Interesting, and you’d think threatening an officer would be grounds for immediate arrest.
George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
Interesting, and you’d think threatening an officer would be grounds for immediate arrest.
Yep.
And if he had not pulled off into a lighted area with witnesses, this may have gone very differently.
And if not for all the video, it's fairly certain that police would have said "he was intoxicated and combative" or "he was an active threat" or "he was resisting arrest and that's why we had to use so much force. He refused to obey orders and he posed a threat to us."
The reason the Floyd case even made it to trial is that there is video of what the police did to him. If not for the video, one of those excuses would be trotted out, and Chauvin would not only escape justice, he would still be a cop.
I’ve marveled at how many people quickly make excuses for Chauvin and none for Floyd. I’ve heard “Floyd caused his own death simply due to his lifestyle choices.” Police officers are usually going to be encountering people breaking the law, but that doesn’t mean suspects should be treated like their life has little value. Sure, if Floyd hadn't been addicted to drugs, the trajectory of his entire life would have been different. Chauvin too had choices to make and I’m confused why the focus of the trial is shifting to Floyd’s choices over Chauvin’s when Chauvin is on trial. Do many who think Chauvin should be acquitted feel that he honestly had no other choice but to allow Floyd to die in his care?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
George Floyd was treated with courtesy and respect but they still couldn't get him into the back of the cop car long enough to shut the door. Anyone want to guess what color his skin was? That's what black privilege gets you. I saw a video of where the cops were rough on a white guy. They did that just because he was white I'm guessing. It's all about skin color you know.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
George Floyd isn't being charged with resisting arrest. If the defense mentions resisting arrest after the jurors have seen the video, it doesn't really matter if they understand what resisting arrest means as long as they saw the officers having to struggle with George Floyd after every command to do something.
Even George said "I'm not resisting" each time as he was resisting. They had to struggle to control him or he never would have ended up laying in the street.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I think many of those giving some thought to Chauvin's position are doing so because it seems that so few are doing so. There seems to be no doubt in many people's minds and that IMO is troubling in any trial.
People who are defending Chauvin to any degree are doing so because he is the one on trial. My understanding (may be wrong here) is that the defense hasn't even started presenting his case yet. Has the prosecution rested their case?
What is the point in a trial and in having a defense put on their case if everyone has already decided the outcome?
Many people are sure every case with a black defendant and a white cop has to be about race. Of course the violent crime statistics are heavily skewed toward a black population and results involving black cops are no different and statistics comparing black and white defendants are no different either.
People believe what they want to believe however.
so murdering someone is treating them with courtesy and respect? for all you do to make your self seem like a good person you fuck up and let your true self out and we get to see who you really are. the casual racism and disdian you have toward for floyd and his life is telling as well as the excuses you trot out for his killer. tell me if the republican party gets its wish and out laws everyone who disagrees with them how long is gonna take you to cheer and defend the execution squads?
you talk about how chauvin deserves a trial. well so did floyd but he didnt get one cause you know the asshole your defending you know killed him. you don't suffocate some one to death by accident, you keep acting likes its oops my bad but it takes time and effort to suffocate some to death. to suffocate someone you have to continue to prevent them from breathing after they go unconscious. killing someone by cutting off their air is something that one has to do willfully.
he was resisting because he was being murdered. and your boy not tried to kill him their would have been no resisting. you will naturally fight and struggle when your air supply is cut off. you don't get to say floyd deserved to be murdered for trying to get a breath of air while being murdered.
Who has decided the outcome? The only people who can do that are the judge and the jury, and AFAIK they have not come to any conclusions yet.
Other than the part where, you know, they kneeled on his neck until he was dead. That part is pretty significant. In fact, it's what the trial is about.
Dead?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
No one is talking about resisting while he was laying on the ground. He wouldn't have been laying on the ground if the 3 cops had been able to get him into the cop car. That's where the resisting took place.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
So far only the prosecution has presented its case. The prosecution medical witness stated that Fentanyl cuts the body's respiration rate by up to 40%. Chauvin didn't choke Floyd by the way.
I don't think you are trying to be impartial here so I'll leave it at that.
Yep. And if I saw some piece of shit cop murdering someone, I'd threaten to slit his throat--or I would slit his throat, if I could get away with it. People generally don't take kindly to murder.
But you miss my point: your selective defenses of freedom of expression are quite revealing.
You should control your urges towards disproportionate violence.
You are skating a fine line here, too, advocating violence again.
The presumption of innocence principle is in place so we can have fair trials. But, this is a high profile case, and I'm hopeful that this jury can be impartial, because a ''wrong'' verdict doesn't solve anything, either.
???
You cannot possibly be serious here--are you suggesting that you think it would be inappropriate to intervene in such an event? That is seriously fucked up.
Also, you need to work on reading comprehension--or re-familiarize yourself with the definition of "advocacy."
Edit: Incidentally, what would you do, in the event that you are witnessing a cop attempting murder? Call the freakin cops? Surely you see the problem here, yes?
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I think he will be found guilty of something. The only thing that I find "unusual" about this case is how everything was respectful and accommodating until the last few minutes. It's just odd and I'd like to at least hear from him what he was thinking.
Yea, that's true. He should take the stand, what does he have to lose? I'm looking forward to the defense's case, should be starting up this week.
So does sleeping. However, "he was asleep when I kneeled on his neck and so he died due to sleep" doesn't generally work as a defense.
?? Right. It was death through asphyxia; he kneeled on his neck and compressed his neck and spine so he couldn't breathe. PJ did not claim he choked him.