Jump to content

Defense rests in the Derek Chauvin case (UPDATE: Guilty on all charges)


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:


They showed one of the other camera angles where even the prosecution witnesses agreed that it appeared to show Chauvin release the neck hold and move his knee to the shoulder of Floyd.


Ok? I don’t see how that addresses the point I made. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chris- said:


Ok? I don’t see how that addresses the point I made. 


You said he kneeled on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes, and the defense showed evidence that it was not the case that he kneeled on the man’s neck for 8 minutes, evidence the prosecution’s witnesses agreed with. How does the not address the point you made when the thing underpinning your point is

in question including by use of force experts the prosecution brought in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys these quibbling details is how a murderer will get off. 
 

“No no, he had his knee on the guys neck for less than 8 minutes but greater than 7, therefore I’m voting innocent!”

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


You said he kneeled on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes, and the defense showed evidence that it was not the case that he kneeled on the man’s neck for 8 minutes, evidence the prosecution’s witnesses agreed with. How does the not address the point you made when the thing underpinning your point is

in question including by use of force experts the prosecution brought in?


That...wasn’t my point. My point was that George Floyd’s health isn’t exculpatory information; if your actions cause someone to die, whether they were unhealthy or healthy is immaterial. That is semantically different from arguing that the action itself did or didn’t kill him, and I’ve read very little that suggests the defense actually put forth a compelling case in that regard. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chris- said:


That...wasn’t my point. My point was that George Floyd’s health isn’t exculpatory information; if your actions cause someone to die, whether they were unhealthy or healthy is immaterial. That is semantically different from arguing that the action itself did or didn’t kill him, and I’ve read very little that suggests the defense actually put forth a compelling case in that regard. 

The argument you make is the specific action, 8 minutes of knee in neck, can have a causal relationship to Floyd dying. The defense took prosecution video evidence and use of force witnesses to call into question the claim that Chauvin was on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes.


The point I’m making is that you don’t have to refute whether 8 minutes on a person’s neck could kill them if you can provide doubt as to whether anybody was on the victim’s neck for 8 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking with my wife the other day, I said it would be like if I shot someone in the thigh, and for 4.5 minutes I let them bleed out.  I then put pressure on the wound for 30 seconds to temporarily stop the bleeding, and then let them bleed out for another 4.5 minutes, until they finally died.  Clearly I am not responsible for their death. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Talking with my wife the other day, I said it would be like if I shot someone in the thigh, and for 4.5 minutes I let them bleed out.  I then put pressure on the wound for 30 seconds to temporarily stop the bleeding, and then let them bleed out for another 4.5 minutes, until they finally died.  Clearly I am not responsible for their death. 


What the defense is arguing is that Floyd shot himself in the leg.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The argument you make is the specific action, 8 minutes of knee in neck, can have a causal relationship to Floyd dying. The defense took prosecution video evidence and use of force witnesses to call into question the claim that Chauvin was on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes.


The point I’m making is that you don’t have to refute whether 8 minutes on a person’s neck could kill them if you can provide doubt as to whether anybody was on the victim’s neck for 8 minutes.


I never suggested the length of time was particularly important, and I’m not aware of the prosecution making that case either (though like I said, it’s not like I watched or read every minute of the trial). The core assertion is that Derek Chauvin’s actions killed George Floyd, and whether his knee was on his neck for 2 minutes or 8 minutes, George Floyd’s health leading up to those moments isn’t exculpatory. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


What the defense is arguing is that Floyd shot himself in the leg.


‘George Floyd didn’t maintain his health well enough to withstand being pinned to the ground with a knee to his neck while calling out for help’ isn’t as strong of an argument as you seem to think. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chris- said:


I never suggested the length of time was particularly important, and I’m not aware of the prosecution making that case either (though like I said, it’s not like I watched or read every minute of the trial). The core assertion is that Derek Chauvin’s actions killed George Floyd, and whether his knee was on his neck for 2 minutes or 8 minutes, George Floyd’s health leading up to those moments isn’t exculpatory. 


They are explicitly making the argument that length of time the hold is used causes death. This is absolutely crucial as the type of hold being used is allowable under department policy and state law. The excessive and unreasonable force is wholly about the length of time!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


They are explicitly making the argument that length of time the hold is used causes death. This is absolutely crucial as the type of hold being used is allowable under department policy and state law. The excessive and unreasonable force is wholly about the length of time!


The Minneapolis Chief of Police literally said that Chauvin’s actions violated department policy. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He also (I didn’t pick up on this detail until re-reading the article just now) disputed the notion that Chauvin let up for more than a quick moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chris- said:


The Minneapolis Chief of Police literally said that Chauvin’s actions violated department policy. 

