George Floyd/ Derek Chauvin Thread

[ballz]

As I stated several posts ago, near the beginning of this thread, the defense will have to prove that the technique was applied as correctly as the situation allowed, for the appropriate amount of time to gain and maintain control of Mr. Floyd.  That, IMO, will be a big order to fill.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. If a guy is having a heart attack before you've even arrived on scene, and eventually dies of a heart attack (which I believe Floyd did), there's zero chance you're getting a murder conviction. The prosecution has to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. If I were a lawyer I'd be more interested in that, it's not dissimilar to Rob Semrau where the alleged victim was so close to dead that the defence literally didn't even make a case.

 

[Haggis]

Kinda picking pepper from fly crap here aren't we? Maybe I miss the point on why this nuance is even worth debating. You can yell at someone in the right away and give them a heart attack. On a use-of-force continuum, there are certain things that are explicitly considered "lethal/deadly force," so that would imply it's appropriate to call everything else non-lethal.

"Less"-lethal  implies that although the intervention option is not intended to cause death, that is a possible outcome in a very limited set of circumstances. (i.e the perfect storm)

[/quote]

If a guy is having a heart attack before you've even arrived on scene, and eventually dies of a heart attack (which I believe Floyd did), there's zero chance you're getting a murder conviction. If I were a lawyer I'd be more interested in that, it's not dissimilar to Rob Semrau where the alleged victim was so close to dead that they couldn't pin it on Semrau.

The difference here is that Semrau intentionally hastened that death.

 

[ballz]

The difference here is that Semrau intentionally hastened that death.

I'm not sure what your argument here is.

Semrau was found not guilty, because they couldn't prove that the dude wasn't already dead.

In Chauvin's case, the prosecution is going to have to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. Hard to prove it was Chauvin's knee if the guy was in the midst of a heart attack before Chauvin even got there, and eventually died of a heart attack.

 

[Haggis]

Semrau was found not guilty, because they couldn't prove that the dude wasn't already dead.

Notwithstanding, Semrau believed the insurgent was still alive and intentionally acted to hasten his death. Why shoot a desd body? To make it more dead?

[quote author=ballzlink=topic=132937/post-1627326#msg1627326 date=1599452627]In Chauvin's case, the prosecution is going to have to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. Hard to prove it was Chauvin's knee if the guy was in the midst of a heart attack before Chauvin even got there, and eventually died of a heart attack.[/quote]

Agreed. Chauvin is not a medical professional and would have no way of knowing, aside from Mr. Floyd's verbalizations, that he was in medical distress.  Despite that, once he became aware of Mr. Floyd's distress, was the technique still required and appropriate?  His lawyer infers it is.

 

[ballz]

Notwithstanding, Semrau believed the insurgent was still alive and intentionally acted to hasten his death. Why shoot a desd body? To make it more dead?

All great questions but we're not dealing with the balance of probabilities and I'm not arguing that he didn't kill the guy. I'm arguing they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Semrau killed the guy, because you can't kill a dead body, and the fact that the guy was already dying put enough doubt in the jury's mind because it's not unreasonable doubt that the guy was dead before the gun shot.

Similarly, if a guy is having a heart attack and dies of a heart attack, it's hard to argue that Chauvin's knee is *definitely* what caused his death which is pretty important when trying to prove murder... had he been left alone he may have died anyway.... so who can definitively conclude that Chauvin's knee did it?

Agreed. Chauvin is not a medical professional and would have no way of knowing, aside from Mr. Floyd's verbalizilations, that he was in medical distress.  Despite that, once he became aware of Mr. Floyd's distress, was the trchnique still required and appropriate?  His lawyer infers it is.

It definitely wasn't. Make no mistake, I think Chauvin is the scum of the earth and hope he goes to jail for murder. The video makes me think there is an "out" for the defence to pursue.

 

[Cloud Cover]

It definitely wasn't. Make no mistake, I think Chauvin is the scum of the earth and hope he goes to jail for murder. The video makes me think there is an "out" for the defence to pursue.

He’s likely going down on Murder 3 on the grounds of deprived mind aka deprived indifference) per Minnesota 609.195(a), and his lawyer is hastening things in that direction.

