The Derek Chauvin / George Floyd Trial

[HumblePie]

I've watched the videos a few times and that doesn't sound right. I remember at least one bystander (the old man) who repeatedly told Floyd to stop resisting. I don't remember any significant negative interactions between the officers and the bystanders until some time after he was restrained on the ground.

The "MMA" fighter even said in his testimony he was making hostile remarks at the police and was being held back from attacking them. The photos and videos show that. While there was certainly people in the crowd that were not hostile, there were some that were. That isn't up for discussion as even the prosecution acknowledged that as evidence. I don't know what else to tell anyone on this.

I'm mostly with you on this one. Floyd was anything but passive, although I don't know I would go so far as to call Floyd a danger to the officers once he was handcuffed. He wasn't attacking the officers or threatening them. More just extremely non-complaint.

The moment a suspect, ANY suspect, shows they aren't cooperating, the police can't take any chances until they can control the situation. There was a good reason to restrain Floyd and I agree with everything the police did up until Floyd went unresponsive. It was at that point where Chauvin, the person in charge of the scene, I believe should have changed from restraint to resuscitation. He didn't. I do not believe he "caused" the death of Floyd in the sense that any of his actions were a direct cause. To me the whole thing looks like a self induced heart attack caused by a number of factors such as poor health from Floyd, drugs in his system, and his fight/flight body response in that scenario. None of which the cops can control in that interaction. What the cops can control is what happens when a suspect goes comatose from those factors. They need to recognize and change tactics as the situation demands. This is why I said the prosecution did a poor job as the defense council had zero defense on that. Nor did they try to address it as they could poke holes easier in everything else the prosecution was going for with trying to get 2DM to stick.

I'm mostly with with Torn Mind on this one. There's a bit of a difference between "Being told Floyd has no pulse" and "being told 'I can't find one'" (after a truly half-assed attempt at finding it), but there's an enormous gulf between officers not rendering aid (or at the least, putting in more effort to find a pulse) at that point and the EMTs acting the way they did.

First, beginning to render aid would potentially have gone some way into defusing the crowd. The crowd is agitated by the police officers, and the police officers have some agency to disarm that agitation, which the EMTs as a third party did not.

Secondly, the situation after Floyd is placed in the ambulance is fluid and various things are happening in parallel. It's not "We can continue restraining Floyd or decide to start administrating aid," like with the cops, and it's not even "we can get to a safe location or start administrating aid." The guy in the back is still starting his assessment, hooking up ECG leads, etc. And they're probably driving in the direction of a hospital, talking to dispatch, and so on. Maybe they could have rendered better aid if they weren't wary of the crowd, but they're still rendering aid. It's not a binary either/or like it is with the cops.

Rather, what would be analogous is if the cops had rendered aid, but if much of their focus was on the crowd instead of helping Floyd and that was the criticism. If that were the case I'd be right there with you, but it wasn't.

As I said, I am there with the Chauvin being dumb as fuck in his decision making process after Floyd went comatose. I think he didn't realize what had happened and the situation spiraled out of his wheelhouse of thought processes. I believe he doubled down on his current actions thinking it was the right thing to do. It wasn't. Nor do I think it was reasonable to think that way for a person of his experience. I want to add that the defense was using the hostile crowd as their only defense for why aid wasn't rendered at that point. It was a poor defense, but it was the defense used. The prosecution could have exploited that more but didn't. Again, I said the prosecution overall did a bad job and I am sticking with that.

Finally I wanted to say that cops, like everyone, make mistakes. The issue is the mistakes they make can lead to tragedies just like with the Daunte Wright case. Female cop of 26 years on the job mistakes her gun for her taser. When certain people in certain jobs make mistake it can cost lives in tragedies. This is one such example. There are plenty of others. Most around here though, on these forums specifically, would rather see this still as some racist attack or something though, and the media loves to drive that wedge for ratings.

 

[HurleyBird]

The "MMA" fighter even said in his testimony he was making hostile remarks at the police and was being held back from attacking them. The photos and videos show that. While there was certainly people in the crowd that were not hostile, there were some that were.

No one is saying that the crowd didn't become hostile. What we are disagreeing with is:

The crowd was openly hostile from the videos the moment the police showed up. This was before George was put on the road.

Both of these statements are incorrect. Yes, the crowd grew hostile but only after Floyd had already been on the ground for some time. Bystanders weren't hostile right at the start, and as Torn Mind and myself have pointed out, it was pretty much the opposite.

