George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

[CrimeAway]

I would consider introducing that myself if I was Nelson. But JMO

He really should be reading here, (if one of his 'extentsive team of million-dollar lawyers' is not already)! MOO.

I vote for peace, love, and colorful masks moving forward

 

[missy1974]

I was struggling with this too. IMO the state hasn't proven it without a reasonable doubt.

I am wondering if he even knew that Lane said "I can't feel a pulse" now too after yesterday's testimony, thanks to the State use of force expert pointing it out. I know people have the opinion he should have known, and maybe he should have. But did he.

 

[missy1974]

He really should be reading here, (if one of his 'extentsive team of million-dollar lawyers' is not already)! MOO.

I vote for peace, love, and colorful masks moving forward

oh c'mon... Nelson only has 9000 new pages to read tonight, he MUST have time to come to WS's and check it out for strategy LOL

I do think that at times attorney's come and read online... they would be silly not too... you see how many smart people are here? andddd where else can you find a realtime focus group like this?

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I am wondering if he even knew that Lane said "I can't feel a pulse" now too after yesterday's testimony, thanks to the State use of force expert pointing it out. I know people have the opinion he should have known, and maybe he should have. But did he.

I'm not sure if he did either. There's some doubt for sure.

I always say I'm not going to get to0 invested in these cases and here I am up past my eyeballs reading and typing away like it's my job. LOL!

 

[wasnt_me]

I am wondering if he even knew that Lane said "I can't feel a pulse" now too after yesterday's testimony, thanks to the State use of force expert pointing it out. I know people have the opinion he should have known, and maybe he should have. But did he.

The crowd constantly asked DC to check the pulse. DC is the one restraining an individual in a high level of restraint who went unconscious. DC should check the pulse himself. Not doing so is depraved negligence in my book.

 

[CrimeAway]

oh c'mon... Nelson only has 9000 new pages to read tonight, he MUST have time to come to WS's and check it out for strategy LOL

I do think that at times attorney's come and read online... they would be silly not too... you see how many smart people are here? andddd where else can you find a realtime focus group like this?

Well I *WAS* hoping that he might be sewing new masks tonight, but alas, I suppose he has better things to do...

I guess this is where lawyers really EARN their hourly rate, (which is way above most of ours, even if we deserve more ).

Overall, I've been really impressed by the professionalism and decorum that Judge Cahill, the prosecution team, and Mr Nelson have shown in the courtroom.

 

[CrimeAway]

I am wondering if he even knew that Lane said "I can't feel a pulse" now too after yesterday's testimony, thanks to the State use of force expert pointing it out. I know people have the opinion he should have known, and maybe he should have. But did he.

I think that *could* be an issue or example of salience that might be a factor at play here:
Salience (neuroscience) - Wikipedia

 

[missy1974]

Through dispatcher's testimony, it says car 330 (Thao and Chauvin), she wasn't able to say which of the 2 called the Code 3. I can't recall at the moment if we heard that on Thao's body cam footage. When I catch up, I'll go see if I can find it.

View attachment 292621

@Mony Mony
it's at about 4:30ish in the video, 20:21:30ish timestamp on his bodycam. It's really hard to hear, but he asks if EMS is coming Code 3, and Lane says code 2 ... then you can hear Thao call in EMS code 3 (if you lift your laptop to your ear like me )

@dixiegirl1035 If Thao said he called in a EMS Code 3 because of the crowd in he BCA interview, he is a liar. JMO

 

[missy1974]

I'm not sure if he did either. There's some doubt for sure.

I always say I'm not going to get to0 invested in these cases and here I am up past my eyeballs reading and typing away like it's my job. LOL!

I'm annoyed that I didn't doubt that until yesterday, I really thought he had heard that, but now I am not even 1% sure that he did.

and RIGHT!!! I knew I wanted to watch the trial, but wasn't sure I was ready to put in the 'time'. BUT... here I am bookmarking stuff, taking notes and posting away! Still not as invested as some cases I have followed, but still more than I wanted to be

I do have a family member that lives in St. Paul, and although I'm sure that some think by my posts that I am heartless b (I try not to let the emotion get to me when I'm following trials or I wouldn't be able to follow any), this case is 'close to home' to me more than anyone would think by my posts. I debated whether to throw in the towel yesterday, but here I am... lol

 

[wasnt_me]

Chauvin had been a police officer since 2001. Maybe he was trained at that time to hold people down with a knee on the neck. And even though, things changed, he never did...

