Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Just kidding.
George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
No worries.
Just started watching the trial coverage and think the prosecution is doing pretty well on cross, with this use-of-force expert brought in by the defense. (meaning this witness seems more like a prosecution witness than defense, if you weren’t otherwise aware)
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
As the defense brought up yesterday, the Supreme Court ruling in Graham v. Connor includes that the reasonableness of a use of force must be judged from the perspective of officers on the scene, rather than in 20/20 hindsight.
Since there were plenty of officers on the scene who didn't find it unreasonable at the time, it follows that it was not excessive, per Supreme Court ruling on the Fourth Amendment.
The Court then explained that, "As in other Fourth Amendment contexts... the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." The Court also cautioned, "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor#Decision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor#Decision
Since there were plenty of officers on the scene who didn't find it unreasonable at the time, it follows that it was not excessive, per Supreme Court ruling on the Fourth Amendment.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't most people find their actions reasonable at the time in which they are acting? Actions are typically deemed unreasonable in retrospect--no one knowingly and willingly commits an unreasonable act.
No one knowingly commits an unreasonable act? They do all the time. Our prisons are full of people who have knowingly committed unreasonable acts (that they themselves know at that moment are unreasonable).
I think the prosecution is trying to prove that it’s possible Chauvin knew what he was doing was wrong (unreasonable), but did it anyway. At the very least, a reasonable officer should reposition a suspect who isn’t resisting, while in the prone position.
(according to witness testimony)
The police officer who assaulted you, parmalee, knew that what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. No way I believe he thought punching an innocent man’s skull, was “reasonable.”
Hard to say if Chauvin knew it was unreasonable and did it anyway, but he had nearly 1000 hours of training - one would think that a reasonable officer with that much training should do everything in his power, to not “let” a suspect die in his custody.
I think the prosecution is trying to prove that it’s possible Chauvin knew what he was doing was wrong (unreasonable), but did it anyway. At the very least, a reasonable officer should reposition a suspect who isn’t resisting, while in the prone position.
(according to witness testimony)
The police officer who assaulted you, parmalee, knew that what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway. No way I believe he thought punching an innocent man’s skull, was “reasonable.”
Hard to say if Chauvin knew it was unreasonable and did it anyway, but he had nearly 1000 hours of training - one would think that a reasonable officer with that much training should do everything in his power, to not “let” a suspect die in his custody.
Last edited:
Yeah, I didn't phrase that well.
What I meant is that when an officer is doing their job, they presumably believe they are acting reasonably; likewise, their colleagues are apt to deem that they (our original officer) are acting reasonably--especially given the nature of American police culture--even when something goes very wrong. If that's all that matters, and we cannot consider and judge their actions in retropsect, then accountability becomes virtually impossible.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Yes, all officers on the scene, at least tacitly, found Chauvin's actions reasonable, not just Chauvin himself. Hence the objective standard of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time. The only other option is to presume that the four officers were equally unreasonable, which would make a conviction of Chauvin tantamount to an automatic conviction of the other three officers. Per Graham v. Connor, we are not allowed to judge it by things we know in retrospect, like Floyd dying. So, had Floyd been unharmed, would there be grounds for an excessive force suit? There were no injuries to Floyd, except dermal abrasions from being laid on the asphalt.
Ah, gotcha.
And, agree. I don’t think things just “go” wrong though, as we have learned from this case. Whether it’s negligence or deliberate, we don’t know.
What I hope comes from this trial, even if Chauvin is acquitted, is that police officers need to be held to a high(er) standard and that they aren’t above the law.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
It doesn't necessarily follow. All of the officers could be acting in an unreasonable manner.
The "reasonable man" standard isn't the person committing the act. It's what a "reasonable man" would do under like circumstances. The Supreme Court ruling mentioned just says that it's what a reasonable police office under those circumstances would do.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
I said as much in my response to parmalee. That seems highly unlikely, especially four officers, in broad daylight, knowing they are being videoed by bystanders. And that justification for a guilty verdict would prejudice the other officers' cases.
One thing though that stands out - if Chauvin knew that what he was doing was wrong, wouldn’t he have quickly stopped restraining Floyd (at least in the last minutes of the situation) knowing so many cameras were filming the incident? So, the defense could say “what reasonable person would knowingly kill a man while being recorded?” That would cast doubt at least for the murder charges, imo.
(Edit - Oops, just saw the above reply after posting this)
(Edit - Oops, just saw the above reply after posting this)
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You didn't read my other response I don't think. The reasonable man standard is what is reasonable to those taking action. It's what a reasonable police officer would do under similar circumstances.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
There's plenty that the defense could/should bring up. Hopefully they do. Regardless of whether he is convicted of something or not, you want a fair trial.
Agree. But, I don’t find the defense as good as the prosecution. The defense had a use of force expert on today that was a disaster for their case. He was unprepared, kept changing his statements and I think he perjured himself. Yikes. He was not credible.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Public defender (if that's the case here) aren't known for being exceptional. The prosecutor has the whole system on his side and a public defender is overworked and is just waiting until they can get into private practice for much more money.
I guess this attorney is provided by the police union but it's not too impressive. I haven't watched anything other than a few YouTube clips. Not all attorneys are created equal.
