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

[wegs]

Why was Floyd on the ground in the prone position, cuffed, being held down by three police officers with excessive force, long after he stopped ''resisting?'' Long after he stopped moving completely?

That's why we have trials, because that part...doesn't add up.

Also, in Vociferous' list - #10 isn't quite accurate. Upon the redirect, it was clarified that the time of the video being reviewed was when the ambulance arrived and the video from earlier showed that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck.

 

[billvon]

I think it will be either 2nd degree manslaughter or acquittal.

Yeah, I think 2nd degree manslaughter is the most likely outcome as well. The two other options that we might see IMO are third degree murder (called manslaughter in most other states) and acquittal; I think those are both equally likely, but far less likely than second degree manslaughter.

Third degree murder is unlikely because they would have to prove he acted with a "depraved mind" with no regard for human life. And while there's some evidence of that (the 18 complaints about his misconduct and use of unnecessary force) it will be difficult to prove that he acted in this case with no regard for human life.

Acquittal is unlikely as well, since it's pretty clear that he acted outside of his training and, through negligence, caused a death.

 

[Vociferous]

See, that's what happens when you stick to the facts. Everyone completely ignores them in favor of their own presumptions.

 

[Vociferous]

Also, in Vociferous' list - #10 isn't quite accurate. Upon the redirect, it was clarified that the time of the video being reviewed was when the ambulance arrived and the video from earlier showed that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck.

You mean the bystander video, from a bad angle?

 

[wegs]

You mean the bystander video, from a bad angle?

It was determined after reviewing all of the videos.

Which redirect, chief or trainer?

chief



Someone died while in police custody - is this trial to determine if the way in which he died, part of police procedure?

 

[Michael 345]

Long after he stopped moving completely?

Second guessing here

Officer's previous experience - person gives up and goes deflated rubber balloon flaccid - officer relaxes restraint - 2 seconds later person is is basketball rigid and bouncing around like one

From the extra I picked up today from watching it appears Floyd was dead before being put in ambulance

IF such is the case I am puzzled by the treatment received in Ambulance and in Emergency Department

And still no mention of O² levels

 

[Seattle]

Yeah, I think 2nd degree manslaughter is the most likely outcome as well. The two other options that we might see IMO are third degree murder (called manslaughter in most other states) and acquittal; I think those are both equally likely, but far less likely than second degree manslaughter.

Third degree murder is unlikely because they would have to prove he acted with a "depraved mind" with no regard for human life. And while there's some evidence of that (the 18 complaints about his misconduct and use of unnecessary force) it will be difficult to prove that he acted in this case with no regard for human life.

Acquittal is unlikely as well, since it's pretty clear that he acted outside of his training and, through negligence, caused a death.

Acquittal will, IMO, have more to do with how good his defense attorney presents his case (I've read that maybe he isn't doing a great job) and the makeup of the individual jurors. All it takes is one to not convict.

It's clear that there was a death, the trial has to make it clear that he caused it. If they can show that his knee was on the shoulder, demonstrate in court that this same position has no effect on someone else and if there is a jury member who thinks that there is not enough here to convict a police officer doing his job...acquittal.

I'd say it's 50/50 between those two. The defense presents medical "experts" to say that he didn't do what they are saying, find some other "impartial" police officials to say that what he did wasn't out of the ordinary and that the Minneapolis officials testifying otherwise are just doing so to reduce their liability when the family sues the police department for a "wrongful death" suit and you have potentially some jurors with reasonable doubt.

If it weren't for the political/social aspects of this case, it would be hard to get a conviction for a police officer with a "victim" like George Floyd.

 

[Vociferous]

It was determined after reviewing all of the videos.

Now you're just lying. All the prosecution asks on redirect is if the still frame, from the bystander video alone, was a trained MPD neck restraint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL1mEXR0XZg @2:08:39

 

[geordief]

My s

Their job is to put on the best defense that they can. It's not necessary that they believe in their clients innocence. Sometimes they do but most of the time a criminal defense attorney doesn't have that luxury.

I doubt if there is anyone that feels that Chauvin did a great job.

My suspicion at the time was that his action was a vicious ,9 minute long signal to all of us watching. "This is the value I put on this ,and other men's lives"

I felt it was like theatre and wonder whether he is a member of a political group.

Many of the lynchings were public events,it seems.Was that his contribution to that cause?

 

[geordief]

If it weren't for the political/social aspects of this case, it would be hard to get a conviction for a police officer with a "victim" like George Floyd.

Why is "victim" in quotes?
Did he deserve his treatment iyo ?