And I think that's the problem. We see it in this case. Lang claims he deferred to DC because he'd been his trainer and he'd been on the force longer. Lang knew the right thing to do because, as a new officer, he was trained in the right things to do, and he hadn't developed bad habits. But he couldn't speak out because he felt he was too new to override DC -- even though they both were the same rank.

Can you imagine if he kept riding with DC? In 5 years, he'd be kneeing people in the neck, too, because that's what DC does despite training to the contrary.

 

[SouthAussie]

Do you think the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that DC was retrained in newer policy?

Took me a while to reply, I had to go to work. Yes, I do think so. He had received at least two lots of recent training - 4 years prior and 2 years prior.

Lots of links, but here is one:

Minneapolis Police Department Sgt. Ker Yang, a 24-year veteran of the department who currently serves as its crisis intervention training coordinator, testified that Chauvin participated in a 40-hour crisis intervention course in 2016 in which officers are given opportunities to recognize a person who may be in crisis and how to deal with them.

Yang stated that it's important for officers to reassess whether circumstances change during a situation, adding that if the person in crisis is in need of medical attention, it should "be the immediate goal" for officers to help provide it.

"I provide this training because I believe it does -- it works," Yang said.

Lt. Johnny Mercil, a use-of-force instructor at the Minneapolis Police Department, developed an annual in-service training program that Chauvin took in 2018.

Officers are trained to de-escalate situations as the level of resistance decreases and are trained to know that some parts of the body are more prone to injury, such as the neck and the head, Mercil said.

Many of Derek Chauvin's law enforcement colleagues disagree with how he restrained George Floyd. Here's how they have testified.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I'm annoyed that I didn't doubt that until yesterday, I really thought he had heard that, but now I am not even 1% sure that he did.

and RIGHT!!! I knew I wanted to watch the trial, but wasn't sure I was ready to put in the 'time'. BUT... here I am bookmarking stuff, taking notes and posting away! Still not as invested as some cases I have followed, but still more than I wanted to be

I do have a family member that lives in St. Paul, and although I'm sure that some think by my posts that I am heartless b (I try not to let the emotion get to me when I'm following trials or I wouldn't be able to follow any), this case is 'close to home' to me more than anyone would think by my posts. I debated whether to throw in the towel yesterday, but here I am... lol

FWIW - I'm glad you're here

I live in Minnesota, not in Minneapolis or the suburbs, but not far and I go there often. We also have a lot family and friends that live there.

I try to keep my emotions in check, but it's a challenge for me sometimes and when emotions are high, intelligence is low.

Unlike many in here, I'm not good at writing or putting my thoughts into words so there's that too.

 

[CrimeAway]

And I think that's the problem. We see it in this case. Lang claims he deferred to DC because he'd been his trainer and he'd been on the force longer. Lang knew the right thing to do because, as a new officer, he was trained in the right things to do, and he hadn't developed bad habits. But he couldn't speak out because he felt he was too new to override DC -- even though they both were the same rank.

Can you imagine if he kept riding with DC? In 5 years, he'd be kneeing people in the neck, too, because that's what DC does despite training to the contrary.

This brings me back to the importance (IMO) of understanding not only factually WHAT happened, but WHY it happened, and how that factors into an incident.

I think that many of us might agree that police training needs to be improved.

I think that understanding the factors at play, be it officer personality, training, experience, other officers, the scene, etc. can help improve things in the future.
IMO, I think that (aside from other issues), policing can glean some valuable insight from the airline industry when it comes to human factors, especially as it relates to the inaction of junior officers in the presence of their more senior colleagues. (All MOO)

Impact of culture on aviation safety - Wikipedia

 

[missy1974]

FWIW - I'm glad you're here

I live in Minnesota, not in Minneapolis or the suburbs, but not far and I go there often. We also have a lot family and friends that live there.

I try to keep my emotions in check, but it's a challenge for me sometimes and when emotions are high, intelligence is low.

Unlike many in here, I'm not good at writing or putting my thoughts into words so there's that too.

Ohhhh see, I didn't know you were "local". I know we are a different breed here at WS's... so I'm curious, do you have friends/family/neighbor's that you know of watching the trial? or is it just us that are suckers? and if they are, what do they think?
I was telling a friend earlier today that I can't recall a livestream of a trial with as many views as this one, she's been watching it too and this is not her "thing" but she was interested.

 

[MadMcGoo]

I think that *could* be an issue or example of salience that might be a factor at play here:
Salience (neuroscience) - Wikipedia

Again, thanks for pointing this out. It’s complicated and I think perfectly describes what I was talking about previously. I’m very interested in the “why” of both DC’s and GF’s behavior and actions (and people in general).

