Derek Chauvin Trial

[Ian Geary]

Ian Geary said:

Feel the thread is getting diverted off into election nonsense again.

But every now and then something comes up on PH and makes you think "did someone actually type that?"

Today's nomination is this:

Stigproducts said:

Race is a major issue for people who want to make it a major issue. I haven't noticed any racism. Everyone I know, of all colours, thinks all this race baiting nonsense fanned by evil self serving tts and gullible idiots, is exactly that.

Edited by Stigproducts on Wednesday 31st March 04:21

Not sure if you didn't "notice" racism specific to circumstances of GF's death, or just haven't noticed racism in any context?

Maybe you're just not very good at noticing things?

Update : to be fair to you, number 10's commission on race inequality hasn't noticed any either!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/31/uk-a...

(Needs new thread really)

[eliot]

voyds9 said:

Seems the officer wasn't trusting his life to your unlikely.

And as Chauvin and Floyd apparently had worked at the same club he was probably in a better position to judge what Floyd was capable of than either of us

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/derek-chauvin-nightcl...

Little o/t - Chauvin was paid to sit outside the nightclub in his squad car when off duty for 17 years?
How can you be off duty but still in possession of your police car?

[Electro1980]

Stigproducts said:

timmybob said:

Stigproducts said:

Race is a major issue for people who want to make it a major issue. I haven't noticed any racism. Everyone I know, of all colours, thinks all this race baiting nonsense fanned by evil self serving tts and gullible idiots, is exactly that.

Explain to me how requiring ID to vote and not being able to bribe voters disenfranchises black voters and is worse than the voting fraud it aims to stop? It's not a "clear attempt" from what I can see. Bonus points for a comprehensive and objective explanation of why Stacey Abrhams had the election "stolen" from her and extra credit for exlaining how your rationale didn't apply to Trump.

There is no voter fraud to stop. So then the question is what is the point of the legislation? How do you justify the criminalisation of handing out water?
Who was in charge of the election for governor in Georgia when Kemp won? For the rationale to be the same for Trump, Biden would need to have been in charge of the presidential election.
Unless you live here, you are in no position to comment about how pervasive racism is in this country.

I do and I'm also black. I cringe at guilt ridden middle class white people trying to save me, its pathetic.

So now you’re playing the race card? “I’m black so because I say there is no racism in the US there is no racism”. The fact that you call handing out water bribery just shows how blinkered you are. You don’t know me, you don’t know my race, my background or anything about me. No one is trying to save you. It’s called being a responsible bystander. It is everyone’s responsibility to highlight and condemn unacceptable behaviour.

Perhaps it’s not driven by race, but it sure as hell looks like a duck. When we have 4 hour plus wits to vote in areas that are predominantly poor and black and not in areas that are predominantly rich and white, in states with stifling heat, and the rich, white legislators from a party with a with a history of racism, ban handing out of bottled water with no justification (handing out bottles of water is not bribing people. That’s bullst), you can’t help but conclude that this is driven by racism. Perhaps it’s not. Perhaps it’s driven by hatred of the poor, but it’s the same effect.

Good for you if you haven’t experienced discrimination, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I have directly seen, and heard accounts of, both overt and covert, racism. I have been subjected to discrimination myself. If only those subject to a type of discrimination said anything they would never be heard. Allies, be that on sexual orientation, disability, race or any other protected characteristics, are vital. By attacking them you further deepen problems. Yes, some are too eager and over enthusiastic but I would prefer that to being apathetic.

[irc]

eliot said:

Little o/t - Chauvin was paid to sit outside the nightclub in his squad car when off duty for 17 years?
How can you be off duty but still in possession of your police car?

They do things differently in America. Well known that venues can hire off duty cops for security in full uniform. The vehicle as well is a new one on me but just an extension.

[ChocolateFrog]

DeepEnd said:

Surprised this is not a more clear cut case against DC, yet not on PH.....