 

[wegs]

Now you're just lying. All the prosecution asks on redirect is if the still frame, from the bystander video alone, was a trained MPD neck restraint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL1mEXR0XZg @2:08:39

This isn’t indicative of your “#10,” though. Again, this video shows where Chauvin’s knee was in relation to Floyd’s neck and shoulder area, once the ambulance/EMT was on the scene. This same chief stated throughout his testimony that this was an unnecessary excessive use of force. Perhaps, Chauvin moved a bit when EMT arrived? This was what the chief was commenting on, in terms of the shoulder blade (in that moment.)

Regardless, three police officers were pressing down on Floyd’s back, using excessive force, while he was cuffed and in the prone position which expert witnesses have testified that this will cause strain in breathing. Why didn’t they roll him to his side? You don’t care about that answer?

Again, a man died in police custody and it seems that the defense is looking for something in the police procedures hand book that justifies it. Might as well say, “well he died but that can happen sometimes when someone is resisting arrest.” If everything is a matter of perspective, why not give some of the benefit of the doubt to Floyd, who was high and maybe having a medical issue that appeared to the officers as though he was resisting arrest? Especially seeing that Floyd was verbalizing his discomfort early on. In twenty years on the job, Chauvin should have better situational awareness.

 

[billvon]

If it weren't for the political/social aspects of this case, it would be hard to get a conviction for a police officer with a "victim" like George Floyd.

I agree. White privledge still very much exists.

If this had been a white college student high on ecstasy, and the officer had been a black man with a history of abusive behavior, the cop would have already been killed in prison - and Vociferous would be saying things like "well, I don't condone that of course, but what did he expect?"

If they can show that his knee was on the shoulder, demonstrate in court that this same position has no effect on someone else and if there is a jury member who thinks that there is not enough here to convict a police officer doing his job...acquittal.

Hmm. A demonstration that someone can be shot and not die is insufficient to prove a shooter innocent of the death of a person he shot. However, as you point out, jurors can be arbitrarily irrational.

 

[billvon]

. . . .Its effects include extreme happiness, drowsiness, nausea, confusion, constipation, sedation, tolerance, addiction, respiratory depression and arrest, unconsciousness, coma, and death.

Agreed. True of a lot of things.

Alcohol: (from Merck)
Alcohol (ethanol) is a central nervous system depressant. Large amounts consumed rapidly can cause respiratory depression, coma, and death.

Ibuprofen: (from HealthLine)
Taking too much ibuprofen, which is called an overdose, can cause dangerous side effects, including damage to your stomach or intestines. In rare cases, an overdose can be fatal.

Water: (from Medical News Today)
In severe cases, water intoxication can cause seizures, brain damage, a coma, and even death.

 

[Seattle]

I agree. White privledge still very much exists.

If this had been a white college student high on ecstasy, and the officer had been a black man with a history of abusive behavior, the cop would have already been killed in prison - and Vociferous would be saying things like "well, I don't condone that of course, but what did he expect?"

Hmm. A demonstration that someone can be shot and not die is insufficient to prove a shooter innocent of the death of a person he shot. However, as you point out, jurors can be arbitrarily irrational.

Ah, race. A black cop wouldn't be presumed to have been racially motivated if the person dying was still George Floyd and yet the results would still be the same. If the drug had been ecstasy the death likely wouldn't have occurred.

Regarding the person being arrested being white, the statistics don't bear out what you are implying. Just as with the police shooting unarmed people, they shoot more unarmed white people than black. That never makes the news, there are never protests and even though there are many more white people than black in the general population we know that black people are more represented in the types of crime that result in these shootings.

There is nothing to suggest race is the issue in this case. The record of Chauvin that you keep quoting is misleading as well. He wasn't fired so how bad could any of them have been and only 2 of 18 were found to have any merit.

He was appropriately fired for this situation and whether more happens to him will depend on the court, the trier of facts, as is our system.

 

[billvon]

If the drug had been ecstasy the death likely wouldn't have occurred.

It he had been on ecstasy and had died, then Vociferious would be trumpeting that just as loudly - and quoting sources that indicate that ecstasy can cause death, which it can.

There is nothing to suggest race is the issue in this case. The record of Chauvin that you keep quoting is misleading as well. He wasn't fired so how bad could any of them have been and only 2 of 18 were found to have any merit.

No, only 2 of 18 were acted on. Which is quite different. I assume not even you would claim that the death of OJ Simpson's wife was caused by his actions, for example.

He was appropriately fired for this situation and whether more happens to him will depend on the court, the trier of facts, as is our system.

Agreed there.

 

[Seattle]

I assume not even you would claim that the death of OJ Simpson's wife was caused by his actions, for example.