It would seem that police reform needs to take place but not just for how they interact with suspects. They need to be less burdened - they are placed under incredibly strained positions, and sure it’s a tough job, but they’re only human, too. It’s like they’re preparing for war every day, and that expectation doesn’t seem reasonable to place on them. No police officer should ever be working alone, either.
I’ve liked him so far. Yea, I’ve read that he is receiving $1 million for working this case, I believe? That’s not a lot when you think about how he’s probably been working on this case for months preparing for trial.
Agreed.
The first thing we could do is to unload them of their domestic disturbance / dealing with homeless and mentally ill people tasks. It's not what they are best at, and it usually doesn't take a cop to handle those.
Here in San Diego we have a homeless outreach program that attempts to do that - but it's still part of the police department and thus competes with other funding for police. By making it separate there would not be competition for funding at the police level.
Last Thanksgiving we had a homeless/mentally challenged guy show up at our door wearing only pants. He asked us to call the police. And they were great - a motorcycle cop showed up within 5 minutes, and within 20 minutes another cop showed up with a car. They told him about 20 times that he wasn't under arrest but that they were going to have to give him a ride to the hospital so he could be evaluated. I sat with him outside until the second one showed up, then gave him a bag with some clothing, food and water before they left.
And again, it was handled very well. But it was a case where they did not need two police officers spending an hour (with getting there, transporting him etc) to deal with a confused homeless guy.
As an aside, it’s not easy to serve as a juror in a criminal case. This jury knows what often times happens to police officers in prison, so that has to be weighing on them, as well. It’s easy to say “he’s a murderer-send him away!” But when you’re an actual juror, it’s likely very emotional to know your verdict changes everything.
They should also be sequestered now. They’re leaving the courtroom and seeing the looting and riots as they head home? They should have been sequestered now. As it stands, they won’t be until after closing arguments.
They should also be sequestered now. They’re leaving the courtroom and seeing the looting and riots as they head home? They should have been sequestered now. As it stands, they won’t be until after closing arguments.
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
You edited your post four minutes after I had responded. Can't read what wasn't there.
Again, with four officers on the scene (five including the Park police officer who was watching Floyd's car and passengers), you're only other option is to presume none of them were reasonable. Maybe you should slow down your posting, as I assume you meant "isn't what is reasonable to those taking action".
Speaking of the Park police officer (who hasn't been charged or disciplined):
The defense called on Officer Peter Chang of the Minneapolis Park Police to testify in the trial of Derek Chauvin, who is on trial on murder and manslaughter charges in the death of George Floyd.
...
It's common for park police to assist Minneapolis city police, Chang said, and explained that officers in both forces attend the same police academy.
...
Chang said that a crowd had gathered and that the onlookers were "becoming more loud and aggressive."
Chang said he didn't know whether the car Floyd was driving had been searched yet, and he was concerned about that. He said the onlookers were "very aggressive, aggressive toward the officers."
...
Video from Chang's bodycam was then shown.
...
Chang instructs Hill and Hall to stay away from the car and he asks them how they know Floyd. Hill identifies Floyd as "my ex." While Hill and Hall wait to be allowed to leave, they observe from across the street Floyd's interaction with police.
"Damn, he still won't get in the car. Just sit down, dude," Hill can be heard saying. "They gotta push him in this car. Look, he fightin' to get out.
Hall says resignedly, "That's f****** resistance, man."
Hill goes on: "What is he doing? Now he's going to jail. All he had to do was. .... Now the n*****'s going to jail. Can y'all give him his phone though, please?" she asks Chang.
"We'll see what happens," Chang says and tells them again to stay put.
...
Chang said he had been pacing because he was concerned for the officers' safety and noted that the incident took place on a busy corner with a lot of foot and vehicle traffic.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-...vided-backup-testifies-in-derek-chauvin-trial
...
It's common for park police to assist Minneapolis city police, Chang said, and explained that officers in both forces attend the same police academy.
...
Chang said that a crowd had gathered and that the onlookers were "becoming more loud and aggressive."
Chang said he didn't know whether the car Floyd was driving had been searched yet, and he was concerned about that. He said the onlookers were "very aggressive, aggressive toward the officers."
...
Video from Chang's bodycam was then shown.
...
Chang instructs Hill and Hall to stay away from the car and he asks them how they know Floyd. Hill identifies Floyd as "my ex." While Hill and Hall wait to be allowed to leave, they observe from across the street Floyd's interaction with police.
"Damn, he still won't get in the car. Just sit down, dude," Hill can be heard saying. "They gotta push him in this car. Look, he fightin' to get out.
Hall says resignedly, "That's f****** resistance, man."
Hill goes on: "What is he doing? Now he's going to jail. All he had to do was. .... Now the n*****'s going to jail. Can y'all give him his phone though, please?" she asks Chang.
"We'll see what happens," Chang says and tells them again to stay put.
...
Chang said he had been pacing because he was concerned for the officers' safety and noted that the incident took place on a busy corner with a lot of foot and vehicle traffic.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-...vided-backup-testifies-in-derek-chauvin-trial
So even though he couldn't see what happened to Floyd, Chang affirmed that the crowd was "very aggressive, aggressive toward the officers" and that he was concerned for the officers' safety.
Last edited: