George Floyd

Laughing said:
A couple of things the defence say they will prove is George Floyd had methamphetamine in his system. At the time of his death chauvin could not have known this and both 2nd degree murder and third degree manslaughter require an element of disregard for human life. The defence could and will argue that kneeling on a handcuffed man's neck is justified.

Williams testimony was damming but without a cause of death won't be enough.
Click to expand...
Personally Laughing I just hope you are wrong - however legal matters are never as straight forward as they look and this is America we are talking about.
 
FatCat said:
Personally Laughing I just hope you are wrong - however legal matters are never as straight forward as they look and this is America we are talking about.
Click to expand...
The thing that annoys me about this apart from the obvious death of a man is the nonchalantly arrogant way that scumbag has his hands in his pockets.
 
FatCat said:
Personally Laughing I just hope you are wrong - however legal matters are never as straight forward as they look and this is America we are talking about.
Click to expand...
Chauvin deserves to be in jail he is a reprehensible human being. If the law is followed to the letter and it was a heart attack the prosecution don't really have anywhere to go. Closing argument may address if it was a heart attack did Chauvin contribute to that.. Of course, but he couldn't have known. Sometimes the law is an ass.
 
Laughing said:
if it was a heart attack did Chauvin contribute to that.. Of course, but he couldn't have known. Sometimes the law is an ass.
Click to expand...
isn't that why they have the third degree charge, to ensure he serves jail time for doing something that would killed him because of existing health issues. The fact is, you can't assume that someone is 100% healthy, that's why 'minimal force' is necessary. If he went beyond minimal force and thus assisted Chauvin having a heart attack, then I think he can still be convicted of 3rd degree.
 
I don't know about anyone else but for me, Chauvin's actions seem to meet the definition of "depraved indifference."

Under US law:

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.
Click to expand...

US Legal Definitions: Depraved Indifference
 
Laughing said:
Chauvin deserves to be in jail he is a reprehensible human being. If the law is followed to the letter and it was a heart attack the prosecution don't really have anywhere to go. Closing argument may address if it was a heart attack did Chauvin contribute to that.. Of course, but he couldn't have known. Sometimes the law is an ass.
Click to expand...
Some people get convicted of murder where no body us found, so no cause of death is known.
 
BoroMart said:
isn't that why they have the third degree charge, to ensure he serves jail time for doing something that would killed him because of existing health issues. The fact is, you can't assume that someone is 100% healthy, that's why 'minimal force' is necessary. If he went beyond minimal force and thus assisted Chauvin having a heart attack, then I think he can still be convicted of 3rd degree.
Click to expand...
You may be right BM, but that's the domain of the jury. However 3rd degree manslaughter stipulates that whilst the killing was not intentional, it has to be done with a depraved mind and without regard for human life. Chauvin will claim, I assume, in his defence he was just doing his job.

The jury will then have to balance the difficulties in a police officer doing his job and the rights of the victim. Don't get me wrong, in the UK he would be convicted of manslaughter and it would take a jury a couple of hours. In the US, I am not so sure.

Anyway in yesterdays proceedings the defence, probably, had a minor win in as much as the video footage from inside the store was shown, and Floyd could be seen to be behaving a bit erratically. The defence, I suspect will be able to prove he had methamphetamine and fentanyl in his system. They will claim in their defence 2 things. Firstly that the drug cocktail contributed to the supposed heart arythmia and secondly that George Floys could have regained consciousness and behave violently towards the police officers, thus vindicating kneeling on his kneck for 9 minutes.

I still have an hour or so to watch from yesterday's proceedings so more may come to light.
 
bear66 said:
Some people get convicted of murder where no body us found, so no cause of death is known.
Click to expand...
Bear there is a body and 2 autopsies were done, I believe, one by the ME and one by a consultant. They have differring opinions on the cause of death, though that evidence hasn't been presented yet.

Murder convictions with no body are extremely rare, only 51 I think in the USA, ever. One of the burdens of proof is that there has been an unjustified homicide. That's why convictions without a body are rare, it's difficult to prove someone was murdered when you can't clearly show unjustified homicide.

I believe that the jury will either:
a) Believe that George Floyd died of a heart arythmia and return not-guilty
b) Believe that George Floyd died of asphyxiation and return 3rd degree manslaughter
c) Not care how George Floyd died but want to see Chauvin behind bars and return either 2nd degree murder or 3rd degree manslaughter
 
Laughing said:
If George Floyd died of a heart arrhythmia there is no case to answer. As of yet the prosecutor hasn't even established there was a murder yet.
Click to expand...

I disagree. My credentials for this are 12 years nursing experience in a specialist coronary care unit, so I do know quite a lot about cardiac arrhythmia and their causes.

Hypoxia causes ventricular fibrillation. This is the most dangerous cardiac arrhythmia and, unlike most, it always represents a cardiac arrest. Kneeling on someone's neck can induce hypoxia. So even if Floyd died of a cardiac arrhythmia, I do not see how that exonerates the man kneeing on his neck. It seems to me that such a defence could be used of any case by strangulation or asphyxiation: they cause hypoxia which, in turn, cause arrest arrhythmia.

