Derek Chauvin’s Trial
Discussion
That's a political question*, largely.
All depends on where the trial is held / what jury is selected...somewhere with a high liberal/minority population and he'll be a worried copper. Somewhere more...ah...'republican' and he'll be acquitted.
...which given Minneapolis' divided loyalties, it could go either way.
If the 'wrong' jury is selected (from his view), I can see him plea-bargaining a lower crime.
* You'd have thought it was a legal one, I know, but not where jury selection is concerned in the USA...that, by all accounts, is half the battle, before you even get to the courtroom and start talking law and evidence. Especially where a black victim and a white cop are concerned...
All depends on where the trial is held / what jury is selected...somewhere with a high liberal/minority population and he'll be a worried copper. Somewhere more...ah...'republican' and he'll be acquitted.
...which given Minneapolis' divided loyalties, it could go either way.
If the 'wrong' jury is selected (from his view), I can see him plea-bargaining a lower crime.
* You'd have thought it was a legal one, I know, but not where jury selection is concerned in the USA...that, by all accounts, is half the battle, before you even get to the courtroom and start talking law and evidence. Especially where a black victim and a white cop are concerned...
The jury selection seems an odd process.
As does it being televised - although I guess that could be seen as an extension of justice 'seen to be done'.
I think he's committed at least one of these (although the 'state of mind' aspects seem all over the place), but we'll see what the jury decides:
As does it being televised - although I guess that could be seen as an extension of justice 'seen to be done'.
I think he's committed at least one of these (although the 'state of mind' aspects seem all over the place), but we'll see what the jury decides:
Sky News said:
The first charge is of second-degree unintentional murder, which means the person was killed without prior intent to kill while inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm on the victim.
The second charge is second-degree manslaughter, which is when a person knowingly or consciously takes a risk that results in the death of a person.
He is also facing a third-degree murder charge, which is killing someone without intent by carrying out an act dangerous to others due to "a depraved mind" and without regard for human life.
The second charge is second-degree manslaughter, which is when a person knowingly or consciously takes a risk that results in the death of a person.
He is also facing a third-degree murder charge, which is killing someone without intent by carrying out an act dangerous to others due to "a depraved mind" and without regard for human life.
Bobtherallyfan said:
Can’t see how he is ever going to get a fair trial, such are the tensions involved. I find it frankly depressing that half the people who want ‘justice’ think that simply means finding him guilty. Would they ever accept a not guilty verdict? I wouldn’t want to be one of the jurors.
Not sure a 'not guilty' verdict can ever be on the cards in this instance, he is guilty of something, the technicalities of what that is are beyond my legal knowledge, but this cannot be another Rodney King'esque miscarriage ....I foresee riots. Lots of riots.
As soon as they show he had underlying health conditions and had some drugs in his system, it will be difficult to convict.
The defence seems to be ‘he was destined to die in the next 20 minutes or so, no matter that the the cop sat on his neck for 9 minutes.’....
As soon as they show he had underlying health conditions and had some drugs in his system, it will be difficult to convict.
The defence seems to be ‘he was destined to die in the next 20 minutes or so, no matter that the the cop sat on his neck for 9 minutes.’....
TTmonkey said:
I foresee riots. Lots of riots.
As soon as they show he had underlying health conditions and had some drugs in his system, it will be difficult to convict.
The defence seems to be ‘he was destined to die in the next 20 minutes or so, no matter that the the cop sat on his neck for 9 minutes.’....
I suspect the defence will rest on two things:As soon as they show he had underlying health conditions and had some drugs in his system, it will be difficult to convict.
The defence seems to be ‘he was destined to die in the next 20 minutes or so, no matter that the the cop sat on his neck for 9 minutes.’....
1) That the coroner determined the he did not die of suffocation, and had a lethal dose of Fentanyl in his system. There will be a load of blah blah about the bias of the coroner, but the facts seem reasonably clear and scientifically provable (or not).
2) That he was simply doing what he was trained to do. The defence will probably be able to produce the actual VHS tape used to train him.
To me it all depends on how convincing the coroner is - because if he/she has a level of certainty, how can they convict a man of something he did not do?
I also predict a lot of riots.
Anyone with a brain can see it wasn't a racist 'murder'.
Also anyone with a brain can see that he did contritube to his death.
I dont think he's a racist cop, just a s
t one.
It's the US equivlant of manslaughter, whatever that would be. That'd be a fairly fair outcome, but obviously anything less than 400 years in jail for the cop will result in more riots and claims of black lives not mattering.
Also anyone with a brain can see that he did contritube to his death.
I dont think he's a racist cop, just a s
t one.It's the US equivlant of manslaughter, whatever that would be. That'd be a fairly fair outcome, but obviously anything less than 400 years in jail for the cop will result in more riots and claims of black lives not mattering.
rxe said:
I suspect the defence will rest on two things:
1) That the coroner determined the he did not die of suffocation, and had a lethal dose of Fentanyl in his system. There will be a load of blah blah about the bias of the coroner, but the facts seem reasonably clear and scientifically provable (or not).
