George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

They probably didn’t want to risk being shot, injured or end up like George Floyd.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Definitely,which is why they feel so guilty.To watch a person's life being squeezed out of him by some scum in uniform is gut wrenching and makes one feel small if one does not intervene(the hypothesized reason for the act as I suggested above-terrorism)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something that seems odd with this case is why does it seem like Floyd is on trial? The only thing that really should be on trial is did Chauvin act appropriately during the arrest of Floyd and if not, why and to what degree? I’m surprised the defense is somewhat “using” Floyd’s health history as a possible defense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly. Which is why this sort of behavior is often unopposed - and why trials like this are so important.

The thought process goes like this:

1) Convince people that Floyd is a thief/rapist/pedophile - whatever arouses the most ire
2) Convince people that therefore it is better that Floyd is off the streets
3) Therefore Chauvin did the public a service by permanently removing him from society.

From there it's a short step to "hey, we are in NO WAY saying what he did was right! But he saved society, and he's already been fired and put in jail. Hasn't he been through enough? Must cops who do good and make one mistake be so vilified?"

 

Maybe it's because if a cop doing what is acceptable to maintain control and wouldn't harm the average person but it killed Floyd then Floyd's health is pertinent. It's a valid argument and what else is a defense supposed to do?

 

There are acceptable arguments for the defense, whether they prevail or not. Why introduce these sarcastic arguments? You know they aren't what is really going on. It is valid to show that Floyd was his own worst enemy and that his actions played a part in the outcome.

What other kind of defense is a defense going to offer? A trial can't be a one-sided affair as your argument suggests.

Your approach seems to be "He did it, lock him up!" You didn't vote for Trump did you?

 

Of course. Pretty much any argument is acceptable in a criminal defense.

Because Wegs asked "why does it seem like Floyd is on trial?" That's the answer to that question. By vilifying him, they seek to paint his death as a service, not a crime.

I suspect they will offer several, including:
"Floyd was a criminal and therefore his death is not such a crime."
"Lots of people like Chauvin and he is an upstanding member of the community, so jailing him will be the larger crime."
"The fentanyl, not the knee on his back, is what killed him. And if we can't prove that, at least we can muddy the waters a LOT, so much so that you doubt reports from the doctors."
"Chauvin is just a hapless victim of the mean mainstream media trying to cancel him."
"Chauvin did exactly what he was trained to do. Blame his trainers!"

Perhaps more. As you suggested above, almost any argument is OK. And by using more than one, they increase the odds that a juror will be sympathetic to one. The downside of that, of course, is that they can be seen as desperate, and are trying to throw anything they can at the wall to see if it sticks.

Nope. But nice try! Perhaps explore some different trolls next time.

 

You mean like he committed second degree murder but even if he didn't he committed third degree murder but even if he didn't he committed second degree manslaughter?

 

Nope. Not like that at all. They are prosecuting him for second degree murder. The grand jury also returned indictments against him for the other two crimes, so the jury can, at their judgment, find him guilty of a lesser charge.

This happens all the time. I was on a grand jury when it happened - they started off with accessory to murder, but by the end of the grand jury they had added murder one due to accomplices bargaining for reduced sentences.

 

I know it happens all the time. It's called alternative pleading. You seemed to think it was somehow inappropriate when the defense does it.

 

Sometimes you wish that you could “unsee” a comment, but you can’t. It’s scary how people feel this was Floyd’s fault. Regardless if people think Floyd was a saint or far from it, he’s not on trial. The main thing imo is did the police act appropriately, and if not, how and to what extent? (Negligence, depravity of mind, deliberate, etc)

When we start blaming victims, where will we be as a society? Floyd’s heart condition and drug use contributed to his death but the police officers’ actions/inactions that day were the main cause, according to the Chief Medical Examiner. Whether or not a healthier suspect could have survived shouldn’t be what a jury has to consider. Cops arrest people in various health conditions - they should be trained to identify when a situation is going awry and one of Chauvin’s fellow officers that day suggested that they turn Floyd over, and I guess Chauvin said no. That would have saved his life in that moment, and that moment is all we should be concerned with. Not every wrong decision Floyd ever made leading him to that point. What?

