The Derek Chauvin / George Floyd Trial

[Viper1j]

Am I the only one that thinks that Chauvin should tell his attorney to try to cut a deal?

Maybe he can plead for 25 years instead of getting the full 40.

 

[Torn Mind]

Depraved mindset has to be proven by the prosecution. Your feelings on watching from one camera perspective doesn't come near to meeting that definition. The prosecution as I said has not even attempted that line of attack for their prosecution. As I said, they have done a pretty terrible job of proving their case for any charge thus far.

Within questioning, both sides generate facts and weighty opinions for the jury to consider. It is then up to the jury to decide what facts were persuasively relevant and reflective of the truth and what violations of the law, if any occurred.

The presence of certain facts via previous testimony can be used to infer that a depraved mind did exist in Chauvin.

I think there are enough facts to put together into a syllogism proving Chauvin had depraved mind beyond a reasonable doubt.

Put it is this way. Let's just assume Floyd was overdosing. If Officer Chauvin knew that, is he then not bound by de jure duty then, to administer naloxone to Floyd? What justification did he have to not administer it once Floyd's vitals started to decrease substantially and the tactile feedback was clear the resistance was no longer there? Not administering naloxone during an overdose is like a lifeguard not attempting to save someone who was drowning. If the person was faking the drowning, it is still duty to go in the water under the assumption that the drowning in progress is real.

The difference between life and death via naloxone administration can be 5-10 minutes; Demi Lovato lived because of just those few minutes. To administer the naloxone, Chuavin would have to cease this knee-on-neck restraint.

Chauvin held down Floyd for far too long and failed to do his de jure duties. His processing of information can only be described as severely distorted and irrational. He was escalating the solution and triggering the increase in crowd agitation. He did nothing even after another officer told him Floyd had no more pulse.

So, at some point, Floyd's resistance decreased to the point a naloxone administration could have been done safely since he passed out. He then later lost his pulse.

The are more than one legal road to conviction even if there is only one actual version of events.

 

[Greenman]

Am I the only one that thinks that Chauvin should tell his attorney to try to cut a deal?

Maybe he can plead for 25 years instead of getting the full 40.

I heard a defense attorney on the radio speculating that this is exactly what will happen. His reasoning was that it takes the jury out of the equation. The prosecution gets a win and the defendant gets a reduced sentence. He pointed out (rightly I think) that the defense only has to convince one person to get a hung jury, and in the case of a politically charged trial, that can't be allowed to happen.

 

[zinfamous]

Prosecution is destroying the Defense's use of force expert witness. Yikes on bikes.

Don't worry, our own incontinent storm trooper will be along to tell us the exact opposite.

 

[zinfamous]

I'll go one step further, and claim prison guard. The extreme defense and projection surrounding policing policies connotates a certain worship that tells me wishes he was a cop.

parole officer?

 

[Viper1j]

I heard a defense attorney on the radio speculating that this is exactly what will happen. His reasoning was that it takes the jury out of the equation. The prosecution gets a win and the defendant gets a reduced sentence. He pointed out (rightly I think) that the defense only has to convince one person to get a hung jury, and in the case of a politically charged trial, that can't be allowed to happen.

It's a bad bet.. He can go through 150 hung juries and still bee re-tried.

Even Kenny Rogers knows that "you have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them.."

 

[zinfamous]

There is no de facto obligation for the police to care for the public beyond not stirring an uproar despite sedating words like "protect and serve the community".

Well but, you know, "protect and serve" it's the first 3 fucking words, lol. But you're right....because it actually doesn't ever say "the community."

It only ever says "protect and serve." ....and that means "the law": protect and serve the law. Not the people. This is an important distinction.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I heard a defense attorney on the radio speculating that this is exactly what will happen. His reasoning was that it takes the jury out of the equation. The prosecution gets a win and the defendant gets a reduced sentence. He pointed out (rightly I think) that the defense only has to convince one person to get a hung jury, and in the case of a politically charged trial, that can't be allowed to happen.

