FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > What is your verdict in George Floyd murder trial
What is your verdict in George Floyd murder trial
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens !" Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting  Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that "Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation. Seems reasonable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have feeling it won’t end the way people think. " How do you think it will end ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have feeling it won’t end the way people think. How do you think it will end ?" I think he will be found guilty for sure. But of a lesser charge. I hope that’s not the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty on all counts." How could anyone possibility come to an impartial verdict without seeing the evidence or knowing all the facts of the case. Once people have heard all the evidence they might be in a better position to judge . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think I'll let the Judge and Jury decide. " I think I will too. I don't know American homicide law and I certainly don't know police procedures and guidelines in that particular state. I just hope he gets a fair, unbiased trial, justice is done and no rioting in the streets whatever verdict gets returned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation.
Seems reasonable."Yeah, because the officer sure wanted to kill him. So much logic  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation.
Seems reasonable.
Yeah, because the officer sure wanted to kill him. So much logic "He did kill him though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation.
Seems reasonable."The officers were in a difficult situation and dealing with a voilent career criminal. Had the officer released his grip it is quite possible that Floyd would simply have run away. His past record would indicate that he was a not a particularly law abiding citizen. Anyone can pass judgement after the event. Based on what happened at the time , I would be fairly confident that the officer concerned had no intention of killing or hurting him. Had he released his grip Floyd may have used it as an opportunity to run up. Events such as this are easily avoided if criminals co operate with the police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation.
Seems reasonable. The officers were in a difficult situation and dealing with a voilent career criminal. Had the officer released his grip it is quite possible that Floyd would simply have run away. His past record would indicate that he was a not a particularly law abiding citizen. Anyone can pass judgement after the event. Based on what happened at the time , I would be fairly confident that the officer concerned had no intention of killing or hurting him. Had he released his grip Floyd may have used it as an opportunity to run up. Events such as this are easily avoided if criminals co operate with the police. "I'm just going to throw it out there. Letting him run away, and executing him on the spot via suffocation, where probably not the only options. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The officers were in a difficult situation and dealing with a voilent career criminal " The officers didn't know who he was or anything about his past. All they knew was he had allegedly tried to use a fake $20 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation.
Seems reasonable. The officers were in a difficult situation and dealing with a voilent career criminal. Had the officer released his grip it is quite possible that Floyd would simply have run away. His past record would indicate that he was a not a particularly law abiding citizen. Anyone can pass judgement after the event. Based on what happened at the time , I would be fairly confident that the officer concerned had no intention of killing or hurting him. Had he released his grip Floyd may have used it as an opportunity to run up. Events such as this are easily avoided if criminals co operate with the police.
I'm just going to throw it out there. Letting him run away, and executing him on the spot via suffocation, where probably not the only options."I think we can be fairly confident that when the officer went to work on the day in question he had no intention of hurting or injuring anyone . Events have simply conspired against him . How was he to know whether Floyds claims about being unable to breath were true or false . ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation.
Seems reasonable. The officers were in a difficult situation and dealing with a voilent career criminal. Had the officer released his grip it is quite possible that Floyd would simply have run away. His past record would indicate that he was a not a particularly law abiding citizen. Anyone can pass judgement after the event. Based on what happened at the time , I would be fairly confident that the officer concerned had no intention of killing or hurting him. Had he released his grip Floyd may have used it as an opportunity to run up. Events such as this are easily avoided if criminals co operate with the police.