Yea, I guess if people didn’t break the law, they wouldn’t be arrested but Chauvin’s actions are on trial, not Floyd’s.

Not directing this to anyone here, I’ve been reading comments on Twitter and elsewhere that just make you go huh?

 

I would go with Negligence as in Failure to provide Medical Assistance in a timely manner

But that would apply to all police in the crew at the incident

So the bad choices Floyd made added to the bad decisions Chauvin made lead to Floyd dying

I'm going to stick to my verdict (due to Floyd contributing more factors than Chauvin) Accidental (Involuntary) suicide

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Try "I swear I'll slap the f*** out of both of you." You know, literally a threat, with an openly hostile crowd and over a year of watching police get attacked by crowds.
Flags are not literal threats nor a hostile crowd. But apparently asking you to tell the difference is too much to ask, so yep, you must be right. What on Earth was I thinking?

If the crowd had been big enough, one or more cops could have died, and Floyd have a heart attack anyway. It's not like these angry mobs are known to save any lives.

Floyd's action precipitated everything that happened. From passing a counterfeit bill and eating drugs to failing to comply with orders and resisting arrest. He's not on trial, but everything the police do in any interaction has to be compared to the situation they faced. It's the situation that makes a use of force justified or not. Like it or not, Floyd created that situation. The defense has every right to use anything it can to win. It's called due process.

Nice bit of fiction you have there, but I don't think anyone's buying.

 

We don't know if Floyd knew with certainty that the bill was counterfeit, and I didn't find that he was resisting arrest from my view of the videos. Of course I wasn't there, and it's easy for anyone viewing this (now) to be the Monday-morning Quarterback so to speak. ''Oh, I would have done this or that!'' (never working a day in the life of a police officer) I get that. But, Chauvin had choices too, and he chose wrong that day, as well.

Friend of mine told me today that anything other than immediately obliging with a police officer is considered ''resisting.'' I was under the impression that more egregious behavior than that was required. I think it appeared in the videos that he was struggling inside the police car, but think he was complaining then of not being able to breathe, etc.

The jury has a lot to consider.

 

That's why the jury may consider that too much is being expected of Chauvin to convict him of anything and send him to jail.

He was "resisting" in that 3 cops couldn't get him into the car enough to shut the doors and take him to jail.

He was complaining for the whole video from when they first approached his car saying, "don't shoot me", "I'm not resisting (as he resisted)", "I don't want to die". From that point they walked him down to their car after allowing him to sit on the curb for a minute near his own car, he continued making those comments as they tried to put him into the cop car, and then he talked about being anxious, claustrophobic, and then said "I can't breathe" before they did anything.

He wanted to lay on the street so they complied with that. He started struggling then as well and continued to say "I can't breathe". After all that complaining some may feel that it is a bit much for a cop to now take him seriously regarding the breathing comment and to feel that the cop caused his difficulty in breathing.

I think the jury is going to have a hard time with that when they start to deliberate and realize that they have someones liberty in their hands. The only troubling part IMO for them will be trying to figure out how Chauvin was supportive of most of Floyd's requests and then for the last 6 minutes his behavior was questionable.

Since they have to give him the benefit of doubt (basically) he may be acquitted. They will probably be instructed to the effect of "you don't have to find him faultless, he has lost his job and can still have a civil suit brought against him, you do have to find beyond a reasonable doubt (which will be defined) that his actions meet the requirements of each of the charges that have been brought against him."

 

Where did I say it was inappropriate? It is not; it's their job to get their client off, and they will do whatever they (legally) can to achieve that. That's how our system works. Didn't you know that?

 

True, we don't know if Floyd knew it was counterfeit. But according to his girlfriend's testimony, they had bought drugs from the passenger, Morries Hall, before. Between that and the amount of drugs Floyd ingested and were found in the car he was driving, some have speculated that they were in the middle of a drug deal, where it's possible Hall had Floyd pass a counterfeit bill as a form of payment. But even if he didn't know, he was still in possession of illegal drugs and resisted every order given.