Having seen the harrowing video and all the people pointing out the obvious distress GF was exhibiting while on the floor, DC is patently culpable for the outcome. The proof in so many ways is that GF is dead, and died on the floor, whilst his head/neck was pinned under DCs knee in a way that is extremely uncomfortable viewing - as it is all on video.

You realise this is taking place in America right?

Nothing will be clear cut.

Unless you believe OJ was innocent.

[ChocolateFrog]

Esceptico said:

RB Will said:

Byker28i said:

So had I and it was old convictions, as above. You were trying to make out he was a frequent, active criminal...

Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 30th March 20:43

He may not have had recent CONVICTIONS but he does still seem to be up to illegal/ criminal activity, someone said an arrest in 2019 where he was seen with drugs? Then 2020 allegedly using counterfeit money (was this ever investigated or confirmed), and possession and use of a decent quantity of illegal drugs by the sound of it. And if they are arguing the 4 times an overdose amount found in his system wasn’t enough to kill him it suggests he must be a serious habitual user

GF had a criminal record and may have committed a crime on the day he was killed (albeit a non-violent one). GF may have been a troubled individual with substance abuse issues (hardly unique in the US). Some on here seem to be arguing that that is sufficient excuse for him being killed by the police after taking him into custody. In civilised countries the police manage to arrest people without killing them.

Again, America, it's a stretch to call it a civilised society.

[RB Will]

Electro1980 said:

Perhaps it’s driven by hatred of the poor, but it’s the same effect.

It is the same effect but nowhere near the same cause. Big problem with society today is the division and anger caused by people incorrectly blaming everything on various ists or isms when the root cause has nothing to do with it.

[ChocolateFrog]

Stigproducts said:

timmybob said:

Stigproducts said:

Race is a major issue for people who want to make it a major issue. I haven't noticed any racism. Everyone I know, of all colours, thinks all this race baiting nonsense fanned by evil self serving tts and gullible idiots, is exactly that.

Explain to me how requiring ID to vote and not being able to bribe voters disenfranchises black voters and is worse than the voting fraud it aims to stop? It's not a "clear attempt" from what I can see. Bonus points for a comprehensive and objective explanation of why Stacey Abrhams had the election "stolen" from her and extra credit for exlaining how your rationale didn't apply to Trump.

There is no voter fraud to stop. So then the question is what is the point of the legislation? How do you justify the criminalisation of handing out water?
Who was in charge of the election for governor in Georgia when Kemp won? For the rationale to be the same for Trump, Biden would need to have been in charge of the presidential election.
Unless you live here, you are in no position to comment about how pervasive racism is in this country.

I do and I'm also black. I cringe at guilt ridden middle class white people trying to save me, its pathetic.

[JuniorD]

Stigproducts said:

timmybob said:

Stigproducts said:

Race is a major issue for people who want to make it a major issue. I haven't noticed any racism. Everyone I know, of all colours, thinks all this race baiting nonsense fanned by evil self serving tts and gullible idiots, is exactly that.

Explain to me how requiring ID to vote and not being able to bribe voters disenfranchises black voters and is worse than the voting fraud it aims to stop? It's not a "clear attempt" from what I can see. Bonus points for a comprehensive and objective explanation of why Stacey Abrhams had the election "stolen" from her and extra credit for exlaining how your rationale didn't apply to Trump.

There is no voter fraud to stop. So then the question is what is the point of the legislation? How do you justify the criminalisation of handing out water?
Who was in charge of the election for governor in Georgia when Kemp won? For the rationale to be the same for Trump, Biden would need to have been in charge of the presidential election.
Unless you live here, you are in no position to comment about how pervasive racism is in this country.

I do and I'm also black. I cringe at guilt ridden middle class white people trying to save me, its pathetic.

Are all your fellow black people who say that racism is pervasive telling lies then?

[Esceptico]

Stigproducts said:

I do and I'm also black.

Playing the race card on an anonymous forum. Sorry if I find that hard to believe based on your comments.

