George Floyd

bear66

Well-known member
That's a very good point. Not sure the defence will use it but they may well do. Nelson may well think that if he proves death was not a result of asphyxiation that may be enough for an acquittal.

I am hopeful that there are enough black people on the jury to get at least a hung jury. In that event I believe the da will push for a retrial in the hope the police federation will not pay for a second defence team for Chauvin. This trial has cost a million dollars for the defence.
It was homicide. So there is only one possible defence, but can't see where it's coming from after the police evidence.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
It was homicide. So there is only one possible defence, but can't see where it's coming from after the police evidence.
That is unfortunately not true Bear. There are 5 legal definitions of homicide. One of those is accidental which would not subject Chauvin to any of the charges levied against him.

Lieutenant Poelega's evidence was very effectively minimalized by the defence team, almost to the extent it was worthless. The defence team will wrap up in closing why his evidence has to be disregarded. It was based on seeing only some of the video footage, not all of it.

At the minute, the prosecution hasn't really hurt Chauvin's case yet, outside of the horrific video clips. The real damage will come when they put the ME on the stand and he tells the jury that Chauvin killed George Floyd. I am hoping it is unequivical and leaves the defence team no where to go on cross
 

TeessideCleveland

Well-known member
Not sure what you mean TC? If you clarify I will try and answe it the best I can.
I was just talking about the article linked above referenced him calling in (to his boss?) just afterwards saying how bad Floyd was, but didn't mention the 9 minutes kneeling on his neck

Incidentally your comments on this are very good reading
I really hope the defence can't get him found innocent
 

Laughing

Well-known member
One little snippet of interest that you folks may not know is Derek Chauvin initially was prepared to plead guilty to 3rd degree murder until the Attorney General, William Barr blocked the deal. The deal would have stipulated more than 10 years in custody, served in a federal prison, not county jail, which is why the Attorney General was able to block the deal.

What is interesting about this, is it was reasonably big news at the time and the jury is likely to know this, though from an evidentiary perspective it is inadmissable.

If I were on the jury, I would immeadiately assume that he was guilty of at least 3rd degree murder. When the judge gives his instructions he may adress this and it should play no part in their deliberations, but could you help yourself, I am not sure I could.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
I think the big defence card will be the footage of Floyd saying ’i can’t breathe’ whilst stood by the police car and in the back seat without any pressure applied on his neck, which might be due to the drugs in his system. It is also thought there might be footage of him saying the same on previous arrests, like it’s something he says each time he gets arrested. Combine this with a toxicology report that shows he had enough drugs in his system to overdose, and the trial takes a massive twist. Although Chauvin will still be convicted, as anything other than homicide would see riots at a huge scale.
I'm guessing you've been reading some pretty daft internet sites.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Just finished watchind day 5 of the trial. The primary witness for the prosecution was a Liuetenant Zimmerman, a 40 year veteran on the force. His testimony was aimed at informing the jury on the use of restraint and force. He was geat witness for the prosecution and made it clear what he thought of the restraint applied to Geoge Floyd. He was unequaivocal that in his opinion George Floyd posed no threat to the officers and the use of deadly force was not required. Restraining in the prone position is classified as deadly force. The use of the terrm was a major win for the prosecution.

This really hurt the defence and on cross Nelson managed to dent the testimony a little. He pointed out that as a detective Zimmerman no longer, on a day to day basis, restrained suspects he was no longer used to making the complex decisions an officer has to make on the ground.

He pointed out that Zimmeman did not train on the use of force and he also tried to gain a bit of ground with questions such as, have you ever known a suspect who was subdued to awaken and be even more combative.

All in all a really good day on Friday for the prosecution.

The prosecution have not, as yet, proven a cause of death but are laying foundation around the actions of Chauvin and his fellow offices and whether those actions could be justified.

It concerrns me a little that the prosecution are going to such lengths to lay that foundation. If the cause of death was a slam dunk, he was chocked to death by a knee on his neck, and weighed into the ground in the prone position, I am not sure the prosecution would go to these lengths to classify Chauvins actions as unacceptable.
 

BoroMart

Well-known member
As I thought daft internet site -- The Daily Mail. So he's scared because they're pointing a gun at his head right from the off. He's black, he probably knows people who've been shot. They immediately started to cuff him, he wasn't doing anything to be cuffed. He was a little skitish, but not acting, violent, or attempting to flee.