I'm just going to throw it out there. Letting him run away, and executing him on the spot via suffocation, where probably not the only options. I think we can be fairly confident that when the officer went to work on the day in question he had no intention of hurting or injuring anyone . Events have simply conspired against him . How was he to know whether Floyds claims about being unable to breath were true or false . ? "Some might suggest that Chauvin isn't in fact the real victim here, and that actually Floyd George was the one that events conspired against. Is suffocating to death not enough of an indication that someone is unable to breathe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The officers were in a difficult situation and dealing with a voilent career criminal The officers didn't know who he was or anything about his past. All they knew was he had allegedly tried to use a fake $20" really i thought him and the bloke on trial knew each other before that day.a gym or somewhere | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i thought him and the bloke on trial knew each other before that day.a gym or somewhere" They were both security at the same venue. One worked inside, one outside but there is no proof they ever knew each other or even saw each other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that "Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck! Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” .... So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation! I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty on all counts." And again I make the plea... can we please not call it the George floyd murder child and rather call it the derek chauvin murder trial.... George floyd is not the one on the stand... derek chauvin is! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kneeling on a man's neck for almost 9 mins..definitely should be found guilty. I don't want to hear about how difficult Police job is that was an execution. " if he was kneeling on him for 9 minutes could it be the guy wouldn't do as asked ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty on all counts. And again I make the plea... can we please not call it the George floyd murder child and rather call it the derek chauvin murder trial.... George floyd is not the one on the stand... derek chauvin is! " I understand why you say this but surely is actions should be questioned should it even be called a murder trial . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world..... "Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kneeling on a man's neck for almost 9 mins..definitely should be found guilty. I don't want to hear about how difficult Police job is that was an execution. if he was kneeling on him for 9 minutes could it be the guy wouldn't do as asked ?" Let's say, for arguments sake, he wasn't doing as asked. Was he likely to have not been doing as asked right up until he suffocated to death with a knee on his throat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat? "So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?"Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him get a grip with your nonsense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense "Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?"You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd "Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd
Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue?"My point is that it is obvious they should not have killed him, but hey shit happens and it is what it is now. Your idea that it was intentional doesnt actually makes sense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd
Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue?
My point is that it is obvious they should not have killed him, but hey shit happens and it is what it is now. Your idea that it was intentional doesnt actually makes sense "I would suggest that your attitude of "hey shit happens" is more problematic than your assumption of my opinion on what happened. A man lost his life for using a forged bank note. To some people, that's abhorrent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd
Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue?
My point is that it is obvious they should not have killed him, but hey shit happens and it is what it is now. Your idea that it was intentional doesnt actually makes sense
I would suggest that your attitude of "hey shit happens" is more problematic than your assumption of my opinion on what happened.
A man lost his life for using a forged bank note. To some people, that's abhorrent.
"Moral of the story is: kids, dont commit crime | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd
Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue?
My point is that it is obvious they should not have killed him, but hey shit happens and it is what it is now. Your idea that it was intentional doesnt actually makes sense
I would suggest that your attitude of "hey shit happens" is more problematic than your assumption of my opinion on what happened.
A man lost his life for using a forged bank note. To some people, that's abhorrent.
Moral of the story is: kids, dont commit crime "What does that mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd
Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue?
My point is that it is obvious they should not have killed him, but hey shit happens and it is what it is now. Your idea that it was intentional doesnt actually makes sense
I would suggest that your attitude of "hey shit happens" is more problematic than your assumption of my opinion on what happened.
A man lost his life for using a forged bank note. To some people, that's abhorrent.
Moral of the story is: kids, dont commit crime "He was suspected of committing a crime. It hadn't been proven. Should the police kill everyone suspected of a crime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd
Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue?
My point is that it is obvious they should not have killed him, but hey shit happens and it is what it is now. Your idea that it was intentional doesnt actually makes sense
I would suggest that your attitude of "hey shit happens" is more problematic than your assumption of my opinion on what happened.
A man lost his life for using a forged bank note. To some people, that's abhorrent.
Moral of the story is: kids, dont commit crime
He was suspected of committing a crime. It hadn't been proven.
Should the police kill everyone suspected of a crime?"Do you think before you write these questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge." Subdued? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Funny enough seen the video more times than I would like.... police were so threatened by both him and the crowd that they actually all put their guns away once they took him out of the police car and put him on the floor.... in fact chauvin was so threatened by the situation that not only did he put his gun away, he had his hands in his pockets the whole time the knee was only his neck!
Those actions don’t scream “we are scared shitless” ....
So for all of the excuses you gave police in your 2nd paragraph the reality is none of those things happened in this situation!
I know you don’t believe racism doesn’t exist in your cosy little world.....
Where do you come up with this scared shitless nonsense? Do they have to restrain him only if they are fearing for their lives? If he doesnt comply with the orders, they can restrain him. If he is causing damage to police property, they can restrain him. Your idea is that they can only restrain him if he is a threat?
So you're suggesting that it was okay to execute him if he had the potential to be annoying or maybe he might have scratched their car?
Good god, you keep on your nonsense that he intentionally executed him
get a grip with your nonsense
Are there any circumstances that, in your opinion, would mean that the police should not have killed him?
You keep implying like he inentionally killed him. Like his whole idea was just to execute him on the street superb logic. Who wouldnt want to kill someone just for fun and being watched by a crowd
Any chance of an opinion on the subject or is it easier just to slag off people who want to discuss the issue?
My point is that it is obvious they should not have killed him, but hey shit happens and it is what it is now. Your idea that it was intentional doesnt actually makes sense
I would suggest that your attitude of "hey shit happens" is more problematic than your assumption of my opinion on what happened.