From the link: Salience bias (also known as perceptual salience) is the cognitive bias that predisposes individuals to focus on items that are more prominent or emotionally striking and ignore those that are unremarkable, even though this difference is often irrelevant by objective standards.

 

[wasnt_me]

This brings me back to the importance (IMO) of understanding not only factually WHAT happened, but WHY it happened, and how that factors into an incident.

I think that many of us might agree that police training needs to be improved.

I think that understanding the factors at play, be it officer personality, training, experience, other officers, the scene, etc. can help improve things in the future.
IMO, I think that (aside from other issues), policing can glean some valuable insight from the airline industry when it comes to human factors, especially as it relates to the inaction of junior officers in the presence of their more senior colleagues. (All MOO)

Impact of culture on aviation safety - Wikipedia

That was an interesting read, and I agree with you that it's useful in analysing power hierchies. What's interesting to me is that they were saying that collectivist societies could have more problems with subordinates being reluctant to challenge authority figures than individualistic cultures. I do think the collective culture in policing does make it harder for individual officers to speak up. It's literally like rating on your frat brother or calling out a senior member of your frat when you just got inducted. It just doesn't happen if you don't want to be ostracized from the frat.

I've heard that police have a hard time with going against a fellow officers, too, because they have to trust each other in the field and have each other's backs. When you have to out an officer or go against their authority, you risk backlash when it comes to your protection in the field and off. I don't know how you break that in this profession.

TT talks about it a little bit in his BCA interview and so does TL. What stuck out to me was that they each talked about, for example, how officers of lesser seniority usually have to drive. I'm guessing this seniority is in years on the force in combination with rank. For DC, he has 19 years, but he's the same rank as the others. I don't know if someone higher rank with less years would defer to DC due to years of experience, but it's definitely happening in lateral authority.

It also sticks out in the call to the scene. AJK and TL were the ones first on the scene. I assume it was their call because of that. However, they allow DC and TT to basically take it over. Even though AJK and TL had been on the scene longer, had observed GF closer and had better context for all that was going on, they seemed to just take a backseat and let DC and TT handle it. Why?

Was it because they were feeling intimidated and hung back? Was it because they willingly relinquished their scene to more experienced officers? Could they have asserted themselves and kept control of their own scene, or did they feel police politics dictated that TT and DC were then in control?

I wonder what would have happened if TL had just said, "Scoot, so I can roll him over." And this just started rolling GF over. Would DC have moved and let it happen?

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Ohhhh see, I didn't know you were "local". I know we are a different breed here at WS's... so I'm curious, do you have friends/family/neighbor's that you know of watching the trial? or is it just us that are suckers? and if they are, what do they think?
I was telling a friend earlier today that I can't recall a livestream of a trial with as many views as this one, she's been watching it too and this is not her "thing" but she was interested.

We are a different breed here at WS.

None of my family or friends are into WS or watching trials. It doesn’t matter how hard I try to persuade them they don’t want any part of it.

As far as this trial and everything else going on they follow the news. To be honest, nobody really brings it up or talks about it anymore. With Covid and trying to juggle life with work, family, kids, school and add all the chaos and destruction it’s been overwhelming for most.

 

[MadMcGoo]

I’m curious. If he is found guilty (of any of the charges), what would be a fair sentence in your opinion?

ETA: I believe the sentences range from 10 to 40 years. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[SouthAussie]

There is an article here where several prosecutors are commenting on what a fantastic job the prosecution has done in this trial. Dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's.

At least one of them thinks that the defense got nowhere with its first 3 witnesses.

Another one thinks that the defense is going to have no choice but to put Chauvin on the stand .... “This is Hail Mary time. That’s how bad it is. That’s how far behind they are. Will he be hammered on cross-examination? Yes. Does he have to testify? Yes.”

‘Hail Mary time’ for Derek Chauvin’s defence: Legal experts

 

[wasnt_me]

I’m curious. If he is found guilty (of any of the charges), what would be a fair sentence in your opinion?

ETA: I believe the sentences range from 10 to 40 years. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

That's a hard one for me. I love culpability, but I hate the thought of sentencing someone. I don't like thinking of someone in jail for decades upon decades for one instant in their life. But at the same time, if it's murder, their victim was sentenced to no life at all. If it's some kind of rape or other violence against a person, that victim has to live with those scars for life.

I think that police have to have more lenient sentences just because they are police and this is the nature of the job. At the same time, the sentence shouldn't be so low that police don't see it as a determent. I value time because it's all we have, so I feel so awkward judging how many years to take away from someone. Must be hard on jurors. So I don't know yet the answer.