[Esceptico]

JagLover said:

audidoody said:

He had methamphetamine AND 11ng per ml of fentanyl in his blood according to the lab analysis, which is four times the level that could be fatal.

Hard to see how Chauvin can be convicted with that evidence. Only needs one juror to query the narrative,

According to google the lethal level starts at at 2ng per ml

Overdoses of synthetic opiates killed 31,000 Americans in 2018 alone and that was probably a fairly typical year for the latter part of this decade.

I wish you apologists for Chauvin could make your mind up. One minute GF is a dangerous, out of control villain who would jump up and wrestle a gun if he wasn’t pinned down by his neck and yet the next you are telling us he would have died within minutes from an overdose.

[amusingduck]

Esceptico said:

Stigproducts said:

timmybob said:

Stigproducts said:

Race is a major issue for people who want to make it a major issue. I haven't noticed any racism. Everyone I know, of all colours, thinks all this race baiting nonsense fanned by evil self serving tts and gullible idiots, is exactly that.

Explain to me how requiring ID to vote and not being able to bribe voters disenfranchises black voters and is worse than the voting fraud it aims to stop? It's not a "clear attempt" from what I can see. Bonus points for a comprehensive and objective explanation of why Stacey Abrhams had the election "stolen" from her and extra credit for exlaining how your rationale didn't apply to Trump.

There is no voter fraud to stop. So then the question is what is the point of the legislation? How do you justify the criminalisation of handing out water?
Who was in charge of the election for governor in Georgia when Kemp won? For the rationale to be the same for Trump, Biden would need to have been in charge of the presidential election.
Unless you live here, you are in no position to comment about how pervasive racism is in this country.

I do and I'm also black. I cringe at guilt ridden middle class white people trying to save me, its pathetic.

Playing the race card on an anonymous forum. Sorry if I find that hard to believe based on your comments.

What are the permissible opinions for black people to hold? Is there a list or something?

[andymadmak]

Esceptico said:

I wish you apologists for Chauvin could make your mind up. One minute GF is a dangerous, out of control villain who would jump up and wrestle a gun if he wasn’t pinned down by his neck and yet the next you are telling us he would have died within minutes from an overdose.

You have a strange way of debating. There is a trial going on, and the jurors will hear all the evidence that the prosecution and defence will bring for their respective cases.
You seem to have decided the outcome already, and you seem to get VERY upset when people point out that the case is not quite so cut and dried as you would like to believe.
Personally I think it was a big mistake for the prosecution to go for a Murder result. It runs the risk of DC getting off completely. I think the evidence clearly supports a manslaughter verdict, but that's not what the prosecution is asking for. I hope I am wrong, and that the court can give a manslaughter verdict in a trial for murder, but if I am not, then I think it's 75% certain that DC will walk, if not on the initial verdict then certainly on appeal.
My reasons for thinking this are as follows:

GF was a known criminal who had been violent in the past. Officers were aware of this and were reasonably able to treat GF accordingly. (ie, restraint) .

Despite the 2 autopsies that may or may not have been influenced by external pressures, it's clear that GF had a potentially lethal dose of drugs inside him, and had a heart condition that would have made him more susceptible to the stress of the arrest and the presence of those drugs in his system.
This suggests that there is real doubt over whether DC could have reasonably foreseen that his actions would have led to GF death, or even whether the swallowing of the drugs stash (if that's what GF did) is actually what killed him. Remember, reasonable doubt = not guilty.

The restraint technique used by DC is one that is used widely around the world, and he was officially trained/authorised in its use. We can say clearly that it went on too long, but unless someone produces training documentation that shows clearly that DC would have been aware that a 9 minute hold under the technique would lead to certain death then it's hard to see how it can be argued that C knowingly murdered GF.

GFs behaviour in the full length (not the snippets and shortened/edited versions) shows a marked change during the encounter. He goes from being reasonable affable and cooperative to slurring and uncooperative for some time before his ultimate collapse. This perhaps suggests that a medical emergency was already in play before he even hit the floor? No doubt doctors will debate this. Again reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury will lead to a not guilty verdict for murder.

