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

[wegs]

YES, which is why my verdict would be accidental suicide exacerbated by a multitude of circumstances

I would put the preponderance of those circumstances in Floyds basket

Well, that’s not a “verdict choice,” so I guess this means you would vote to acquit. I’m not judging, but I’m not understanding what Floyd’s drug use has to do with Chauvin’s actions with regards to his responsibility and “duty of care?”

 

[Seattle]

Well, that’s not a “verdict choice,” so I guess this means you would vote to acquit. I’m not judging, but I’m not understanding what Floyd’s drug use has to do with Chauvin’s actions with regards to his responsibility and “duty of care?”

Let's look at the other possibility. It was the drugs that was the primary problem and if Floyd hadn't died then we wouldn't be too concerned about Chauvin's actions.

It would just be a cop that maybe held a struggling suspect down for a little longer than necessary. We would think, "It's not professional but what's new, he's a cop".

What if I said, I'm pissed. I was doing drugs and driving around and passed fake money and I was apprehended by a cop. I struggled with him and didn't want to get into his car. He put me on the ground and held me down with his knee for longer than I felt was necessary.

Would you have a lot of sympathy for me or would you say "you pretty much got what you deserved"?

 

[Seattle]

Maybe that isn't the correct analogy however. What if I had one beer and was a jerk to the arresting cop and he put his knee on me and I died. I had one beer but it had nothing to do with the fact that I died?

I suspect the actual scenario was somewhere between those two scenarios that I described. The jury decides.

 

[wegs]

Let's look at the other possibility. It was the drugs that was the primary problem and if Floyd hadn't died then we wouldn't be too concerned about Chauvin's actions.

It would just be a cop that maybe held a struggling suspect down for a little longer than necessary. We would think, "It's not professional but what's new, he's a cop".

What if I said, I'm pissed. I was doing drugs and driving around and passed fake money and I was apprehended by a cop. I struggled with him and didn't want to get into his car. He put me on the ground and held me down with his knee for longer than I felt was necessary.

Would you have a lot of sympathy for me or would you say "you pretty much got what you deserved"?

That’s just it, though. I think Chauvin had multiple infractions over the years, for using excessive force. Not sure if/when that will come out in the trial but that has been discussed since this happened last year. I think cops have a very tough and often times dangerous job, but they’re dealing with people who break the law. They deal with people on drugs and no one wants to be arrested. So, imo - looks like he pushed his luck one too many times and a suspect died in his custody. Sure, that suspect was high (nearing overdose) but sounds like from witness testimony - Chauvin needed to care for him. If Chauvin had performed CPR etc, and Floyd had still died, he might not be on trial. He’s a 20-year veteran who should know what to do in a crisis, one would think.

I hear your point, though.

 

[wegs]

Maybe that isn't the correct analogy however. What if I had one beer and was a jerk to the arresting cop and he put his knee on me and I died. I had one beer but it had nothing to do with the fact that I died?

I suspect the actual scenario was somewhere between those two scenarios that I described. The jury decides.

I think your two analogies are exactly what the jury will be thinking. It’s interesting how the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, its case - the burden of proof rests on them, but the defense just has to cast reasonable doubt in only one juror and they “win.”

 

[Seattle]

I think your two analogies are exactly what the jury will be thinking. It’s interesting how the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, its case - the burden of proof rests on them, but the defense just has to cast reasonable doubt in only one juror and they “win.”

That's our system. The state has all the advantages and therefore the system makes sure that the burden is reasonably high for them.

I'd say almost all cops, if they have been cops a long time, have some complaints or warnings in their records. It's the nature of the job.

One reasonable complaint that a lot of people have with the system is asking cops to do non-law enforcement related activities. We send cops into situations sometimes that maybe should be addressed by mental health professionals, social workers, parole officers, and then when people get shot it's a big surprise.

They aren't really adequately trained for those roles. They're pumped up and in survival mode and then they're supposed to suddenly go into nurturing nurse role. If they screw up, now people want blood because they don't really like cops in the first place.

 

[wegs]

True ^

But they are trained for all kinds of scenarios. I think things are way different though classroom vs “real life.”

 

[Michael 345]

I think Chauvin had multiple infractions over the years, for using excessive force

Not admissible as I understand as well as his being fired and the payout already made

While the jury undoubtedly know about both they are not allowed to consider those. Only stuff heard in court

If guilty CAN be considered in sentencing

 

[Vociferous]

The victim died, and he's not on trial.

Who said otherwise?

From the evidence presented so far, I'd say he didn't ''set out'' to kill Floyd, but by not removing his knee from his neck when Floyd was under physical duress, it could mean that Chauvin didn't care if Floyd died. Not saying that he did or didn't care if Floyd died, but it seems unusual that a trained police officer wouldn't know when to stop hurting someone who was clearly under physical strain/pain.

Even the prosecution has moved from saying "knee on neck" to "knee on neck and back" to "knee on neck or back". So even the prosecution is starting to doubt their own case. The only physical duress Floyd was under was from the drugs he ingested. What things "could mean" obviously do not meet the criteria of "beyond a reasonable doubt". That restraint, while uncomfortable, is in no way "hurting someone". Nor was there any change in Floyd's behavior prior to be placed on the ground. Floyd claimed he couldn't breathe while in the police car, and Floyd asked to be laid on the ground. He was crying and whining long before he was ever in that position.

Not quite sure, but it could range from racism to wanting to send a message in the community? Chauvin has a history of this behavior, so he could simply be a sociopath, with no conscience. I'm not sure, we have to see what comes out in the trial.

Even though all the cops, including Chauvin, did everything they could to deescalate and keep him calm, including placing Floyd on the ground like he asked?

Did he "unintentionally kill while committing other offenses"?

Maybe.

What other offenses?

I don't understand the question.

Second degree murder is an unintentional death that results from committing another crime. So how can you say "maybe" and have no idea what that other crime might be?

It seems again from the evidence, that the length of time that he had his knee on Floyd's neck was the problem, not necessarily that he/they used that type of force to subdue Floyd. (if that's what you want to call it)

Then it wasn't "eminently dangerous". You'd have to show some department policy or protocol about the length of time someone can be restrained in such a manner to start to approach the "eminently dangerous". Can you? Will you even bother to try?

Chauvin has had multiple reports against him for police brutality.

Out of 18 complaints, he was exonerated or his action found to be appropriate in all but 2. That means that the vast majority were not valid complaints. Police work involves many high-pressure judgement calls, and perception and judgement is not always 100% correct. News flash, humans are fallible. That doesn't make then murders.

Accomodate? Um, not quite. Chauvin did the opposite of ''accomodating'' Floyd. Even after the ambulance arrived, Chauvin still kept his knee on the Floyd's neck.

Floyd complained about being put in the car, and they promised they'd turn on the AC and keep the windows down. Floyd asked them not to leave him, and they promised not to. Floyd asked to be laid on the ground, and they did so. How is that not accommodating? You ignoring all that and just jumping to Chauvin's actions in the presence of a openly hostile crowd is dishonest.

I haven't heard/read this. But, if this is true, and Floyd still complained of not being able to breathe, perhaps something else was happening to him physically and trained police officers should be calling for help, not making matters worse.

You don't have to read it, watch the full 30 minute body cam footage for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkEGGLu_fNU
But thanks for admitting you're not informed about a case you've been opining so much about.
Trained officers are use to "I can't breathe" being the first thing many people say once they're cuffed, whether as an attempt to avoid arrest or a panicked but harmless sense of claustrophobia from just being cuffed. Floyd starts to say he can't breathe as soon as they try to get him in the car, which is why they promise to turn on the AC and leave the windows down. You can't reasonably fault them for not knowing when that complaint might have become a real complaint about his decreased lung function due to the fentanyl overdose.