Minnesota Statutes
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

A good US case to flesh out this line of reasoning is People v Suarez, 6 NY3d 202 (2005) and in particular these holdings of the courts:



“when the defendant intends neither to seriously injure, nor to kill, but nevertheless abandons a helpless and vulnerable victim in circumstances where the victim is highly likely to die, the defendant’s utter callousness to the victim’s moral plight –arising from a situation created by the defendant– properly establishes depraved indifference murder”(Suarez, 6 NY3d at 212)“. .... the crime is nevertheless established when a defendant– acting with a conscious objective not to kill but to harm– engages in torture or a brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct against a particularly vulnerable victim” (Suarez, 6 NY3d also at 212).

At a minimum this was Murder 3 but he will not receive the full 25 yrs.

You can see from the above that if Chauvin claims he did not intend to kill but nevertheless engaged in prolonged and fatal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim ( a man in his custody having a heart attack or unable to breathe) then his goose is pretty much cooked.


“

 

[Haggis]

Note to Self: stop posting when you're really tired.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

You are absolutely right, and I know better.  What I meant (and very poorly phrased) was that the defense has asserted that the technique is an approved one and was applied correctly and Mr. Floyd's death was unrelated to that.  It's now up to the prosecution to prove that the technique was applied incorrectly in any way (method, duration) and that either caused or contributed to Mr. Floyd's death.

 

[PuckChaser]

Minnesota Statutes
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

A good US case to flesh out this line of reasoning is People v Suarez, 6 NY3d 202 (2005) and in particular these holdings of the courts:

“when the defendant intends neither to seriously injure, nor to kill, but nevertheless abandons a helpless and vulnerable victim in circumstances where the victim is highly likely to die, the defendant’s utter callousness to the victim’s moral plight –arising from a situation created by the defendant– properly establishes depraved indifference murder”(Suarez, 6 NY3d at 212)“. .... the crime is nevertheless established when a defendant– acting with a conscious objective not to kill but to harm– engages in torture or a brutal, prolonged and ultimately fatal course of conduct against a particularly vulnerable victim” (Suarez, 6 NY3d also at 212).

At a minimum this was Murder 3 but he will not receive the full 25 yrs.

You can see from the above that if Chauvin claims he did not intend to kill but nevertheless engaged in prolonged and fatal course of conduct against a vulnerable victim ( a man in his custody having a heart attack or unable to breathe) then his goose is pretty much cooked.

I don't think its as cut and dry as you think. The training is going to become important, as is the level of fentanyl in Floyd's system. The prosecution is going to have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Chauvin did something eminently dangerous (training and use of force guidelines could tip the scales) without regard for human life as well as prove Chauvin had a depraved mind. That's a lot of subjective things to have to prove in court.

I really think the prosecutors bowed to political pressure and aimed really high with the charges, and thats going to put the jury in an uncomfortable place. 2nd Degree Manslaughter seems more likely of a conviction (Minnesota allows a jury to find guilty for lessor offenses) for Chauvin unless he's got really good defense lawyers and gets off completely.

 

[Donald H]

A lot of good information being aired here to learn from. But maybe the most pertinent factor is being ignored on the fate of Chauvin. If I placed a bet on the outcome I would base it mostly on which candidate becomes president. The policing in America is either going to change or this BLM effort is going to be successful this time.

However, having said that, I have little confidence in Biden moving very far away from the establishment status quo. A wristslap of the order of Lieutenant Calley is my prediction. Complete with a long drawn out appeals process.  And as to his guilt? I would suggest that Ballz has it about right.

 

[brihard]

A lot of good information being aired here to learn from. But maybe the most pertinent factor is being ignored on the fate of Chauvin. If I placed a bet on the outcome I would base it mostly on which candidate becomes president. The policing in America is either going to change or this BLM effort is going to be successful this time.

However, having said that, I have little confidence in Biden moving very far away from the establishment status quo. A wristslap of the order of Lieutenant Calley is my prediction. Complete with a long drawn out appeals process.  And as to his guilt? I would suggest that Ballz has it about right.

The president who gets elected would only come into play if it got to the point of there being a pardon, or a commutation of sentence considered later down the road. The legal trial of Chauvin will proceed on the strength of the actual evidence, and under the laws of that state.  The feds really don't have anything to do with this, as no federal charges were preferred.

To defeat the charges, his defense need only introduce sufficient reasonable doubt against the allegations.