If you didn't see Floyd resisting orders to show his hands (prompting the officer to pull his gun), resisting orders to exit the vehicle (prompting the officer to pull him out), resisting being cuffed (requiring another officer's assistance), and resisting being put in the squad car (where even three officers were unable to get him in the car and shut the doors), you are either blind or never watched the body cam video, where you can hear all the orders given and all of Floyd's excuses. Here, maybe you'll watch it this time:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEGGLu_fNU

It doesn't seem you are aware of even half of what happened in that incident. You can't pass judgement when you refuse to view the evidence. If you do, you might as well join the lynch mob.

Floyd was non-compliant the whole time, not just in the police car. He had already used many excuses for him not complying, making his complaints in the car more of the same.

 

where did the note come from ?
out the back of the shop !

supposedly it was accepted by the cashier
who should have refused it
and then it was carried out the back away from camera
then it was brought back in camera
and then re-presented to him as a fake
thus attempting to force him to accept the counterfeit note
which he refused as he is legally supposed to do

it looks like he may have been as you say
sent in to change money
but he had to buy something to get change to pay the right amount

once the shop accepts the note it is their legal loss
re presenting it back to george is a crime

was georgre a nice guy ?
what officers are nice guys ?

the counterfeit note is irrelevant to the unlawful death while in custody


on the counterfeit note side of behaviors which is completely separate to unlawful death while in police-custody including denial of life saving medical needs.

the shop assistant may have more likely taken the counterfeit note from a women
and then found it when sorting change for georgre
then after considering they were watching him noting how wasted he was.
decided to pin it on him to try and save their own financial loss,
so they walked it out the back to make up the lie to the boss who then formed the team who approached george asking him to exchange it(which may be all well and good in a perfect world, but once he refused they should not have reported him to the police because that then makes their report a false claim.
so they have knowingly made a false financial crime report to the police

which the police may be more than happy to over look given the circumstances

who can they blame to be the fortune teller time traveler to know how to prevent things from happening before they have occurred
to find who to blame to send the bill to ?

what are regulations
policy
excessive force and banned techniques for ?

how can a USA police officer hold a loaded gun and point it at a civilian who is innocent and be protected from not being shot dead legally for doing so ?


regardless of the complete cluster _uck in the shop and georgre being too wasted to mix consciously in financial transactions

the officer applied force that was lethal
then denied the right to life medical assistance

george never lost his right to life why do people keep using that as the base moral legal principal ? its absurd !

the american bully culture wants to assign all the pity and excuses to the bully
the one who applied the abuse
and give them all the benefit of the doubt, even though they had all the power and decision making process and all the lethal control
the American culture of waiving a persons rights to life is quite bizarre given their commonly self sold moralistic media statements

 

Ohhh-kay. So. I watched this video again, just the beginning when the officers first approach Floyd and cuff him, and realize that I’ve been somewhat unaware of what it means to “resist arrest.” By the time they start struggling with Floyd in the car, I thought that could be a plausible example of resisting arrest. But, if a suspect questions the police before getting out of the car, or keeps complaining, etc is that resisting arrest? I ask, because he seemed to get out of the car quickly and allowed the officers to cuff him.

How many other jurors don’t really have a grasp of what resisting arrest means? Just some things to think about.

 

Recently someone was seen driving an SUV at a high rate of speed on the wrong side of a freeway in Topeka, Kansas. After a ten minute high speed chase that caused several crashes, they got the vehicle stopped and approached the driver. The driver called the cop "donut boy" and threatened to beat him up. "I could take you," he said during his tirade. Testing showed that his BAC level was well over twice the legal limit.

He was treated with courtesy and respect by the (then) several cops who showed up to arrest him.

Anyone want to guess what color the driver's skin was?

This is what white privledge looks like - the knowledge that you will not be killed by police for your bad behavior.