George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tippy Lynn said:
I know the trial isn’t over and we haven’t heard jury instructions yet, but I’m curious…….

Has the state proven any of the following charges beyond a reasonable doubt?

Second-degree unintentional murder - Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation or causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim. (Second-degree murder is sentenced to up to 40 years in Minnesota)

Third-degree murder - A depraved-heart or mind murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregarding human life. (Third-degree murder is sentenced to up to 25 years in Minnesota)

Second-degree manslaughter - The person's culpable negligence when the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. (Second-degree manslaughter is sentenced to up to 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both in Minnesota)
Click to expand...

IMO, no, they have not proven their case.
 
Tippy Lynn said:
So, you don't think the state has proven any of the charges?
Click to expand...

I think they have proved third degree murder. The disregard especially apparent in Chauvin dragging and dropping George when he finally got off his neck.
The 'depraved heart' proven when Chauvin refused to place George in the recovery position.
 
MsBetsy said:
Welcome TwistedMysteryWriter and great first post! You've made so many excellent points I don't know where to start.

Police made so many crucial mistakes in this case starting with the first two officers responding to the 911 call. They never verified the bill was fake and had no idea that Floyd was aware.

Many officers have testified about the guidelines for use of force and what officers are to consider, starting with the severity of the underlying crime. It's hard to believe Floyd ended up dead over an alleged fake $20 bill that police never investigated until after he was dead.

When Chauvin arrived his immediate response was to use force to get Floyd to the ground. He failed to use other alternatives such as de-escalation or anything he must have learned in crisis intervention, for that matter. He ignored Floyd's pleas for help. The crowd begged him to check Floyd's pulse, which he responded to by aiming mace at them.

They did not warn him they where about to use excessive force, and Floyd was not actively resisting once they had him in handcuffs and forced him to the ground in the prone position. He was not a threat to their safety or others. Not once did Chauvin appear to be concerned for his wellbeing, even after Lane suggested rolling him on his side, he knew he was no longer breathing and no longer had a pulse. He just stayed there looking like a trophy hunter until the paramedic had to get him off Floyd's neck.

Had Floyd survived and suffered brain damage, I believe Chauvin still would have been charged with felony assault. There is no reasonable excuse for his actions that day.
Click to expand...


Well, thank you! I'm so pleased that you read my thoughts and found the details interesting enough to consider – and to reply to. I enjoyed reading what you wrote and have much I want to respond to regarding your own thoughts.

The decision to put two rookie cops together on a shift was a point I hadn’t given enough weight to. Thank you for calling my attention to it. I knew they’d been trained by Chauvin and they likely found him “intimidating”, as well as found it uncomfortable to oppose or disagree with him. I did not realize how new to the force they were, so yeah. Great point. There are two considerations there; the lack for experience on their part (as well as lack of assertiveness with Chauvin), and Chauvin’s seemingly pathological control issues; his need to show his trainees ‘how it’s done’.

And yeah, the rookies likely handcuffed GF improperly and Chauvin, who arrived on the scene after this, didn’t care to properly instruct them as to how to do this on a larger man – not due to risk (in my opinion) but because he just didn’t care. It’s “Protect and Serve” and he had to choose one ‘thing’ to protect and serve, the subject (GF) or his own need to be a bigshot. We know which one he chose.

I agree, as you said, that if the police believed GF was on drugs or even simply wanted to take precautions should he have been on drugs, caution and de-escalation was protocol. It was not followed, nor was it enforced by Chauvin who had a responsibility to truly show his rookies how it’s supposed to be done. I love what you said regarding a police officer's right to use force and having that right not meaning that they should “use it and/or use it to the full extent”. And even when using it to the full extent, there is no one who testified for the State that said that Chauvin’s special brand of Use of Force was acceptable, part of protocol, or condoned.

I also like what you said about the officers easing up after deciding that GF was not a threat. Kueng picking something off tires is an excellent observation and point!

Regarding the drugs, I was looking for this very information and you provided it! Thank you for the following:
“…if I'm reading the autopsy right, GF didn't take a bunch of pills 10 minutes before death. I read that it takes about 30 minutes for the stomach to dissolve pills, so if there are none in his stomach at autopsy then...” And yes, he was behaving like a frightened person who could not breathe. And YES, police officers should have gotten him medical attention if they were so certain (or even suspect) that he was under the influence of something.