A man lost his life for using a forged bank note. To some people, that's abhorrent.
Moral of the story is: kids, dont commit crime
He was suspected of committing a crime. It hadn't been proven.
Should the police kill everyone suspected of a crime?
Do you think before you write these questions? "You implied that it's cool the police killed him because he was suspected of a crime. Just wanted to clarify. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge." For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated?" Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Thank you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Premeditated can occur at anytime , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you!" Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated "Why wasn’t it premeditated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated? "Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green? Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it "The officers knee was on George Floyds neck for 8 mins 46 seconds do you think that was necessary ? or are you incapable of thinking for yourself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it "I can tell you why the sky is blue  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated "Everything okay? The above poster helped me out with a definition. Don't take this as I agree with you that the police should kill anyone suspected of a crime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it
The officers knee was on George Floyds neck for 8 mins 46 seconds do you think that was necessary ? or are you incapable of thinking for yourself? "You assume that because he had a knee on his neck he intended to kill him? Maybe, just maybe, he intended to restrain him using force, wrong use, but still not an intention to kill But hey you already know what the officer was thinking in his head
This forum is so much fun. I dont care one bit about Floyd or Chauvin, I just come here to laugh at your (people on fab) zero logic posts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it
The officers knee was on George Floyds neck for 8 mins 46 seconds do you think that was necessary ? or are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
You assume that because he had a knee on his neck he intended to kill him? Maybe, just maybe, he intended to restrain him using force, wrong use, but still not an intention to kill
But hey you already know what the officer was thinking in his head
This forum is so much fun. I dont care one bit about Floyd or Chauvin, I just come here to laugh at your (people on fab) zero logic posts "Does it feel nice to ridicule people who do care about this issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it
The officers knee was on George Floyds neck for 8 mins 46 seconds do you think that was necessary ? or are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
You assume that because he had a knee on his neck he intended to kill him? Maybe, just maybe, he intended to restrain him using force, wrong use, but still not an intention to kill
But hey you already know what the officer was thinking in his head
This forum is so much fun. I dont care one bit about Floyd or Chauvin, I just come here to laugh at your (people on fab) zero logic posts "Do you know more about restraining people than Minneapolis homicide detective Richard Zimmerman ? Come on Mrrighty, try and have your own opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it
The officers knee was on George Floyds neck for 8 mins 46 seconds do you think that was necessary ? or are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
You assume that because he had a knee on his neck he intended to kill him? Maybe, just maybe, he intended to restrain him using force, wrong use, but still not an intention to kill
But hey you already know what the officer was thinking in his head
This forum is so much fun. I dont care one bit about Floyd or Chauvin, I just come here to laugh at your (people on fab) zero logic posts "So your a troll? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it
The officers knee was on George Floyds neck for 8 mins 46 seconds do you think that was necessary ? or are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
You assume that because he had a knee on his neck he intended to kill him? Maybe, just maybe, he intended to restrain him using force, wrong use, but still not an intention to kill
But hey you already know what the officer was thinking in his head
This forum is so much fun. I dont care one bit about Floyd or Chauvin, I just come here to laugh at your (people on fab) zero logic posts
So your a troll? "Not really, just having fun talking on a forum like everybody else. Arent you having fun on forum? Or are you trying to save the world by debating on a swingers forum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Thank you! Finally,we come to an agreement that it wasnt murder as it wasnt premeditated
Why wasn’t it premeditated?
Why was it premeditated? Why the sky is blue? Why the grass is green?
Can you ask normal questions, because you simply you have an idea with no evidence and you go with it
The officers knee was on George Floyds neck for 8 mins 46 seconds do you think that was necessary ? or are you incapable of thinking for yourself?
You assume that because he had a knee on his neck he intended to kill him? Maybe, just maybe, he intended to restrain him using force, wrong use, but still not an intention to kill
But hey you already know what the officer was thinking in his head
This forum is so much fun. I dont care one bit about Floyd or Chauvin, I just come here to laugh at your (people on fab) zero logic posts
So your a troll?
Not really, just having fun talking on a forum like everybody else. Arent you having fun on forum? Or are you trying to save the world by debating on a swingers forum? "Yes, I am having ‘fun’ , it is a sex site forum , not really the place to change the world | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." That 1st degree murder... He has been charged with 2nd degree murder (you can take out the word premeditated out but you can put the word deliberate action in from the description above) and 3rd degree murder (which Minnesota has but most states dont) in which your actions were so reckless they let to a murder) He has also been charged with 2nd degree manslaughter... which would be if the murder was accidental.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. That 1st degree murder... He has been charged with 2nd degree murder (you can take out the word premeditated out but you can put the word deliberate action in from the description above) and 3rd degree murder (which Minnesota has but most states dont) in which your actions were so reckless they let to a murder) He has also been charged with 2nd degree manslaughter... which would be if the murder was accidental...." Premeditated for the terms of murder 1 would be an act that was planned in advance.... hope that helps.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. That 1st degree murder... He has been charged with 2nd degree murder (you can take out the word premeditated out but you can put the word deliberate action in from the description above) and 3rd degree murder (which Minnesota has but most states dont) in which your actions were so reckless they let to a murder) He has also been charged with 2nd degree manslaughter... which would be if the murder was accidental.... Premeditated for the terms of murder 1 would be an act that was planned in advance.... hope that helps...." Your right the 9 minutes should prove as intent for 3rd degree in minnesota. My bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. That 1st degree murder... He has been charged with 2nd degree murder (you can take out the word premeditated out but you can put the word deliberate action in from the description above) and 3rd degree murder (which Minnesota has but most states dont) in which your actions were so reckless they let to a murder) He has also been charged with 2nd degree manslaughter... which would be if the murder was accidental.... Premeditated for the terms of murder 1 would be an act that was planned in advance.... hope that helps.... Your right the 9 minutes should prove as intent for 3rd degree in minnesota. My bad." 2nd typo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. That 1st degree murder... He has been charged with 2nd degree murder (you can take out the word premeditated out but you can put the word deliberate action in from the description above) and 3rd degree murder (which Minnesota has but most states dont) in which your actions were so reckless they let to a murder) He has also been charged with 2nd degree manslaughter... which would be if the murder was accidental.... Premeditated for the terms of murder 1 would be an act that was planned in advance.... hope that helps...." So in your logic everything could be classed as premeditated Of course the officer planned to restrain him. Did he plan to kill him? Of course not.
Is getting out of bed in the morning also classed as premeditated murder? As this action and the chain of events led to the death of Floyd | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely Guilty ! Everything Chauvin did was a criminal act of torture on George Floyd that resulted in his death from lack of oxygen, per the coroners statement. Even the 35 year senior detective statement was that Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's neck was completely unnecessary and could cause death. Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle. Chauvin intentionally tortured George Floyd and took it too far. If there's not a guilty verdict and serious prison time for Chauvin, then just watch what happens ! Once he was handcuffed he should have been sitting up or put in the police vehicle? Have you seen the video? Seriously? The whole point was that he was handcuffed and they couldnt put him in police vehicle as he was resisting Did you actually watch the video?
Criminals can still cause damage and kick things when they are handcuffed. So police has few things to deal with it : spray them, taze them or cause pain for them to stop. Of course spraying and tazing is troublesome for police officers, as they use tools for that, so the best option is to cause pain. Best way is to pull the handcuffed arms or twist them, so there are no marks and it causes imense pain - usually stops the criminals from doing some shit. A couple of officers could hardly restrain Floyd so an arm twist would hardly work and in the video you could see that they tried using it.
It is funny in general that keyboard warriors discuss police brutality on forums then in reality its a difficult and dangerous work and you wouldnt want to even try working something like that
Yeah. It was difficult to taser him so they executed him by suffocation.
Seems reasonable.
Yeah, because the officer sure wanted to kill him. So much logic
He did kill him though.
"We don't know that, they'll be medical evidence presented that he had a fatal level of fentanyl in his system plus other health problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. For it to be murder, does it have to be premeditated? Murder definition - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. That 1st degree murder... He has been charged with 2nd degree murder (you can take out the word premeditated out but you can put the word deliberate action in from the description above) and 3rd degree murder (which Minnesota has but most states dont) in which your actions were so reckless they let to a murder) He has also been charged with 2nd degree manslaughter... which would be if the murder was accidental.... Premeditated for the terms of murder 1 would be an act that was planned in advance.... hope that helps.... So in your logic everything could be classed as premeditated Of course the officer planned to restrain him. Did he plan to kill him? Of course not.