I have not followed the details of this case closely and there may be other issues of which I am not aware. However, I don't see citing cardiac arrhythmia as much of a defence from a physiological standpoint.
 
Laughing said:
Bear there is a body and 2 autopsies were done, I believe, one by the ME and one by a consultant. They have differring opinions on the cause of death, though that evidence hasn't been presented yet.

Murder convictions with no body are extremely rare, only 51 I think in the USA, ever. One of the burdens of proof is that there has been an unjustified homicide. That's why convictions without a body are rare, it's difficult to prove someone was murdered when you can't clearly show unjustified homicide.

I believe that the jury will either:
a) Believe that George Floyd died of a heart arythmia and return not-guilty
b) Believe that George Floyd died of asphyxiation and return 3rd degree manslaughter
c) Not care how George Floyd died but want to see Chauvin behind bars and return either 2nd degree murder or 3rd degree manslaughter
Click to expand...
Homicide is homicide seems to be the prosecution case.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I disagree. My credentials for this are 12 years nursing experience in a specialist coronary care unit, so I do know quite a lot about cardiac arrhythmia and their causes.

Hypoxia causes ventricular fibrillation. This is the most dangerous cardiac arrhythmia and, unlike most, it always represents a cardiac arrest. Kneeling on someone's neck can induce hypoxia. So even if Floyd died of a cardiac arrhythmia, I do not see how that exonerates the man kneeing on his neck. It seems to me that such a defence could be used of any case by strangulation or asphyxiation: they cause hypoxia which, in turn, cause arrest arrhythmia.

I have not followed the details of this case closely and there may be other issues of which I am not aware. However, I don't see citing cardiac arrhythmia as much of a defence from a physiological standpoint.
Click to expand...
It's a defence for a couple of reasons. George Floyd had, probably, ingested drugs which led to the heart arythmia. In other words he brough it on himself. Secondly Chauvin couldn't have reasonably known that George Floyd had a heart condition.

It's a jury trial and a lot will depend on where the juries sympathies lie. If they sympathise with the police having to deal with drug addicts on a daily basis, they may overlook the inhumane treatment of George Floyd. If they are totally unbiased they will convict, even without the evidence of asphyxiation because, well because Chauvin deserves to be in prison.

I also think a hung jury s not out of the question. There are enough black folks on the jury to make a concerted stand against an aquital. If there is a hung jury it then goes back to the DA to decide whether to pursue a conviction in a second trial.
 
bear66 said:
Homicide is homicide seems to be the prosecution case.
Click to expand...
Proving homicide is not enough Bear. Homicide doesn't even mean a crime was committed. It just means George Floyd died at the hands of another. In fact that it was a homicide is not even contested by the defence.
 
Laughing said:
It's a defence for a couple of reasons. George Floyd had, probably, ingested drugs which led to the heart arythmia. In other words he brough it on himself. Secondly Chauvin couldn't have reasonably known that George Floyd had a heart condition.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I disagree. My credentials for this are 12 years nursing experience in a specialist coronary care unit, so I do know quite a lot about cardiac arrhythmia and their causes.

Hypoxia causes ventricular fibrillation. This is the most dangerous cardiac arrhythmia and, unlike most, it always represents a cardiac arrest. Kneeling on someone's neck can induce hypoxia. So even if Floyd died of a cardiac arrhythmia, I do not see how that exonerates the man kneeing on his neck. It seems to me that such a defence could be used of any case by strangulation or asphyxiation: they cause hypoxia which, in turn, cause arrest arrhythmia.

I have not followed the details of this case closely and there may be other issues of which I am not aware. However, I don't see citing cardiac arrhythmia as much of a defence from a physiological standpoint.
Click to expand...
Was just about to post the same.

it’s not just a case of the cardiac arrest... to a degree that’s irrelevant as that was the cause of death. It’s the events leading to the cause of death... ie was it induced because of blood toxicity through drug use or hypoxia due to the knee on his neck
 
Youngie said:
Was just about to post the same.

it’s not just a case of the cardiac arrest... to a degree that’s irrelevant as that was the cause of death. It’s the events leading to the cause of death... ie was it induced because of blood toxicity through drug use or hypoxia due to the knee on his neck
Click to expand...
It was homicide so the death was caused by another person.
 
bear66 said:
Justifiable homicide can be the only defence. The cause of death is immaterial.
Click to expand...
Bear, the defence don't even need to put on a defence. They will ask, after the prosecution have presented their case, for a directed verdict. They won't get it, but nevertheless, the prosection have to prove it was an unjustified homicide, not the other way round.
 
Laughing said:
Bear, the defence don't even need to put on a defence. They will ask, after the prosecution have presented their case, for a directed verdict. They won't get it, but nevertheless, the prosection have to prove it was an unjustified homicide, not the other way round.
Click to expand...
I agree. Cause of death is irrelevalent. Just whether it was a justified or unjustified homicide.
 
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.
 
bear66 said:
I agree. Cause of death is irrelevalent. Just whether it was a justified or unjustified homicide.
Click to expand...
And it is justified if Chauvin's defence team can convince a jury he was doing his job as he does every day. I don't like it any more than you do Bear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top