Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Boggles

penny piper wrote: »

Chauvan will appeal but I doubt it will amount to anything....about 90% of appeal cases in america fail........the poor guy is doomed....

Really?

Of all the cases to die on the hill over.

This one, really?

Shanotheslayer

Thread is about as much of a sh1tshow as I expected

partyguinness

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The court case proved he wasn't choked to death.

You have to be a world class liar to pretend the fatal levels of fentanyl in his body are unrelated to his death.

Whether or not he choked to death was not the question. It is in fact very simple:

Did Chauvin's actions cause the death of Floyd? Yes.
Did Chauvin's act with all due care and diligence and in line with proper procedure? No

Even his defence struggled to come up with any sort of credible defence.

To say "Ah sure he was dying anyway/he would have died anyway." That just shows a gross ignorance of how criminal liability is attached.

In fact, I am genuinely embarrassed for some of the posters here and the ill informed nonsense they are spewing. "Ah sure it was the fentanyl"...Jesus wept.

I suppose Chauvin was just unlucky.

ohnonotgmail

Fandymo wrote: »

I was responding to a poster who stated "I would under no circumstances slowly murder a person." I was trying to explain that there was no way to know how you would react. It is very easy to blame the police for every shooting from behind a computer screen.

also, shooting somebody as a reaction to danger in the moment is not slowly murdering a person. It is not slow and it is not murder. Words have meanings.

Oranage2

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No, my angle is he wasn't choked to death.

You can absolutely make an argument he should have been convicted for manslaughter (criminally negligent) and IMO that would be a fair conviction, but pretending he chocked him to death (when the evidence proves he did not) so he gets done for murder... that is just insanity.

But two medical coroners has put the death as asphyxiation. Guys that have years of medical study and practice. Not just some armchair YouTube experts.

I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

Fandymo

Boggles wrote: »

You are familiar with the concept of context, yes?

Under. No. Circumstances.

Not much nuance or context there.

Boggles

Fandymo wrote: »

Under. No. Circumstances.

Not much nuance or context there.

Bad faith poster?

As you were so.

Fandymo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

also, shooting somebody as a reaction to danger in the moment is not slowly murdering a person. It is not slow and it is not murder. Words have meanings.

What danger was there? They talk about it afterwards. He was unarmed and just having an argument with his friend, there had not even been a punch swung, just a verbal argument.

Fandymo

partyguinness wrote: »

Whether or not he choked to death was not the question. It is in fact very simple:

Did Chauvin's actions cause the death of Floyd? Yes.
Did Chauvin's act with all due care and diligence and in line with proper procedure? No

Even his defence struggled to come up with any sort of credible defence.

To say "Ah sure he was dying anyway/he would have died anyway." That just shows a gross ignorance of how criminal liability is attached.

In fact, I am genuinely embarrassed for some of the posters here and the ill informed nonsense they are spewing. "Ah sure it was the fentanyl"...Jesus wept.

I suppose Chauvin was just unlucky.

I don't think anyone is arguing the bolded points. However, the people arguing don't think Chauvin arrived thinking he was going to murder this perp. He was negligent and should have been found guilty of manslaughter, but the murder charges should have been not guilty.

partyguinness

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No, my angle is he wasn't choked to death.

You can absolutely make an argument he should have been convicted for manslaughter (criminally negligent) and IMO that would be a fair conviction, but pretending he chocked him to death (when the evidence proves he did not) so he gets done for murder... that is just insanity.

But again, choking or not is not the question. The question is did Chavin's actions cause his death? As obvious as the sun in the sky...yes he did.

The next question is did Chauvin act reasonably and properly? No he did not.

Chauvin could not justify or defend his actions which led to the death of Floyd. Therefore he was convicted by the jury who have far more knowledge of the evidence and case than what was drip fed through the media.

osarusan

Still so many posters on here who see the word 'murder' and think it must mean that 'intentional killing', and use that misunderstanding to disagree with the verdict.

Penn

Fandymo wrote: »

I don't think anyone is arguing the bolded points. However, the people arguing don't think Chauvin arrived thinking he was going to murder this perp. He was negligent and should have been found guilty of manslaughter, but the murder charges should have been not guilty.

That's not what the murder charges were though. There are different degrees of murder charges, and nobody, not even the prosecution, ever implied that Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd. The murder charges relate to Chauvin intentionally committing a dangerous act and with a disregard for the victim's safety, which resulted in the victim's death.

Chauvin's actions fell under second and third degree murder charges and they proved him guilty of same. Chauvin intentionally put Floyd in a dangerous position, he intentionally stayed kneeling on him for over 9 minutes, he intentionally stayed kneeling on him after Floyd both stopped resisting, and passed out (and died).