 

[HumblePie]

No one is saying that the crowd didn't become hostile. What we are disagreeing with is:

Both of these statements are incorrect. Yes, the crowd grew hostile but only after Floyd had already been on the ground for some time. Bystanders weren't hostile right at the start, and as Torn Mind and myself have pointed out, it was pretty much the opposite.

While I said "from the beginning" you are correct in that it wasn't from the "exact" beginning. I was meaning from the time the arrest was being affected and they were trying to deal with getting Floyd into the car. Basically it was from when the MMA guy, Donald Wynn Williams II got there which was about 1 a minute and a half after Floyd started resisting and before being put on the ground. Which was about when Chauvin got there after being in called in from the rookies not being able to handle Floyd up until that point. After donald showed up though, others in the crowd grew increasingly hostile as a result after Floyd was on the ground.

https://www.foxcarolina.com/derek-chauvins-defense-is-using-these-3-arguments-to-try-to-get-an-acquittal-in/article_4bcfc71d-7d7b-5a56-b2eb-69dfea6eb2c3.html

Go to the part with the crowd in that article. Basically Donald in the crowd started the agitation and probably influenced others in the crowd more as time went by. That is what happened. The defense claims that due to that hostility that the officers were having to direct more attention to the increasingly hostile crowd and away from Floyd. I think that is a poor argument with multiple officers at the scene. They should have backed the crowd up further, which they are legally allowed to due, to give themselves more room with which to deal with Floyd without worrying about the crowd. There are several tactics they could have employed there for that situation but didn't. That is why I said they were negligent in their duties. Since the one in charge dictates the tactics, that is why Chauvin is guilty IMO for what happened after Floyd went comatose and for not directing other officers to deal with the crowd correctly.

 

[Jhhnn]

No one is saying that the crowd didn't become hostile. What we are disagreeing with is:



Both of these statements are incorrect. Yes, the crowd grew hostile but only after Floyd had already been on the ground for some time. Bystanders weren't hostile right at the start, and as Torn Mind and myself have pointed out, it was pretty much the opposite.

HP employs the Bannon technique in all discussions- flood the zone with shit, Gish galloping from one argument to another. He's done it in more discussions than I care to remember.

 

[darkswordsman17]

HP employs the Bannon technique in all discussions- flood the zone with shit, Gish galloping from one argument to another. He's done it in more discussions than I care to remember.

Is he at the stage where he claims he didn't post something followed by people quoting him posting exactly that, then him claiming that its because his law degree that people don't understand the way the term is different, followed by people with actual law degrees pointing out he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about?

 

[Lanyap]

While I said from the beginning...

You need to shit or get off the pot.

 

[ondma]

The crowd was openly hostile from the videos the moment the police showed up. This was before George was put on the road. That has already been shown in the case evidence through photos, videos, and testimony.



Incorrect again. George actively kicked the officers. He actively trashed. He was actively resisting arrest and was not passive at all. Passive resistance would be words only and no physical resistance at all. He didn't willing get cuffed. He didn't willing move when officers moved him. He didn't willing stay restrained. None of the video or testimony backs up your claim to that passive statement. By making that statement I can see you are seriously only listening to the media koolaid on this or some of the other bad opinion expressed here and not the facts.



No. Even the paramedics at the time feared intervening at that point from the crowd. That doesn't automatically equal intent at all. I do consider it very bad judgement though by those involved to think of not rendering aid at that point instead of following what they thought was safety training. Safety for themselves at least. I am not saying that line of reasoning though is justified, but that was their defense in court. I never once said Chauvin wasn't guilty of a crime in this thread. My nuance is over WHAT the crime is. 2nd degree isn't it. The prosecution never proved it IMO and to the opinions of many many many legal scholars, and lawyers that I know of. It is a good thing the manslaughter charge is still on the list of charges and not just 2nd. Otherwise I seriously think he would be completely acquitted.

I dont recall the crowd being hostile to the point that the officers were in danger. In any case though that is an absurd excuse. *If* the crowd were hostile, it would have been because four officers were holding a subject in a very compromising position. Stopping the restraint/rendering aid would have decreased the hostility of the crowd.

 

[brycejones]

I killed him because otherwise people were going to be really mad sounds like a really weak defense.
No wonder Humble Pie wasn’t called to testify.

 

[HumblePie]

I dont recall the crowd being hostile to the point that the officers were in danger. In any case though that is an absurd excuse. *If* the crowd were hostile, it would have been because four officers were holding a subject in a very compromising position. Stopping the restraint/rendering aid would have decreased the hostility of the crowd.

