simply feel it has not got the vibe/feeling at all for me..

I think the color of George was not the issue.

I reckon Chauvin behaved the same no matter what color was underneath him

I feel his reaction to the crowd was far more a factor in his behaviour compared to the color of the victim.

Morgans

Fandymo wrote: »

Ok, Cathy Newman, the rest of us will discuss/debate things and you can just make up/twist what we’re saying by pre-fixing it “so you’re saying.......”

Sounds good. I'll do that when you stop making points that show up inadvertently the nonsense of what you are saying.

MeMen2_MoRi_

walshb wrote: »

Of course they can..

I simply feel it has not got the vibe/feeling at all for me..

I think the color of George was not the issue.

I reckon Chauvin behaved the same no matter what color was underneath him

I feel his reaction to the crowd was far more a factor in his behaviour compared to the color of the victim.

If I was going on your feelings on things versus people's feelings on it being racial.. I think I'd rather be on the racial side of it. Too some how no matter how small try to place some blame that the bystanders/crowd/witnesses played some role in creating the actions and emotions of chauvin it's some really lower bar thoughts.

When I see the video, I see a man with zero emotions going on.

Edit.. walsh you are seeing a man do actions onto George because of the crowd, is that not more in line with intent to harm and kill him because he was putting it to the crowd.. should the state of went for 1st degree murder

walshb

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

If I was going on your feelings on things versus people's feelings on it being racial.. I think I'd rather be on the racial side of it. Too some how no matter how small try to place some blame that the bystanders/crowd/witnesses played some role in creating the actions and emotions of chauvin it's some really lower bar thoughts.

When I see the video, I see a man with zero emotions going on.

Edit.. walsh you are seeing a man do actions onto George because of the crowd, is that not more in line with intent to harm and kill him because he was putting it to the crowd.. should the state of went for 1st degree murder

Yes. Good points.

Not sure how they could prove deliberate intent to kill..

Although I feel the crowd influenced Chauvin’s behaviour, to show that Chauvin also then wanted to kill George is not clean cut..

briany

If you're a beat cop long enough, it's pretty much guaranteed that you'll have made arrests where bystanders are giving you hassle/abuse. Now, if that hassle is physical, obviously that would necessitate a modified response because you've now to deal with more than one threat. But if that hassle was only of a verbal nature, you have to be able to put that aside and carry on with the arrest.

The bystanders in the case of George Floyd did not physically assault Chauvin in any way, so even if the idea that Chauvin's behaviour was in reaction to the crowd, it only makes him look the more unprofessional.

Mellor

walshb wrote: »

Chauvin was sticking it to the crowd. He was clearly irked by their temerity in telling him how to do his job.

I don’t disagree with that.
The crowd were telling him how to do his job, he clearly didn’t like that. The fact they were correct, and he knew they were right (from his training) became irrelevant. His ego took over, and he decided to stick it to them and flex.

However, the fact he took that risk with Floyd’s well-being was not only reckless, which satisfies the manslaughter charge, it also showed a blatant disregard for the life of another, which elevates it to murder.

Chauvin did not set out to end George’s life. A situation occurred, and things happened during it to end in George dying.

I also agree he didn’t set out to kill him at start or any point.

Mellor

walshb wrote: »

I think the color of George was not the issue.

I reckon Chauvin behaved the same no matter what color was underneath him.

Ok. Let’s say that’s true.
Does that affect his crime, or his guilt?


None of the charges involve racism. Nether the motivation nor the crime.
The fact is he causes the death of another. Their race isn’t part of that crime.

walshb

Mellor wrote: »

Ok. Let’s say that’s true.
Does that affect his crime, or his guilt?


None of the charges involve racism. Nether the motivation nor the crime.
The fact is he causes the death of another. Their race isn’t part of that crime.

Agreed..

He deserves to be held accountable for his actions that day.

osarusan

Mellor wrote: »

Ok. Let’s say that’s true.
Does that affect his crime, or his guilt?

None of the charges involve racism. Nether the motivation nor the crime.
The fact is he causes the death of another. Their race isn’t part of that crime.

This is all true, but the theme of a racist element to the crime has been introduced to the thread in the last 36 hours or so (now that the verdict is in and there's not much to talk about in that sense, the thread has changed completely).

In my case, I haven't been convinced at all by the posts I've seen that there is a racial aspect to it, or to the defence of it.

Within the wider context of American policing and the history of the black community in America, the case being viewed through that wider lens of race-relations was inevitable, but in terms of what happened on the day itself, I don't see the argument that race was obviously a factor.

The same kind of thing could happen, and has happened (Tony Timpa) to non-black victims also.