Like you, I also don’t believe the crowd was a problem for the police. Have they never responded to a call without a crowd gathering? Come on. Today’s body-cam footage showed that there was no mob of angry villagers threatening the police. You could barely hear any commotion at all from Cheng’s vantage point even when he appeared to be standing in the middle of the street.

I must quote you again here, when you posted these fabulous questions:
“If they (those in the crowd) are such a big concern, why aren't the cops talking about the crowd being a concern at the time? Or why weren't they calling for backup? Why isn't dispatch sending more backup on its own? After GF left in the ambulance, DC and other cops did not seem one bit worried about the bystanders, proving they'd posed no threat.”

And for the police not to render aid or take any action that would help GF when they realized he had no pulse is beyond negligent. It HAS to be unlawful, as they are to Protect and Serve, and they are trained to assist (such as perform CPR) until EMTs arrive on-scene. They called an ambulance but did NO resuscitative measures at all. It is beyond baffling. Not to mention disgusting in the truest sense of the word.

As for Nelson and his ‘suggestion’ that letting up pressure on GF could cause him to rebound harder, police should be trained for this, too. I do believe that’s what a Taser is for…

Hypotheticals seems to be the only way the Defense knows to think. Hypotheticals are not facts and the Jury will be reminded of this before they go into Deliberation. It’s not “Let’s explore What If…?” It’s “Let’s explore What Happened.” Facts, not figments of fantasy.

Your biggest problem is VERY compelling; Lang being afraid of GF. I’d like to explore that, but I don’t think Lang will ever cop to it (pun intended) because that simply puts more accountability on him in addition to showing that he was not ready to be out on the streets without someone more experienced. So then, who does the fault shift to? The Police Department for sending him out there? The Training itself?

No matter how it was initially handled, Chauvin had multiple opportunities to correct mistakes, follow proper protocol, protect and serve his rookies AND protect and serve his subject (GF) without anyone getting hurt, much less killed. But he had to be a cowboy and wrangle a bull. He was able to take down this big guy and keep him down – and even kill him – without using any of the standard issued police weapons. No bullets! Just kneel on the guy’s neck, hands shoved in your pockets to prove that you don’t even need your upper body to steady yourself. Use your lower body and your subject’s body and the hardness of the street to do all the work. Chauvin showed no strain or struggle. He was cool as a cucumber, keeping a smug expression and practically posing for the camera. Look Ma! No hands!

Chauvin is the best evidence against himself.
 
SouthAussie said:
I think they have proven third degree murder. The disregard especially apparent in Chauvin dragging and dropping George when he finally got off his neck.
The 'depraved heart' proven when Chauvin refused to place George in the recovery position.
Click to expand...

I think they've proven Second-degree manslaughter.

I can't go with Third-degree murder because I have reasonable doubt as to if DC had a depraved heart or mind. Mostly in regards to his training. I think he possibly thought he was doing what his job allowed him to do and was trained to do.
 
Tippy Lynn said:
I know the trial isn’t over and we haven’t heard jury instructions yet, but I’m curious…….

Has the state proven any of the following charges beyond a reasonable doubt?

Second-degree unintentional murder - Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation or causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim. (Second-degree murder is sentenced to up to 40 years in Minnesota)

Third-degree murder - A depraved-heart or mind murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregarding human life. (Third-degree murder is sentenced to up to 25 years in Minnesota)

Second-degree manslaughter - The person's culpable negligence when the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. (Second-degree manslaughter is sentenced to up to 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both in Minnesota)

ETA: As of now, I'm going with Second-degree manslaughter. (subject to change)
Click to expand...
I am with manslaughter as well. I think this will (and should) result in something similar to Amber Guyger’s trial (Probably one of the only other one I’ve ever followed). Guilty of murder, 10 year sentence, eligible for parole in 2.

This is how I feel at this point in the trial. It’s not over.
 
Tippy Lynn said:
I think they've proven Second-degree manslaughter.

I can't go with Third-degree murder because I have reasonable doubt as to if DC had a depraved heart or mind. Mostly in regards to his training. I think he possibly thought he was doing what his job allowed him to do and was trained to do.
Click to expand...

Despite all of the witnesses that said Chauvin used undue force?