Doesn't matter. Some in the crowd, especially Donald, were physically threatening the police and that was before putting Floyd on the ground. It only escalated from there. It isn't up to you to decide with 20/20 hindsight if the threat posed by a hostile crowd were an actual danger or not. Police have been killed in situations like that where they don't secure the area. Innocent bystanders as well. That is why it is a bad idea as a bystander to interject yourself into the scene. It is one thing to watch and quietly film if you so choose, but another to start actively trying to look like your interfering. If the prosecution felt like it, they could easily get Donald on 3rd degree here as well. He already admitted in court to hurling physical threats the entire time at the officers. That is obstruction at the very least while also by the statements of all the other officers and medics enough of a threat to prevent them from doing their job properly in trying to save Floyd. In reality, if we go off the evidence seen in court so far: Maurice, Donald, and Genevieve would get 3rd degree for their level of involvement with the death here. Chauvin would get manslaughter. I highly doubt anyone but Maurice would have the prosecution go after them though but who knows.

 

[HumblePie]

Is he at the stage where he claims he didn't post something followed by people quoting him posting exactly that, then him claiming that its because his law degree that people don't understand the way the term is different, followed by people with actual law degrees pointing out he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about?

Only in your imagination like where you spend your life. As for my take on this... I can point to a bunch of different lawyers who are sharing the exact same opinion as mine. Their takes on this case are what helped me formed mine. Nate Broady, Emily De Baker, Robert Grueler, Alan Dershowitz, David Schultz, David Freiheit, Robert Barnes, and more. Those are just the ones I can easily link a youtube video for. Or you can read the same things from Berkley law professor Jonathan Simmons. https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/3...egal-issues-make-chauvin-trial-unpredictable/ Rest would be others I know personally following the case. But keep telling yourself that just because you don't like what I say it must be because I don't have the cred to back it up if it helps you maintain your fantasy world.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey @HumblePie have you spent any time considering your own expertise as compared to @woolfe9998? If so, what conclusions did you come to?

 

[ondma]

Doesn't matter. Some in the crowd, especially Donald, were physically threatening the police and that was before putting Floyd on the ground. It only escalated from there. It isn't up to you to decide with 20/20 hindsight if the threat posed by a hostile crowd were an actual danger or not. Police have been killed in situations like that where they don't secure the area. Innocent bystanders as well. That is why it is a bad idea as a bystander to interject yourself into the scene. It is one thing to watch and quietly film if you so choose, but another to start actively trying to look like your interfering. If the prosecution felt like it, they could easily get Donald on 3rd degree here as well. He already admitted in court to hurling physical threats the entire time at the officers. That is obstruction at the very least while also by the statements of all the other officers and medics enough of a threat to prevent them from doing their job properly in trying to save Floyd. In reality, if we go off the evidence seen in court so far: Maurice, Donald, and Genevieve would get 3rd degree for their level of involvement with the death here. Chauvin would get manslaughter. I highly doubt anyone but Maurice would have the prosecution go after them though but who knows.

OK, even if one accepts what you say, how does four officers throwing a person to the ground and holding him there for 9 minutes "secure the area" of the bystanders? If they were in fact so threatened by the crowd, should not some of the officers holding Floyd have directed their attention to the crowd instead?

 

[NWRMidnight]

Looks like the defense's expert is being sued for covering up evidence in a case very similar to this one:

The lawsuit alleges that the officers' actions caused Black to die of asphyxiation. It alleges that Fowler and the medical examiner who conducted Black's autopsy intentionally covered up for police by ignoring evidence of asphyxiation and playing up other factors that supported the police narrative.

Defense expert in Derek Chauvin trial faces Maryland lawsuit

The former chief medical examiner for Maryland who testified on behalf of the officer accused of killing George Floyd is a defendant in a federal lawsuit over the death of a man who died under circumstances similar to Floyd

abcnews.go.com

 

[brandonbull]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maxine-waters-tells-protesters-stay-145954822.html

Good thing Maxine Waters is around to help de-escalate crowds in case of an unfavorable verdict is returned.

 

[brycejones]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maxine-waters-tells-protesters-stay-145954822.html

Good thing Maxine Waters is around to help de-escalate crowds in case of an unfavorable verdict is returned.

Look shit head if you had a fucking clue you would be angry and pissed off as well at cops getting off killing and assaulting anyone regardless of race. But instead you complain about people who don’t want to take it anymore.

fucking racist shit bird

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maxine-waters-tells-protesters-stay-145954822.html

Good thing Maxine Waters is around to help de-escalate crowds in case of an unfavorable verdict is returned.

Man are you going to be mad when you hear about that donald trump guy.

