|
I just tuned in early and before the jury came in this morning they were talking about it. The judge said they have already had several witnesses give their opinion on excessive force and going forward they should not do that. They also cannot discuss any training that Chauvin himself did not receive. I'm sure they will find a creative way to have the police chief say that excessive force was used without it being a solicited opinion. Edit: Ok I rewatched it, it seems to be aimed more at trainers from the police department. They don't want to have several different trainers weighing in with their opinions on this. They can testify about the training they have specifically given which Chauvin has taken, but beyond that they should not be giving their opinions on whether Chauvin used excessive force on Floyd. I'm not sure if it will affect the chief's testimony. beejay fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Apr 5, 2021 |
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
beejay posted:I just tuned in early and before the jury came in this morning they were talking about it. The judge said they have already had several witnesses give their opinion on excessive force and going forward they should not do that. They also cannot discuss any training that Chauvin himself did not receive. I'm sure they will find a creative way to have the police chief say that excessive force was used without it being a solicited opinion. This is pretty okay too, since it's obvious now that "he did it against our policies and his training" is a well established fact, and hammering a point repeatedly might sour jurors against it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
let's watch this and make funny jokes about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
SuppressdPuberty93 posted:let's watch this and make funny jokes about it Pass. I'm also here for the goon niche of finding the nugget of comedy in the darkest situations, but all the good dark humour content is last week's business. Think the moment has passed and no one had a taste for it here. Maybe a Photoshop Phriday? We can put a chef hat and meatballs on Derek? Swap the mario stache with the cop one. ILL Machina fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Apr 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2021 20:31
|
|
Glory to Italia!
|
Holy poo poo. Apparently one of the defense witnesses just claimed that "I can't breathe" is a form of resisting arrest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
I don't think they've called defense witnesses yet. I think the last two witnesses today were forensic scientists. Who said that? Of course, I wouldn't doubt that a bootlicker would say that. I've read online that people think that criminals have "learned" they can say "I can't breathe" to "get their way" during arrest. Which is clearly bullshit. Edit: I found it, it was the defense attorney saying that when Floyd was initially saying he couldn't breathe, he was still actively resisting arrest at that time. beejay fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Ah, thanks for clarifying. The headline I saw said defense witness but I am phone posting so I didn't read the article.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
If the cops are trying to kill you when arresting you than doing anything other than letting them kill you is resisting arrest I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Resisting an arrest is not really a high bar. Refusing to sit in a cop car is resisting an arrest. Plugging your ears with your fingers so that you can't hear what the cops are shouting at you is resisting an arrest. Dancing macarena while cops are trying to put the cuffs on you is resisting an arrest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
beejay posted:Edit: I found it, it was the defense attorney saying that when Floyd was initially saying he couldn't breathe, he was still actively resisting arrest at that time. SEE HE SAID HE CANT BREATHE PREMEDITATED VICTIMHOOD
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
chinigz posted:riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges? As long as the state provides proof that Chauvin contributed to the death, that should be enough for a conviction. I'm a little unsure of the percentage (e.g. "primary cause of death" vs "partly contributed"). Maybe a law Goon can fill in these details. Kalit fucked around with this message at 14:17 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
chinigz posted:riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges? It's America, he might have zero drugs in his system and the cop might still go free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
Do we know who are going to be today's witnesses?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:It's America, he might have zero drugs in his system and the cop might still go free. Who do you think you are dunking on? Or who do you think you are appearing so righteous to? This is a silly way to completely not-answer his question. Look where you are and what website. Read the room. Hey guys socialism is so much cooler than what we have right now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
