Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
News Derek Chauvin Trial (BREAKING: Sentenced)
Author Message
salukiblue Offline
Liaison to the Dummies
*

Posts: 31,099
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 1292
I Root For: Space Mountain
Location: Tennessee
Post: #181
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-04-2021 08:34 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Negligent homicide would have been much easier to prove.

Essentially 2nd degree manslaughter.

That's a muder caused unintentionally.
04-04-2021 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
salukiblue Offline
Liaison to the Dummies
*

Posts: 31,099
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 1292
I Root For: Space Mountain
Location: Tennessee
Post: #182
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-03-2021 07:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(04-03-2021 09:44 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  
(04-02-2021 09:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree. My guess is Chauvin will not be acquitted but will be found in some fashion to have contributed to his death on a lesser charge than murder.

Except there are no charges other than murder. The jury can’t just make up charges to find him guilty of.

Chauvin is up on 3 charges....2nd degree unintentional felony murder...3rd degree "depraved mind" murder...and...2nd degree manslaughter. I presume he could be found guilty of all 3 or of any one of the those charges alone. You may be correct...but..I didn't realize 2nd degree manslaughter was considered a murder charge.

Pretty sure you only get one.

I would imagine when the prosecution brought in the 3rd degree charge, they essentially ruined and chance of getting straight 2nd degree murder.

Likely the jury will be down to the 3rd degree and 2nd manslaughter.

I'm still unsure how the judge will provide instructions for the 3rd degree murder, since it really doesn't apply to the situation at hand.
04-04-2021 11:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #183
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-04-2021 11:56 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  
(04-03-2021 07:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(04-03-2021 09:44 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  
(04-02-2021 09:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree. My guess is Chauvin will not be acquitted but will be found in some fashion to have contributed to his death on a lesser charge than murder.

Except there are no charges other than murder. The jury can’t just make up charges to find him guilty of.

Chauvin is up on 3 charges....2nd degree unintentional felony murder...3rd degree "depraved mind" murder...and...2nd degree manslaughter. I presume he could be found guilty of all 3 or of any one of the those charges alone. You may be correct...but..I didn't realize 2nd degree manslaughter was considered a murder charge.

Pretty sure you only get one.

I would imagine when the prosecution brought in the 3rd degree charge, they essentially ruined and chance of getting straight 2nd degree murder.

Likely the jury will be down to the 3rd degree and 2nd manslaughter.

I'm still unsure how the judge will provide instructions for the 3rd degree murder, since it really doesn't apply to the situation at hand.

Didnt the judge throw that charge out, only to have an appellate court reinstate it. If thats the case, I REALLY dont know what the instructions could be on that one.
04-04-2021 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
salukiblue Offline
Liaison to the Dummies
*

Posts: 31,099
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 1292
I Root For: Space Mountain
Location: Tennessee
Post: #184
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-04-2021 12:07 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  
(04-04-2021 11:56 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  
(04-03-2021 07:31 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  
(04-03-2021 09:44 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  
(04-02-2021 09:31 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree. My guess is Chauvin will not be acquitted but will be found in some fashion to have contributed to his death on a lesser charge than murder.

Except there are no charges other than murder. The jury can’t just make up charges to find him guilty of.

Chauvin is up on 3 charges....2nd degree unintentional felony murder...3rd degree "depraved mind" murder...and...2nd degree manslaughter. I presume he could be found guilty of all 3 or of any one of the those charges alone. You may be correct...but..I didn't realize 2nd degree manslaughter was considered a murder charge.

Pretty sure you only get one.

I would imagine when the prosecution brought in the 3rd degree charge, they essentially ruined and chance of getting straight 2nd degree murder.

Likely the jury will be down to the 3rd degree and 2nd manslaughter.

I'm still unsure how the judge will provide instructions for the 3rd degree murder, since it really doesn't apply to the situation at hand.

Didnt the judge throw that charge out, only to have an appellate court reinstate it. If thats the case, I REALLY dont know what the instructions could be on that one.

Yep.

The 3rd degree murder generally is an unintended victim murder...something like you are doing donuts in a parking lot (not meaning to hurt anyone) but you know its dangerous AF to do it, you still do it, and then things go awry and you lose control of your car and hit and kill someone.

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.


I'm not sure how the act of restraining a suspect falls into that sort of situation.

Oddly Floyd's passenger and now described drug dealer, should likely face the second part of that 3rd degree charge:

(b)Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.
(This post was last modified: 04-04-2021 12:23 PM by salukiblue.)
04-04-2021 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,344
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #185
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
04-04-2021 12:48 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Offline
No More Wire Hangars!
*

Posts: 9,704
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 1263
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #186
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-04-2021 12:48 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  CNN’s Van Jones Sends Dog Whistle to Rioters if Chauvin ‘Not’ Found Guilty of Killing George Floyd America Will Be in a ‘Dangerous Position’





America will be in a dangerous position either way Van...........
04-05-2021 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,344
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #187
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
Quote:Model and Black Lives Matter activist Maya Echols warned that Minneapolis would suffer riots and vandalism if former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin is not convicted for the death of George Floyd.

“If George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is gonna break loose,” Echols said in a now-removed video (see below). “Don’t be surprised when building are on fire. Just sayin’.”

The social media influencer, a signed IMG Worldwide model, has nearly half a million followers on TikTok.

Last summer, riots erupted in numerous cities over alleged racism by police officers against black people. Businesses were destroyed and more than a dozen people were killed during the chaos.

While some protesters have condemned the violence, some prominent Black Lives Matter activists have publicly excused and seemingly supported the destruction of cities.

Ashley Gantt, a prominent Black Lives Matter leader in Rochester, New York, for example, made waves last summer when she said she did not “care if the whole city burned down.” The Daily Wire reported:

“If there was looting, if there was things on fire, that is not what is important. What is important is why these things happen,” Gantt said, telling the media they have a job “to make sure that’s the story that’s heard.”

She referenced the riots that swept metropolitan areas across the country the day after Martin Luther King, Jr. died, noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed just months later.

“I am just tired of you guys not putting the correct narrative out there,” she said. “I don’t care if the whole city burned down. We need justice.”

Gantt later attempted to soften her remarks, saying that “of course” she does not want people to set the city on fire, but she does want people to understand that when it comes to “sustainable change, sometimes we have to do whatever it takes to get it.”

In another recent TikTok video from Echols, the model boasts of her “Black Lives Matter” face mask that she likes to wear at her grocery store in a “predominantly white” neighborhood. Echols claims “conservatives” give her dirty looks for the mask and bragged that she stares them down and looks “down on them” since she’s usually taller and “they’re not gonna say anything to me.”

“My new favorite guilty pleasure is going to the grocery store with this mask on,” she starts the video, taking off her “Black Lives Matter” mask. “I live in a predominately white area …. and the looks I get from these conservatives are crazy, like y’all would be shocked. Like, the death stares I get. It’s so funny to me, though.”

“Like, I get so much pleasure out of seeing somebody upset because I’m saying my life matters,” Echols continues. “Like, it makes me laugh. And then I just look at them dead in their face, and usually I’m taller than them, so I just look down at them, and I look them in their eyes, ’cause they’re not gonna say anything to me.”

Chauvin is currently on trial for second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in relation to Floyd’s death. The former officer can be found guilty of all, some, or none of the charges since they are all separate.

Since he has no criminal history, Chauvin is likely looking at “serving about 12 1/2 years whether he is convicted of second or third-degree murder,” according to The Associated Press. The manslaughter charge, which has the lowest burden of proof, would bring a maximum of 10 years in prison.

After officers were notified that Floyd allegedly gave counterfeit money at a convenience store back in May, Chauvin and three other officers arrested and detained Floyd. Viral video shows that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes while detaining Floyd.

“Chauvin’s attorneys argue that Floyd’s drug use was a crucial factor in his death. The Hennepin County medical examiner reported after Floyd’s autopsy that the deceased had potentially lethal levels of drugs in his system,” The Daily Wire noted Thursday.


Link
04-05-2021 11:53 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BartlettTigerFan Offline
Have gun Will travel
*

Posts: 33,047
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 3506
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Undetermined
Post: #188
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
Good. Burn it down.
04-05-2021 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagleaidaholic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,070
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #189
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-05-2021 11:58 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Good. Burn it down.

Until they show up in my town....IDC. Leftists fighting a Civil War against themselves on their own territory. Good soften it up so the good guys can come in and turn it around.
04-05-2021 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MemTigers1998 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,133
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 1877
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #190
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-05-2021 12:13 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Until they show up in my town....IDC.

