MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 *officers charged* #3

[oceanblueeyes]

Last night I just couldn't sleep. My wandering mind went to this case. I kept thinking how I would answer some questions that defense and state and the judge asked. And how I would approach if I was on the jury.

When this first came out, I had strong opinions as to what Chauvin did was wrong. So very very very wrong! What an awful person I still think he is, and glad he will never be an officer again. But I didn't have a definitive "verdict" as to what I would think about the charges. I didn't have/still don't have "conviction" (strength of opinion 100% on what he was guilty of) of my opinion as to where his actions fit into the legal charges. Still don't.

And then we learned that he was found to have toxic levels of fentanyl (someone correct me, they were lethal levels?) and that a fentanyl pill was found with his saliva in the back of the cruiser. (someone correct me if I am wrong and this is not factually known). So then it made me consider how that affects my opinion as to the specific charges of what if he hadn't ingested any fentanyl at all. And is it like insurance claims, whereby %'s of contribution to "the claim" can be distributed, and how does that affect the charges? Does it push it down the level of charges?

As to the others contributions, and not putting him into a recovery position, how that affects my opinion and conviction of my opinion... I would need long discussions with others to hash out my own objective opinion. MOO

I have very strong opinions on this case, but I would have answered to the voir dire that I don't have "conviction of my opinion" to offer at this time as to guilt or innocence for each and every charge as I don't know all, and I don't know the specifics of the legal directions that will be needed to guide the jury decision. Those jury instructions will be so very key to analytical minds to parse through.

It's gonna be a minefield in that jury room perhaps. Glad I'll never be on a jury like this one. But I do hope there are some analytical and critical thinkers to guide the group. And I agree with the poster above who said that the defense will indeed be looking for analytical types and critical thinkers on the jury. Perhaps our in-house legal folks can chime in on this as they did re speaking to a few jurors vs. all of them.

MOO

Ita!

I held a strong opinion on this case. I even firmly believed it was more of an open, and shut case for the DA.

However, I embarrassing admit those strong opinions were based on what the media had disclosed on a regular basis which mostly was the video being shown over, and over again with the defendant putting his knee on George's neck.

And I certainly knew better beforehand than to just assume that what the media showed constantly was the entire crux of the case.

I have no one to blame, but myself. I usually try hard to remain neutral before any evidence is presented at any trial by putting the emotional feelings I have aside. I already knew other cases similar to this one showed once all the evidence was presented, and finally known to all, things were NOT as it had seemed for so long.

It's not the first time MSM has mislead it's viewers to believe one thing... only to realize afterwards they had been duped into believing the false narratives.

It truly shows that every story including criminal cases always has two sides to it, and both sides must be told first for the entire truth to become known.

I believe false narratives are one of the most dangerous things that can happen no matter what or where they are.

Imo, the media holds way too much power by giving these false narratives a continuous platform for they know it greatly inflames the passion, and outrage for all who completely.. without questions believes them to be true. I sincerely hope this isn't another one of those cases.

That's why all of the facts/evidence surrounding any case really does matter greatly for the truth to first become known. Thank goodness assumptions or opinions aren't facts nor are they allowed into our criminal justice system, but they still can, and do great damages as we've tragically seen in other cities who've endured violent riots.

My opinion now is one I should have held from the beginning, and a stance I've usually taken before any evidence is presented one way or the other, and that is to patiently wait for the trial to be held to learn what the evidence really is.

I still believe the defendant has culpability in George's death, but to what degree that may be based on the evidence in the upcoming trial, I really have no idea what that should be now.

Is it a degree of murder or is it more inline with criminal negligence for not rendering aide?

We shall see. May justice be done based solely on all of the evidence presented to the 12 jurors.

I do know whatever asked as a potential juror, I would be completely truthful. I don't envy the great tasks this jury has before them.

Jmho

 

[shotgun09]

IMO, this case while in the jury's hands will boil down to this:

Feelings and Perceptions vs Facts and Law

Also, IMO...Our MSM is complicit in 'directing' our Feelings and Perceptions...so without the media influence ......(sequestered) hopefully the jury will be able to arrive at a fair and just conclusion.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Also, while the crowd was begging and pleading for them to stop, one of the officers said, "Don't do drugs, kids!" As if showing them this is what you get when you break the law. There was no urgency because they simply didn't seem to care. Imo

I don't remember that. I haven't visited the "media only" page for this case in some time, and hope that there is in ONE post all of the videos in ONE post to review right before the start of the trial. I wonder if that has been done or someone wants to take up such for us all to have in ONE place?