(Just asking as a 'jury' member sitting around the deliberation table discussing this with you :) )

eg:
A Minneapolis homicide investigator testified on Friday that Derek Chauvin used “totally unnecessary” deadly force
Police officer says Chauvin used ‘totally unnecessary’ force on George Floyd

“We tell officers to stay away from the neck when possible,” said Minneapolis Police Lt. Johnny Mercil, the use-of-force coordinator for the department. He called the restraint unauthorized and described it as “active aggression.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ely-violating-policy-while-restraining-floyd/
 
Last edited:
Tippy Lynn said:
I think they've proven Second-degree manslaughter.

I can't go with Third-degree murder because I have reasonable doubt as to if DC had a depraved heart or mind. Mostly in regards to his training. I think he possibly thought he was doing what his job allowed him to do and was trained to do.
Click to expand...

I voted for second-degree manslaughter on Sillybilly's poll. After hearing today's defense experts, I changed my vote to the more serious third-degree murder.
 
SouthAussie said:
Despite all of the witnesses that said Chauvin used undue force?

(Just asking as a 'jury' member sitting around the deliberation table discussing this with you :) )

eg:
A Minneapolis homicide investigator testified on Friday that Derek Chauvin used “totally unnecessary” deadly force
Police officer says Chauvin used ‘totally unnecessary’ force on George Floyd
Click to expand...

Yes, I've been pondering all the testimony. I have doubt regarding his training and or policy. He was on the force working the same job for 19 years. I think it's reasonable to think he was doing his job as he was trained and without a depraved heart or mind.

I still have reasonable doubt and if I was a juror, I would need to have zero doubt.

But, the fat lady isn't singing yet, so my verdict is subject to change. :)
 
missy1974 said:
I'm curious what you think the State did wrong today? I think the early witnesses.. they are what they are. But the expert on force guy? You don't think the State did a good job?

(I personally don't think they did spectacular, I think they did what they could with him, but I'm trying to wait until the end of testimony and jury instructions to decide what I think)
Click to expand...
It wasn't very hard for the State to confront the use of force expert. Bring in a couple of video clips and specific still frames and you're done.

I especially liked how the prosecutor got the expert to admit that the defendant was "on top" of GF. JMO
 
We all have varying ranges of IQ, verbal and reading comprehension levels and focusing abilities. So it is good to restate evidence and the deliberation time is when the jury can voice not just opinions but ask for clarifications. I have never been on a jury but it appears a real task.
 
TwistedMysteryWriter said:
Well, thank you! I'm so pleased that you read my thoughts and found the details interesting enough to consider – and to reply to. I enjoyed reading what you wrote and have much I want to respond to regarding your own thoughts.

The decision to put two rookie cops together on a shift was a point I hadn’t given enough weight to. Thank you for calling my attention to it. I knew they’d been trained by Chauvin and they likely found him “intimidating”, as well as found it uncomfortable to oppose or disagree with him. I did not realize how new to the force they were, so yeah. Great point. There are two considerations there; the lack for experience on their part (as well as lack of assertiveness with Chauvin), and Chauvin’s seemingly pathological control issues; his need to show his trainees ‘how it’s done’.

And yeah, the rookies likely handcuffed GF improperly and Chauvin, who arrived on the scene after this, didn’t care to properly instruct them as to how to do this on a larger man – not due to risk (in my opinion) but because he just didn’t care. It’s “Protect and Serve” and he had to choose one ‘thing’ to protect and serve, the subject (GF) or his own need to be a bigshot. We know which one he chose.

I agree, as you said, that if the police believed GF was on drugs or even simply wanted to take precautions should he have been on drugs, caution and de-escalation was protocol. It was not followed, nor was it enforced by Chauvin who had a responsibility to truly show his rookies how it’s supposed to be done. I love what you said regarding a police officer's right to use force and having that right not meaning that they should “use it and/or use it to the full extent”. And even when using it to the full extent, there is no one who testified for the State that said that Chauvin’s special brand of Use of Force was acceptable, part of protocol, or condoned.

I also like what you said about the officers easing up after deciding that GF was not a threat. Kueng picking something off tires is an excellent observation and point!

Regarding the drugs, I was looking for this very information and you provided it! Thank you for the following:
“…if I'm reading the autopsy right, GF didn't take a bunch of pills 10 minutes before death. I read that it takes about 30 minutes for the stomach to dissolve pills, so if there are none in his stomach at autopsy then...” And yes, he was behaving like a frightened person who could not breathe. And YES, police officers should have gotten him medical attention if they were so certain (or even suspect) that he was under the influence of something.

