As someone that’s waiting to watch the trial before forming an opinion, the thread title doesn’t bother me. Seems clear that Chauvin killed Floyd. The issue is whether or not there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt if it was not a lawful killing and if was not a lawful killing, if it was murder or manslaughter.
Seriously. One of the angles clearly shows him doing ‘something’ with his hand in his pocket. Not so clear in some of the other angles, which may explain why they are using some of those other angles predominatly. I know. I’m floored by the even thought, but is sure looks hinky to me. Watch again and see what you think.
To me GF looks like he was rather fidgety and anxious in the interior CCTV video. My take is either he knew he was trying to commit a felony or he was feeling the effects of drugs. Most people don’t get that apparently nervous just buying a pack of cigarettes.
This is perfectly reasonable, but it seems to be standard practice in even the most ‘open-and-shut’ cases of guilt, the word “Accused” is always used. Hell, there is a trial in my neck of the woods that the killer CONFESSED and they still refer to his as “accused”.
Agreed. In a perfect world, it could be a little less one-sided, but I’m not bothered by it.
And that adds to the anxiety of the situation that is facing the officers. This guy supposedly passed a single counterfeit $20 bill. A pretty easy defense if that is all it is, so why is this guy fighting so hard? Will they find 13 people dead at his house?
Also, as a defense attorney, I have watched enough of these videos where this “ex-con” talk is used. For example, when cuffs are attempted to be placed on a suspect many start screaming that their arm is being broken, that they are being hurt, etc. That cannot be enough to force an officer to disengage. I can see why Chauvin didn’t believe the “I can’t breathe” statement when: 1) that would allow anyone to escape a restraint if applied generally, 2) Floyd had said it before in a situation where nobody was restricting his breathing and he said it mere seconds after he was speaking and breathing just fine but only when forced into the patrol car, and 3) Floyd seemed to be speaking quite well. Yes, I don’t subscribe to the “if he’s talking, he’s breathing” statements but several times he lifted his head off the ground, was able to twist onto his side and was forming complete and articulate sentences.
For me, the case will come down to the propriety of that type of restraint, its guidelines, and exactly what it does to the body.
And here is the ‘Tell’. Watch the muscles in his forearm. Now, try to replicate that movement with your hand in your pocket. You’ll see what I mean. Not a pleasant thought, is it?
Sorry, are you suggesting that Floyd was lying about not being able to breath? When he actually died, was he just really committing to the bit?
Of course not. However, the question at trial is not whether Floyd was truly not able to breathe, but the officer’s reasonable perceptions of his comments in context and whether if, Floyd was unable to breathe with no restraints placed on his airway, what contribution did Chauvin’s restraint cause in his death?
You would agree that there is a difference between person A walking up to an officer on the street gasping and saying “I can’t breathe” versus Person B fighting with the officers for ten minutes and then saying “I can’t breathe,” yes? Surely just saying those words cannot be a command to law enforcement to stop trying to arrest you.
That is why I though he was having a panic/ anxiety attack at the time they were getting him into the car. He was in distress before they got him on the ground.
So, there’s a couple of non-mutually exclusive avenues you could go down:
1) Jury Nullification / Hung Jury: A hung jury is a win for the defense because it avoids a conviction. Hennepin County isn’t all the liberal city of Minneapolis. It extends into very conservative suburbs and even crimson-red MAGA-land farm country. The prosecution struck the most obvious of them, but there’s a lot of people that fly thin blue line flags and think Minneapolis proper is a crime infested hellhole full of rioters and carjackers and other lowlife scum and the city government won’t fund the police department enough to take care of the problem by arresting all the criminals. People that are scared of criminals and think the police are all that stands between them and a home invader kicking down their door and murdering them. Maybe they even defy court order and look online and see that Floyd did prison time for a violent home invasion.
2) Floyd actually died from the drugs. He actually did have a substantial amount of fentanyl in his system, everyone knows what happens to people that take fentanyl, and I believe voluntary intoxication negates the “eggshell skull” rule.