Chauvin's actions were intentional even if Floyd's death wasn't. That still constitutes second and third degree murder.

partyguinness

Did Chauvin set out to kill/murder Floyd? No, of course not.

He was not charged with first degree murder.

He was found guilty of "unintentional murder"...intention to kill or murder if you like was not needed. All the prosecution had to prove was that Chauvin applied unlawful force that caused bodily harm.

His actions were unlawful because kneeling on a guys neck for 9 minutues ain't a part of cop training.

ohnonotgmail

Fandymo wrote: »

What danger was there? They talk about it afterwards. He was unarmed and just having an argument with his friend, there had not even been a punch swung, just a verbal argument.

are you still referring to the pastor who took part in a training exercise?

walshb

partyguinness wrote: »

Did Chauvin set out to kill/murder Floyd? No, of course not.

He was not charged with first degree murder.

He was found guilty of "unintentional murder"...intention to kill or murder if you like was not needed. All the prosecution had to prove was that Chauvin applied unlawful force that caused bodily harm.

His actions were unlawful because kneeling on a guys neck for 9 minutues ain't a part of cop training.

This is it, really.

Fandymo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you still referring to the pastor who took part in a training exercise?

Yes

Yellow_Fern

Oranage2 wrote: »

But two medical coroners has put the death as asphyxiation. Guys that have years of medical study and practice. Not just some armchair YouTube experts.

I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

asphyxiation is not equal to being choked to death. People who die through carbon monoxide and drug overdoses also die from asphyxiation. You could kill a person kneeling on the neck in far less time in this case but you could also have your knee on someone neck for an hour and do harm. You cant possibly know without know far more details. We dont know how much pressure his knee exerted on his neck for the time which it seems to have been on his neck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qHLXbVDnkc

OMM 0000

partyguinness wrote: »

Whether or not he choked to death was not the question. It is in fact very simple:

Did Chauvin's actions cause the death of Floyd? Yes.
Did Chauvin's act with all due care and diligence and in line with proper procedure? No

Even his defence struggled to come up with any sort of credible defence.

To say "Ah sure he was dying anyway/he would have died anyway." That just shows a gross ignorance of how criminal liability is attached.

In fact, I am genuinely embarrassed for some of the posters here and the ill informed nonsense they are spewing. "Ah sure it was the fentanyl"...Jesus wept.

I suppose Chauvin was just unlucky.

You're misunderstanding the law here.

We can easily prove this.

What are the requirements for his two murder charges?

OMM 0000

Oranage2 wrote: »

But two medical coroners has put the death as asphyxiation. Guys that have years of medical study and practice. Not just some armchair YouTube experts.

I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

Do you understand what asphyxiation is?

Are you aware fentanyl overdoses cause asphyxiation?

https://mayoclinic.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/asphyxiation-with-a-fentanyl-patch

Stop trying to pretend death by choking and asphyxiation are the same thing.

The medical expert said there was no injuries which are consistent with chocking.

My question for you is this:

Why are you trying to believe a lie? What's in this for you?

penny piper

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No, the medical expert said it was not asphyxiation.

Why are you making things up?

Floyd's heart was enlarged.. (needing more oxygen than someone who was healthy).heart disease plus..blocked arteries..plus bp added to the restraint technique used caused his death. oh and a substanctial amount of drugs in his body.....

OMM 0000

penny piper wrote: »

Floyd's heart was enlarged.. (needing more oxygen than someone who was healthy).heart disease plus..blocked arteries..plus bp added to the restraint technique used caused his death. oh and a substanctial amount of drugs in his body.....

Sorry I edited that post.

Basically asphyxiation is a side effect of fentanyl overdose.

Penn

penny piper wrote: »

Floyd's heart was enlarged.. (needing more oxygen than someone who was healthy).heart disease plus..blocked arteries..plus bp added to the restraint technique used caused his death. oh and a substanctial amount of drugs in his body.....

Pretty sure the medical examiner would have checked that, taken it into consideration, and would know better than you.

You can keep saying it's just your opinion, but your opinion is irrelevant compared to expert testimony under oath from an experienced, medical professional who actually examined the body.

ohnonotgmail

Fandymo wrote: »

Yes

in that case I fail to see the relevancy to somebody who was not in danger killing somebody over a period of nine minutes.

partyguinness

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Do you understand what asphyxiation is?

The primary cause of death was restraint and compression of the neck as per the medical examiners. The underlying conditions were noted as is the norm when an autopsy is performed. Sometimes unknown medical conditions come to light during an autopsy.

What the defence tried to do unsuccessfuly was to focus the attention away from the primary cause and onto the underlying cause.

Asphyxiation is not expressly stated because asphyxiation does not leave any visible signs. If you kill someone by putting a bag over their head and take the bag away it was very very difficult if not impossible to show asphyxiation. Whereas if the body is left there with the bag around its head then asphyxiation will be taken into account.