So, why didn't Chauvin call for an ambulance? All of this could have been avoided, if Chauvin looked at the issue from the standpoint of safety, and not his ego.

They called for emergency medical service "roughly 1 minute after Chauvin began pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck." https://apnews.com/article/how-long...george-floyd-4311fb3090f071c5c2f838a6f14e5d58
The emergency call was also upgraded to life-threatening about one minute after paramedics first got the dispatch call.
That's well before Floyd died. So it seems you're uninformed again.

Considering that four police officers struggled to arrest one unarmed man, perhaps it's not that far fetched to believe that this crew could have been afraid of the crowd, but this is actually coming out in the trial now, and witnesses are sharing that the crowd was upset, but not threatening the officers at all.

Have you not been watching the news for the past year or so? Police have been being attacked by crowds regularly. All it seems to take is enough of a crowd for people to think they can get away with it. Police have no idea when a crowd might turn into a mob. One even said, "I swear I'll slap the f--- out of both of you." You second guessing the police when you would have feared for your own life in such a situation is hypocritical. Police are human too.

I would prefer that they called an ambulance when Floyd started complaining that he couldn't breathe, and that complaint continued. I'm surprised actually by all I've learned about this ''choke hold'' business. Didn't realize this was a go-to method when dealing with people resisting arrest.

Call the ambulance when he started saying he couldn't breathe from just being put in the car? You're really clueless as to how often people say this to police without any problem breathing at all. It happens all the time. It's often a panicked response to a sense of claustrophobia from just being cuffed or just a ploy to avoid arrest.
People who resist arrest have to be restrained or subdued. The only other option would be to let dangerous criminals go free, and cross our fingers they don't harm the next person they come across in whatever drug-fueled delirium they may be in.

 

[wegs]

I love how everyone is an expert resource regarding police procedures and arrest protocol etc but ignore the witness testimony in this case by actual active duty police officers brought in by the prosecution, who are stating what the procedures are.

Not disputing that Floyd ingested a large amount of drugs, but Chauvin’s actions exacerbated the situation. So, you create a life threatening situation as a cop, then call for an ambulance? I think if Chauvin and the other cops relieved the restraint when Floyd stopped what they interpreted as resisting arrest, I wonder if he still would have died. That’s the variable we don’t know, and that’s why we have trials.

 

[billvon]

I love how everyone is an expert resource regarding police procedures and arrest protocol etc but ignore the witness testimony in this case by actual active duty police officers brought in by the prosecution, who are stating what the procedures are.

Well what do THEY know? They are not the Internet Experts like some people here are.

Not disputing that Floyd ingested a large amount of drugs, but Chauvin’s actions exacerbated the situation.

Beyond that - I'd say kneeling on his neck for nine minutes was the proximate cause of death. That could be expected to cause death or serious injury to someone who was NOT on drugs.

 

[Vociferous]

I love how everyone is an expert resource regarding police procedures and arrest protocol etc but ignore the witness testimony in this case by actual active duty police officers brought in by the prosecution, who are stating what the procedures are.

Not disputing that Floyd ingested a large amount of drugs, but Chauvin’s actions exacerbated the situation. So, you create a life threatening situation as a cop, then call for an ambulance? I think if Chauvin and the other cops relieved the restraint when Floyd stopped what they interpreted as resisting arrest, I wonder if he still would have died. That’s the variable we don’t know, and that’s why we have trials.

So you've got no defense of your obviously ignorant opinions. That literally makes whatever you may think complete irrelevant, as you clearly don't even know what happened. And it's the height of hypocrisy for you to whine about people responding to your claims about police protocols, but you can't manage to support your own ignorant claims.
Have you never watched any court dramas? Are you completely unaware that the prosecutions asks very specific questions to illicit very specific answers (the lawyer adage of not asking a question you don't already know that answer to, including prepping your witnesses for the prosecution beforehand).
Not just a large amount of drug. Three times the lethal dosage. That restraint is not life threatening on its own, and Floyd didn't tell them he took so many drugs. Floyd created the life threatening situation, by taking the drugs and resisting. They called an ambulance 1 minute after they had restrained Floyd.

