George Floyd

Laughing said:
I don't want to get into lots of seperate arguments here about US law. The crux of this is, and you can look up lots of references, since 2005 in the USA only 11 police officers have ever been convicted of manslaughter and only 5 of murder. And thats with over 1,000 police homicides a year. That's the scale of the problem the Minneapolis prosecution team have to overcome.

A police officer, rightly or wrongly, only needs to convince a jury that they were doing their job as trained to do.

If the defence can prove that George Floyd died of a heart arythmia exascerbated by drugs he is very likely to walk away with either an acquital or a hung jury.

If the prosecution can prove George Floyd died of asphyxiation brought about by Chauvin kneeling on his kneck and the other officers compressing his chest against the floor, the death was completely avoidable and it would take several racist jurers to acquit.

I get we are all incensed by this, that doesn't change how court proceedings work in the US, and how the law will be applied and directed by the judge.
Click to expand...
Can the defence use previous similar cases to add weight to their argument for instance the death of Tony Timpa?
 
Everyone seems to be piling on me. I didn't come up with the US legal system, I don't agree with it, but I do understand it.

You are right bear, the fact he has been fired will help the jury reach a guilty verdict. The defences tactics seem to be to give the jury a "get out of jail card" pun intended.

Firstly, there are no medical professionals on the jury so they can only apply common sense to the evidence they hear.

If they hear equally compelling evidence that George Floyd died of both an arythmia brought on by drug abuse and aspyxiation brought on by three grown men kneeling on him. The US legal system stipulates that if either interpretation is equally valid, they must use the interpretation that favours the defence. This is what beyond reasonable doubt means in US law.

What the defence is doing is trying to create an equally compelling story that George Floyd died of a heart arythmia brought on by drugs, not someone kneeling on him.

If that narrative flies, he walks away with an aquital.

What the jury cannot do, is assume facts not in evidence, such as, well he knelt on his neck for 9+ minutes, surely that killed him. There would have to be evidence to support this, which there is, the ME's report. There will also be evidence that it had nothing to do with being knelt on and that Floyd's heart could give out at any time.
 
Chisel said:
Can the defence use previous similar cases to add weight to their argument for instance the death of Tony Timpa?
Click to expand...
No you can't introduce previous cases. They can be used in-limine hearings to influence evidentiary rulings. In-limine hearings are the hearings that happen before and sometimes during trial to decide what evidence can be presented to the jury.

US trials are not a search for truth, they are an adverserial battle where there is a winner and a looser. In the UK our justice system is much more about finding the truth.

Often the judges evidentiary rulings will tank a case one way or the other. For example, Chauvin has had a more than average number of complainst against him, He has also discharged his weapon and shot people more than average. Officer Thao, the officer you see holding the crowd back was involved in a complaint that paid the complainant, the complaint was of 3 officers kicking and punching a man who had been arrested and was handcuffed at the time of the assualt. There is an MO here.

Now I don't know what the judge ruled on the evidenciary implication of presenting these to the jury, but I suspect they would be inadmissable. The judge is supposed to weigh up the value of these things as evidence versus how much knowing that Chauvin had disciplinary problems, will bias a jury against him.
 
Laughing said:
I don't want to get into lots of seperate arguments here about US law. The crux of this is, and you can look up lots of references, since 2005 in the USA only 11 police officers have ever been convicted of manslaughter and only 5 of murder. And thats with over 1,000 police homicides a year. That's the scale of the problem the Minneapolis prosecution team have to overcome.

A police officer, rightly or wrongly, only needs to convince a jury that they were doing their job as trained to do.

If the defence can prove that George Floyd died of a heart arythmia exascerbated by drugs he is very likely to walk away with either an acquital or a hung jury.

If the prosecution can prove George Floyd died of asphyxiation brought about by Chauvin kneeling on his kneck and the other officers compressing his chest against the floor, the death was completely avoidable and it would take several racist jurers to acquit.

I get we are all incensed by this, that doesn't change how court proceedings work in the US, and how the law will be applied and directed by the judge.
Click to expand...
And the numbers you quote where police officers have Benn convicted I think I might have read that none of those were in Minneapolis.
 
Frozen Horse said:
As for the second point, you don't need a heart condition to develop a cardiac arrhythmia when you go hypoxic. You or I would too, if our airways were compromised. Medical history as such is not relevant.

Drugs are trickier; toxicity too can trigger VF. However, the defence that the drugs caused the arrhythmia, but only once someone was kneeling on his neck, seems a bit flimsy. I can't see many jurors buying that.
Click to expand...
Even if it was a heart attack and an unrelated and unlikely accident that it happened while being kneeled on, the man was in police custody and was telling them he was in distress and they knew it, and failed to change their actions. The man verbalised his distress, they ignored it, didn't get him any help, didn't offer any help, and in fact continued the actions he was asking them to stop, stating that it was stopping him breathing. There is no defence for that, none whatsoever., he was in their care at that point, it was their responsibility to ensure his safety.
 
