George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

[wasnt_me]

Thank you @wasnt_me @Tippy Lynn and @missy1974 !!

@Boodles you respectfully asked what I doubted and I’m not great with words. I did my best to highlight in red what exactly for each charge I had doubts about. Hope this helps!

I think that for some of these, it's what a reasonable officer or person would or should know is either dangerous or will cause harm. We don't know have to know what DC knew. We just have to know what a reasonable person in his shoes should know. I think we use that standard because anyone can say "I didn't know" or "I wasn't aware." When evaluating DC, I think we're supposed to use the standard of what a reasonable officer or human should know.

And if we do that, we see that the crowd knows what he did was dangerous and unreasonable. We have heard testimony from several officers that what DC did was unreasonable and dangerous. We heard that he has had training that it is unreasonable and dangerous. Therefore, his choice to do it anyway is a conscious choice.

The depraved mind part has new language, from what I understand. So I'll skip that.

As others have said, the felony is the assault upon GF. If the neck restraint is NOT what he is trained to do and if he is not trained to hold it indefinitely, but only to handcuff, if he is required to deescalate force when someone stops resisting, then the accessive force is assault. That's the felony. For me, GF told DC that his was in pain, and DC said "Ah-huh, ah-huh," so that's knowingly inflicting pain.

We hear on bodycam other reasonable officers telling DC that there's no pulse, worrying about excited Deliruim, and asking to roll GF on his side. DC consciously chooses not to act on those things which is part of the recklessness.

That's my view of it. I think you have to take yourself out of DC's shoes and put yourself in the shoes of a reasonable person or officer. I think we all know that if we get a ticket or something, and we say we didn't know we broke the law, the first thing they say is that igorance is not excuse for breaking the law. Same here. If a reasonable person or officer would know it, DC should know it.

 

[wasnt_me]

Additionally, guys, we have to remember that DC was a first responder. We have to remember what that means. Their first priority is supposed to be to save lives. That's why we had so much testimony of Nelson trying to prove that the crowd made it impossible for DC to turn to that priority.

The prosecution just got a defense witness to admit that the cardiac arrest could/might have been reversed had GF gotten a chance at CPR. The choice to deprive GF of CPR goes against what a first responder is trained to do.

To be a first responder and kneel on someone's neck even after they have no pulse is a depraved mind in my view.

So if we say that, in commiting an assault -- which is putting the knee on the neck when training says not to -- DC deprived GF of the right to lifesaving CPR, I think we get there.

JMO

 

[MadMcGoo]

I think that for some of these, it's what a reasonable officer or person would or should know is either dangerous or will cause harm. We don't know have to know what DC knew. We just have to know what a reasonable person in his shoes should know. I think we use that standard because anyone can say "I didn't know" or "I wasn't aware." When evaluating DC, I think we're supposed to use the standard of what a reasonable officer or human should know.

And if we do that, we see that the crowd knows what he did was dangerous and unreasonable. We have heard testimony from several officers that what DC did was unreasonable and dangerous. We heard that he has had training that it is unreasonable and dangerous. Therefore, his choice to do it anyway is a conscious choice.

The depraved mind part has new language, from what I understand. So I'll skip that.

As others have said, the felony is the assault upon GF. If the neck restraint is NOT what he is trained to do and if he is not trained to hold it indefinitely, but only to handcuff, if he is required to deescalate force when someone stops resisting, then the accessive force is assault. That's the felony. For me, GF told DC that his was in pain, and DC said "Ah-huh, ah-huh," so that's knowingly inflicting pain.

We hear on bodycam other reasonable officers telling DC that there's no pulse, worrying about excited Deliruim, and asking to roll GF on his side. DC consciously chooses not to act on those things which is part of the recklessness.

That's my view of it. I think you have to take yourself out of DC's shoes and put yourself in the shoes of a reasonable person or officer. I think we all know that if we get a ticket or something, and we say we didn't know we broke the law, the first thing they say is that igorance is not excuse for breaking the law. Same here. If a reasonable person or officer would know it, DC should know it.

I am trying to read through these proposed jury instructions, even though they are not final. I’ve only read some of the prosecution’s. There are a few things I’m stuck on. I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying. I’m only trying to do what hopefully the jury does and break these down and really look at all the evidence. Again, I haven’t gotten through them all and this will probably be different once the final ones are released.

REASONABLE USE OF FORCE
The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the moment he is on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The reasonableness inquiry extends only to those facts known to the defendant, and not the other officials on the scene or their perception or preference of what should have occurred, at the precise moment the defendant acted with the force he did. The determination of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation under circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.
In considering the reasonableness of the use of force, the jury may consider whether the force was applied in good faith by the defendant. (I feel that it may have been.)

NEGLIGENCE OF MR. FLOYD
Mr. Floyd’s own negligence, his failure to act as a reasonable person would in his situation, is not a defense in a criminal case. However, in considering whether or not the defendant exercised the care of a reasonably prudent peace officer or failed to exercise such care, the jury may take into consideration the conduct of Mr. Floyd and all of the other circumstances that existed at the time the incident occurred. In other words, if there was negligence on the part of the Mr. Floyd, this can be considered by you only insofar as it tends to show that the defendant was not himself negligent or that his acts did not constitute the proximate cause of the accident. You may consider Mr. Floyd’s own conduct if it contributed to his death. (I feel it did. Regardless of the cause; drugs, fear, etc.) *I do not intend or feel this constitutes victim blaming!*

 

[missy1974]

I am trying to read through these proposed jury instructions, even though they are not final. I’ve only read some of the prosecution’s. There are a few things I’m stuck on. I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying. I’m only trying to do what hopefully the jury does and break these down and really look at all the evidence. Again, I haven’t gotten through them all and this will probably be different once the final ones are released.

The instructions that you quoted, were the proposed jury instructions from the Defense, so they fall heavily favourable to Chauvin IMO The Reasonable use of force snip ... you will notice that it references the Graham v. Connor at the bottom of that explaination, which we have heard repeatedly throughout the trial. IF this isn't included in the jury instructions, I fully expect Nelson to touch on it in closing.

I am not sure which the judge will go with, or if he will go with a combo of the 2. IMO the jury instructions are SO very important, one wrong word can change the whole meaning of a sentence/paragraph/charge. And as you and I are going through those instructions word by word to figure out where we might fall... I fully expect (hope) that the jury members will do the same thing.

And as you would expect... The State has opposed the Defense jury instructions, and actually cites the excerpts that you quoted. I can't find if the defense responded to that or not, if I come across it, will post

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Memorandum03102021.pdf

 

[SouthAussie]

Of course the STATE doesn't care about the analysis of the stomach contents, because if that had been done, and evidence of further drugs found, it could provide evidence for the defense position and introduce reasonable doubt, IMO

In the same way that, of course, the defense doesn't care to prove that a knee in the neck and weight on his lungs couldn't possibly have been the cause of George's death.

Because to not be able to prove that (pretty sure that we all know that they can't) would add reasonable doubt to the defense case. So the defense just stays away from that whole subject.

Although that is exactly what the defense needs to prove to overcome Chauvin's potential conviction. imo

 

[MadMcGoo]

The instructions that you quoted, were the proposed jury instructions from the Defense, so they fall heavily favourable to Chauvin IMO The Reasonable use of force snip ... you will notice that it references the Graham v. Connor at the bottom of that explaination, which we have heard repeatedly throughout the trial. IF this isn't included in the jury instructions, I fully expect Nelson to touch on it in closing.

I am not sure which the judge will go with, or if he will go with a combo of the 2. IMO the jury instructions are SO very important, one wrong word can change the whole meaning of a sentence/paragraph/charge. And as you and I are going through those instructions word by word to figure out where we might fall... I fully expect (hope) that the jury members will do the same thing.

And as you would expect... The State has opposed the Defense jury instructions, and actually cites the excerpts that you quoted. I can't find if the defense responded to that or not, if I come across it, will post

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Memorandum03102021.pdf

Ohhh ok. I must have gotten them mixed up. Thank you.

I do hope they’re doing the same too. Dissecting and discussing all of it. I’m eager to see what the Judge decides on the instructions. It shouldn’t be long now.

Thanks for all your help!

 

[human]

Police have the antidote for overdose with them at all times. If they thought GF was having an overdose situation, they needed to administer Naloxone.

 

[Niner]

@JerseyGirl - just a reminder to tag me when Trial Day 14 opens up. I got the last alert for my tag!! TIA!

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I think that for some of these, it's what a reasonable officer or person would or should know is either dangerous or will cause harm. We don't know have to know what DC knew. We just have to know what a reasonable person in his shoes should know. I think we use that standard because anyone can say "I didn't know" or "I wasn't aware." When evaluating DC, I think we're supposed to use the standard of what a reasonable officer or human should know.

And if we do that, we see that the crowd knows what he did was dangerous and unreasonable. We have heard testimony from several officers that what DC did was unreasonable and dangerous. We heard that he has had training that it is unreasonable and dangerous. Therefore, his choice to do it anyway is a conscious choice.

The depraved mind part has new language, from what I understand. So I'll skip that.

As others have said, the felony is the assault upon GF. If the neck restraint is NOT what he is trained to do and if he is not trained to hold it indefinitely, but only to handcuff, if he is required to deescalate force when someone stops resisting, then the accessive force is assault. That's the felony. For me, GF told DC that his was in pain, and DC said "Ah-huh, ah-huh," so that's knowingly inflicting pain.

We hear on bodycam other reasonable officers telling DC that there's no pulse, worrying about excited Deliruim, and asking to roll GF on his side. DC consciously chooses not to act on those things which is part of the recklessness.

That's my view of it. I think you have to take yourself out of DC's shoes and put yourself in the shoes of a reasonable person or officer. I think we all know that if we get a ticket or something, and we say we didn't know we broke the law, the first thing they say is that ignorance is not excuse for breaking the law. Same here. If a reasonable person or officer would know it, DC should know it.

I hope that folks that have such communication skills for the discussion as you and so many here have are indeed on the jury.

With so many cases, we discuss things that we believe that they jury probably didn't "get" while the trial was going on, then learn afterwards that they picked up on something that we here at WS didn't even think of, and go Wow!

I wish I could give an example, but I'm old and just starting my first cup of coffee.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

The instructions that you quoted, were the proposed jury instructions from the Defense, so they fall heavily favourable to Chauvin IMO The Reasonable use of force snip ... you will notice that it references the Graham v. Connor at the bottom of that explaination, which we have heard repeatedly throughout the trial. IF this isn't included in the jury instructions, I fully expect Nelson to touch on it in closing.

I am not sure which the judge will go with, or if he will go with a combo of the 2. IMO the jury instructions are SO very important, one wrong word can change the whole meaning of a sentence/paragraph/charge. And as you and I are going through those instructions word by word to figure out where we might fall... I fully expect (hope) that the jury members will do the same thing.

And as you would expect... The State has opposed the Defense jury instructions, and actually cites the excerpts that you quoted. I can't find if the defense responded to that or not, if I come across it, will post

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Memorandum03102021.pdf

I've been following for updates twice a day, and nothing yet as to anything in response to the state's submission on the first of this month regarding proposed Jury Instructions. Minnesota Judicial Branch - 27-CR-20-12646: State vs. Derek Chauvin

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Police have the antidote for overdose with them at all times. If they thought GF was having an overdose situation, they needed to administer Naloxone.

RE NARCAN (aka Naloxone) Does naloxone reverse any overdose?

Naloxone only works on overdoses caused by opioids. This family of drugs includes prescription painkillers like OxyContin, fentanyl, methadone, and Vicodin, as well as street drugs like heroin. Naloxone will not reverse overdose resulting from non-opioid drugs, like cocaine, benzodiazepines (“benzos”), or alcohol. Given how safe naloxone is, a victim of a non-opioid overdose, or an overdose caused by a mixture of drugs will not be harmed by naloxone. In multiple drug overdoses (e.g., an opioid and a benzodiazepine) it is still worth administering naloxone as it will remove the effects of the opioid and may still reverse the overdose.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Agree with others that the jury instructions are going to be very important, and will have lots of discussion here on the threads. @Sillybilly or @JerseyGirl may deem it advantageous to create a specific thread when they are released, or the discussion may just continue within the sidebars. Often they are finalized right before the closing statements so it may be overlapping instructions.

They'll be on top of it and know best from experience whether or not to make a specific thread for such.

.........Off to do the morning update to the media thread MN - George Floyd, 46, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 **Media & Timeline - NO DISCUSSION

 

[MsBetsy]

Additionally, guys, we have to remember that DC was a first responder. We have to remember what that means. Their first priority is supposed to be to save lives. That's why we had so much testimony of Nelson trying to prove that the crowd made it impossible for DC to turn to that priority.

The prosecution just got a defense witness to admit that the cardiac arrest could/might have been reversed had GF gotten a chance at CPR. The choice to deprive GF of CPR goes against what a first responder is trained to do.

To be a first responder and kneel on someone's neck even after they have no pulse is a depraved mind in my view.

So if we say that, in commiting an assault -- which is putting the knee on the neck when training says not to -- DC deprived GF of the right to lifesaving CPR, I think we get there.

JMO

To add to that, yesterday the prosecutor got the witness to agree that Floyd was in a PEA state and CPR should have started immediately, when Chauvin was still on top of him and the officers discussed him passing out and not detecting a pulse.

 

[MsBetsy]

Police have the antidote for overdose with them at all times. If they thought GF was having an overdose situation, they needed to administer Naloxone.

And asking "what are you on," while the suspect is writhing in pain from having his neck kneeled on in handcuffs and in the prone position, is not the best way to get an answer as to what drugs he may have taken.

 

[Wild Rose]

Additionally, guys, we have to remember that DC was a first responder. We have to remember what that means. Their first priority is supposed to be to save lives. That's why we had so much testimony of Nelson trying to prove that the crowd made it impossible for DC to turn to that priority.

The prosecution just got a defense witness to admit that the cardiac arrest could/might have been reversed had GF gotten a chance at CPR. The choice to deprive GF of CPR goes against what a first responder is trained to do.

To be a first responder and kneel on someone's neck even after they have no pulse is a depraved mind in my view.

So if we say that, in commiting an assault -- which is putting the knee on the neck when training says not to -- DC deprived GF of the right to lifesaving CPR, I think we get there.

JMO

Completely agree in my opinion. To block a distressed EMT from providing life saving medical assistance and let her watch him die is depraved. Think of it this way, a nurse helping a stricken bystander. A physician offers assistance. The nurse says No. A police officer pulls up on a house fire. Helps family out. The fire truck arrives to help. The officer says No. An EMT helps a fall victim. A nurse arrives. The EMT says No. This doesn't ever happen because first responders yield to the more certified assistance. What happened here? Repeatedly. Depraved. IMO looks like someone played God.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

To add to that, yesterday the prosecutor got the witness to agree that Floyd was in a PEA state and CPR should have started immediately, when Chauvin was still on top of him and the officers discussed him passing out and not detecting a pulse.

Yeppers.

I also did a when he said "Everyone who dies will have a fatal arrythmia" as the defense had made a deal out of that being specific and an indication of something else.

Oh yeah, in addition to his explaining about sudden death vs. cardiac death and PEA that George had was due to low Oxygen to the brain. Just as all the state witnesses have been saying all along.

Something that the nurse may / should know, is that whenever a blood draw is made on a person with carbon monoxide poisoning, the drawer and blood folks can SEE the effects as the blood is a BRIGHT CHERRY RED and is very distinguishable and remarkable. MOO

p.s. Who is gonna clean up after all of this as there is so much spaghetti thrown by the defense on the walls of the threads lately

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Latest Media

USA Today - Derek Chauvin trial live: Defense calls witnesses in George Floyd case

Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/14/derek-chauvin-trial/

CNN - George Floyd: Former medical examiner Dr. David Fowler says Floyd died due to his heart disease -- not Derek Chauvin - CNN

MSNBC - Prosecution dismantles defense witness theories about cause of George Floyd’s death

FOX News - George Floyd's girlfriend was Daunte Wright's teacher, relative says

AP News - EXPLAINER: Why won’t George Floyd’s friend testify?

FOX News - Judge denies Derek Chauvin defense team’s acquittal request in George Floyd’s death

Chicago Tribune - Column: George Floyd and the double standard on who gets sympathy for an opioid addiction

Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati.../15/dc-guard-helicopter-george-floyd-protest/

Yahoo News - Derek Chauvin defense witness suggests carbon monoxide may have helped kill George Floyd

NOTE: 631,000 have watched yesterday's testimony streaming at WaPo Youtube site.

 

[JerseyGirl]

New trial day thread here:

MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #17 - Chauvin Trial Day 14

@Niner @dixiegirl1035

 

[magnolia]

Problem is, this judge is biased. IMO

When did the Judge show bias ???

 

[Inthedetails]

What's everyone opinions on what the strongest witnesses/pieces of evidence were?

The stand out to me was LE testifying for the prosecution, though there were many strong pieces, imo.

jmo