Three times the lethal dosage means he would have likely died. The only thing that could have saved his life at that point was for him to immediately tell them how much drugs he took.

 

[Vociferous]

Beyond that - I'd say kneeling on his neck for nine minutes was the proximate cause of death. That could be expected to cause death or serious injury to someone who was NOT on drugs.

No, it couldn't.

 

[wegs]

Well what do THEY know? They are not the Internet Experts like some people here are.

Beyond that - I'd say kneeling on his neck for nine minutes was the proximate cause of death. That could be expected to cause death or serious injury to someone who was NOT on drugs.

Yea, I think that is what the prosecution drove home today with one of their expert witnesses, a pulmonologist. He felt strongly that Floyd’s death was caused by lack of oxygen not related to a drug overdose, but based on Chauvin’s (and the other cops) restraint pressing on his back and kneeing his neck for a long duration.

 

[wegs]

So you've got no defense of your obviously ignorant opinions. That literally makes whatever you may think complete irrelevant, as you clearly don't even know what happened. And it's the height of hypocrisy for you to whine about people responding to your claims about police protocols, but you can't manage to support your own ignorant claims.
Have you never watched any court dramas? Are you completely unaware that the prosecutions asks very specific questions to illicit very specific answers (the lawyer adage of not asking a question you don't already know that answer to, including prepping your witnesses for the prosecution beforehand).
Not just a large amount of drug. Three times the lethal dosage. That restraint is not life threatening on its own, and Floyd didn't tell them he took so many drugs. Floyd created the life threatening situation, by taking the drugs and resisting. They called an ambulance 1 minute after they had restrained Floyd.

Three times the lethal dosage means he would have likely died. The only thing that could have saved his life at that point was for him to immediately tell them how much drugs he took.

I’m watching this trial. Your bias is incredible. We get it, you think Floyd caused his own death and Chauvin is innocent.

 

[Vociferous]

Wow, a bunch of white people trying to determine how a white police officer could be found not guilty of murdering a black man. Interesting.. You could be his jury!

Gross, no?

What's gross is your racist ad hominem circumstantial. Presuming people have bad motives solely due to the color of their skin is outright racist.
Chauvin's jury is comprised of 8 whites, 4 blacks, and 2 mixed-race. That means that blacks (even leaving out the mixed-race) are over represented by about four times their percentage of the population.

If you watch the video, you would see that Floyd was actually in the police car. Firstly, there are numerous things in the video that shine a light on police action that should raise a lot of questions. Firstly, Floyd did not resist arrest and was complying with police - this was before Chauvin arrived and killed him. A gun was initially pulled when Floyd was still in his car. And that was put away and he was dragged out and cuffed. He then complied, sat against a wall and spoke to police. Secondly, when Floyd is taken to the police car across the road, the second police car that had responded earlier did a u-turn and parked closer to the first police car. But then they do something interesting, they move forward to block the cctv camera that was across the road and that becomes obvious when the officer gets out of his car and looks directly into the camera. So it was clear something was going badly. Chauvin and his 17 complaints against him then arrives.

Floyd was completely inside the police car. Chauvin then opens the door on the opposite side, reaches in and drags him across the backseat of the police car and puts him on the ground and kneels on his neck. Three other officers join him and help him, supposedly to restrain Floyd. The 4th officer tries to body block the the cameras being held by the angry people who had stopped and were begging the Chauvin to get off his neck as he was losing consciousness. The entire time they were kneeling on him, they were telling him to get up and get in the car and when he tried to move, the knee on his neck was pressed down harder and harder. When he told them he could not breathe and it was clear he was in medical distress, they told him it would stop if he could get up and get in the car. When he tried to move, that knee pressed down harder.

So perhaps you can stop being such a partisan dishonest hack and actually address the facts of the case.