chinigz posted:riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges? It is way beyond a reasonable doubt that the restraint killed him. No doctors, especially medical toxicologists, are saying the fentanyl caused it. They've been very clear on that. People develop a tolerance to opioids quickly, so it would not have been a lethal dose for him. It also didn't look like an opioid death. Even if it was, kneeling on his neck could only ever increase the likelihood of him dying. And there is a very effective antidote they likely had in their car, since they're so concerned about overdoses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Even if it was, kneeling on his neck could only ever increase the likelihood of him dying. The thing is, the way the court system works in America, if you are 95% sure that Floyd was killed by Chauvin's knee and think that there is maybe a 5% chance that he died from complications caused by drugs and poor health, then you are _supposed_ to vote not quilty. The jury is not deciding whether it is more likely that Floyd's death was caused by Chauvin. They're deciding if it's absolute certainty that Chauvin caused his death with intent or criminal disregard for human life, depending on the charges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:44
|
|
chinigz posted:riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges? The "beyond reasonable doubt" thing is often misinterpreted, it roughly means "Would a reasonable person find the idea that the defendant contributed to the victim's death doubtful?" Cops get off the hook so often not so much because of the law itself but because of a mixture of sociological and systemic factors that strongly favor police.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
A bigger problem is that as I understand it, the verdict has to be unanimous (which is not the case in the UK). One Trumpy dickhead and you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:The thing is, the way the court system works in America, if you are 95% sure that Floyd was killed by Chauvin's knee and think that there is maybe a 5% chance that he died from complications caused by drugs and poor health, then you are _supposed_ to vote not quilty. The jury is not deciding whether it is more likely that Floyd's death was caused by Chauvin. They're deciding if it's absolute certainty that Chauvin caused his death with intent or criminal disregard for human life, depending on the charges. It does seem to work that way for cops, though.  E: And to be clear, if Chauvin gets the "cop" type of reasonable doubt from the jury and not the actual normal kind of reasonable doubt, people will be right to be pissed and the national protest will be entirely justified. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:The thing is, the way the court system works in America, if you are 95% sure that Floyd was killed by Chauvin's knee and think that there is maybe a 5% chance that he died from complications caused by drugs and poor health, then you are _supposed_ to vote not quilty. The jury is not deciding whether it is more likely that Floyd's death was caused by Chauvin. They're deciding if it's absolute certainty that Chauvin caused his death with intent or criminal disregard for human life, depending on the charges. I'm not sure this is quite right, he could be found to have contributed to the death through negligence. I think it can also be determined that he committed a felony during the whole process which would then trigger felony murder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:A bigger problem is that as I understand it, the verdict has to be unanimous (which is not the case in the UK). One Trumpy dickhead and you're hosed. Yea. Although listening to the jury selection, I think this is less likely than, for instance, the Darren Wilson case. The state seemed to have been pretty good at striking people who believe cops more than the average person, pro blue lives matter, etc. Unless there was a super Trumpy person who was really good at lying, of course. Also, if you're unaware of the Twin Cities, the jury selection is from Hennepin County (which includes Minneapolis), which is fairly liberal overall. There are some ultra-Trump people here, but they're much fewer and far between than if the trial would have gotten moved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
There is a medical doctor giving evidence right now, he is giving a lot of details on what happened internally to George and how.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Who do you think you are dunking on? Or who do you think you are appearing so righteous to? Settle the gently caress down
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
chinigz posted:riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges? If you shoot at somebody and have really terrible aim; the guy isn't even bothering to doge your bullets; and he gets hit by a car and dies, it's murder on your part. The defense has two avenues of attack: that knee-on-neck-9-minutes is an appropriate and usually safe maneuver, or Hail Mary and hope that the jury ignores instructions and decides that killing a black druggie is fine. Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:If you shoot at somebody and have really terrible aim; the guy isn't even bothering to doge your bullets; and he gets hit by a car and dies, it's murder on your part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1379883253327335434?s=20 https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1379884110538280960?s=20 I don't get the reasoning of this by either side. If he said he ate too many drugs, then you probably want to call an ambulance quicker and not put your knee on his neck. Why would the defense even bring that up? If he said he didn't do any drugs, then who loving cares? You still don't put your knee on his neck but the officer can say, "He said he wasn't on drugs so we handled him differently than someone having an overdose." So why would the prosecution bring that up? It seems like they both forgot what side they were arguing for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