The full length video does not show the officers abusing GF racially. In fact the officers are very polite and pretty patient, especially when GF gets more difficult about getting into the car. This suggests that the cops were not angry or motivated by elevated adrenalin etc. Largely calm in the face of a man being increasingly difficult in fact.

Take all these things into account and I think the Jury is going to have some reasonable doubts about delivering a murder verdict on DC. Is DC a nice guy? Hell no. Should GF have died whilst being arrested? Under any normal circumstances, certainly not. Does DC have some culpability in GF death? In my view yes, but does that translate to murder 1? I don't think it does.

Now, not agreeing with you is something I know you struggle with, but before your head explodes please try to consider the points above and several others made by other posters on here. It's not apologising for DC, it's an attempt to understand all the facts involved and not just surrender to justice delivered by the court of social media.

[JagLover]

Esceptico said:

I wish you apologists for Chauvin could make your mind up. One minute GF is a dangerous, out of control villain who would jump up and wrestle a gun if he wasn’t pinned down by his neck and yet the next you are telling us he would have died within minutes from an overdose.

Eh

Who is being an apologist?

As with so many modern events a narrative has been constructed around this incident and seems to create hysterical reactions like the above to any questioning of the narrative. The claim was that George Floyd had a level of fentanyl of 11 ng/mL. I don't know if that is correct or not, certainly that is a claim I have seen online.

Fentanyl can be fatal and the lethal dose in humans seems to start at 2 ng/ml. Fentanyl is ten times more lethal than Heroin.

https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-pro...

This all seems to stem from comments made by the medical examiner back in August of last year.

Baker said in relation to the level of Fentanyl found that it was a

Baker said:

fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances" and that "if he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD."

Baker also said: "I am not saying this killed him."

The Jury will decide what killed Floyd.

[Gogoplata]

andymadmak said:

The full length video does not show the officers abusing GF racially. In fact the officers are very polite and pretty patient, especially when GF gets more difficult about getting into the car. This suggests that the cops were not angry or motivated by elevated adrenalin etc. Largely calm in the face of a man being increasingly difficult in fact.

Everybody else in the car complied and were treated accordingly, no hint of racism at all.

[g4ry13]

The difference between manslaughter and murder is intent, correct?

Only one person on the day (Chauvin) knows whether he kneeled on GF intending to kill him or was just flexing his authority and it went wrong. How does one cross the line in determining whether it was manslaughter or murder? (ignoring the drug variable for a moment)

Is it solely based on cross-examination of the defendant what their intentions were at the time, how much thought had been given and anything which may have lead up to that scenario?

[Byker28i]

andymadmak said:

Personally I think it was a big mistake for the prosecution to go for a Murder result. It runs the risk of DC getting off completely. I think the evidence clearly supports a manslaughter verdict, but that's not what the prosecution is asking for. I hope I am wrong, and that the court can give a manslaughter verdict in a trial for murder, but if I am not, then I think it's 75% certain that DC will walk, if not on the initial verdict then certainly on appeal.

Certainly if in the UK the evidence so far presented would support manslaughter, but at the moment we have the prosecution case...

andymadmak said:

GF was a known criminal who had been violent in the past. Officers were aware of this and were reasonably able to treat GF accordingly. (ie, restraint) .

Thats not what the transcripts from their body cameras suggest. They didn't know him at the time but went in aggressively at the start especially with their language, which was the opposite of Floyd, although understandable if he wasn't putting his hands where they wanted.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7070-exhib...

andymadmak said:

The full length video does not show the officers abusing GF racially. In fact the officers are very polite and pretty patient, especially when GF gets more difficult about getting into the car. This suggests that the cops were not angry or motivated by elevated adrenalin etc. Largely calm in the face of a man being increasingly difficult in fact.

The transcript show Lane was being reasonable, offering to open windows etc. Not sure about Chauvin. It escalated after he arrived?