Watch the video: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html

You're either lying or ignorant. Might help if you don't watch someone making assumptions with only low quality CCTV footage and just watch the raw body cam footage:

If you did, you'd see, and hear, exactly why officer Lane pulled his gun, because Floyd was not complying to orders to show his hands and repeatedly reaching around in the car, possibly for a weapon for all responding officers knew. Floyd resisted showing his hands (gun drawn), resisted stepping out of the car (gun holstered to pull him out), resisted being cuffed (second officer has to help), and resisted being place in the police car (falls to the ground claiming to be claustrophobic, even though he was just pulled from a smaller car). Many criminals know, first hand, that being cuffed doesn't always mean being arrested, so there was no need to resist again until they tried to put him in the squad car. It's complete nonsense to whine about the car blocking the CCTV camera when they all have body cams. And you're imagining things if you think you can tell that officer looks directly at that camera with such low quality. That's an obvious figment of your motivated reasoning.
Chauvin had 18 past complaints, only two of which were not dismissed or deemed appropriate. Another fact you can't be bothered to either find out or acknowledge.

Floyd was not completely inside the police car long enough to shut the doors. Chauvin tried to pull him into the car from the other side, but Floyd seems to push himself out that side, as he lunges at Chauvin's body cam while Chauvin's hands clearly do not have a hold of him.

It's a bystander who tells Floyd to get up and get in the car, not the police. That's clear from the volume of the voice from the bystander video compared to the police body can. You know, applying a modicum of reasoning skills.

So perhaps you can quit being a dishonest, uninformed racist and bother to watch the whole 30 minute body cam footage. You know, instead of making up bullshit.

 

[Vociferous]

Yea, I think that is what the prosecution drove home today with one of their expert witnesses, a pulmonologist. He felt strongly that Floyd’s death was caused by lack of oxygen not related to a drug overdose, but based on Chauvin’s (and the other cops) restraint pressing on his back and kneeing his neck for a long duration.

Fentanyl overdose causes compromised lung function. Again, educate yourself a bit.

I’m watching this trial. Your bias is incredible. We get it, you think Floyd caused his own death and Chauvin is innocent.

You're already in the bag for the prosecution, otherwise you'd have some clue as to the standard ploys they are using to manipulate both you and the jury.

Until you can refute any of the facts I've told you, you're a hypocrite to talk about bias.

 

[wegs]

Fentanyl overdose causes compromised lung function. Again, educate yourself a bit.


You're already in the bag for the prosecution, otherwise you'd have some clue as to the standard ploys they are using to manipulate both you and the jury.

Until you can refute any of the facts I've told you, you're a hypocrite to talk about bias.

I’m not “in the bag,” for the prosecution. I’m listening to both sides and drawing my own conclusions. I’m not seeing how a jury could acquit based on the evidence so far. It comes down to what a reasonable person thinks - is it reasonable to believe that had Chauvin not acted as he did (knee on neck etc) would Floyd have died where and when he did? No, imo. It is reasonable to think that Chauvin was a contributor to Floyd’s death at the very least and possibly was the sole cause - based on the evidence that has been presented so far, in my opinion.

Floyd’s character isn’t on trial here.

 

[billvon]

No, it couldn't.

Yes, it could. Brain damage begins after 4 minutes if the person is unable to breathe. Death usually happens after six. That's reality.

The only physical duress Floyd was under was from the drugs he ingested.

Looks like you are getting a lot of use out of your Facebook medical degree. It's so sad that the coroner, and the other doctors who examined him, don't know as much as you do about the cause of death.

 

[Seattle]

Fentanyl overdose causes compromised lung function. Again, educate yourself a bit.


You're already in the bag for the prosecution, otherwise you'd have some clue as to the standard ploys they are using to manipulate both you and the jury.

Until you can refute any of the facts I've told you, you're a hypocrite to talk about bias.

Why be rude? It doesn't add to the persuasiveness of your points.