2) That he was simply doing what he was trained to do. The defence will probably be able to produce the actual VHS tape used to train him.
To me it all depends on how convincing the coroner is - because if he/she has a level of certainty, how can they convict a man of something he did not do?
I also predict a lot of riots.
Or not indeed. 1) That the coroner determined the he did not die of suffocation, and had a lethal dose of Fentanyl in his system. There will be a load of blah blah about the bias of the coroner, but the facts seem reasonably clear and scientifically provable (or not).
2) That he was simply doing what he was trained to do. The defence will probably be able to produce the actual VHS tape used to train him.
To me it all depends on how convincing the coroner is - because if he/she has a level of certainty, how can they convict a man of something he did not do?
I also predict a lot of riots.
“Lethal dose” is a meaningless concept without context. If I gave you - and I’ll assume for the sake of argument you are opiate naive - 200mg of morphine (close enough to fentanyl) would likely kill you. However there are people conducting their lives who take double, treble or multiples more of that amount every day and due to tolerance, they can function. The dose found in Floyd’s system might have been enough to kill someone who was not regularly taking opiates, but not necessarily enough to kill an addict. This is born out by numerous toxicologists criticising the conclusion drawn.
Furthermore if I gave you 200mg of morphine, you would quickly enter an incoherent stupor, fall unconscious and stop breathing - opiates are respiratory depressants. The events leading up to his death - him walking around very much conscious, then having a conversation with the officers whilst under a knee isn’t consistent with an opiate overdose.
Finally opiate overdoses are very easy to treat in an emergency - you give them some Naloxone and they’re up swearing bloody murder at you in very short order (because you have ruined their expensive fix and induced withdrawal). The stuff is carried around routinely by paramedics here and given their “opioid crisis”, surely they do there too. You have to wonder if he had overdosed, why he wasn’t given the treatment? Constricted pupils are a pretty good giveaway as to the diagnosis and one thing Hollywood does get right about medicine is that checking pupillary responses in unconscious people is routine. Either he was treated at the scene by incompetents or they didn’t think he OD’d.
Jonny Wishbone said:
rxe said:
I suspect the defence will rest on two things:
1) That the coroner determined the he did not die of suffocation, and had a lethal dose of Fentanyl in his system. There will be a load of blah blah about the bias of the coroner, but the facts seem reasonably clear and scientifically provable (or not).
2) That he was simply doing what he was trained to do. The defence will probably be able to produce the actual VHS tape used to train him.
To me it all depends on how convincing the coroner is - because if he/she has a level of certainty, how can they convict a man of something he did not do?
I also predict a lot of riots.
Or not indeed. 1) That the coroner determined the he did not die of suffocation, and had a lethal dose of Fentanyl in his system. There will be a load of blah blah about the bias of the coroner, but the facts seem reasonably clear and scientifically provable (or not).
2) That he was simply doing what he was trained to do. The defence will probably be able to produce the actual VHS tape used to train him.
To me it all depends on how convincing the coroner is - because if he/she has a level of certainty, how can they convict a man of something he did not do?
I also predict a lot of riots.
“Lethal dose” is a meaningless concept without context. If I gave you - and I’ll assume for the sake of argument you are opiate naive - 200mg of morphine (close enough to fentanyl) would likely kill you. However there are people conducting their lives who take double, treble or multiples more of that amount every day and due to tolerance, they can function. The dose found in Floyd’s system might have been enough to kill someone who was not regularly taking opiates, but not necessarily enough to kill an addict. This is born out by numerous toxicologists criticising the conclusion drawn.
Furthermore if I gave you 200mg of morphine, you would quickly enter an incoherent stupor, fall unconscious and stop breathing - opiates are respiratory depressants. The events leading up to his death - him walking around very much conscious, then having a conversation with the officers whilst under a knee isn’t consistent with an opiate overdose.
Finally opiate overdoses are very easy to treat in an emergency - you give them some Naloxone and they’re up swearing bloody murder at you in very short order (because you have ruined their expensive fix and induced withdrawal). The stuff is carried around routinely by paramedics here and given their “opioid crisis”, surely they do there too. You have to wonder if he had overdosed, why he wasn’t given the treatment? Constricted pupils are a pretty good giveaway as to the diagnosis and one thing Hollywood does get right about medicine is that checking pupillary responses in unconscious people is routine. Either he was treated at the scene by incompetents or they didn’t think he OD’d.
LukeBrown66 said:
As most know hte system ther4 is slightly different, the prosecution need to prove this cop acted with intent to hurt the victim and more, the defence need to prove he did everything within the normal remit of doing what they do with a potentially violent suspect.
The standard of proof is the same as the in the UK.The defence does not have to prove anything at all.. He is innocent until proven guilty ALL the proving has to done by the prosecution.