kolby posted:https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1379883253327335434?s=20 They're trying to invoke the "he was no angel" defense - basically, show that the victim did something (anything) illegal, immoral, or in any way less than Eagle Scout behavior. Persons who are inclined to defend the police will then use this to show that the victim had it coming / deserved it / was not entitled to the same degree of protection under law as a "straight laced" citizen, etc. This defense is usually used in right wing media, but there's no reason not to try it in court. If the jury can be convinced that the victim was a petty criminal, on drugs, unruly, etc., they may be more inclined to let the attacker off. That's my guess as to why they'd push this angle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Yep, part of the defense's case is that the amount of force that Chauvin used was appropriate to the risk presented, and therefore was not negligent in causing Mr. Floyd's death. If they can prove that Mr. Floyd was on drugs, then they could argue that what would normally be perceived as excessive was necessary to subdue a drugged (as in Coked-up and raging) suspect. E: Corrected some statements that I was incorrect about. Velocity Raptor fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
kolby posted:https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1379883253327335434?s=20 So... from a general perspective/overview, the defense is arguing he died solely from a drug OD. The EMTs were already called, and I believe escalated to siren lights/ASAP, before this point of time. So the defense was trying to use that as saying "he ingested a bunch of drugs right before the attempted arrest, causing the OD". As far as the knee on the neck, the defense is using the argument that there was a "volatile/hostile crowd" making it harder for Chauvin to concentrate. They're making this claim along with anecdotal evidence about how when someone is unconscious, theoretically they can become conscious again and fight even harder than they were previously. So he was trying to hold him in a "secure" position until the EMTs arrived. As far as the drugs overall, both sides acknowledge he was on drugs. They were found in his body in the autopsy, they found a pill in the back of the police car with his DNA on it, etc. The prosecution was just trying to dispute Floyd claiming he downed a bunch of drugs at once right before the attempted arrest. As a side note, I think the current expert witness (of lungs/breathing in general) is doing a drat good job demonstrating how Chuavin's knee physically constrained the breathing of Floyd. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Chimp_On_Stilts posted:They're trying to invoke the "he was no angel" defense - basically, show that the victim did something (anything) illegal, immoral, or in any way less than Eagle Scout behavior. Persons who are inclined to defend the police will then use this to show that the victim had it coming / deserved it / was not entitled to the same degree of protection under law as a "straight laced" citizen, etc. Exactly this; and the prosecution knows that this sort of testimony could be problematic for them if left unchallenged, so they pushed back by showing that the witness is getting out over his skis offering an opinion on that matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
The defense has 3 basic recurring arguments that they want to put into the jury's minds. 1 - Floyd was on drugs and thus was both incredibly dangerous (could regain consciousness and fight back with drug strength) and also on the verge of death (he had a heart attack/his oxygen dropped because of drugs), 2 - the bystanders and traffic posed a threat to the police so they couldn't get off of him, and 3 - the EMS took too long to get there so it's really their fault. They haven't pushed the EMS delay too much but it's come up a few times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
beejay posted:3 - the EMS took too long to get there so it's really their fault. They haven't pushed the EMS delay too much but it's come up a few times. This is a take alright. “Why didn’t the unarmed EMS crew come and rescue this man from the defendant? Sounds like their fault to me.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:This is a take alright. For a murder charge, it can be relevant. Defense can argue that Chauvin did not try to actively prevent Floyd from receiving medical attention, just that he failed to administer it himself. I'm not saying that this is a good tactic for the defense or that the jury would buy it, though
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
kolby posted:https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1379883253327335434?s=20 the chuds are trying to find a reason to openly say that chauvin was actually a good solid christian soldier who did the right thing when he killed floyd. thats the long and short of it. https://twitter.com/EricChalouxKSTP/status/1380171882478047233 https://twitter.com/EricChalouxKSTP/status/1380205697695092742 Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
beejay posted:The defense has 3 basic recurring arguments that they want to put into the jury's minds. 1 - Floyd was on drugs and thus was both incredibly dangerous (could regain consciousness and fight back with drug strength) and also on the verge of death (he had a heart attack/his oxygen dropped because of drugs), 2 - the bystanders and traffic posed a threat to the police so they couldn't get off of him, and 3 - the EMS took too long to get there so it's really their fault. They haven't pushed the EMS delay too much but it's come up a few times. I've mentioned this before, your 1 is the most likely at the moment from how they are stancing it and the chud twitter is parroting how he was high on goofballs and fentayl. 2 is possible but the footage shows them pleading to let up on George, not harassing them. Thou, the cop not on George, was holding back the public, so will be hard to say that they would have gotten through. And 3 is a nogo as iirc one of the EMS phoned the police to report Chauvin for not getting out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