When I FIRST saw that tape, I could not for the life of me believe the restraint of the folks who were watching it in real time as my 100% reaction to that video and putting myself into their place was to bum rush (is that the correct term?) the officer on his neck without regard to my safety and consequences. Kinda like folks who go into fire without thinking of the consequences as you know in your heart that it must be done to save another's life. My adrenaline watching that long version was GET.HIM.OFF... and nothing else.

I wonder the guilt those that filmed carry with themselves as to not getting physical. I'm an itty bitty old lady, but I just could never have stood there (in my mind, who knows in real life) and know that person died while I watched without giving aid.

........that's the emotional side.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Ita!

I held a strong opinion on this case. I even firmly believed it was more of an open, and shut case for the DA.

However, I embarrassing admit those strong opinions were based on what the media had disclosed on a regular basis which mostly was the video being shown over, and over again with the defendant putting his knee on George's neck.

And I certainly knew better beforehand than to just assume that what the media showed constantly was the entire crux of the case.

I have no one to blame, but myself. I usually try hard to remain neutral before any evidence is presented at any trial by putting the emotional feelings I have aside. I already knew other cases similar to this one showed once all the evidence was presented, and finally known to all, things were NOT as it had seemed for so long.

It's not the first time MSM has mislead it's viewers to believe one thing... only to realize afterwards they had been duped into believing the false narratives.

It truly shows that every story including criminal cases always has two sides to it, and both sides must be told first for the entire truth to become known.

I believe false narratives are one of the most dangerous things that can happen no matter what or where they are.

Imo, the media holds way too much power by giving these false narratives a continuous platform for they know it greatly inflames the passion, and outrage for all who completely.. without questions believes them to be true. I sincerely hope this isn't another one of those cases.

That's why all of the facts/evidence surrounding any case really does matter greatly for the truth to first become known. Thank goodness assumptions or opinions aren't facts nor are they allowed into our criminal justice system, but they still can, and do great damages as we've tragically seen in other cities who've endured violent riots.

My opinion now is one I should have held from the beginning, and a stance I've usually taken before any evidence is presented one way or the other, and that is to patiently wait for the trial to be held to learn what the evidence really is.

I still believe the defendant has culpability in George's death, but to what degree that may be based on the evidence in the upcoming trial, I really have no idea what that should be now.

Is it a degree of murder or is it more inline with criminal negligence for not rendering aide?

We shall see. May justice be done based solely on all of the evidence presented to the 12 jurors.

I do know whatever asked as a potential juror, I would be completely truthful. I don't envy the great tasks this jury has before them.

Jmho

It actually may work to the defense if folks have seen the entire footage. Again, my gut immediate reaction was blood pressure through the roof watching the video... can only MANY months later even be open and less BP increase to being more objective..

Some perhaps may say that your "underlying true self and personality" comes out when under stress, and I would think for 99.9% of folks the reaction is horror watching a man die for 9 minutes under restraint. ... and to perceive that is 100% the cause.

And only when I get over that emotion, would be in a proper place to be a juror iykwim and be able to apply the law. So if defense, I would want analytical person on jury who has seen the entire video, and all the others too as we have shared at WS.

So very many cases here we abhor what happened as to not guilty, and think that they should have been convicted. Yet... the law as stated, was the correct decision for 2 VERY high profile cases here at WS that are top of mind (not going to mention which, perhaps more than two now that I reconsider... but many here know but don't wanna get off topic for this thread). It is awful when it happens, and sometimes due perhaps the situation of (MOO ridiculous) reasonable doubt MOO... but crossing my fingers that the court will NEVER sequester this jury for the duration of the trial.

IMO, this case while in the jury's hands will boil down to this:

Feelings and Perceptions vs Facts and Law

Also, IMO...Our MSM is complicit in 'directing' our Feelings and Perceptions...so without the media influence ......(sequestered) hopefully the jury will be able to arrive at a fair and just conclusion.