TTmonkey said:
All you need is doubt. Not proof that some other actions meant he wouldn’t die. Doubt will be enough to save the police officer.
No doubt!I was just pointing out that the medical “facts” are neither reasonably clear nor necessarily scientifically provable, in response to another chap.
I’m almost certain, given that medicine is an imprecise science and given the disinclination of the US legal system to prosecute coppers going about their duty, that Chauvin will be acquitted.
Jonny Wishbone said:
TTmonkey said:
All you need is doubt. Not proof that some other actions meant he wouldn’t die. Doubt will be enough to save the police officer.
No doubt!I was just pointing out that the medical “facts” are neither reasonably clear nor necessarily scientifically provable, in response to another chap.
I’m almost certain, given that medicine is an imprecise science and given the disinclination of the US legal system to prosecute coppers going about their duty, that Chauvin will be acquitted.
TTmonkey said:
All you need is doubt. Not proof that some other actions meant he wouldn’t die. Doubt will be enough to save the police officer.
Maybe not the best place for a joke regarding doubt - “ Jack Feinstein was a top defense attorney known for coming up with creative defenses for his clients. But on this day, Feinstein had an uphill battle. His client was on trial for murder. There was strong evidence indicating guilt, but there was no corpse. So In his closing statement, knowing that his client would probably get convicted, Feinstein came up with a trick.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have a surprise for you all," Feinstein said as he looked at his watch. "Within one minute, the person presumed dead in this case will walk into this courtroom." He looked toward the courtroom door. The jurors, somewhat stunned, all looked on eagerly. A minute passed. Nothing happened.
Finally Feinstein said, "Actually, I made up the previous statement. But, you all looked on with anticipation. I therefore put to you that you have a reasonable doubt in this case as to whether anyone was killed and insist that you return a verdict of not guilty."
The jury, clearly confused, retired to deliberate. A few minutes later, the jury returned and pronounced a verdict of guilty.
"But how?" inquired Feinstein. "You must have had some doubt; I saw all of you stare at the door."
The jury foreman replied, "Oh, we looked, but your client didn't."
Jonny Wishbone said:
Or not indeed.
“Lethal dose” is a meaningless concept without context. If I gave you - and I’ll assume for the sake of argument you are opiate naive - 200mg of morphine (close enough to fentanyl) would likely kill you. However there are people conducting their lives who take double, treble or multiples more of that amount every day and due to tolerance, they can function. The dose found in Floyd’s system might have been enough to kill someone who was not regularly taking opiates, but not necessarily enough to kill an addict. This is born out by numerous toxicologists criticising the conclusion drawn.
Furthermore if I gave you 200mg of morphine, you would quickly enter an incoherent stupor, fall unconscious and stop breathing - opiates are respiratory depressants. The events leading up to his death - him walking around very much conscious, then having a conversation with the officers whilst under a knee isn’t consistent with an opiate overdose.
Finally opiate overdoses are very easy to treat in an emergency - you give them some Naloxone and they’re up swearing bloody murder at you in very short order (because you have ruined their expensive fix and induced withdrawal). The stuff is carried around routinely by paramedics here and given their “opioid crisis”, surely they do there too. You have to wonder if he had overdosed, why he wasn’t given the treatment? Constricted pupils are a pretty good giveaway as to the diagnosis and one thing Hollywood does get right about medicine is that checking pupillary responses in unconscious people is routine. Either he was treated at the scene by incompetents or they didn’t think he OD’d.
I'm simply going by what the coroner's report said - I know cock all about drugs. “Lethal dose” is a meaningless concept without context. If I gave you - and I’ll assume for the sake of argument you are opiate naive - 200mg of morphine (close enough to fentanyl) would likely kill you. However there are people conducting their lives who take double, treble or multiples more of that amount every day and due to tolerance, they can function. The dose found in Floyd’s system might have been enough to kill someone who was not regularly taking opiates, but not necessarily enough to kill an addict. This is born out by numerous toxicologists criticising the conclusion drawn.
Furthermore if I gave you 200mg of morphine, you would quickly enter an incoherent stupor, fall unconscious and stop breathing - opiates are respiratory depressants. The events leading up to his death - him walking around very much conscious, then having a conversation with the officers whilst under a knee isn’t consistent with an opiate overdose.
Finally opiate overdoses are very easy to treat in an emergency - you give them some Naloxone and they’re up swearing bloody murder at you in very short order (because you have ruined their expensive fix and induced withdrawal). The stuff is carried around routinely by paramedics here and given their “opioid crisis”, surely they do there too. You have to wonder if he had overdosed, why he wasn’t given the treatment? Constricted pupils are a pretty good giveaway as to the diagnosis and one thing Hollywood does get right about medicine is that checking pupillary responses in unconscious people is routine. Either he was treated at the scene by incompetents or they didn’t think he OD’d.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff