-
George Floyd murder trial?
I have watched some of Chauvin's trial. I skipped the prosecutor's opening. Watched the defense opening. I hope as many people as possible watch the trial or at least the nightly recap and highlights on Court TV. There are serious issues and questions raised by the evidence. Like it or not and I don't like saying it : Chauvin is entitled to a fair trial. His actions ought to be judged without any racial considerations.
1. Murder is the intentional taking of a life with malice aforethought or wanton and reckless disregard of a known risk highly likely to cause death.
The first question in Chauvin's trial is did he INTEND to kill Mr. Floyd ? Did he act with the design , desire and/or purpose to kill without any legal justification ? Doubtful. Were his actions so wanton and reckless that he knew it was highly likely he would cause death and effectively behaved as though he didn't care ? Maybe.
2. That does not end consideration of "murder charges" against Chauvin. He is charged with Murder 2 and Murder 3. Murder 3 in Minnesota covers wanton and reckless conduct. Minnesota calls it "depraved mind" murder.
3. Did Chauvin commit Manslaughter 1 ? I do not see the slightest doubt that he did . Open and shut. Slam dunk. In fact, his defense that it was Floyd's pre-existing medical conditions and traces of various drugs in his system do not help Chauvin one whit in defending against the Manslaughter charge. He takes Floyd as he finds him - health and drug history included and all that need be proved is that Chauvin's actions caused or CONTRIBUTED to Floyd's death without any legal justification. Same thing for Manslaughter 2 i.e. involuntary manslaughter. Floyd was "in custody" and thus Chauvin was responsible for his health and safety ; to protect him from known dangers and to avoid inflicting any unnecessary harm. This is compounded by Floyd's lack of ANY resistance and that he was securely handcuffed. Add in the presence of 3 other officers and Chauvin ought to be a dead duck on both lower charges.
4. Chauvin's defense is essentially and effectively "blame the victim ". The key will be the prosecution's cross examination of Chauvin's medical witnesses and possibly Chauvin himself. This is where too many of these cases are lost or result in convictions only of lesser charges.
Effective cross-examination is an art and it is mostly learned through experience. The average prosecutor has little experience in cross examination and most do a poor to average job, at best. IMO the Diallo case was lost because of hapless and ineffective cross examination of the four police defendants and the total lack of preparation to cross-examine the defense police expert.
Just some food for thought and things to consider as the trial unfolds.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Perhaps you should watch the other opening before starting a critique? You cannot use ignorance as a defense, you do have to listen to that side you don’t like. George Floyd is not on trial.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
Perhaps you should watch the other opening before starting a critique? You cannot use ignorance as a defense, you do have to listen to that side you don’t like. George Floyd is not on trial.
I didn't watch the prosecution opening because there was no need for me to do so. I KNOW what the available evidence is and that is what the prosecutor does in their opening : Lay out the evidence against the defendant : "The evidence will show... ; the People will prove... etc. " I read the opening and there was nothing new.
Please do us all a favor Kamila. Please READ my post first and then post a response. I HOPE Chauvin is found GUILTY. I just have doubts whether he is guilty of 2d or 3d Degree Murder and so do many other legal scholars far more versed in criminal law than you or I. If he is guilty of Murder it is not going to be based on premeditation or intent. It is going to have to be on a "wanton and reckless disregard" theory. I said " MAYBE" as in "it depends" i.e. we'll see based on the evidence.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I didn't watch the prosecution opening because there was no need for me to do so. I KNOW what the available evidence is and that is what the prosecutor does in their opening : Lay out the evidence against the defendant : "The evidence will show... ; the People will prove... etc. " I read the opening and there was nothing new.
Please do us all a favor Kamila. Please READ my post first and then post a response. I HOPE Chauvin is found GUILTY. I just have doubts whether he is guilty of First Degree Murder and so do many other legal scholars far more versed in criminal law than you or I. If he is guilty of Murder 1 it is not going to be based on premeditation or intent. It is going to have to be on a "wanton and reckless disregard" theory. I said " MAYBE" as in "it depends" i.e. we'll see based on the evidence.
now Eric you have questioned my reading comprehension many times, and well we know how that goes. I understand that you have a nuanced view on this, I have read your posts on the matter. I still think you should grin and bear it and watch a whole trial if you are going to critique it. That is the basic principle of a trial or debate. I’m glad you read it I guess.
I am NOT watching it fully because I have little faith that justice will be served.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
now Eric you have questioned my reading comprehension many times, and well we know how that goes. I understand that you have a nuanced view on this, I have read your posts on the matter. I still think you should grin and bear it and watch a whole trial if you are going to critique it. That is the basic principle of a trial or debate. I’m glad you read it I guess.