?

 

[Vociferous]

This isn’t indicative of your “#10,” though. Again, this video shows where Chauvin’s knee was in relation to Floyd’s neck and shoulder area, once the ambulance/EMT was on the scene. This same chief stated throughout his testimony that this was an unnecessary excessive use of force. Perhaps, Chauvin moved a bit when EMT arrived? This was what the chief was commenting on, in terms of the shoulder blade (in that moment.)

Regardless, three police officers were pressing down on Floyd’s back, using excessive force, while he was cuffed and in the prone position which expert witnesses have testified that this will cause strain in breathing. Why didn’t they roll him to his side? You don’t care about that answer?

Again, a man died in police custody and it seems that the defense is looking for something in the police procedures hand book that justifies it. Might as well say, “well he died but that can happen sometimes when someone is resisting arrest.” If everything is a matter of perspective, why not give some of the benefit of the doubt to Floyd, who was high and maybe having a medical issue that appeared to the officers as though he was resisting arrest? Especially seeing that Floyd was verbalizing his discomfort early on. In twenty years on the job, Chauvin should have better situational awareness.

#10 is a fact. If you watched all the police chief and use-of-force trainer testimony, you can't dispute that. One still shot is deceptive. They are often used in trials to make more broad or misleading claims than the evidence supports (as was done in the Crutcher case). In the bystander video, we see Floyd lift and turn his head, while Chauvin is in the same position. If you have any doubt, have someone kneel on your neck, like you think Chauvin did, and see if you can lift and turn your head. I'd bet that simple physiology would disabuse you of your presumptions (but if you won't bother to Google simple facts, you certainly aren't going to do that). Since you cannot judge the amount of force exerted from video alone (without measurable things like velocity), all claims of "excessive force" are opinion. The prosecutor even asks, "in your opinion". Even in the still shot, Chauvin's right foot is far enough back to indicate that his right knee is on the ground, so his whole body weight was not on Floyd. And as the video demonstration I already posted points out, you're actually applying less force by being more upright on the knee than if you were squatted on it. But you probably didn't bother to watch that either.

I've already told you, and the MPD medical coordinator already testified, that police cannot always release a restraint or provide medical aid when the scene is not safe. That's what police and EMTs have to do to ensure their own safety. Or are you demanding that police willingly allow their lives to be threatened without taking precautions? That would seem awfully callous, considering they didn't instigate the interaction.

Benefit of the doubt does not refute physical evidence, like repeatedly resisting every order the police gave him. If the drugs contributed to that, those were Floyd's doing as well. If Floyd didn't know what he was taking, that's on his drug dealer, who would then be guilt of what Chauvin is charged with (and likely why he's pled the Fifth). There is no such thing as merely "appearing" to resist. Police don't have the option to just let someone under a drug-induced delirium run free. One of prosecution's witnesses testified that police hear things like "I can't breathe" all the time, and routinely ignore them because experience has taught them they are insincere.

It really seems like you only hear what you want to.

The judge on all the "opinion" on use of force.

 

[wegs]

I could say the same to you in that we are seeing and hearing the same things, and coming away with potentially different opinions. This isn’t unlike an actual jury and what they go through during deliberation.

The defense hasn’t cast reasonable doubt in terms of manslaughter or an acquittal (to me). Second and third degree murder, I’m not able to connect the dots (evidence) so far to believe that would be the verdict.

Do you feel that if you had to give a verdict today, it would be acquit?

 

[Vociferous]

I could say the same to you in that we are seeing and hearing the same things, and coming away with potentially different opinions. This isn’t unlike an actual jury and what they go through during deliberation.

The defense hasn’t cast reasonable doubt in terms of manslaughter or an acquittal (to me). Second and third degree murder, I’m not able to connect the dots (evidence) so far to believe that would be the verdict.

The difference is that you've proven to be unaware of many things that happened in the incident, while I'm much better informed. So obviously, you haven't seen and heard all the things I have. You don't seem to be aware of how high a bar reasonable doubt is either.

It's the prosecution that has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defense to prove innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Law 101 stuff.

 

[wegs]

The difference is that you've proven to be unaware of many things that happened in the incident, while I'm much better informed. So obviously, you haven't seen and heard all the things I have. You don't seem to be aware of how high a bar reasonable doubt is either.

It's the prosecution that has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not the defense to prove innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Law 101 stuff.

Lol I’m well aware of what the prosecution has to prove and that the defense only has to cast reasonable doubt, in just one juror. You post a video showing a snippet where the police chief comments on one segment of the video - and want everyone to believe that is the entirety of his opinion. You should check your motives for doing that.