Chauvin faces three charges:
- Second Degree Murder, Unintentional, While committing a felony
- Third Degree Murder, perpetrating eminently dangerous act and evincing depraved mind
- Second degree manslaughter - Culpable negligence creating unreasonable risk

I'm not equipped to do a legal analysis of this, but my slightly-better-than-layman's knowledge lets me see tis on pretty clearly. Basically they aren't arguing that he acted with the intent of killing Floyd. They're essentially arguing that he was negligent, that he was wilfully unconcerned about Floyd's safety or life ('depraved mind'), and that Floyd died as a result of Chauvin committing a felony. Things that we would simply call 'manslaughter' - illegal act of violence results in unintentional death - they have more legally nuanced versions of. In particualrly, we have nothing akin to the 'depraved mind' statute.

Breaking all this down further, a police officer has a duty of care to anyone in their custody. A police officer has a duty to use force reasonably, and in accordance with law. Use of force has to be continuously reevaluate as the situation and subject's behaviour changes. Pretty hard to justify keeping your knee on a handcuffed suspect's neck for eight minutes plus. The county medical examiner's report ruled that police actions formed part of the cause of Floyd's death. The argument will be made that keeping his knee on Floyd's neck that long was negligent, that doing so and failing to check vitals and rendering medical aid shows the 'depraved mind' and, I'm inferring, that doing such things constitutes the felony during which unintentional second degree murder was committed.

With intent to kill removed from the equation, defense has to successfully argue that there is a reasonable doubt that Chauvin was negligent. That's going to be hard to prove.

I also wonder why they pulled him out of the back of the cruiser after they successfully got him in there. There could well be reasons for this- maybe he hadn't been searched to their satisfaction - but I've not yet seen an actual articulation of this. I haven't gone looking for it either, mind you.

 

[PuckChaser]

I also wonder why they pulled him out of the back of the cruiser after they successfully got him in there. There could well be reasons for this- maybe he hadn't been searched to their satisfaction - but I've not yet seen an actual articulation of this. I haven't gone looking for it either, mind you.

Here's the raw body cam footage from Thomas Lane: https://youtu.be/NjKjaCvXdf4?t=407, I've time stamp linked it to where they started to try to get Floyd into the car. If you watch, he's never actually secured into the vehicle. He goes it head first from the driver side, with the passenger door open (I think that's Chauvin?) on the passenger side to try to drag him in. Once Lane closes the driver door, he moves over to the passenger side and Floyd is now got his legs completely outside the car on that side so he's flipped himself 180 degrees and tried to get out the other way. Once he's on the ground, he appears to kick towards an officer trying to hold his legs down. I'd argue he was never successfully in the vehicle as he resisted the whole time. Success to me is both doors closed.

 

[Donald H]

The president who gets elected would only come into play if it got to the point of there being a pardon, or a commutation of sentence considered later down the road. The legal trial of Chauvin will proceed on the strength of the actual evidence, and under the laws of that state.  The feds really don't have anything to do with this, as no federal charges were preferred.

That completely misses my point Brihard. I'm trying to say that the entire country's future concerning reform from racism depends on which candidate is elected.

Trump, if elected will attempt to maintain the status quo and he will have the vindication he needs to do so.

Biden, if elected, shows some indications that he and the Democrats will challenge the status quo as it pertains to the police's treatment of black people on the streets.

And so I also understand:

The feds really don't have anything to do with this, as no federal charges were preferred.

I'm saying that Biden campaigns on the basis of bringing about big social change as is relevant here on this discussion. And I'm also saying that I have doubts on him being able to make any really big significant changes. But still, politics will decide the fate of Chauvin. (IN MY OPINION)

Is there any possibility that everybody who climbs on board this discussion could just voice their opinions in a polite and respectable manner?

Perhaps the admins and the mods could use this one as a trial balloon?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

8 years as VP and he didn't make any change, in fact Black Lives Matters formed under his watch, so....

 

[Donald H]

8 years as VP and he didn't make any change, in fact Black Lives Matters formed under his watch, so....

He was only VP.
The resentment of Obama as pres had to be a motivation for the formation of BLM.
And I have to agree with you about half way because as I said, I have little confidence on America moving away from the establishment status quo.
But he 'does' at least talk a good case.

All of this still directly pertains to my suggestion that Chauvin's future depends more on who wins the presidency.
If I was allowed to award you 300 I wouldn't be making it just 150.

This is civil and decent debate in my opinion.