I am NOT watching it fully because I have little faith that justice will be served.
Yes, God forbid you should learn something lol. Just kidding. I call your reading into question ; not your comprehension. I think some of your posts are just knee jerk without regard to the facts.
I have nuanced views because life is full of nuance. Few things are completely cut and dried.
If you think Chauvin intended to kill Floyd please tell us what you are basing it on. Something besides the race of killer and victim please. What evidence of the necessary design , desire or purpose do you see based on the facts as known ?
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Yes, God forbid you should learn something lol. Just kidding. I call your reading into question ; not your comprehension. I think some of your posts are just knee jerk without regard to the facts.
I have nuanced views because life is full of nuance. Few things are completely cut and dried.
If you think Chauvin intended to kill Floyd please tell us what you are basing it on. Something besides the race of killer and victim please. What evidence of the necessary design , desire or purpose do you see based on the facts as known ?
I believe that there are numerous people who work for the prosecution/state who do not want Chauvin to be found guilty of anything, thus the numerous charges. Jury confusion is a real fun thing. I do think it is manslaughter, but also I think there should be an extra charge because he was a cop. This is all theater unfortunately.
and yeah I base all this on my belief system, and I will not unload all that on this board. I realize that not everyone wants to see a point by point debate, and honestly I don’t think you debate in good faith and the statement that YOU made about not watching the prosecution made me not want to look at your further insights(even though I did)so I don’t see a point. I can dm you some info on the economics of Latin/central America if you like though.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I think some of your posts are just knee jerk without regard to the facts.
Some people might think the same of you. ;D
Maybe I'm biased because I usually disagree with you. :D But I'm not the only one who might think this is the pot calling the kettle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
I have nuanced views because life is full of nuance. Few things are completely cut and dried.
If you think Chauvin intended to kill Floyd please tell us what you are basing it on. Something besides the race of killer and victim please. What evidence of the necessary design , desire or purpose do you see based on the facts as known ?
What is very suspicious to me is the fact that both Chauvin and Floyd worked security in the same club, where Chauvin had a rep as being heavy handed. Some clubs encourage this, of course--often it will keep troublemakers in line knowing friends who have been hospitalized for starting shit there. I worked in a couple clubs like this. But then it's a double edged sword, because these clubs always seem to draw the troublemakers, and a lot of bad men like a challenge.
But I've also seen serious internal staff enmity develop as the direct result of security fighting customers (or other issues), including violence between security afterward, like the next few days. It's entirely possible that Chauvin and Floyd had gotten into it while working the club, and Chauvin was using the arrest circumstances as a chance to settle the score.
Just watching the video, it's glaringly obvious that Chauvin didn't give a fuck about Floyd's safety, so will be guilty of manslaughter at the very least. Being a cop, he's especially culpable as they are supposed to protect the people, not kill them. I'm glad you at least want a guilty verdict, because sure as shit he deserves that.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
I doubt this thread will stay open long, because the political stuff is supposed to be against the rules, and this has potential for volatile disagreement. I cut people a lot of slack during the past year or two because of the political crises going on, but will be starting to enforce the rules a little more thoroughly in future.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Lest anyone doubt that security staff can develop severe animosity towards each other, I know a manager that got stabbed 12 times by a former senior security staffer, at another club after hours. Fortunately, he lived.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Yes, I thought it was murder. Can you hold your breath for nine minutes? How does Derek Chauvin not know this? The job of a cop is to wrap the guy up and get him to the precinct, not strangle the guy. I watched a bit of the prosecution argument, but missed out on the defense (If it even happened, i'd been up writing all night and fell asleep, these days it's the only thing i get to do).
Djoser, though I don't think this is overly political, it does have potential to be volatile IF WE LET IT. So we better not let it. There is room for disagreement.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Djoser
I doubt this thread will stay open long, because the political stuff is supposed to be against the rules, and this has potential for volatile disagreement. I cut people a lot of slack during the past year or two because of the political crises going on, but will be starting to enforce the rules a little more thoroughly in future.
Hopefully there is no disagreement that what Chauvin did was abhorrent, and he should go to prison for a very long time, for what he did.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
It’s a legal system not a moral system.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Djoser
thoroughly
I'm impressed, you actually managed to spell "thoroughly," I always have to look that word up when I use it and it takes me FOREVER. Stops me cold. It's annoying. I can never remember how to spell it.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kamiliam
I believe that there are numerous people who work for the prosecution/state who do not want Chauvin to be found guilty of anything, thus the numerous charges. Jury confusion is a real fun thing. I do think it is manslaughter, but also I think there should be an extra charge because he was a cop. This is all theater unfortunately.