 

[Viper1j]

Look shit head if you had a fucking clue you would be angry and pissed off as well at cops getting off killing and assaulting anyone regardless of race. But instead you you complain about people who don’t want to take it anymore.

fucking racist shit bird

Are you surprised?

He's the kind of guy that would've reported on his Jewish neighbors.

And then he would've ransacked their homes after they were carted away.

 

[brycejones]

Are you surprised?

He's the kind of guy that would've reported on his Jewish neighbors.

And then he would've ransacked their homes after they were carted away.

Totally

 

[NWRMidnight]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/maxine-waters-tells-protesters-stay-145954822.html

Good thing Maxine Waters is around to help de-escalate crowds in case of an unfavorable verdict is returned.

Maybe you should listen to the interview that is in that article. Try to understand her meaning. It's not what you are implying.

 

[HumblePie]

OK, even if one accepts what you say, how does four officers throwing a person to the ground and holding him there for 9 minutes "secure the area" of the bystanders? If they were in fact so threatened by the crowd, should not some of the officers holding Floyd have directed their attention to the crowd instead?

There was more than those 4 at the scene. It wasn't an army but they had others there securing the scene to some point. I am not why you asking me though as my entire premise is that because there were more than those 4 there, they could have moved the crowd further away while they could deal with an unresponsive Floyd even if that was the defense as to why they didn't start dealing with him once he went unresponsive and they knew. Again, that was the avenue the prosecution could have went through and the defense would not be able to give an answer I think. Which would have at least nailed Chauvin for manslaughter. The way the prosecution was so hung up on getting 2dm, I feel their reaching the highest bar or bust is going to make this a bust.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

At least 64 people have died at the hands of police since Derek Chauvin's trial began. More than half were people of color.

The number of deaths at the hands of police in the 21 days since the trial began averages to more than 3 people a day.

www.businessinsider.com

Nothing seems to be changing.

 

[mikeymikec]

Did I mishear BBC News earlier when they apparently said that the verdict to convict has to be unanimous? If so, why does it have to be unanimous?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Did I mishear BBC News earlier when they apparently said that the verdict to convict has to be unanimous? If so, why does it have to be unanimous?

That's usually how it is, correct?
I guess we're getting I to the philosophical side of justice so here's my 2c: my guess is that it balances protection of the accused with the ability to pursue and receive justice.
So the requirement to vote guilty is "beyond a reasonable doubt" as opposed to "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Which means the evidence doesn't have to be absolutely damning, just sufficient enough that one could reasonably conclude the defendant is guilty.
As a counterbalance to what one might consider to be a low bar for evidence (reasonable doubt), the verdict has to be unanimous. So if even 1 "reasonable person" does not believe the evidence proves guilt beyond that "reasonable doubt", then the evidence clearly isn't strong enough to warrant a guilty verdict and legal punishment.

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" would require much stronger evidence, and you'd probably let a lot more guilty people off (...but also a lot fewer wrongful convictions).
Removing the unanimous jury requirement would mean your case doesn't have to be as strong, especially if the prosecution is seeking a severe conviction.

 

[brycejones]

Did I mishear BBC News earlier when they apparently said that the verdict to convict has to be unanimous? If so, why does it have to be unanimous?

Generally speaking unanimity of a jury verdict is a requirement for conviction or acquittal in the US.

 

[mikeymikec]

I have no direct experience of criminal trials, but I was under the impression that majority verdicts were generally accepted. So in the US you can bribe one jury member (or one fuckwit on the jury who has an unconditional love for the police in this case) and you're home free? Weird.

Did a quick UK-centric google and found this:

Jury Trial - How Your Fate is Decided - Moss & Co Solicitors

Jury trial in the crown court. Moss & Co explain the ins and outs of trial by jury. case preparation and the taking of verdicts.

www.mosslaw.co.uk

The Judge will always seek a unanimous verdict first. That is a verdict upon which all the jurors are agreed, so either guilty or not guilty. In the early stages of a jury considering its verdict, a Judge cannot accept a majority verdict. If the jury are completely stuck the judge can accept a majority decision. When that happens varies from case to case. Generally, judges wait longer in the more serious cases such as murder, armed robbery or firearms offences.


If a judge decides to allow a majority verdict he will tell the jury that they should try hard to reach a verdict that they all agree with. If they cannot do that he will tell them that a majority verdict will be accepted. In a jury of 12 no more than two jurors can disagree. Where the jury has 10 or 11 members only one person may disagree. On the otherhand if there are 9 jurors the verdict must be unanimous. If the verdict is not guilty, the defendant is free to leave court (if there are no other matters remaining).