[Byker28i]

andymadmak said:

Personally I think it was a big mistake for the prosecution to go for a Murder result. It runs the risk of DC getting off completely. I think the evidence clearly supports a manslaughter verdict, but that's not what the prosecution is asking for. I hope I am wrong, and that the court can give a manslaughter verdict in a trial for murder, but if I am not, then I think it's 75% certain that DC will walk, if not on the initial verdict then certainly on appeal.

Certainly if in the UK the evidence so far presented would support manslaughter, but at the moment we have the prosecution case...

andymadmak said:

GF was a known criminal who had been violent in the past. Officers were aware of this and were reasonably able to treat GF accordingly. (ie, restraint) .

Thats not what the transcripts from their body cameras suggest. They didn't know him at the time but went in aggressively at the start especially with their language, which was the opposite of Floyd.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/7070-exhib...

Edit: In fact they were about 10 mins in before they asked his name Page 34

andymadmak said:

The full length video does not show the officers abusing GF racially. In fact the officers are very polite and pretty patient, especially when GF gets more difficult about getting into the car. This suggests that the cops were not angry or motivated by elevated adrenalin etc. Largely calm in the face of a man being increasingly difficult in fact.

The transcript show Lane was being reasonable, offering to open windows etc. Not sure about Chauvin. It escalated after he arrived?

Edited by Byker28i on Wednesday 31st March 12:36

[thewarlock]

andymadmak said:

The restraint technique used by DC is one that is used widely around the world, and he was officially trained/authorised in its use. We can say clearly that it went on too long, but unless someone produces training documentation that shows clearly that DC would have been aware that a 9 minute hold under the technique would lead to certain death then it's hard to see how it can be argued that C knowingly murdered GF.

But it would be fair to say that the procedure/process instruction/training didn't say "Keep doing it til the perp is dead, then keep doing it some more" so pushing the idea that he was trained in this technique doesn't outweigh the fact that he didn't adhere to the training.

That's akin to saying the training for using a baton says aim for the fleshy parts of limbs, so a cop can continue to hit someone there until they eventually bleed to death, because the training says that's where you hit people.

[andymadmak]

thewarlock said:

andymadmak said:

The restraint technique used by DC is one that is used widely around the world, and he was officially trained/authorised in its use. We can say clearly that it went on too long, but unless someone produces training documentation that shows clearly that DC would have been aware that a 9 minute hold under the technique would lead to certain death then it's hard to see how it can be argued that C knowingly murdered GF.

But it would be fair to say that the procedure/process instruction/training didn't say "Keep doing it til the perp is dead, then keep doing it some more" so pushing the idea that he was trained in this technique doesn't outweigh the fact that he didn't adhere to the training.

That's akin to saying the training for using a baton says aim for the fleshy parts of limbs, so a cop can continue to hit someone there until they eventually bleed to death, because the training says that's where you hit people.

Clearly there is no similarity between hitting someone with a baton repeatedly and restraining someone for an extended period.

You're missing the point by a country mile. No instruction manual is going to say 'restrain until dead', but equally if there was a recognised time limit for being restrained in that way then it would also be in the manual, would you not think?
If DC has been taught that the method of restraint, without mention of time limit, is fully safe for use, then why would he assume that using it would kill GF?
Yes, it's clear that he carried on restraining long after GF died, and he failed to recognise or respond to the change in GF condition in the time leading up to his death, despite what numerous onlookers were saying to him.
As another poster has already suggested, the difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. Did DC INTEND to kill GF or was the death a result of a combination of factors, of which the extended use of the restraint technique was one (an important one)?
How are you going to prove the former vs the latter if you are seeking a murder verdict?

My point/question was that in going for a murder prosecution, where establishing intent beyond reasonable doubt is clearly going to be difficult, I think the prosecution risks DC being found not guilty of any crime, whereas a slightly lesser charge of manslaughter might have been easier to achieve.
In the final analysis it's vital that the due process of the law if followed, whatever the verdict. The trial by social media already has DC hung drawn and quartered in many parts of America.