Exactly. And if they do show up in my neighborhood to riot, they wont like the outcome for them.
04-05-2021 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,344
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #191
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
Quote:Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified at former police officer Derek Chauvin’s trial on Monday. While giving his testimony, he stated that Chauvin violated policy and training during his encounter with George Floyd.

The police chief stated that Chauvin should have removed his knee from Floyd’s neck “once there was no longer any resistance.”

“Clearly, when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive, and even motionless, to continue to apply that level of force to a person, prone, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way shape or form is anything that is by policy, is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics,” Arradondo said on the stand.

The police chief added: “Once Mr. Floyd had stopped resisting and certainly once he was in distress and verbalized that, that should’ve stopped.”

During his testimony, Arradondo also indicated that the police department provides officers with a number of different guidelines regarding their conduct during encounters with suspects. He stated that the officers’ training includes de-escalation techniques and defensive tactics to avoid fatal encounters. However, Chauvin did not follow any of those procedures during the incident with Floyd.

“Of all the things that we do as peace officers for the Minneapolis Police Department,” the police chief remarked, “it is my firm belief that the one singular incident we will be judge forever on will be our use of force.”

“And while it is absolutely imperative that our officers go home at the end of their shift, we want to ensure that our community members go home too,” he continued.

Arradondo also explained that officers receive “guidance” detailing how civilians have the right to film them during encounters with suspects. In the case of George Floyd, several civilians filmed the arrest and subsequent death with their cell phone cameras. Much of the footage that was filmed was shown to the jury.

Lt. Richard Zimmerman, the department’s highest-ranking homicide detective, told the court that Chauvin’s actions on that day were “totally unnecessary.”

On Thursday, retired Sgt. David Pleogar, like Arradondo, said that Chauvin should have removed his knee from Floyd’s neck after it was apparent that he “was no longer offering resistance.”

The testimonies from police officers and bystanders will be an essential part of the case. But medical evidence will also play a crucial role. Chauvin’s defense attorneys argue that Floyd’s drug use and underlying health conditions caused his death. However, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide.

Courteny Ross, Floyd’s girlfriend, testified last week and told the court that they both struggled with drug addiction. “Floyd and I both suffered with an opioid addiction,” Ross said.

“Both Floyd and I, it’s a classic story of how many people get addicted to opioids,” she explained. “We both suffered from chronic pain. Mine was in my neck and his was in his back.”

Derek Chauvin faces charges of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. The other three officers present at the scene of Floyd’s death are scheduled to stand trial in August for charges of aiding and abetting second-degree murder and manslaughter.


Link
04-05-2021 03:54 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #192
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
Officials are discrediting themselves. He stated he was in distress while resisting. If he wasn't resisting he would have been in the car.

Now clearly once he was non-responsive he should not have been on the guy's neck. The question is whether any of that is relevant to his death.
04-05-2021 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,344
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #193
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
04-05-2021 05:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #194
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.
04-05-2021 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #195
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-05-2021 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.

Testimony can be contradicted and the question again is whether it is relevant to the death.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2021 06:07 PM by bullet.)
04-05-2021 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,344
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #196
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
Quote:According to law professor and celebrity legal commentator, the prosecution of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd is descending into farce.

I previously wrote that the key to conviction in the Derek Chauvin trial (and avoiding a cascading failure in all four cases) is the autopsy findings and the role of drugs (including fentanyl) in the body of George Floyd. Prosecutors are now asking the jury to effectively dismiss the findings of the only official autopsy in the case and insist, contrary to those findings, that Floyd died from asphyxia, or, lack of oxygen. Some new disclosures may make that claim more difficult for the prosecution.

Last week, special prosecutor Jerry Blackwell admitted to jurors that Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker pointed to cardiac arrest as Floyd’s cause of death. However, he insisted that the state would prove that “was … not a fatal heart event,” but asphyxiation.

It is a bold move since it could invite reasonable doubt on the cause of death. The question is whether a case of manslaughter could have been advanced without the need of opposing the state’s own coroner on such findings. The failure of Chauvin to respond to a medical emergency speaks more to manslaughter than murder but it could be framed consistently with these findings. Instead, the prosecution has asked the jury to effectively reject the coroner’s findings — a risky maneuver.

Consider that for a moment. The prosecutor is asking the jury to ignore the findings of the Hennepin (MN) County medical examiner and to, of their own volition, rule that the cause of death in Floyd’s case was some form of asphyxiation caused by Floyd’s encounter with Chauvin and three other Minneapolis police officers. The same medical examiner’s autopsy has opined that had Floyd been found dead alone, his death would have been ruled a drug overdose.

Fentanyl at 11 ng/ml — this is higher than (a) chronic pain patient. If he were found dead at home alone & no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD (overdose). Deaths have been certified w/levels of 3.

You don’t have to like what you see in the video of Floyd’s apprehension on suspicion of passing counterfeit bills to acknowledge that Derek Chauvin is as much a human sacrifice to BLM as any Aztec captive who shuffled up a pyramid to have his beating heart torn out in honor of Xipe Totec. The prosecution team is reinforced by the Minnesota Attorney General’s office and, bizarrely, pro bono attorneys. The trial, itself, has now degraded to the point where the feelings of witnesses to the incident are included for, it seems, nothing more than shock value.

A professional fighter felt scared. An off-duty firefighter felt desperate. A high school student felt threatened. And a 9-year-old girl felt sad and kind of mad.

Feelings of horror and fear were recalled in a Minneapolis court Tuesday as a series of bystanders testified about what it was like to witness George Floyd slowly die under the knee of former police officer Derek Chauvin last May.

My colleague Jeff Charles reports that there was testimony today that Chauvin violated department policy (see Minneapolis Police Chief Says Chauvin Violated Department Policy During George Floyd Encounter). The same jurors will also view a training video by the Minneapolis Police Department that instructs officers on applying the precise kind of restraint that Chauvin used. Add to this the political grandstanding that led to Chauvin being charged with murder to appease those howling for Chauvin’s blood. It becomes undeniable that this trial has nothing to do with the events surrounding Floyd’s death and everything to do with the Minneapolis power structure making a statement.

It remains to be seen how the jury will react to the prosecutor disavowing the official autopsy and medical examiner’s report and asking them to mete out a vile travesty of justice based on the race of Floyd and Chauvin rather than on facts and evidence.

Link
04-05-2021 06:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,148
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 1647
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #197
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-05-2021 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.

You are jumping from A to Z without connecting any dots...

violated policy, or not, you still have to prove that act CAUSED the death. Now go ahead and prove the knee caused the death? First off they will need to show the amount of pressure from the knee and that relationship to the heart attack. Was there bruising from the knee? Surely there was deep tissue damage if the amount of force to cause a heart attack, was used?

violating policy doesnt have to mean its criminal

If that jury goes by the law they can not convict on any charges before them unless it can be proven the knee and the force of it caused the death.

Has anyone read where there was deep tissue bruising from the knee? Honestly you would probably need at least (and more) that before saying that was the cause of the heart attack....

cause of death is listed as HEART ATTACK and its up to the DA to prove something the assshole did caused that heart attack. Simple violated policy, doesnt do that.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2021 07:55 PM by WKUYG.)
04-05-2021 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #198
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-05-2021 07:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(04-05-2021 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.

You are jumping from A to Z without connecting any dots...

violated policy, or not, you still have to prove that act CAUSED the death. Now go ahead and prove the knee caused the death? First off they will need to show the amount of pressure from the knee and that relationship to the heart attack. Was there bruising from the knee? Surely there was deep tissue damage if the amount of force to cause a heart attack, was used?

violating policy doesnt have to mean its criminal

If that jury goes by the law they can not convict on any charges before them unless it can be proven the knee and the force of it caused the death.

Has anyone read where there was deep tissue bruising from the knee? Honestly you would probably need at least (and more) that before saying that was the cause of the heart attack....

cause of death is listed as HEART ATTACK and its up to the DA to prove something the assshole did caused that heart attack. Simple violated policy, doesnt do that.

All the juries I have been on have been pretty rational. Emotional testimony usually discredits the testimony. It only matters in the punishment phase, but I don't know if the juries determine punishment in Minnesota. They do in Texas.
04-05-2021 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #199
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-05-2021 06:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-05-2021 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.

Testimony can be contradicted and the question again is whether it is relevant to the death.

It's going to be hard to contradict the testimony of the chief of police about what the policy is. It is likely in writing.

More on the death in a moment.

(04-05-2021 07:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(04-05-2021 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.

You are jumping from A to Z without connecting any dots...

violated policy, or not, you still have to prove that act CAUSED the death. Now go ahead and prove the knee caused the death? First off they will need to show the amount of pressure from the knee and that relationship to the heart attack. Was there bruising from the knee? Surely they was deep tissue if the amount of force to cause a heart attack, was used?

violating policy doesnt have to mean its criminal

If that jury goes by the law they can not convict on any charges before them unless it can be proven the knee and the force of it caused the death.