I agree it is probably what is going to happen, but it should not be allowed to happen. My hope would be that the Judge rules that it is not in the public interest to have a plea deal here. We need to see the justice system working, not more shady back room deals.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It's a bad bet.. He can go through 150 hung juries and still bee re-tried.

Even Kenny Rogers knows that "you have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them.."

Sure, but the real goal would be to draw this out until something else is taking up the news cycle and then let the prosecution quietly throw the case.

 

[fskimospy]

The Defense brought this expert in and had him testify that Chauvin was using a "control technique" and not using "force". The Prosecutor is going almost frame by frame asking him "is this force?" The witness keeps having to begrudgingly agree that Chauvin was using force.

Yes, I don't know what the defense was thinking (other than that they had no other argument). When you're telling the jury that pinning someone down by kneeling on their neck isn't using force you're making an argument so preposterous that it damages every other point you try to make by undermining your credibility.

 

[interchange]

There is no de facto obligation for the police to care for the public beyond not stirring an uproar despite sedating words like "protect and serve the community". They exist to protect the state(reputation and finances of the state) and the common people become a concern only after the state is not harmed. Utilizing new sedative words does not change the matter. Mutual interest needs to be defined and implemented into protocol, and not just via manuals or "rulebooks" but in actual practice.

Police proper are usually formed under the power of the local executive branch. Not that the sheriff system of being elected or not creates its own perverse incentives to engage in misconduct, but police departments are created to reduce the amount of public monitoring that can be done. Usually, the local executive is not voted out simply because of police misconduct/corruption, in part due to lack of information; other matters also matter more to voters.

Through both education and experience, officers eventually learn very well, in part from the criminals they deal with and the lawyers in the legal system, the means of conducting misconduct and getting away with it.

Defunding the police indeed is an ineffective slogan. Often the cuts cause the amount of cops deployed to be reduced, which means those still employed can engage in misconduct. Taking away the money does not do much. Social workers have their own set of biases and ways of screwing over people, just nonviolently.

If there is no mutual interest driving police, then the best strategy is to downsize to the minimum necessary for their basic function.

In all cases, the strategy to help the public is built upon a mutual relationship with said public. Social workers are as human as police are. The primary reason that "defund the police" models have worked in practice is that the people choosing those models have done so with an intent in mind whereby better public service is intrinsically motivating. If this intrinsic motivation is not there, then any protocol as you suggest is only as good as its implementation. Which will only go as well as those who are implementing it have intrinsic motivation for the protocols to work. I'm not optimistic that such reform is anywhere near possible today. With intentional efforts to improve the cooperative relationship between the police and the public, it may become possible in the future. That said, I think studying the systemic failures and possible protocol interventions is extremely valuable work today, and attempts to make it work should not be forfeited. We must only be wary of thinking we have succeeded in mitigating a problem or excepting attention toward the basic relationship between police and public.

 

[pauldun170]

The Defense brought this expert in and had him testify that Chauvin was using a "control technique" and not using "force". The Prosecutor is going almost frame by frame asking him "is this force?" The witness keeps having to begrudgingly agree that Chauvin was using force.

Brodd hasn't been a cop for 20 years and his business model appears to serve as an expert witness in defense of officers who can afford his fee.
Perhaps for a fee, he will expertly testify that a wooden broom stick up the ass is a valid search technique and he is unware of any specific policy\manual that explicitly forbids the usage of wooden broom sticks as a mechanical device to search for hidden bazookas.

I had some trouble finding cases where his testimony was used by prosecution against cops charged with wrong doing.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well but, you know, "protect and serve" it's the first 3 fucking words, lol. But you're right....because it actually doesn't ever say "the community."

It only ever says "protect and serve." ....and that means "the law": protect and serve the law. Not the people. This is an important distinction.

Indeed. If the slogan was referring to people, change it to Comply or Die.