Are you hoping that they are sequestered for the entire trial?

 

[MsBetsy]

I don't remember that. I haven't visited the "media only" page for this case in some time, and hope that there is in ONE post all of the videos in ONE post to review right before the start of the trial. I wonder if that has been done or someone wants to take up such for us all to have in ONE place?

When I FIRST saw that tape, I could not for the life of me believe the restraint of the folks who were watching it in real time as my 100% reaction to that video and putting myself into their place was to bum rush (is that the correct term?) the officer on his neck without regard to my safety and consequences. Kinda like folks who go into fire without thinking of the consequences as you know in your heart that it must be done to save another's life. My adrenaline watching that long version was GET.HIM.OFF... and nothing else.

I wonder the guilt those that filmed carry with themselves as to not getting physical. I'm an itty bitty old lady, but I just could never have stood there (in my mind, who knows in real life) and know that person died while I watched without giving aid.

........that's the emotional side.

I think it was in one of the first videos posted here. It hardly even showed Floyd's face and you couldn't really hear what he was saying, but I could feel the emotion just from listening to the people pleading with the police. Even when the woman who said she was a firefighter kept telling them to check his pulse, they didn't react. They just asked if she was "really a firefighter" while Chauvin kept his knee in position and the rest restrained him and kept the crowd back. I don't think the bystanders stood a chance to intervene against four officers and pepper spray. They probably would have been arrested themselves. Imo

 

[shotgun09]

Are you hoping that they are sequestered for the entire trial?

RSBM

Oh goodness NO!! I think that sequestration would be extremely rough on any jury.

In saying that though...look what happened just in the jury selection time frame....Civil court settlement 27 mill !!
This was The Headline in all major news media across the world!! Heck, even China knew about it! You think that media did that on purpose?
And, the court was not happy, as jurors WERE affected.

I anticipate sequestration during deliberations, just as was mentioned by the court

 

[Chelly]

What we know about the jurors selected so far in Derek Chauvin's trial - KVIA
List of jurors selected with brief description in above MSM link

 

[Chelly]

The defense has generally used its strikes on people who expressed negative views of Chauvin and positive views of Black Lives Matter, while the prosecution has generally used its strikes on White people who expressed support for police.
What we know about the jurors selected so far in Derek Chauvin's trial - KVIA

 

[Chelly]

@dixiegirl1035 Omg! Same!! I’ve been asking myself what’s wrong with me because I keep thinking over and over again how I would answer voir dire! I keep going back and forth about my feelings and opinions on Chauvin and what a fair verdict would be. I honestly feel bad for him! Then I think but 9 minutes!! Why?! Why didn’t he let up when he saw Floyd lay there flaccid? Why? Why? Why? Even the other officer suggested it. Was it because the bystanders were taunting him? Had they used a more conciliatory tone would he have let up? Had they said “please let up he’s unconscious” and if they didn’t have a phone out filming him?

Or was he just mad because Floyd was resisting so much? Why were they in such a rush to get him in the car? He didn’t want to get in, he was obviously high on something. He was handcuffed and sitting on the ground and he didn’t seem like a flight risk. Obv getting in the car triggered something. But he wasn’t armed and he was handcuffed. Why not let him sit on the curb for a while longer to reassess?

Was it the whiny voice? Did they think he was malingering and they were impatient with him? But they could tell he was high. They just wanted to take him in and move on with their day?

There’s a callousness to their behavior once they realize he has no pulse. There’s no urgency. Why?

You are not alone. I'll admit I came to this trial believing DC Guilty of murder2. Now, I just don't know what to believe. I'm getting myself hung up on on the phrase"beyond a shadow of a doubt" which we will be hearing over-and-over near end of the trial.

 

[Rocky1]

I think the police training manual and procedures will be key here - I can’t imagine that it would allow for a prolonged restraint of that nature as a precaution. 9 minutes kneeling on someone’s neck/upper back area is a looooong time. If the ambulance had taken 20 minutes, would Chauvin be justified in kneeling on Floyd in that manner for that length of time? Imagine someone giving you a tight squeeze bear hug for a couple minutes!

Here you go.
Volume 5 spells out policy and procedures.