The woman basically confirms he's been shot before, and is scared of police. There was no attempt from the cops to talk to him, and identify the facts, they immediately started to arrest him. I doubt that would have happened if this was some white guy sat in his car.

"I'm claustraphobic" - he's having a panic attack, drug induced or not. Claiming I can't breath in a panic attack while being manhandled by a couple of cops, is very different to claiming I can't breath because someone is kneeling on his neck. That's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain cell. Once arrested an officer is responsible for the safety of that person, kneeling on the neck of someone isn't looking after their safety.

Neither of us know if he had enough drugs to OD, he certainly didn't look like he was minutes from ODing in that video.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
So he's scared because they're pointing a gun at his head right from the off. He's black, he probably knows people who've been shot. They immediately started to cuff him, he wasn't doing anything to be cuffed. He was a little skitish, but not acting, violent, or attempting to flee.

The woman basically confirms he's been shot before, and is scared of police. There was no attempt from the cops to talk to him, and identify the facts, they immediately started to arrest him. I doubt that would have happened if this was some white guy sat in his car.

"I'm claustraphobic" - he's having a panic attack, drug induced or not. Claiming I can't breath in a panic attack while being manhandled by a couple of cops, is very different to claiming I can't breath because someone is kneeling on his neck. That's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain cell. Once arrested an officer is responsible for the safety of that person, kneeling on the neck of someone isn't looking after their safety.

Neither of us know if he had enough drugs to OD, he certainly didn't look like he was minutes from ODing in that video.
He had been previously shot by the police, if you take his at the scene comments at face value.

One thing that stood out to me all through this case is the reaction of the onlookers. Because we are policed by consent, and our police don't carry guns, Chauvin would have been dragged off in the UK and George Floyd would be alive today.

Interestingly enough, passing a fake bill in the US is a misdemeanour, the police could and should have issued a ticket and moved on.

The defence will almost certainly highlight that right through the arrest, even when he wasn't restrained, he complained of the inability to breathe and they will try and attribute that to on existing condition, not the police brutality that followed.

Again I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the treatment George Floyd recieved from a bunch of racist cops, simply that there is evidence to mount a defence. Hopefully not enough to make it a good defence.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
Laughing have you read that Chauvin won’t take the stand at all? Is that fact or are you just guessing that he won’t? I was looking forward to hear his explanation of events.

also I heard the jury is made up of 9 women and 5 men - do you think the gender split in favour of women could influence the outcome in any way?
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Laughing have you read that Chauvin won’t take the stand at all? Is that fact or are you just guessing that he won’t? I was looking forward to hear his explanation of events.

also I heard the jury is made up of 9 women and 5 men - do you think the gender split in favour of women could influence the outcome in any way?
The defence won't make a decision about Chauvin testifying although he is on the witness list, If Chauvin takes the stand, the defence think they are done and it's a hail mary. On direct they would have to be very careful not to open doors that the prosecution can then walk through, for example Chauvins disciplinary record. It doesn't even matterr if the question is not asked directly, if Chauvin gives an answer that touches on a subject, the prosecution are then free to explore that subject.

That's why defendents don't take the stand.

Not sure about gender makeup, but you would expect women to be more critical of violence than men so may help the prosecution. It's more perrtinent the colour of the jury which has 3 black men, one black woman and 2 mixed race women. Thats half the jury that are not white and are more likely to have a dim view on police treatment of black men in America. That's enough to stand up to any bullying that may happen, The 2 alterrnates are white.
 

FatCat

Well-known member
The defence won't make a decision about Chauvin testifying although he is on the witness list, If Chauvin takes the stand, the defence think they are done and it's a hail mary. On direct they would have to be very careful not to open doors that the prosecution can then walk through, for example Chauvins disciplinary record. It doesn't even matterr if the question is not asked directly, if Chauvin gives an answer that touches on a subject, the prosecution are then free to explore that subject.

That's why defendents don't take the stand.

