George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I one thing that bothers me and defense will stress is the move that Chauvin used WAS in the manual at that time and is now not there. The question will then become was it 'reasonable" for that situation...this can be subjective and no jury member was there at the time. It does leave open one or more may not reach the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. I try to prepare myself for this possibility. It could happen...there is a long case to be heard including the defense case.

Hmmm I see. Guess after the fact it’s obviously dangerous, so removing it now won’t be used against him. He was doing as trained.

Reasonable tbough I don’t believe it was in that situation and nor did Lt Z.. hoping he made the same impression on them as he did me xx
 
Was there testimony that GF was in the recovery position when EMT’s arrived? Did I miss that part as I thought he was still in the prone position with Chauvin still on his neck when they arrived and the paramedic stated he ‘appeared deceased’.

No, there has been no testimony that he was in recovery position at the time. One of the EMT/Ambo guys said leaning to left... but perhaps misinterpretation as that was the direction that GF head was turned and all he could see as the 3 officers blocked his view with the exception of his head to the left.. so was an assumption.

Another attempt at trying to discredit through impeachment a witness when they had a fact wrong by the defense is all I see on this. They have tried to nit pick every incorrect statement from the scene.

We have videos.. and just shows how many folks will see the same thing differently from their point of view.

So glad we have multiple angles for this crime on video!

Dear Mr. Defense atty... just because folks saw incorrectly doesn't mean their entire testimony is slanted or should be impeached (that they are not credible) MOOOOOO
 
Last edited:
Every single article I’ve read on this case, the comments are all saying he’s not guilty, that it’s obvious GF died of an OD. None of my friends seem to think he is guilty either. I think we must be watching a different trial to everyone else because I haven’t been brought by anything the defence have mentioned thus far.
 
Remember when Nelson asked his girlfriend, CR how he took the pills they did together the week prior? She said he swallowed them. There was a reason why he asked her that question.
Good catch. He is probably going to emphasize that taking them the other way provides a quicker and longer lasting effect.
 
Remember when Nelson asked his girlfriend, CR how he took the pills they did together the week prior? She said he swallowed them. There was a reason why he asked her that question.


Thanks, just goes to show that the lawyers are ahead of us, and we do catch up or ask for such, and voila.. they ask it lol
 
I one thing that bothers me and defense will stress is the move that Chauvin used WAS in the manual at that time and is now not there. The question will then become was it 'reasonable" for that situation...this can be subjective and no jury member was there at the time. It does leave open one or more may not reach the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. I try to prepare myself for this possibility. It could happen...there is a long case to be heard including the defense case.

I'm not following you at all as to what you are referring to. Can you expound?

ETA: Oh, are you talking about the knee to the shoulder.(he did to neck).. Do we have a pdf to link for such that has been changed?
 
Every single article I’ve read on this case, the comments are all saying he’s not guilty, that it’s obvious GF died of an OD. None of my friends seem to think he is guilty either. I think we must be watching a different trial to everyone else because I haven’t been brought by anything the defence have mentioned thus far.

Shows how different we all can be. Perspective wise xx
 
I one thing that bothers me and defense will stress is the move that Chauvin used WAS in the manual at that time and is now not there. The question will then become was it 'reasonable" for that situation...this can be subjective and no jury member was there at the time. It does leave open one or more may not reach the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. I try to prepare myself for this possibility. It could happen...there is a long case to be heard including the defense case.

But wouldn't the fact that GF was already handcuffed before Chauvin arrived on scene negate the need for both kneeling and leaving him in the prone position on the ground?

The incident escalated when GF was taken (cuffed) from the seated position to the police cruiser.

Based on Zimmerman's testimony there was never a moment when use of force by Chauvin became necessary.
 
I knew what "hooping" can mean. I initially thought the same, but the more I think about it the more I'm doubting it. It could explain why narcan wasn't used. Until I hear more I'm on the fence about what GF meant and how it was taken by LE.
I think it would have been safe to use naloxone even if he had taken meth or other drugs. The problem is that they didn't seem to confirm that he had taken fentanyl. When he was face down on the ground they asked him what "he was on" but didn't try very hard to get an answer.
 
I knew what "hooping" can mean. I initially thought the same, but the more I think about it the more I'm doubting it. It could explain why narcan wasn't used. Until I hear more I'm on the fence about what GF meant and how it was taken by LE.

But when/or did Chauvin, who was at the head ever check his pupils for his "Use of force continuum assessment" .. that is if he ever did for the non responsive GF.
 