3) Just avoid the top charge. 2nd Degree Unintentional Murder would probably stick if he is convicted of it, but avoiding the conviction is doable since the prosecution must prove the underlying felony of assault, which requires intent, and that it rises to the level of a felony instead of misdemeanor assault or legal police restraint. A 3rd degree murder conviction is ripe for overturning on appeal due to the shaky case law, 2nd degree manslaughter would stick but carries substantially less prison time.
4) What he did was actually an authorized police technique to restrain a suspect that had a history of going berserk at encounters with police and was doing it again.
Nonsense. The crowd was upset because they were watching Derek Chauvin kill a man in broad daylight. To then turn around and say that he couldn’t stop killing Floyd because the crowd was agitated is the ultimate bullshit blame-shifting.
Totally conclusory. Have you watched any of the trial? The crowd had no frame of reference as to what the officers were faced with, and thus merely added to the confusion, especially with the hostile, insulting, and profane nature of their remarks.
Also, blame-shifting? Should we dispense with trials and put the “blame” where it “properly” belongs (where the first media report assigns it, for example)? Where is the default position for the blame to be placed so one does not then “shift” it?
The crowd is a red herring, brought up by aceplace57, who inferred that Chauvin was in a “tough” position because the crowd was “anger[ed].” He was implying - and you apparantly agree - that the crowd was at least partially at fault for Chauvin not releasing Floyd, and I say again that this is unmitigated nonsense. It shifts the blame for Chauvin’s actions onto the crowd. That’s the blame-shifting. It is particularly nonsensical in this instance since it was Chauvin’s actions that were riling the crowd up - it becomes a tautology.
What frame of reference can you come up with, Counselor, that would make a crowd ok with watching a man die under a cop’s knee?
Because some people end up dead in police custody whether they did something or not. I could see this being a frightening situation for alot of people.
It should be an indication that medical emergency may be happening and that should be an equal priority to arresting someone.
I asked the question earlier. What is an officer’s duty to someone in their custody who is having a possible medical emergency?
The defense has raised the issue of the crowd and the officer’s safety. I expect more will be said when the defense presents their case.
Officer Thao said (early interview) that his full focus was on the crowd. You see in the video that’s the direction he’s facing. The concern of being jumped by a crowd doesn’t require explaining. The guns the officers carry can’t be used in that situation. That would certainly be excessive force.
I’m still learning about the case. I want to hear the defense’s response to the charges. Chauvin’s actions killed George Floyd. His negligence and criminal intent are still to be decided. I think he will be convicted on some of the charges. I’m confident the jury will ultimately make the right decision.
A very good and well thought out post. Nevertheless, he carried that “authorized police technique” way beyond what could be deemed acceptable force and into the realm of slow murder.
It shifts the blame to a particular type of crowd. It’s an iteration of "these people are animals. You guys don’t understand, you’ve never dealt with them. I know our methods look terrible, but if you were here, you’d understand, what looks like brutality is the only thing Those People understand ".
It’s literally the same song and dance used to justify the brutality of slavery. "You weren’t there, you don’t know, trust the assessment of me, a dude that looks like you, and don’t identify with the people that don’t. "
Morries Lester Hall a passenger in Floyd’s car won’t testify. There was also a woman in that car. Maybe she will testify?
https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article/news/local/george-floyd/derek-chauvin-trial-day-three-george-floyd-minneapolis/89-5015df59-3f10-4ad6-a91e-5ba1fc2ddfa6
I guess the lawyers read it his thread. 
I mention the female passenger and she pops up in the trial a couple hours later.
Turns out her name is Courteney Ross and was Floyd’s gf. She testified the guy in the car, Morries Lester Hall supplied their drugs.
Ross met Floyd when he was a security guard at the Salvation Army. I’m glad we’re learning about Floyd’s work and feelings towards his gf. There’s more to their story together than just opiates.