Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Billy Mays

TomSweeney wrote: »

Add in to the mix the police leaving in droves and who would want to sign up to the police force in the US now ???


USA is lost, we are witnessing the fall of an empire.

Terrible isn't it.

Sure why would anybody want to join the police force now knowing that they can't get away with unlawfully killing anyone???

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

You completely missed my point..

It’s not just about the trial being over, or 12 isolated jurors..

It’s about the millions of people waiting and watching and his words on the trial verdict, which can clearly be interpreted as what verdict he wants..

Now, what if a not guilty verdict was announced?

See where I am at? Millions people listening to their President wanting a certain verdict, and that verdict does not happen...

This is why his word here are very important, and potentially very destabilising and damaging..

He should be completely impartial here...

He was not...

No matter what verdict people want, all people should be in agreement that the U.S. President should at all times remain impartial, to allow law and order and justice be served..

Cities being destroyed and untold damage in America due to these very emotive tensions, and you have their leader pretty much telling them what verdict is correct..

If people cannot see the potential damage here from this, god help us.

I'm sure he seen the same video that we all have. He is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to state that opinion. This is the biggest criminal trial at the moment it would be unusual if he didn't say anything.

OneEightSeven

pjohnson wrote: »

Chavin was given his cuffs in court without being mounted and choked to death.

Apparently this idea was beyond Chavin and his fans.

Was Chauvin resisting arrest and behaving like a big man-child, like George Floyd was?

JimmyVik

walshb wrote: »

You completely missed my point..

It’s not just about the trial being over, or 12 isolated jurors..

It’s about the millions of people waiting and watching and his words on the trial verdict, which can clearly be interpreted as what verdict he wants..

Now, what if a not guilty verdict was announced?

See where I am at? Millions people listening to their President wanting a certain verdict, and that verdict does not happen...

This is why his word here are very important, and potentially very destabilising and damaging..

He should be completely impartial here...

He was not...

No matter what verdict people want, all people should be in agreement that the U.S. President should at all times remain impartial, to allow law and order and justice be served..

Cities being destroyed and untold damage in America due to these very emotive tensions, and you have their leader pretty much telling them what verdict is correct..

If people cannot see the potential damage here from this, god help us.

Agree 100%.
I watched that last night and thought to myself ...
WTF is Biden at?

ohnonotgmail

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Was Chauvin resisting arrest and behaving like a big man-child, like George Floyd was?

he certainly didn't have somebody kneel on his neck for 9 minutes when he was already compliant.

osarusan

It seems to me to be a real stretch to think that this will make police want to quit and so on.

If we were looking at a case in which it was a split-second decision to shoot, and it turned out that the person was not actually armed, I can understand the argument. I can see how police would think 'That could happen to anybody, it could easily be me in that situation making that decision, and it puts me in prison? f**k that.'

But in this case, what is it exactly that police officers (or potential police officers) would look at and see as a deterrent in terms of doing their job properly?

As other 'not guilty' verdicts or decisions not to even bring charges show, the police already have a great deal of leeway given to them. The verdict in this trial shows only that the leeway doesn't extend as far as kneeling on somebody's neck even after they stop resisting, even after they lose consciousness, even after there's no pulse, even after they're dead...not while on camera at least.

If there's an actual or potential police officer out there who sees this as something that limits their ability to do their job properly, then they shouldn't be in the job anyway.

walshb

Billy Mays wrote: »

Terrible isn't it.

Sure why would anybody want to join the police force now knowing that they can't get away with unlawfully killing anyone???

That’s not it at all.

It’s gone way OTT. Cops will have to use force, and deadly force when needed to protect

But there are sections who will never accept this, and will use any cop killings as reason to riot and protest and attack law and order; and plenty of devious vote grabbing politicians as well..

Cops jobs will be more difficult due to their own fear of employing perfectly legal and protective and appropriate measures to ensure the safety of society...

Yes, we all know mistakes happen, and downright recklessness happens..

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure he seen the same video that we all have. He is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to state that opinion. This is the biggest criminal trial at the moment it would be unusual if he didn't say anything.

It's also a landmark case that will have long-term consequences. Obama commented on the Zimmerman verdict in 2013 so I imagine Biden's comment would have been similar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/obamas-statement-on-george-zimmerman-verdict-2013-7?r=US&IR=T

TomSweeney

Billy Mays wrote: »

Terrible isn't it.

Sure why would anybody want to join the police force now knowing that they can't get away with unlawfully killing anyone???

disingenuous drivel, the reason they won't want to join is that criminals have been emboldened by this and will take the piss, knowing that cops will barely be able to use any force - even reasonable force.
Cops shot an ARMED kid the other day, he was a little gangbanger with a GUN ... and they are still getting into trouble over it.
What should they do ? stand there and let him shoot them ?

Cooperate with the police, they have a tough job.

walshb

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Wake me up when a US President eggs his supporters to storm the capital in an act of treason and insurrection, and kill a few police officers while they are at it by caving their heads in with fire extinguishers.

What has Trump got to do with my point on Biden?

Trump’s actions you mention were disgusting. Insurrection.

I am talking about Biden’s comments on a verdict he was wanting..

penny piper

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

How do police officers here arrest people?

Go up to them nicely and blow sweet nothings in their ear:rolleyes: how do you think?

Fandymo

is_that_so wrote: »

You don't need any chips to see that a policeman kneeling on another man's neck for nine minutes is wrong, even if you dispute which of the charges most applied. His own police department condemned him.