 

[brihard]

Is there any possibility that everybody who climbs on board this discussion could just voice their opinions in a polite and respectable manner?

Perhaps the admins and the mods could use this one as a trial balloon?

Everyone has. You lack subject mater knowledge on law enforcement use of force, whereas several people here know the subject quite well. The points you're trying to make have been all over the place and difficult, at best, to follow. That doesn't mean the tone here has been at all inappropriate.

 

[PuckChaser]

8 years as VP and he didn't make any change, in fact Black Lives Matters formed under his watch, so....

50 years in office as well... no US political party has done well to treat all Americans equally. They're just treated as ethnic voting blocks to use every 4 years.

 

[OldSolduer]

50 years in office as well... no US political party has done well to treat all Americans equally. They're just treated as ethnic voting blocks to use every 4 years.

Therein lies the problem. Not matter how "equally" they are treated there will always be some who perceive themselves as being more "equal" than the rest.

 

[Donald H]

You lack subject mater knowledge on law enforcement use of force, whereas several people here know the subject quite well.

O.k. then, allow me to try something different. Chauvin has been charged with murder and so if he's convicted will I be able to say that I know more about the law on the use of force than anybody saying he'll be found not guilty.

And in return, if he's found not guilty then I will have to say that I was wrong.

Wouldn't that be fair?

And now, would you like me to quote the particular law that I'm suggesting makes Chauvin guilty of murder? Last word I have is that he's charged with second degree murder.

Well, here's a judge that seems to agree with me!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-george-floyd-chauvin-murder-case

If you want more then Google is your friend. There are thousands who agree with me, and in all fairness, thousands who agree with you.
So how about you stop piling on with telling me I know nothinig about police use of force until all the charges are dropped?

 

[brihard]

O.k. then, allow me to try something different. Chauvin has been charged with murder and so if he's convicted will I be able to say that I know more about the law on the use of force than anybody saying he'll be found not guilty.

And in return, if he's found not guilty then I will have to say that I was wrong.

Wouldn't that be fair?

And now, would you like me to quote the particular law that I'm suggesting makes Chauvin guilty of murder? Last word I have is that he's charged with second degree murder.

Well, here's a judge that seems to agree with me!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-george-floyd-chauvin-murder-case

If you want more then Google is your friend. There are thousands who agree with me, and in all fairness, thousands who agree with you.
So how about you stop piling on with telling me I know nothinig about police use of force until all the charges are dropped?

Where is it that you believe I’ve said Chauvin will be acquitted? You haven’t actually asked my opinion on that, nor do you seem to have actually read what I’ve said. On the contrary I think it’s quite likely he’ll be acquitted of something. I definitely think he’s a terrible police officer and unfit for the profession. My comments link back to your earlier replies on the George Floyd shooting, where among other things you asserted that up here in Canada police would likely be convicted of offences in that set of circumstances. That officer will almost certainly be acquitted based on the totality of the circumstances.

Again, you seem to have difficulty sticking to one point or topic. You’ll say something about one thing, I or others will reply, you jump to something else and then send to think our earlier replies are actually to the new tack you’ve decided to take.

 

[Donald H]

Where is it that you believe I’ve said Chauvin will be acquitted? You haven’t actually asked my opinion on that, nor do you seem to have actually read what I’ve said. On the contrary I think it’s quite likely he’ll be acquitted of something. I definitely think he’s a terrible police officer and unfit for the profession. My comments link back to your earlier replies on the George Floyd shooting, where among other things you asserted that up here in Canada police would likely be convicted of offences in that set of circumstances. That officer will almost certainly be acquitted based on the totality of the circumstances.

Again, you seem to have difficulty sticking to one point or topic. You’ll say something about one thing, I or others will reply, you jump to something else and then send to think our earlier replies are actually to the new tack you’ve decided to take.

Now reallly Brihard, do you honestly believe that I've suggested that you said Chauvin would be aquitted. The issue is Brihard, you and a few more are piling on and telling me I know nothing about police use of force. Can it be any clearer that thousands are convinced that Chavin is guilty? And they provide the reasons why?

As are thousands convinced that he's not guilty.

I definitely think he’s a terrible police officer and unfit for the profession.

Me too, but that makes it our opinions. Now I'm taking it to the next level and quoting judges that say he's guilty. That's the picture so bleed me another 300-900 points if you must.