Every single article I’ve read on this case, the comments are all saying he’s not guilty, that it’s obvious GF died of an OD. None of my friends seem to think he is guilty either. I think we must be watching a different trial to everyone else because I haven’t been brought by anything the defence have mentioned thus far.

It's a SIGNIFICANT issue we have discussed on other threads (e.g. COVID and Jan6th Capitol thread at WS) that so many individuals only do "social media feeds" which have algorithms, that feed into what they click on. They continue to dig and dig and click and click on algorithms which laser focus. Perhaps your friends are social media folks?

I'll go no further due to TOS and not get Off Topic here. But not a good place to get info MOO as to a trial and law.

Myself, I've not read ANY COMMENT on ANY MSM. I'll sit on hands.

My guess, less that .01% of folks (and your friends) are following this trial as we are. MOO
 
Last edited:
Ok, so I went back and re-watched the body cam regarding the “hooping” comment. I no longer think GF was saying he was shooting hoops on the basketball court. (LOL)

The conversation starts at @6:15 at the link below.



Officer 1- are you on something right now?
GF - No, nothing.
Officer 2 - Cuz you’re acting real erratic.
GF - I’m scared man. God man.
Officer 2 - You got foam around your mouth too.
GF - Yes, I was just hooping earlier.

ETA - Or did he mean - Yes, as in, I have foam around my mouth because I was hooping earlier....meaning my mouth is dry from shooting hoops?

OMG - Is the "grandma" in me showing??
 
Subd. 2.Use of deadly force.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity by the law enforcement officer;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066
How does this statute come into play in this trial? Will the defense try to say that Chauvin used deadly force that is allowed in this statute?
 
Every single article I’ve read on this case, the comments are all saying he’s not guilty, that it’s obvious GF died of an OD. None of my friends seem to think he is guilty either. I think we must be watching a different trial to everyone else because I haven’t been brought by anything the defence have mentioned thus far.
I haven't made up my mind yet.
 
But wouldn't the fact that GF was already handcuffed before Chauvin arrived on scene negate the need for both kneeling and leaving him in the prone position on the ground?

The incident escalated when GF was taken (cuffed) from the seated position to the police cruiser.

Based on Zimmerman's testimony there was never a moment when use of force by Chauvin became necessary.
I'm pretty sure even back then the maneuver was not supposed to be used once the arrestee is in handcuffs and no longer resisting.
 
I haven’t had a chance to catch up on the thread and don’t know if this was posted.

I came back from a morning appt and had Court TV on while in the kitchen. They said the GF’s friend MH was taken into custody on March 21 (on something else) so he was probably already in custody when his attorney filed that letter that he would take the fifth if called into court.

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials...h-if-called-to-testify-against-derek-chauvin/


ETA: just saw turaj posted this
 
Last edited:
Every single article I’ve read on this case, the comments are all saying he’s not guilty, that it’s obvious GF died of an OD. None of my friends seem to think he is guilty either. I think we must be watching a different trial to everyone else because I haven’t been brought by anything the defence have mentioned thus far.

I feel I went into this trial knowing more than the average person regarding this case. I was leaning towards not guilty or possibly manslaughter.

When the trial started I put what I thought I knew aside and started fresh.

I know it's too early to say, but right now, I'm thinking for sure manslaughter and depending on what we hear next week possibly second-degree unintentional murder or third-degree murder.
 
I haven’t had a chance to catch up on the thread and don’t know if this was pasted.

I came back from a morning appt and had Court TV on while in the kitchen. They said the GF’s friend MH was taken into custody on March 21 (on something else) so he was probably already in custody when his attorney filed that letter that he would take the fifth if called into court.

Correct.
 
But wouldn't the fact that GF was already handcuffed before Chauvin arrived on scene negate the need for both kneeling and leaving him in the prone position on the ground?

The incident escalated when GF was taken (cuffed) from the seated position to the police cruiser.

Based on Zimmerman's testimony there was never a moment when use of force by Chauvin became necessary.


I see differently. He perhaps could be seen by even lay folks that he was not compliant until he was face down.. and not resisting. ( I HATE what happened to that point, but doing LEGAL view here vs. emotional)

That is what the officer was speaking to. Even minimally. They were at level #4 of the "use of force continuim" with the handcuffs..They had seen still resistance. ( Personally, I see as needing help to calm him down, but legally.. different perhaps from evidence) Then they pulled him out and went to level #5.

Once they had them in deadly force #5 (and before) of the knee on neck, they were obligated to check and care for him and reassess as he no longer was resisting. MOO
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
287
Total visitors
482

Forum statistics

Threads
608,481
Messages
18,240,218
Members
234,385
Latest member
johnwich
Back
Top