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media...documents/MPD-Policy-and-Procedure-Manual.pdf

K. Prohibition on Neck Restraints and Choke Holds Neck Restraints and choke holds are prohibited. Instructors are prohibited from teaching the use of neck restraints or choke holds. MN Statute section 609.06 Subd. 3 (b) defines a choke hold “as a method by which a person applies sufficient pressure to a person to make breathing difficult or impossible, and includes but is not limited to any pressure to the neck, throat, or windpipe that may prevent or hinder breathing, or reduce intake of air. Choke hold also means applying pressure to a person's neck on either side of the windpipe, but not to the windpipe itself, to stop the flow of blood to the brain via the carotid arteries.”

 

[SouthAussie]

Fortunately, they banned police neck restraints in June 2020. I am sure that tidbit of information will be put forth by the State at the trial.


Minneapolis agreed Friday to ban chokeholds and neck restraints by police and to require officers to try to stop any other officers they see using improper force, in the first concrete steps to remake the city’s police force since George Floyd’s death.
Minneapolis bans police chokeholds in wake of Floyd's death

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Fortunately, they banned police neck restraints in June 2020. I am sure that tidbit of information will be put forth by the State at the trial.


Minneapolis agreed Friday to ban chokeholds and neck restraints by police and to require officers to try to stop any other officers they see using improper force, in the first concrete steps to remake the city’s police force since George Floyd’s death.
Minneapolis bans police chokeholds in wake of Floyd's death

Thanks for refreshing my memory with this June 5th Associated Press (AP cited usually as neutral bias/fact bases MSM agency) 2020 article!

"Minneapolis agreed Friday to ban chokeholds and neck restraints by police ........department’s current policies, which already cite the duty of sworn employees to stop or try to stop inappropriate force or force no longer needed. The (new) agreement would also require officers to immediately report to their superiors when they see use of any neck restraint or chokehold....Lucero said the changes go further than the department’s current policies. Any officer who doesn’t try to stop the improper use of force would face the same discipline as if they had used improper force.."

(Still clear as mud what level is "trying to stop". Just asking them to stop? Pointing out other way to position suspect in recovery position? Pushing the guy with force off of the victim?)

 

[Weki]

Here you go.
Volume 5 spells out policy and procedures.

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media...documents/MPD-Policy-and-Procedure-Manual.pdf

K. Prohibition on Neck Restraints and Choke Holds Neck Restraints and choke holds are prohibited. Instructors are prohibited from teaching the use of neck restraints or choke holds. MN Statute section 609.06 Subd. 3 (b) defines a choke hold “as a method by which a person applies sufficient pressure to a person to make breathing difficult or impossible, and includes but is not limited to any pressure to the neck, throat, or windpipe that may prevent or hinder breathing, or reduce intake of air. Choke hold also means applying pressure to a person's neck on either side of the windpipe, but not to the windpipe itself, to stop the flow of blood to the brain via the carotid arteries.”

Thank you and to others who provided info on the code of conduct. I perused Volume 5 quickly. It seems to me that the officers didn’t really make much of an effort to deescalate and used improper force per this code of conduct. I know Floyd’s behavior is being characterized as resisting arrest. But the real trouble started when they tried to get him in the car. To me it looked like someone under the influence who didn’t pose grave danger to the safety of the police or others. That’s my lay opinion. They suspected he was on something. He told them repeatedly he was afraid/claustrophobic/couldn’t breathe. It seems clear to me he was panicking. He didn’t try to attack any of them. He was frustrating to deal with no question. And he was a big guy but there were 4 of them there!

I think defense is going to focus hard on cause of death because that’s the only way out of this for them. It sounds like they are going to argue he died because he injected drugs and he had a bad heart from repeated drug use.

 

[MsBetsy]

Thanks for refreshing my memory with this June 5th Associated Press (AP cited usually as neutral bias/fact bases MSM agency) 2020 article!

"Minneapolis agreed Friday to ban chokeholds and neck restraints by police ........department’s current policies, which already cite the duty of sworn employees to stop or try to stop inappropriate force or force no longer needed. The (new) agreement would also require officers to immediately report to their superiors when they see use of any neck restraint or chokehold....Lucero said the changes go further than the department’s current policies. Any officer who doesn’t try to stop the improper use of force would face the same discipline as if they had used improper force.."