 

[HomerJS]

I heard a defense attorney on the radio speculating that this is exactly what will happen. His reasoning was that it takes the jury out of the equation. The prosecution gets a win and the defendant gets a reduced sentence. He pointed out (rightly I think) that the defense only has to convince one person to get a hung jury, and in the case of a politically charged trial, that can't be allowed to happen.

You say a 1 person hung jury can't happen because of the charged political climate...

I say it can't happen because Chauvin murdered George Floyd if justice means anything

 

[zinfamous]

You say a 1 person hung jury can't happen because of the charged political climate...

I say it can't happen because Chauvin murdered George Floyd if justice means anything

Oh, I think it's entirely possible. Just takes one white juror that interprets their vote as "revenge for OJ!" perhaps directly in response to some of those jurors (one particularly old lady, admitted during that big ESPN documentary, that was amazing, btw), that admitted that their decision was simply "revenge for Rodney King."

 

[Greenman]

You say a 1 person hung jury can't happen because of the charged political climate...

I say it can't happen because Chauvin murdered George Floyd if justice means anything

I didn't say that at all.
I said I agree with the logic that the defense only needs to convince one person that the cop isn't guilty to get a hung jury.

 

[sactoking]

I was today years old when I learned that George Floyd, Osama bin Laden, Abraham Lincoln, and Dominique Dunne all have something in common:

They apparently died of heart disease.

 

[Torn Mind]

Well but, you know, "protect and serve" it's the first 3 fucking words, lol. But you're right....because it actually doesn't ever say "the community."

It only ever says "protect and serve." ....and that means "the law": protect and serve the law. Not the people. This is an important distinction.

In general, yes it is just protect and serve.
This particular police department of Minneapolis does use community to play mind games with the public, leading most normal people to feel falsely empowered.

Police Department

We in the Minneapolis Police Department gain our authority from the community. We recognize that public safety is not just the absence of crime but the presence of justice.

www.minneapolismn.gov

We in the Minneapolis Police Department gain our authority from the community. We recognize that public safety is not just the absence of crime but the presence of justice.

 

[HomerJS]

The Duante Wright case just illustrates why this one is far more then manslaughter.

 

[pcgeek11]

The Duante Wright case just illustrates why this one is far more then manslaughter.

And I agree.

 

[HumblePie]

I’ve never heard someone say that either, including myself, lol.

Probably should have taken remedial English while getting your fake law degree!

You are full of shit still.

YOU literally wrote this.

Also, intent is frequently misunderstood. It is actually totally irrelevant if a Chauvin intended to kill Floyd or not. What is relevant is if he intended to undertake the ACT that caused Floyd’s death and if a reasonable person would believe that undertaking such an act could lead to someone’s death.

You are stating intent isn't intent. Meaning intent to kill doesn't mean intent to kill, only intent to cause an action that you know would kill. That is literally the stupidest line of drivel and double speak. The statute for 2nd degree murder requires INTENT TO KILL, or a death resulting from a felony crime with use of force where there was no intent to kill anyone nor was there an expectation for a death when force beyond rape or criminal sexual conduct is used. Why rape gets a pass in this Minnesota code is beyond me though. Let me explain this in an easy to understand example. So the idea is if PERSON A slaps PERSON B in Minnesota during a heated argument, and that slap causes the person to trip, fall, and hit the head on the ground killing them then PERSON A that slapped PERSON B would get 2nd degree murder. The depravity aspect is that PERSON A slapping did so knowing that they were trying to inflict force or pain of some sort on the person they were slapping even if they had no idea the end result would lead to death. 2nd degree for Minnesota wraps the felony murder charge that many other places have into that one statute (minus the criminal sexual conduct again for some odd reason).

It has nothing to do with another reasonable person believing the act would lead to someone death at all! In the example above no reasonable person would think a slap on the face of another would lead to the death of that person.

The prosecution has to prove the following for 2nd degree.

1) Chauvin intended to kill Floyd at the scene. So far they have come no where close to that.

or

2) Prove Chauvin's actions go beyond his official capacity and immunity as an officer. That his actions are criminal assault and those actions are the major contributing factor in the death of Floyd.