beejay posted:I'm not sure this is quite right, he could be found to have contributed to the death through negligence. I think it can also be determined that he committed a felony during the whole process which would then trigger felony murder. (With the caveat that I don't know MN law and this is all educated guessing,) The full complaint can be found here. The general breakdown, borrowing from some of the jury instructions in the Mohamed Noor case (not all, because Noor was charged with 2nd-degree murder under a different theory and that part won't apply here), will be: Count 1: in the course of intentionally committing or attempting an assault (of such severity that it inflicts substantial bodily harm) but without intent to cause death, Chauvin caused Floyd's death. Count 2: Chauvin committed an intentional act which caused Floyd's death, and the act was eminently dangerous to human beings and performed without regard for human life, committed in a reckless or wanton manner with the knowledge that someone may be killed. Count 3: Chauvin caused Floyd's death by culpable negligence (meaning intentional conduct that he may not have intended to be harmful, but that an ordinary and reasonably prudent person would recognize as involving a strong probability of injury to others), whereby he created an unreasonable risk, and consciously took the chance of causing death or great bodily harm. Felony murder under count 1 may require specific intent to cause bodily harm, in which case I think they acquit on that one due to reasonable doubt that Chauvin intended to restrain Floyd rather than to hurt him. I'd guess a conviction on count 2 or 3 or a hung jury. (Interesting side note, count 1 wouldn't fly in most states, because felony murder usually can't be predicated on assault and has to be based on a separate offense like armed robbery or drug sales or whatever. MN seems to be an outlier.) chinigz posted:riddle me this, as a non american law knower. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is fairly high, if defense can raise the possibility that Floyd died of an overdose and point to the autopsy that shows fentanyl in the blood - doesn't that prevent them reaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' and Chauvin could get off some or all of the charges? "To cause" was defined in Noor's case under manslaughter 2, and is likely the same here: quote:“To cause” means to be a substantial causal factor in causing the death. The defendant is criminally liable for all the consequences of his actions that occur in the ordinary and natural course of events, including those consequences brought about by one or more intervening causes, if such intervening causes were the natural result of the defendant's acts. The fact that other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. The prosecution would counter by saying that Floyd's heart stopping is a natural result of the Defendant's actions, even if other conditions (drug use, heart problems, etc.) contributed. It's not a slam dunk, so causation's going to be an issue for the various medical experts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:the chuds are trying to find a reason to openly say that chauvin was actually a good solid christian soldier who did the right thing when he killed floyd. thats the long and short of it. The main way that crucifixion kills is because the position of the victims body makes it impossible for the victims lungs to expand all the way so their heart has to pump extra hard and eventually leads to a heart attack. This is exactly the same reason why George Floyd had a heart attack. Him saying "I can't breath" was because he could feel he wasn't getting enough oxygen because his lungs weren't able to expand all the way while being pressed against the street.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
logger posted:Him saying "I can't breath" was because he could feel he wasn't getting enough oxygen because his lungs weren't able to expand all the way while being pressed against the street. The problem with this reasoning is that there is, to my understanding, video evidence of Floyd saying "I can't breathe" before he was pinned against the ground.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
logger posted:The main way that crucifixion kills is because the position of the victims body makes it impossible for the victims lungs to expand all the way so their heart has to pump extra hard and eventually leads to a heart attack. This is exactly the same reason why George Floyd had a heart attack. Him saying "I can't breath" was because he could feel he wasn't getting enough oxygen because his lungs weren't able to expand all the way while being pressed against the street. This is a broader side question, people dying in police custody in non-firearm related ways seems to happen in the U.S. more than it should: does this kind of thing also happen a lot in the other wealthy countries? Are Mounties kneeling on peoples necks until they suffocate semi-regularly in Canada too? Or the UK? For that matter has anyone bothered to look into why American cops are such sadistic monsters yet ones in U.S. adjacent countries seem to be at least substantially toned down in comparison?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:58
|
|