 

Due to the length of time the hold was applied. That's the point. It isn't the use of the hold, it's the use of the hold past a reasonable amount of time. Which is why the defense is making the argument that other video angles show the hold being released at one point. And there are prosecution witnesses, including their police use of force witnesses, that agreed the other angles appear to show this happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sblfilms said:


They are explicitly making the argument that length of time the hold is used causes death. This is absolutely crucial as the type of hold being used is allowable under department policy and state law. The excessive and unreasonable force is wholly about the length of time!

Id argue the length of time of the hold after Floyd went unconscious is what is important.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Air_Delivery said:

Id argue the length of time of the hold after Floyd went unconscious is what is important.

I agree, which is why the testimony from Dr. Tobin was so strong in my view. But I'm not on the jury! So I'm interested in what the two sides offered that the certainly biased members of a jury can latch onto when deciding to convict or acquit. This is why the defense is calling into question whether or not the defendant actually did what is alleged (keeping the hold unreasonably and unlawfully long) happened with video evidence, and bringing into the fold the question of whether or not Floyd had just ingested a potentially lethal dose of drugs.

If I were on the jury I'd convict on manslaughter for sure and very possibly on murder 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Due to the length of time the hold was applied. That's the point. It isn't the use of the hold, it's the use of the hold past a reasonable amount of time. Which is why the defense is making the argument that other video angles show the hold being released at one point. And there are prosecution witnesses, including their police use of force witnesses, that agreed the other angles appear to show this happening.


The police chief specifically said that applying that hold is unreasonable past a few seconds, so ‘it wasn’t *8* minutes’ is a rather hollow argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I agree, which is why the testimony from Dr. Tobin was so strong in my view. But I'm not on the jury! So I'm interested in what the two sides offered that the certainly biased members of a jury can latch onto when deciding to convict or acquit. This is why the defense is calling into question whether or not the defendant actually did what is alleged (keeping the hold unreasonably and unlawfully long) happened with video evidence, and bringing into the fold the question of whether or not Floyd had just ingested a potentially lethal dose of drugs.

If I were on the jury I'd convict on manslaughter for sure and very possibly on murder 2.

To me it is cut and dry. If you choke someone, they go unconscious, you maintain that choke on an unconscious body and they die. That's murder every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chris- said:


The police chief specifically said that applying that hold is unreasonable past a few seconds, so ‘it wasn’t *8* minutes’ is a rather hollow argument. 

 

This is incorrect. 

 

Quote

There’s an initial reasonableness in trying to just get him under control in the first few seconds, but once there was no longer any resistance, and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy, it is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or our values.

 

You are cutting off the rest of the statement. It is not past a few seconds that it becomes unreasonable in the view of the chief, it is past the point that there is resistance which certainly was longer than a few seconds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’re diagnosed with cancer, and you decide to take a hike in the woods, but then get mauled to death by a bear, you didn’t die of cancer.

  • Shocked 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the amount of evidence the defense team presented gave enough room for reasonable doubt, get rid of the judicial system and burn everything to the ground because there's absolutely no point in seeking justice. The amount of evidence the prosecution presented is pretty overwhelming: from other officers saying Chauvin didn't follow policies in de-escalating situations/weren't trained for the neck on the knee restraint, to not allowing EMT to provide care upon arrival, to the video evidence, to the witness testimony (both firsthand saying George Floyd didn't have a pulse with Chauvin still on him for a couple minutes as well as the medical experts, one who testified saying the police wouldn't allow her to provide medical attention), to a sound rebuttal to the medical examiner by bringing in the person who trained him and expanding that she believes George Floyd died of asphyxia and sees no evidence he would have died if had not interacted with the officers.

 

In my mind, Chauvin wasn't educated on what he was doing and he wasn't following protocol, which led to Floyd's death... without even taking into account the knee vs overdose argument because even the defense witness said the stress of the interaction put Floyd over the edge.

 

With that said, I'm hoping for justice, but won't be surprised if Chauvin walks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

This is incorrect. 

 

 

You are cutting off the rest of the statement. It is not past a few seconds that it becomes unreasonable in the view of the chief, it is past the point that there is resistance which certainly was longer than a few seconds.


So how long into lying prone with his hands cuffed behind his back, crying out in distress, was he no longer resisting? Seems like a person in that circumstance can resist for about 0 seconds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chris- said:


So how long into lying prone with his hands cuffed behind his back, crying out in distress, was he no longer resisting? Seems like a person in that circumstance can resist for about 0 seconds. 


(He was crying out in distress before he was even cuffed)

 

I don’t think resisting arrest stops being possibly on the basis that a person was cuffed or being held down. That is obviously incorrect. But I think you can watch the video and see that somewhere prior to blacking out he stops resisting, and certainly once unconscious one lacks all ability to resist. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarSolo said:

If you’re diagnosed with cancer, and you decide to take a hike in the woods, but then get mauled to death by a bear, you didn’t die of cancer.


leave it to cops and they’ll shoot a guy dying of cancer and say it’s ok because the cancer would have killed them anyways. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry no there's no excuse to keep forcibly restraining someone who is begging you to let them be compliant. Even if he's lying, his hands are cuffed behind his back. It's reasonable to expect at least an attempt at securing him in the vehicle. What's he going to do if you let him up exactly? I don't buy that this restraint was in any way necessary and you can make any excuse after the fact that you like, it doesn't take away from the plain and obvious failure to do anything but squash a man's neck with your body while he's screaming he can't breathe. 