Has anyone read where there was deep tissue bruising from the knee? Honestly you would probably need at least (and more) that before saying that was the cause of the heart attack....

cause of death is listed as HEART ATTACK and its up to the DA to prove something the assshole did caused that heart attack. Simple violated policy, doesnt do that.

I'm fairly confident that what you're both saying here isn't the case for people in a position of power like police.

The facts are that the guy was in custody and held in a 'submission' hold when it was unnecessary. He died during that time and there is no way anyone would not admit that a submission hold is specifically designed to put someone under pressure... which is precisely what would cause someone on drugs to die.

Let me say it differently.

The use of a tazer is considered non-lethal and is authorized by the police.. UNDER certain conditions established as policy by the police. If the police arrest someone and while he's in custody in the back seat of the car, a cop decides to tazer him in violation of policy, and he had a heart condition and dies as a result of his heart condition... you did not MURDER him, but you participated in an intentional act that scientifically would have contributed to his death, and he died.

He has SOME responsibility in this mans death. The way he avoids responsibility is not by arguing that the 'illegal' act by the cop wasn't the cause (something he can't prove) but by following policy.

If someone breaks into my house and I have a heart attack and die, my death is their fault... even if they had no reason to think it would have/should have killed me... or if I would have likely died even if he hadn't broken in. I just don't think you can argue and certainly not prove that the hold played no part in the death at all. And yes, in the case of 'engaging in an illegal act', the burden of proof shifts.
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2021 08:09 PM by Hambone10.)
04-05-2021 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #200
RE: Derek Chauvin Trial
(04-05-2021 08:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-05-2021 06:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-05-2021 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.

Testimony can be contradicted and the question again is whether it is relevant to the death.

It's going to be hard to contradict the testimony of the chief of police about what the policy is. It is likely in writing.

More on the death in a moment.

(04-05-2021 07:46 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(04-05-2021 05:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Because of the comments that he violated policy, his conviction of 'something' is all but assured.

His defense is essentially that he would have died anyway... and while that is a mitigating factor and likely goes to damages or charges of 'racism' (which may be solely what he's trying to get at)... it doesn't go to the charge, imo.

You are jumping from A to Z without connecting any dots...

violated policy, or not, you still have to prove that act CAUSED the death. Now go ahead and prove the knee caused the death? First off they will need to show the amount of pressure from the knee and that relationship to the heart attack. Was there bruising from the knee? Surely they was deep tissue if the amount of force to cause a heart attack, was used?

violating policy doesnt have to mean its criminal

If that jury goes by the law they can not convict on any charges before them unless it can be proven the knee and the force of it caused the death.

Has anyone read where there was deep tissue bruising from the knee? Honestly you would probably need at least (and more) that before saying that was the cause of the heart attack....

cause of death is listed as HEART ATTACK and its up to the DA to prove something the assshole did caused that heart attack. Simple violated policy, doesnt do that.

I'm fairly confident that what you're both saying here isn't the case for people in a position of power like police.

The facts are that the guy was in custody and held in a 'submission' hold when it was unnecessary. He died during that time and there is no way anyone would not admit that a submission hold is specifically designed to put someone under pressure... which is precisely what would cause someone on drugs to die.

Let me say it differently.

The use of a tazer is considered non-lethal and is authorized by the police.. UNDER certain conditions established as policy by the police. If the police arrest someone and while he's in custody in the back seat of the car, a cop decides to tazer him in violation of policy, and he had a heart condition and dies as a result of his heart condition... you did not MURDER him, but you participated in an intentional act that scientifically would have contributed to his death, and he died.

He has SOME responsibility in this mans death. The way he avoids responsibility is not by arguing that the 'illegal' act by the cop wasn't the cause (something he can't prove) but by following policy.

If someone breaks into my house and I have a heart attack and die, my death is their fault... even if they had no reason to think it would have/should have killed me... or if I would have likely died even if he hadn't broken in. I just don't think you can argue and certainly not prove that the hold played no part in the death at all. And yes, in the case of 'engaging in an illegal act', the burden of proof shifts.

As the other poster said, there is video of what the policy is. That carries more weight than the chief of police. Juries know people lie on the stand. You weigh it against the evidence.

Now it certainly hurts Chauvin's defense, but its not definitive.
04-05-2021 08:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.