(Still clear as mud what level is "trying to stop". Just asking them to stop? Pointing out other way to position suspect in recovery position? Pushing the guy with force off of the victim?)

Well, at least it may prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. Officer Lane had suggested rolling Floyd over and Chauvin told them to leave him right where he was. He probably wouldn't have dared to tell Chauvin to stop kneeling on his neck.

The mayor had already banned the training for the maneuver in 2019, but the union president called the ban "illegal" and said he would continue training for those who wanted it. He stated, "It's not about killing, it's about surviving."

 

[Rocky1]

Thank you and to others who provided info on the code of conduct. I perused Volume 5 quickly. It seems to me that the officers didn’t really make much of an effort to deescalate and used improper force per this code of conduct. I know Floyd’s behavior is being characterized as resisting arrest. But the real trouble started when they tried to get him in the car. To me it looked like someone under the influence who didn’t pose grave danger to the safety of the police or others. That’s my lay opinion. They suspected he was on something. He told them repeatedly he was afraid/claustrophobic/couldn’t breathe. It seems clear to me he was panicking. He didn’t try to attack any of them. He was frustrating to deal with no question. And he was a big guy but there were 4 of them there!

I think defense is going to focus hard on cause of death because that’s the only way out of this for them. It sounds like they are going to argue he died because he injected drugs and he had a bad heart from repeated drug use.

You're welcome. Bear in mind as posted above that the policy was changed in June of last year. That was after Floyd died. I'm not sure if Neck Restraints were allowed by policy before that, or not.

 

[Rocky1]

Well, at least it may prevent a tragedy like this from happening again. Officer Lane had suggested rolling Floyd over and Chauvin told them to leave him right where he was. He probably wouldn't have dared to tell Chauvin to stop kneeling on his neck.

The mayor had already banned the training for the maneuver in 2019, but the union president called the ban "illegal" and said he would continue training for those who wanted it. He stated, "It's not about killing, it's about surviving."

Lane was only on the job for 4 days, so I think you are right as far as not telling Chauvin what to do. However...
After watching his video, I'm not so sure he should have been fired.
When Officer Lane suggested that Floyd should be rolled over, Would that constitute "intervening"?
If the answer is yes, then read the last section here.

Law Enforcement Misconduct

The state will have to prove that Chauvin violated section 242, ...the next to the last section. (Deliberate Indifference To A Serious Medical Condition Or A Substantial Risk Of Harm.)

 

[Rocky1]

I must have missed an important point, because after watching Lane's video, he never went inside the store to investigate the counterfeit $20.00. Did any cop? Was floyd wrongfully arrested in the first place?
Does anyone know if the bill was counterfeit? I haven't heard a thing about it.

 

[MsBetsy]

I must have missed an important point, because after watching Lane's video, he never went inside the store to investigate the counterfeit $20.00. Did any cop? Was floyd wrongfully arrested in the first place?
Does anyone know if the bill was counterfeit? I haven't heard a thing about it.

If I remember correctly, I don't think they did examine the bill to verify that it was counterfeit prior to the arrest. Afterwards LE didn't reveal many details, and I don't remember hearing anything more about it either. Imo

 

[Rocky1]

If I remember correctly, I don't think they did examine the bill to verify that it was counterfeit prior to the arrest. Afterwards LE didn't reveal many details, and I don't remember hearing anything more about it either. Imo

Thanks.
I know he threw a bag of white powder on the sidewalk that he took out of his pants, but I'm not sure the exact reason he was arrested. I'm sure we'll soon find out.

 

[MsBetsy]

Thanks.
I know he threw a bag of white powder on the sidewalk that he took out of his pants, but I'm not sure the exact reason he was arrested. I'm sure we'll soon find out.

The officers were responding to the 911 call about the counterfeit bill and the employee mentioned that Floyd was acting weird, appeared drunk, didn't want to give the cigarettes back, etc.

I don't think they knew anything other than that when they approached the vehicle, with Lane pointing the gun at him and ultimately pulling him out of the car. The reason he drew his weapon hasn't been explained.

Once Floyd was in handcuffs Lane told him he was being arrested for "passing counterfeit currency."

Also I don't think they said they saw him throw anything on the ground. Lane did ask him what he was on, or if he was "on something," but that's not why he was arrested.