 

Criminals are citizens too. Criminals are people. If someone was just laying in the street crying in pain I expect a cop to help. There is no situation where someone is in distress that I expect a cop to do anything but help. Even if they're a criminal. 

 

The things we do are what we want to do. Chauvin wanted to pin Floyd until he stopped moving and screaming and for long enough that it was certain to all that he was long past dead. What he didn't do, what he didn't want to do, was help. He didn't want to treat Floyd like a person. He didn't want him to leave the ground alive. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sblfilms said:


(He was crying out in distress before he was even cuffed)

 

I don’t think resisting arrest stops being possibly on the basis that a person was cuffed or being held down. That is obviously incorrect. But I think you can watch the video and see that somewhere prior to blacking out he stops resisting, and certainly once unconscious one lacks all ability to resist. 

Yes which is why it is murder. If you held someone's head underwater until they passed out and continued to hold until they died, it would also be murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Sorry no there's no excuse to keep forcibly restraining someone who is begging you to let them be compliant. Even if he's lying, his hands are cuffed behind his back. It's reasonable to expect at least an attempt at securing him in the vehicle. What's he going to do if you let him up exactly? I don't buy that this restraint was in any way necessary and you can make any excuse after the fact that you like, it doesn't take away from the plain and obvious failure to do anything but squash a man's neck with your body while he's screaming he can't breathe. 

 

Criminals are citizens too. Criminals are people. If someone was just laying in the street crying in pain I expect a cop to help. There is no situation where someone is in distress that I expect a cop to do anything but help. Even if they're a criminal. 

 

The things we do are what we want to do. Chauvin wanted to pin Floyd until he stopped moving and screaming and for long enough that it was certain to all that he was long past dead. What he didn't do, what he didn't want to do, was help. He didn't want to treat Floyd like a person. He didn't want him to leave the ground alive. 

But george floyd had super human strength :silly:

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

But george floyd had super human strength :silly:

 

22 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Super strength but also somehow on the verge of death at the same time. :thinking:

 

spacer.png

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CayceG said:

This whole round and round is why all I posted was "lmao" to sblfilms saying the defense made good points. 


Great post

 

3 hours ago, Air_Delivery said:

Yes which is why it is murder. If you held someone's head underwater until they passed out and continued to hold until they died, it would also be murder.

 

The law matters. In Minnesota you need to either have intended to kill the person or killed them as the result of a separate felony to meet the statutory burden of murder 2. Holding a person’s head underwater has the much more obvious outcome of death, which is why I would expect the prosecution in such a case to make the case that the intent was to kill the person.
 

Here the prosecution is rightfully largely staying away from intent and instead focusing on the felony assault. I think it was felony assault, but I also have watched enough juror interviews to understand the sorts of things these people latch onto 😬 There is a reason there are lawyers who specialize in voir dire. The jury matters more than rational conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Chauvin is being charged with unintentional second degree murder, which doesn’t mean he intended to kill, unlike regular second degree murder. That’s why the former carries the same sentence as the manslaughter or third degree charge. 
 I’d never even heard of unintentional second degree murder before this case. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

But Chauvin is being charged with unintentional second degree murder, which doesn’t mean he intended to kill, unlike regular second degree murder. That’s why the former carries the same sentence as the manslaughter or third degree charge. 
 I’d never even heard of unintentional second degree murder before this case. 


Yes that is correct, that’s the issue of the associated felony, in this case the alleged assault by Chauvin. That is why the case really comes down to whether or not jurors believe Chauvin’s actions 1) directly caused the death of Floyd, and that 2) they were unreasonable to the point of becoming a felony assault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sblfilms said:


Great post

 

 

The law matters. In Minnesota you need to either have intended to kill the person or killed them as the result of a separate felony to meet the statutory burden of murder 2. Holding a person’s head underwater has the much more obvious outcome of death, which is why I would expect the prosecution in such a case to make the case that the intent was to kill the person.
 

Here the prosecution is rightfully largely staying away from intent and instead focusing on the felony assault. I think it was felony assault, but I also have watched enough juror interviews to understand the sorts of things these people latch onto 😬 There is a reason there are lawyers who specialize in voir dire. The jury matters more than rational conclusions.

Holding a choke on an unconscious body is obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • SaysWho? changed the title to Defense rests in the Derek Chauvin case (UPDATE: Guilty on all charges)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...