It as stated quite clearly, and on the record, during the trial that he was kneeling on his back, not his neck.

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

That’s not it at all.

It’s gone way OTT. Cops will have to use force, and deadly force when needed to protect

But there are sections who will never accept this, and will use any cop killings as reason to riot and protest and attack law and order; and plenty of devious vote grabbing politicians as well..

Cops jobs will be more difficult due to their own fear of employing perfectly legal and protective and appropriate measures to ensure the safety of society...

Yes, we all know mistakes happen, and downright recklessness happens..

I have bolded the key part of your post. when needed. in this case it was not needed.

pjohnson

OneEightSeven wrote: »

Was Chauvin resisting arrest and behaving like a big man-child, like George Floyd was?

Still kinda amusing to see Chauvin fans still insisting that Floyd was resisting while he was unconscious.

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure he seen the same video that we all have. He is entitled to his opinion and he is entitled to state that opinion. This is the biggest criminal trial at the moment it would be unusual if he didn't say anything.

Yes, because Joe is just your average Joe like the rest of us..

His view and opinion here are no different than anyone’s..

walshb

walshb wrote: »

What has Trump got to do with my point on Biden?

Trump’s actions you mention were disgusting. Insurrection.

I am talking about Biden’s comments on a verdict he was wanting..

And I've pointed to the Zimmerman case from 2013 where Obama commented even though it went against the verdict he wanted. It wasn't provocative or anything. This is a landmark case, it will be commented on.

Fandymo

Deleted User wrote: »

I have and you're lying. There's pretty mixed views. At least one juror outright dislikes BLM. The defence are also free to object to members of the jury... Do you expect people to not Google it?

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/04/20/989149400/what-we-know-about-the-jurors-in-the-chauvin-trial

They only get to object to 10 in felony cases or 20 in capital offence cases. The list is earlier in the thread. I've no need to re-read it.

walshb

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have bolded the key part of your post. when needed. in this case it was not needed.

I agree..

Cops will never always get things right...

And even if they do, there will be people again at them..

Fandymo

Fandymo wrote: »

They only get to object to 10 in felony cases or 20 in capital offence cases. The list is earlier in the thread. I've no need to re-read it.

You've claimed they're all BLM supporters, that's not true. Pretty simple really.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

And I've pointed to the Zimmerman case from 2013 where Obama commented even though it went against the verdict he wanted. It wasn't provocative or anything. This is a landmark case, it will be commented on.

Well, they should absolutely not be publicly commenting..end of..

penny piper

Deleted User wrote: »

Could just not kneel on a restrained man's neck for 9 minutes. You're trying to blame absolutely everyone but Chauvin... For a guy who has been pretending to be on the fence for the last few weeks, you don't seem to like the verdict..

Ofcourse, I don't agree with the verdict .... I have never sat on the fence...nor changed my mind....
Irrespective of what i agree with I have never said he wouldn't be found guilty nor face an extremely long sentence of which is all true.

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

Yes, because Joe is just your average Joe like the rest of us..

His view and opinion here are no different than anyone’s..

so he should just shut up when his opinion is one you dislike? He is entitled to state his opinion. his opinion was entirely reasonable.

ohnonotgmail

walshb wrote: »

I agree..

Cops will never always get things right...

And even if they do, there will be people again at them..

this wasn't a case of a cop just not getting things right. and thankfully the jury agreed.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I have bolded the key part of your post. when needed. in this case it was not needed.

Force was 100% needed in the George Floyd case. It's just that it went on too long.

Hey, I'm ok with this verdict but not with the trial.

The jury should have been sequestered from day one. It's mental for anyone to think that them going out through the protests, hearing about evidence that wasn't before the court from their family etc. wouldn't have any effect on their decision...........and I acknowledge they may have reached the same decision if they were sequestered.......but at least the process would have been cleaner.

Fandymo

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Weren't the "elites" recently egging on the masses to storm the Capitol and kill politicians ? And the result was dead/injured "blue" officers and protesters themselves

Or have you forgotten so quickly the Treason and Insurrection Trump created and fueled only a few months ago

On cop died after the Capitol storming, and that was from a thromboembolic stroke. Did the stormers cause an internal blood clot in him? His death was investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department's Homicide Branch, the USCP, and the FBI. On April 19, Sicknick's death was ruled to be from natural causes.

Also, what has Trump got to do with anything? Its crazy that he's still living rent free, in Irish peoples heads. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Force was 100% needed in the George Floyd case. It's just that it went on too long.

Hey, I'm ok with this verdict but not with the trial.

The jury should have been sequestered from day one. It's mental for anyone to think that them going out through the protests, hearing about evidence that wasn't before the court from their family etc. wouldn't have any effect on their decision...........and I acknowledge they may have reached the same decision if they were sequestered.......but at least the process would have been cleaner.

yeah, about 8 minutes too long. and my post was in reference to deadly force, not just force.

is_that_so

Fandymo wrote: »

It as stated quite clearly, and on the record, during the trial that he was kneeling on his back, not his neck.

And yet whatever it was it was effective enough to to stop the man breathing permanently. Do you even accept that he did anything unlawful at all?

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah, about 8 minutes too long.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I still hold to my point about the jury being sequestered from day 1.

Jequ0n

I agree that there was only one way the trial could go given the intense media coverage and pressure, so hardly a surprising outcome.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

Well, they should absolutely not be publicly commenting..end of..

You don't decide the rules, he commented on what amounts to a civil rights case. Presidents tend to comment on them. You're easily outraged.