Not sure about gender makeup, but you would expect women to be more critical of violence than men so may help the prosecution. It's more perrtinent the colour of the jury which has 3 black men, one black woman and 2 mixed race women. Thats half the jury that are not white and are more likely to have a dim view on police treatment of black men in America. That's enough to stand up to any bullying that may happen, The 2 alterrnates are white.
Interesting, it’s good that the jury has a fifty fifty racial split to it in that regard. Personally i think the gender split may make a marginal difference.
In terms of rules for a verdict, what is classed as a majority?
 

Heam44

Well-known member
Again I am not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the treatment George Floyd recieved from a bunch of racist cops, simply that there is evidence to mount a defence. Hopefully not enough to make it a good defence.
How do you know they’re racist?
 

Laughing

Well-known member
How do you know they’re racist?
Chauvins displiplinay record suggests strongly that he is. The fact that they never followed the procedure to issue a ticket, king and lane, and instead choose to point a gun at Floyds head and get him out of the car for a misdemeanour. It wasn't required, nor was it following outlined procedure.

So yes I am making a judgement call, and I don't know, but I won't be very far from the truth.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Interesting, it’s good that the jury has a fifty fifty racial split to it in that regard. Personally i think the gender split may make a marginal difference.
In terms of rules for a verdict, what is classed as a majority?
It has to be unanimous FC. If the jury is hung it is a mistrial, even if 11-1.
 

Heam44

Well-known member
Chauvins displiplinay record suggests strongly that he is. The fact that they never followed the procedure to issue a ticket, king and lane, and instead choose to point a gun at Floyds head and get him out of the car for a misdemeanour. It wasn't required, nor was it following outlined procedure.

So yes I am making a judgement call, and I don't know, but I won't be very far from the truth.
What’s in Chauvins record that suggests he’s racist?

I thought they pointed a gun at him because he didn’t show his hands / put them on the steering wheel after numerous requests to do so?
 

Laughing

Well-known member
I addressed this earlier in the thread Heam. Statistically a higher level of complaints against chauvins and a massive higher than average rate of shooting people.
 

Heam44

Well-known member
I addressed this earlier in the thread Heam. Statistically a higher level of complaints against chauvins and a massive higher than average rate of shooting people.
What did you address earlier in the thread?

Chauvins disciplinary record?

Or your reasoning that the other officers are likely racist because they pointed their guns at him?

Just googled his disciplinary record, most of the articles were anecdotal, these few paragraphs seemed to sum it up:

Since joining the police force in 2001, Chauvin alone has had 18 complaints filed against him, only two of which were “closed with discipline,” CNN reports. A database that documents instances of police brutality listed seven complaints against Chauvin that have all been “closed” and resulted in “no discipline." Other reports documented his involvement in multiple violent, and deadly cases of police abuse.


According to CNN, in 2006, Chauvin and five other officers shot and killed a man who had stabbed his girlfriend and a friend. Two years later, he was reportedly involved in an altercation with an individual suspected of a domestic dispute. Chauvin shot the man twice, though the man survived.


In 2011, Chauvin was placed on a three-day leave, along with four other officers, for his involvement in the non-fatal shooting of an indigenous man, The Daily Beast reports. The officers were allowed back to work after it was determined they responded “appropriately.” Five more complaints made against Chauvin prior to 2012 have also been closed and resulted in no disciplinary action.

Mylan Masson, a retired Minneapolis Park police officer and police training expert told NBC News that while anyone can file a complaint against an officer, the amount of grievances against Chauvin in his 19 years on the police force is “a little bit higher than normal.”


So basically the vast majority of the complaints weren’t upheld and according to this article the number of grievances is “a little bit higher than normal”. Based on a the laws of averages, some officers are going to have a number of complaints that are slightly higher than normal.

Have you seen any articles that evidence a pattern of racist behaviour by Chauvin
 

Laughing

Well-known member
Yes, his excessive shootings which are way in excess of otherr offices, would be one, A closed file of an assault on a woman who was dragged out of herr car, put in the squad car and detained for 15 minutes. Herr payoff from Mineapolis meant she couldn't talk about what happened in the squad car. Look a little deeper. His disciplinary record is worse than average and his rate of using his sidearm are way above average.

Tau caused a payout by minneapolis after beating the crap out of a black man that was handcuffed and restrained on the floor.

If you're arguing for arguments sake, cool, I like a bicker, but if you have an actual point that Chauvin probably isn't a racist you would be wrong.
 
Top
X