Like you, I also don’t believe the crowd was a problem for the police. Have they never responded to a call without a crowd gathering? Come on. Today’s body-cam footage showed that there was no mob of angry villagers threatening the police. You could barely hear any commotion at all from Cheng’s vantage point even when he appeared to be standing in the middle of the street.

I must quote you again here, when you posted these fabulous questions:
“If they (those in the crowd) are such a big concern, why aren't the cops talking about the crowd being a concern at the time? Or why weren't they calling for backup? Why isn't dispatch sending more backup on its own? After GF left in the ambulance, DC and other cops did not seem one bit worried about the bystanders, proving they'd posed no threat.”

And for the police not to render aid or take any action that would help GF when they realized he had no pulse is beyond negligent. It HAS to be unlawful, as they are to Protect and Serve, and they are trained to assist (such as perform CPR) until EMTs arrive on-scene. They called an ambulance but did NO resuscitative measures at all. It is beyond baffling. Not to mention disgusting in the truest sense of the word.

As for Nelson and his ‘suggestion’ that letting up pressure on GF could cause him to rebound harder, police should be trained for this, too. I do believe that’s what a Taser is for…

Hypotheticals seems to be the only way the Defense knows to think. Hypotheticals are not facts and the Jury will be reminded of this before they go into Deliberation. It’s not “Let’s explore What If…?” It’s “Let’s explore What Happened.” Facts, not figments of fantasy.

Your biggest problem is VERY compelling; Lang being afraid of GF. I’d like to explore that, but I don’t think Lang will ever cop to it (pun intended) because that simply puts more accountability on him in addition to showing that he was not ready to be out on the streets without someone more experienced. So then, who does the fault shift to? The Police Department for sending him out there? The Training itself?

No matter how it was initially handled, Chauvin had multiple opportunities to correct mistakes, follow proper protocol, protect and serve his rookies AND protect and serve his subject (GF) without anyone getting hurt, much less killed. But he had to be a cowboy and wrangle a bull. He was able to take down this big guy and keep him down – and even kill him – without using any of the standard issued police weapons. No bullets! Just kneel on the guy’s neck, hands shoved in your pockets to prove that you don’t even need your upper body to steady yourself. Use your lower body and your subject’s body and the hardness of the street to do all the work. Chauvin showed no strain or struggle. He was cool as a cucumber, keeping a smug expression and practically posing for the camera. Look Ma! No hands!

Chauvin is the best evidence against himself.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed response, but I think you quoted someone else even though this was in response to what I was saying. That's okay. I have problems with this quote system at times.

I think today's testimony added to the conclusion that the crowd was no a problem. When they showed the Park officer's cam, he seemed nonchalant. He wasn't concerned about the crowd, the car, a supposed gun in the car, or the two people he was detaining. He was watching, but I'm saying he wasn't in any highly alert or alarmed state. He didn't even cuff Hall or Hill.

Meanwhile, the other officers were over there, sitting on Floyd. I fail to understand what is so important about what's in the car that Floyd has to be taken from it and put in a squad car -- yet no one searched the car. It just proves that GF could have stayed on the curb by the wall.

What's also interesting is that the "boys" as Hill called them didn't testify that Floyd was asleep. I don't recall them giving any description of how Floyd was in the car each time they went out to talk about the $20, so I'd like to know more about that if he was asleep. Then Hill also says that she woke Floyd up, telling him that it was about the $20. So he must have heard something about the $20, which makes me believe he wasn't all that "asleep."

What I also find interesting is how Lang and Kueng supposedly had enough cause to arrest Floyd just because the store owner said he passed a fake bill. The cops went only by their word and they even said the cops didn't even look at the $20. Isn't it amazing that probable cause for you or me to get arrested is someone else accusing us without the officers even regarding the proof first?
 
Tippy Lynn said:
Yes, I've been pondering all the testimony. I have doubt regarding his training and or policy. He was on the force working the same job for 19 years. I think it's reasonable to think he was doing his job as he was trained and without a depraved heart or mind.

I still have reasonable doubt and if I was a juror, I would need to have zero doubt.

But, the fat lady isn't singing yet, so my verdict is subject to change. :)
Click to expand...

Conversely, I tend to think that Chauvin was accustomed to acting 'old school'. When he had been retrained in newer policy.

Something that happens in all professions. Updated methods and policy are introduced and people are expected to comply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 4,879 (members: 71, guests: 4,808)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
4,808
Total visitors
4,879
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,859
Messages
18,147,892
Members
231,556
Latest member
softhunterstech
Back
Top