Agree 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
I feel like this title is deliberately inflammatory. You could have went with 'George Floyd trial: murder vs. manslaughter' or something. Or taken it to a political forum.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Genoveve
Agree 100%
I feel like this title is deliberately inflammatory. You could have went with 'George Floyd trial: murder vs. manslaughter' or something. Or taken it to a political forum.
Yes, EXACTLY. The title IS inflammatory. Eric, you say you want a 'Guilty' verdict, yet the title doesn't appear to be consistent with that. Tried to fix it with an edit but it still shows in some posts.
We're going to let it stand for now, but I doubt it will last.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raziel
I'm impressed, you actually managed to spell "thoroughly," I always have to look that word up when I use it and it takes me FOREVER. Stops me cold. It's annoying. I can never remember how to spell it.
University of Chicago was good for something :D
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
Yes, God forbid you should learn something lol. Just kidding. I call your reading into question ; not your comprehension. I think some of your posts are just knee jerk without regard to the facts.
I have nuanced views because life is full of nuance. Few things are completely cut and dried.
If you think Chauvin intended to kill Floyd please tell us what you are basing it on. Something besides the race of killer and victim please. What evidence of the necessary design , desire or purpose do you see based on the facts as known ?
from what I know of the story
howni think they can prove intent.
part of the problem was the maneuver that he used to restrain Floyd.
when trained on those maneuvers, awareness that using them the wrong way can result in death is important.
they need to have an expert that can discuss the maneuver Chavin used and how he used it incorrectly. Maybe even review his body cams (not sure how long that footage lasts) from previous incidents where he used it incorrectly to prove that not only him but his upper management staff knew he couldn’t perform a risky maneuver properly yet did nothing to correct him.
in addition, Chauvin has a history of incidents on the job. This can paint his character as someone who is walking around with a chip on his shoulder looking for a fight. A bit of digging can probably back this up even more.
also, the coroners report (and Floyd’s medical history) is important. Supposedly Floyd had a prexisting condition and possibly drugs in his system. There needs to be evidence that Floyd’s medical history didn’t make him so frail that any slight stressor would have killed him.
just my thoughts
-
Re: George Floyd murder trial?
First of all, I sincerely apologize for being inflammatory. The subject matter is hot enough on its own. My title for this thread was probably not necessary and I appreciate the helpful edit.
It is the jury's job to look at all the evidence as cold bloodedly as possible. To be as rational and objective as possible. This would not be the first case that was over prosecuted for political reasons or to serve a larger agenda when prosecuting police crime. Most of the time it proves to be a mistake as many such cases result in total acquittal. About 2/3 of the time. I do not see evidence of an intentional killing by Chauvin. So far ! Maybe something will be developed as the trial unfolds that will prove intent.
I see plenty of recklessness and wanton behavior. Lots of police incompetence and perhaps some pre-existing animus towards Floyd by Chauvin. It is totally beyond my ken why Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck for almost 9 minutes. Why he ignored obvious signs of distress. Even after Floyd went silent he kept his knee on him. Why ? For what possible reason ? Maybe , MAYBE the totality of the length of time and its effect on Floyd can be cobbled together to show the requisite intent. We will see.
Afaik there will be at least two Police witnesses against Chauvin. A Sergeant who responded after Floyd was dead and the current Chief of Police. both are expected to testify that Chauvin violated procedure and protocol.
As for me being "knee jerk " and "calling the kettle black", all my ideological opponents say that. They can't get used to the fact that I am so often proved right. Lol. Just kidding folks. Just kidding.
-
Re: George Floyd murder trial?
Hmmmm. I just listened to Greg Jarret's analysis of the trial. He thinks it is a murder case and that Chauvin ought to be and will be convicted on one of the two Murder counts. Based on the video evidence alone. He thinks the defense is very weak
( as do I btw ) and the video is the Elephant in the room.
-
Re: George Floyd murder trial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric Stoner
all my ideological opponents say that. They can't get used to the fact that I am so often proved right. Lol.
When?
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Raziel
I'm impressed, you actually managed to spell "thoroughly," I always have to look that word up when I use it and it takes me FOREVER. Stops me cold. It's annoying. I can never remember how to spell it.
Spell check might do that for you, or you can google for it using the misspelling and google will often correct it.
-
Re: George Floyd murder trial?
An overcharged case can be beneficial to the defense it the jury is not given the option of convicting on a lesser included offense. If the prosecution can not prove the overcharged offense the defendant can be acquitted.