As stated in evidence, his heart condition and fentanyl did not cause the compression of his neck.

When medical reports are prepared, context is key. All the information available is gathered and used to help piece together the circumstances. An autopsy is not taken in isolation and detached from the circumstances behond the discovery of the body.

Tony EH

osarusan wrote: »

Still so many posters on here who see the word 'murder' and think it must mean that 'intentional killing', and use that misunderstanding to disagree with the verdict.

Mmmmm.

There are some people on here that haven't the first clue about what they're talking about. Worse still, they haven't even bothered to make a cursory glance to see the details of what 2nd and 3rd degree murder constitute in the state in question.

Yet they still feel the need to white knight for Chauvin and fall over themselves to make up the most flimsy and ridiculous of excuses for him.

Faugheen

Tony EH wrote: »

Mmmmm.

There are some people on here that haven't the first clue about what they're talking about. Worse still, they haven't even bothered to make a cursory glance to see the details of what 2nd and 3rd degree murder constitute in the state in question.

Yet they still feel the need to white knight for Chauvin and fall over themselves to make up the most flimsy and ridiculous of excuses for him.

Same few jump into any conversation where racism is involved, as if it doesn't actually exist and is just a figment of our imagination.

Unless it's racism to white people that is.

OMM 0000

partyguinness wrote: »

The primary cause of death was restraint and compression of the neck as per the medical examiners. The underlying conditions were noted as is the norm when an autopsy is performed. Sometimes unknown medical conditions come to light during an autopsy.

What the defence tried to do unsuccessfuly was to focus the attention away from the primary cause and onto the underlying cause.

Asphyxiation is not expressly stated because asphyxiation does not leave any visible signs. If you kill someone by putting a bag over their head and take the bag away it was very very difficult if not impossible to show asphyxiation. Whereas if the body is left there with the bag around its head then asphyxiation will be taken into account.

As stated in evidence, his heart condition and fentanyl did not cause the compression of his neck.

When medical reports are prepared, context is key. All the information available is gathered and used to help piece together the circumstances. An autopsy is not taken in isolation and detached from the circumstances behond the discovery of the body.

Why are you lying?

Dr. Baker [the prosecutor's medical expert] acknowledged to the defense that he saw no physical signs of asphyxiation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/derek-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19-n1264442/ncrd1264535#liveBlogHeader

He also admitted heart disease and drug use contributed to his death.

But based on the video they think he was choked to death.

So let's get this straight... there is no evidence of damage from choking... there is evidence of asphyxiation BEFORE the police put Floyd on the ground (Floyd repeatedly admits he is having problems breathing)... he has a fatal level of fentanyl in him which causes asphyxiation... yet we're somehow supposed to believe he died of choking.

Surely it is beyond obvious this trial was political and Chauvin was going to be found guilty no matter that?

penny piper

Penn wrote: »

Pretty sure the medical examiner would have checked that, taken it into consideration, and would know better than you.

You can keep saying it's just your opinion, but your opinion is irrelevant compared to expert testimony under oath from an experienced, medical professional who actually examined the body.

Everyone's opinion on here is irrelvant ...if we want to be honest....even yours.but as it's a discussion forum I suppose everyone is entitled to a say
...

penny piper

Penn wrote: »

Pretty sure the medical examiner would have checked that, taken it into consideration, and would know better than you.

You can keep saying it's just your opinion, but your opinion is irrelevant compared to expert testimony under oath from an experienced, medical professional who actually examined the body.

Pretty sure the medical examiner used those are contributing factors....

Yellow_Fern

Faugheen wrote: »

Same few jump into any conversation where racism is involved, as if it doesn't actually exist and is just a figment of our imagination.

Unless it's racism to white people that is.

There is evidence of police brutality but there is no indications or claims that there was racism in the Chavin case

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Why are you lying?

Dr. Baker [the prosecutor's medical expert] acknowledged to the defense that he saw no physical signs of asphyxiation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/live-blog/derek-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19-n1264442/ncrd1264535#liveBlogHeader

He also admitted heart disease and drug use contributed to his death.

But based on the video they think he was choked to death.

So let's get this straight... there is no evidence of damage from choking... there is evidence of asphyxiation BEFORE the police put Floyd on the ground (Floyd repeatedly admits he is having problems breathing)... he has a fatal level of fentanyl in him which causes asphyxiation... yet we're somehow supposed to believe he died of choking.

Surely it is beyond obvious this trial was political and Chauvin was going to be found guilty no matter that?

I think he died from many factors but just FYI I get the impression there isn't always neck damage and although the level of fentanyl he had could be fatal, it isn't always fatal. It is very hard to know how much of a abused drug is required to kill a person, as it varies person to person and its not something that you can do control studies on naturally enough.