BoroMart said:
Even if it was a heart attack and an unrelated and unlikely accident that it happened while being kneeled on, the man was in police custody and was telling them he was in distress and they knew it, and failed to change their actions. The man verbalised his distress, they ignored it, didn't get him any help, didn't offer any help, and in fact continued the actions he was asking them to stop, stating that it was stopping him breathing. There is no defence for that, none whatsoever., he was in their care at that point, it was their responsibility to ensure his safety.
Click to expand...
You're preaching to the choir BM. I agree, the US legal system isn't that nuanced. It does allow for jury nullification where a jury can ignore the law and return any verdict they want. If a lawyer mentions this to a jury they lose their license. It doesn't allow cross examination outside the bounds of direct testimony. It's a woeful inadequate system.

The fact that George Floyd died when in police custody is neither here nor there, the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he died as a direct result of Chauvins actions. If the defence can show, beyond a reasonable doubt that he would have died anyway he will be acquited.

George Floyd's protests can be used to garner jury sympathy without expert testimony to say it directly led to his death the jury will likely acquit.

The US system is deeply flawed.

On the plus side it is heavily weighted towards prosecution.

As I have said, not a single piece of testimony has been given, outside of Genevieve Henson, a fire department emt, that proves Chauvin killed George Floyd.

That will come, but it hasn't been presented yet. It is that evidence which will convict our acquit.

The fact that we have all seen the video, as have the jury is not compelling evidence on its own.
 
BoroMart said:
well that's down to medical evidence. He may just have had mental health issues. Either way, when handcuffs he is restrained, so there is simply no reason to kneel on him while he is crying for his life and just ignoring it.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing that BM. you seem to think that I believe he isn't guilty, I don't. I think he is probably guilty of murder 2. I am referring to the trial only and the prosecution are no where near proving a crime was committed yet, never mind that Chauvin committed the crime and should go to prison.

That will come, I am sure.
 
"To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime."

Onlookers told the police that Floyd wasn't breathing, his body wasn't moving, and a policeman is heard to say 'I can't find one', presumably meaning a pulse. Yet the policemen continued to keep the full weight of his body on Floyd's neck, and offered no medical assistance.

That, in my opinion, is certainly lacking in regard for the life of others, and blameworthy.
 
deganya said:
"To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime."

Onlookers told the police that Floyd wasn't breathing, his body wasn't moving, and a policeman is heard to say 'I can't find one', presumably meaning a pulse. Yet the policemen continued to keep the full weight of his body on Floyd's neck, and offered no medical assistance.

That, in my opinion, is certainly lacking in regard for the life of others, and blameworthy.
Click to expand...
Just got to the body cam stuff from yesterday and one of the officerrs, king I think, feels for a pulse and says I can't find one. The areesting officer also asked to roll him on to his side to which Chauvin said no.
 
If by some mad miracle the officer is found not guilty, what does that mean for the $27 million payout to Floyd's family? Has it already been paid? Who's paid for it?
 
Randy said:
Barely. I was nine years old 😟
Click to expand...
OK young un. :ROFLMAO: Well OJ was found not guilty because "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit", the defence created enough "reasonable doubt" for the prosecution case to collapse. The family of Ron Goldman took out a civil case against OJ after he was found not guilty.

The standard to be found liable for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, was lower a preponderance of evidence, i.e. most of the evidence supports that OJ was liable, a lower bar to clear. He was ordered to pay 8.5m in damages, probably about 18m in todays money. It cleaned him out, and he ended up getting involved in other dodgy crap and going to prison for that.

If somehow, this officer is found not guilty, you can see the same thing happening, he will be financially wiped out by a civil suit.
 
Boro_Legend said:
One of the witness backed out today very odd.
Click to expand...
Half way through day 4 now BL. I found George Floyds partnerrs testimony interesting. She was trying to describe him in the best light possible and was caught out once or twice, not in a lie, exactly but was not forthcoming. The DA had to rehabilitate on re-direct. That would have damaged the prosecution a little bit.

The first paramedic was routine on direct, but the ADA was awful during questioning.

On cross the defence did a couple of things, firstly he asked whether the paramedic had gone to other overdoses... then corected himself. His intention was clear, he was suggesting the George Floyd had overdosed. The second main point he made was that when the gel breathing device was placed in Floyds throat it was unrestricted, suggesting that he had not been choked to death, as that would have restricted his airways and the throat tube would have been blocked

Time for bed now, I'll watch the rest of the day 4 witness' tomorrow.
 
BoroMart said:
OK young un. :ROFLMAO: Well OJ was found not guilty because "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit", the defence created enough "reasonable doubt" for the prosecution case to collapse. The family of Ron Goldman took out a civil case against OJ after he was found not guilty.

The standard to be found liable for the deaths of Ron and Nicole, was lower a preponderance of evidence, i.e. most of the evidence supports that OJ was liable, a lower bar to clear. He was ordered to pay 8.5m in damages, probably about 18m in todays money. It cleaned him out, and he ended up getting involved in other dodgy crap and going to prison for that.

If somehow, this officer is found not guilty, you can see the same thing happening, he will be financially wiped out by a civil suit.
Click to expand...
Chauvin can't be sued I don't think the city have already settled the civil suite.

On the subject of the knee on the neck, it's not as clear as a superrvisor saying he shouldn't have done it. If the defence can trot out a paid mouth piece to say that is how they were trained. As I said earlier BM the american legal system is not about finding the truth

As I understand it the training is to not put pressure anywhere above the shoulder, but I am not sure how accurate that is, the prosecution mentioned that in their opening statement and indicated they would have a witness to confirm that.

This is why jurors are not allowed to discuss the case until all evidence has been presented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top