-
Re: George Floyd - Was it MURDER ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miss.a.p1600
from what I know of the story
howni think they can prove intent.
part of the problem was the maneuver that he used to restrain Floyd.
when trained on those maneuvers, awareness that using them the wrong way can result in death is important.
they need to have an expert that can discuss the maneuver Chavin used and how he used it incorrectly. Maybe even review his body cams (not sure how long that footage lasts) from previous incidents where he used it incorrectly to prove that not only him but his upper management staff knew he couldn’t perform a risky maneuver properly yet did nothing to correct him.
in addition, Chauvin has a history of incidents on the job. This can paint his character as someone who is walking around with a chip on his shoulder looking for a fight. A bit of digging can probably back this up even more.
also, the coroners report (and Floyd’s medical history) is important. Supposedly Floyd had a prexisting condition and possibly drugs in his system. There needs to be evidence that Floyd’s medical history didn’t make him so frail that any slight stressor would have killed him.
just my thoughts
MissP look at the smug look that ass has on his face. He was HAPPY to be doing that. This whole thing sucks, but I still don't think he gonna go to jail. White privilege and stuff. I think the best we can hope for is him being a mall cop. Sucks, but it is what it is. At least he's no longer a Cop. This is terrible!
-
Re: George Floyd murder trial?
Based upon the Minnesota laws, I think Murder 3 is a slam dunk. Murder 2 is more borderline, but I could see a sympathetic jury deciding that Chauvin was intentionally committing felony assault on Floyd, which would then support a Murder 2 conviction for unintentional death.
Now I say this as someone who has little sympathy for George Floyd. He was a recidivist violent felon who brought misery and suffering wherever he went. His rap sheet included felony assault, domestic abuse and armed robbery. The efforts of people to rewrite his history and portray him as a saintly human being are just silly. Indeed Floyd's drugged up crazy ass behavior was precisely why police were there in the first place. Frankly the world is a little safer place now that he's no longer here to victimize anyone else.
But there is just no excuse for what happened, none. The police simply cannot be allowed to behave like this. If this case sends a message then I'm all in favor. Floyd was already in cuffs and on his stomach, with other cops also on top of him, yet Chauvin continued to press down on Floyd's neck with his knee for 9 minutes, even as Floyd pleaded that he couldn't breath. Bystanders were even yelling at Chauvin to let up off Floyd's neck. Chauvin is the epitome of what can happen when we give a little bit of power to a sadist without putting in place the proper constraints. Police simply cannot be allowed to abuse a suspect under restraint in that way, even a depraved piece of shit like Floyd. Because if it can happen to a mutt like Floyd, it can happen to us too if we are ever on the wrong side of an event.
-
Re: George Floyd murder trial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rickdugan
Based upon the Minnesota laws, I think Murder 3 is a slam dunk. Murder 2 is more borderline, but I could see a sympathetic jury deciding that Chauvin was intentionally committing felony assault on Floyd, which would then support a Murder 2 conviction for unintentional death.
Now I say this as someone who has little sympathy for George Floyd. He was a recidivist violent felon who brought misery and suffering wherever he went. His rap sheet included felony assault, domestic abuse and armed robbery. The efforts of people to rewrite his history and portray him as a saintly human being are just silly. Indeed Floyd's drugged up crazy ass behavior was precisely why police were there in the first place. Frankly the world is a little safer place now that he's no longer here to victimize anyone else.
But there is just no excuse for what happened, none. The police simply cannot be allowed to behave like this. If this case sends a message then I'm all in favor. Floyd was already in cuffs and on his stomach, with other cops also on top of him, yet Chauvin continued to press down on Floyd's neck with his knee for 9 minutes, even as Floyd pleaded that he couldn't breath. Bystanders were even yelling at Chauvin to let up off Floyd's neck. Chauvin is the epitome of what can happen when we give a little bit of power to a sadist without putting in place the proper constraints. Police simply cannot be allowed to abuse a suspect under restraint in that way, even a depraved piece of shit like Floyd. Because if it can happen to a mutt like Floyd, it can happen to us too if we are ever on the wrong side of an event.
George Floyd was not a solid citizen. So what ? He did not deserve to be treated the way he was in any way, shape or form. As you yourself recognize. So please edit your post and take out the word "mutt". Floyd was a human being. A flawed and troubled drug addict with a long Rap Sheet but still a human being. He was not being violent and was not resisting . I don't know about now but there was a time when what happened to Floyd and Garner happened every day. Not often with such extreme results but that type of police behavior was routine. And for the most part went unpunished. For the simple reason that there was no video record. Even with video police were too often granted excessive leeway and given the benefit of the doubt.