The major contributing factor is the other big part. Going back to the example I used earlier about the slap death. If the scenario was different in that say person A slapped person B, but person B didn't trip right then from the slap but instead got agitated from being slapped and walked away. As they were walking away while fuming they weren't watching their step carefully enough and tripped to fall to their death. This example wouldn't be a 2nd degree murder charge by definition of the Minnesota statute. The slap is a factor in the death, but not the major contributing factor in the second example unlike the first. Both would likely be ruled homicides (this one is the example for you @woolfe9998 ) by the coroner. That second example is an example of a human involvement in a death that isn't a causation of death but one most likely listed still a homicide.

 

[woolfe9998]

Chauvin not going to testify.

Chauvin chooses not to testify

It's Day 14 of testimony in the trial of ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged in George Floyd's May 2020 death. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

Almost certainly on advice of counsel. Meaning his lawyers think him testifying will hurt the case rather than help it.

 

[fskimospy]

You are full of shit still.

YOU literally wrote this.



You are stating intent isn't intent. Meaning intent to kill doesn't mean intent to kill, only intent to cause an action that you know would kill. That is literally the stupidest line of drivel and double speak. The statute for 2nd degree murder requires INTENT TO KILL, or a death resulting from a felony crime with use of force where there was no intent to kill anyone nor was there an expectation for a death when force beyond rape or criminal sexual conduct is used. Why rape gets a pass in this Minnesota code is beyond me though. Let me explain this in an easy to understand example. So the idea is if PERSON A slaps PERSON B in Minnesota during a heated argument, and that slap causes the person to trip, fall, and hit the head on the ground killing them then PERSON A that slapped PERSON B would get 2nd degree murder. The depravity aspect is that PERSON A slapping did so knowing that they were trying to inflict force or pain of some sort on the person they were slapping even if they had no idea the end result would lead to death. 2nd degree for Minnesota wraps the felony murder charge that many other places have into that one statute (minus the criminal sexual conduct again for some odd reason).

It has nothing to do with another reasonable person believing the act would lead to someone death at all! In the example above no reasonable person would think a slap on the face of another would lead to the death of that person.

The prosecution has to prove the following for 2nd degree.

1) Chauvin intended to kill Floyd at the scene. So far they have come no where close to that.

or

2) Prove Chauvin's actions go beyond his official capacity and immunity as an officer. That his actions are criminal assault and those actions are the major contributing factor in the death of Floyd.

The major contributing factor is the other big part. Going back to the example I used earlier about the slap death. If the scenario was different in that say person A slapped person B, but person B didn't trip right then from the slap but instead got agitated from being slapped and walked away. As they were walking away while fuming they weren't watching their step carefully enough and tripped to fall to their death. This example wouldn't be a 2nd degree murder charge by definition of the Minnesota statute. The slap is a factor in the death, but not the major contributing factor in the second example unlike the first. Both would likely be ruled homicides (this one is the example for you @woolfe9998 ) by the coroner. That second example is an example of a human involvement in a death that isn't a causation of death but one most likely listed still a homicide.

I sure did write that. As I suggested earlier you should have taken some remedial English classes with your fake law degree because it doesn’t say what you claim anywhere. We sure are lucky you decided not to practice law!

You also already admitted he could be convicted of murder while having no intent to kill Floyd so why you keep arguing about things you already admitted I’m right about is beyond me.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Chauvin not going to testify.

Chauvin chooses not to testify

It's Day 14 of testimony in the trial of ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged in George Floyd's May 2020 death. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

Almost certainly on advice of counsel. Meaning his lawyers think him testifying will hurt the case rather than help it.

Not surprising in the least

 

[pcgeek11]

Chauvin not going to testify.

Chauvin chooses not to testify

It's Day 14 of testimony in the trial of ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who is charged in George Floyd's May 2020 death. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

Almost certainly on advice of counsel. Meaning his lawyers think him testifying will hurt the case rather than help it.

I think most defendants are advised to not testify.