Is getting out of bed in the morning also classed as premeditated murder? As this action and the chain of events led to the death of Floyd "Erm... no! What I laid out were the definition of the charges he has been charged with... murder 2, murder 3 and manslaughter! The prosecution need to argument that kneeling on the neck and not letting up was as a deliberate act, or at worst a reckless action..... The defence are arguing that the knee on the neck was incidental.. and he would have died anyway! Which one of those is really more plausible...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty on all counts." And I will say that coming up with a verdict before the trial is precisely the sort of bad attitude that leads to riots and disorder. Sit back, listen to all the evidence, then form a judgment. Please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge." Your right. He is guilty of manslaughter. 1st degree murder doesnt apply as you said. He should get manslaughter, with max time attached to it. Then let's just hope that most of society is satisfied with the verdict and punishment, so there's limited civil unrest to follow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's manslaughter plain and simple. He was cuffed and subdued. Felony murder does not apply it was not pre meditated. Max manslaughter charge. Your right. He is guilty of manslaughter. 1st degree murder doesnt apply as you said. He should get manslaughter, with max time attached to it. Then let's just hope that most of society is satisfied with the verdict and punishment, so there's limited civil unrest to follow. " But remember the definitions for murder 2 and murder 3.... Murder 2 .... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru a deliberate action (knee on neck and not taking it off?) Murder 3..... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was not deliberate, but excessively reckless (knee on neck) Manslaughter 2 ... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was accidental but not excessively reckless The issue is do you consider the action of putting knee on neck AND the time it was in that position to be an acceptable action in that situation If answer is no.... then you have to decide if it was deliberate, reckless or accidental | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"im starting to wonder about quite a few people on fab, as in are they in control of their own thoughts lol they spend all day everyday having non sense arguments. I suggest we leave this incident to a jury, who will know far more about it than us. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does it really matter.. ?" Abso-bloody-lutely it does Tom.... care to guess the amount of policemen in history of the us that have been found guilty of a murder of a black person whilst on duty? I’ll give you time to go look it up...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does it really matter.. ? Abso-bloody-lutely it does Tom.... care to guess the amount of policemen in history of the us that have been found guilty of a murder of a black person whilst on duty? I’ll give you time to go look it up......" So jail the fucker for life if he is found guilty.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty on all counts. And I will say that coming up with a verdict before the trial is precisely the sort of bad attitude that leads to riots and disorder. Sit back, listen to all the evidence, then form a judgment. Please. There is no room in this case for technicality the video speak for it self. The Police used inappropriate and excessive force to cause the death of Mr Floyd and that's the bottom line. " Well unfortunately, there is room for technicality, like it or not. Which is exactly why we have proper criminal trials in western liberal society. There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? And the jury get to hear evidence from professionals and make their own minds up. I’m gonna play devils advocate and guess you’re not a forensic pathologist. I’m gonna wait and see what other evidence gets heard but from what I’ve seen so far, the prosecution are struggling to build a strong enough picture to convict on murder charges. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty on all counts. And I will say that coming up with a verdict before the trial is precisely the sort of bad attitude that leads to riots and disorder. Sit back, listen to all the evidence, then form a judgment. Please. There is no room in this case for technicality the video speak for it self. The Police used inappropriate and excessive force to cause the death of Mr Floyd and that's the bottom line. Well unfortunately, there is room for technicality, like it or not. Which is exactly why we have proper criminal trials in western liberal society. There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? And the jury get to hear evidence from professionals and make their own minds up. I’m gonna play devils advocate and guess you’re not a forensic pathologist. I’m gonna wait and see what other evidence gets heard but from what I’ve seen so far, the prosecution are struggling to build a strong enough picture to convict on murder charges. " https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/30/despite-damning-video-complex-legal-issues-make-chauvin-trial-unpredictable/ Uc berkeley law professor. Intriguing read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? " One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? " I’ll say it once more then I’m out - there is evidence being introduced that he had a lethal level of fentanyl in his system already. Let’s just pay attention to all the evidence as it comes out before jumping to conclusions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? " You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. " The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy." I’m not too clued up on the degree thing in American law. I only know UK criminal law which is simpler. There’s murder and manslaughter and that’s about it. But murder is common law and relies on both mens rea and reus actus of the suspect to be beyond all reasonable doubt for a conviction. I’d imagine it’s the same for first degree murder in America. And there are too many other factors that need to be considered that (in my observations at least) detract from the solidity of a murder conviction. Ie the phenomenal levels of fentanyl and meth, the previous OD from March and it’s similar side effects on Floyd... That’s not to say the knee on the neck wasn’t a factor, but I don’t think it’s provable beyond on reasonable doubt that’s solely what killed Floyd. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy. I’m not too clued up on the degree thing in American law. I only know UK criminal law which is simpler. There’s murder and manslaughter and that’s about it. But murder is common law and relies on both mens rea and reus actus of the suspect to be beyond all reasonable doubt for a conviction. I’d imagine it’s the same for first degree murder in America. And there are too many other factors that need to be considered that (in my observations at least) detract from the solidity of a murder conviction. Ie the phenomenal levels of fentanyl and meth, the previous OD from March and it’s similar side effects on Floyd... That’s not to say the knee on the neck wasn’t a factor, but I don’t think it’s provable beyond on reasonable doubt that’s solely what killed Floyd. " It is on the jury who is culpable and to what extent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy. I’m not too clued up on the degree thing in American law. I only know UK criminal law which is simpler. There’s murder and manslaughter and that’s about it. But murder is common law and relies on both mens rea and reus actus of the suspect to be beyond all reasonable doubt for a conviction. I’d imagine it’s the same for first degree murder in America. And there are too many other factors that need to be considered that (in my observations at least) detract from the solidity of a murder conviction. Ie the phenomenal levels of fentanyl and meth, the previous OD from March and it’s similar side effects on Floyd... That’s not to say the knee on the neck wasn’t a factor, but I don’t think it’s provable beyond on reasonable doubt that’s solely what killed Floyd. It is on the jury who is culpable and to what extent. " before i speak on this i always go for a news update and every update throws up new issues! glad im not on jury! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy. I’m not too clued up on the degree thing in American law. I only know UK criminal law which is simpler. There’s murder and manslaughter and that’s about it. But murder is common law and relies on both mens rea and reus actus of the suspect to be beyond all reasonable doubt for a conviction. I’d imagine it’s the same for first degree murder in America. And there are too many other factors that need to be considered that (in my observations at least) detract from the solidity of a murder conviction. Ie the phenomenal levels of fentanyl and meth, the previous OD from March and it’s similar side effects on Floyd... That’s not to say the knee on the neck wasn’t a factor, but I don’t think it’s provable beyond on reasonable doubt that’s solely what killed Floyd. It is on the jury who is culpable and to what extent. before i speak on this i always go for a news update and every update throws up new issues! glad im not on jury!" . Exactly I don't wish that jury detail on anyone. A damned if you do damned if you you don't situation. I feel for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty on all counts." Yes that guy is GUILTY....shocking what he did  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy. I’m not too clued up on the degree thing in American law. I only know UK criminal law which is simpler. There’s murder and manslaughter and that’s about it. But murder is common law and relies on both mens rea and reus actus of the suspect to be beyond all reasonable doubt for a conviction. I’d imagine it’s the same for first degree murder in America. And there are too many other factors that need to be considered that (in my observations at least) detract from the solidity of a murder conviction. Ie the phenomenal levels of fentanyl and meth, the previous OD from March and it’s similar side effects on Floyd... That’s not to say the knee on the neck wasn’t a factor, but I don’t think it’s provable beyond on reasonable doubt that’s solely what killed Floyd. " Well, that's the point of the trial isn't it? It may not be murder if, for example, the jury accepts the defence claim that GF's health broke the chain of causation. Personally, I think that's unlikely as usually the law requires you to take your victim as you find them. Otherwise known as the thin skull rule. However, at the very least the police officer was negligent in his duty of care and I suspect guilty of gross negligence manslaughter (which only requires his conduct to be below the standards of the reasonable police officer and so grossly unreasonable that it is deemed by the jury to be criminal). As it's extremely rare - almost unheard of - for police officers to be convicted of killing black people, in the line of duty, in the US - my guess is he'll be found guilty on the lesser manslaughter charge. That I think is what the defence is praying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy. I’m not too clued up on the degree thing in American law. I only know UK criminal law which is simpler. There’s murder and manslaughter and that’s about it. But murder is common law and relies on both mens rea and reus actus of the suspect to be beyond all reasonable doubt for a conviction. I’d imagine it’s the same for first degree murder in America. And there are too many other factors that need to be considered that (in my observations at least) detract from the solidity of a murder conviction. Ie the phenomenal levels of fentanyl and meth, the previous OD from March and it’s similar side effects on Floyd... That’s not to say the knee on the neck wasn’t a factor, but I don’t think it’s provable beyond on reasonable doubt that’s solely what killed Floyd. Well, that's the point of the trial isn't it? It may not be murder if, for example, the jury accepts the defence claim that GF's health broke the chain of causation. Personally, I think that's unlikely as usually the law requires you to take your victim as you find them. Otherwise known as the thin skull rule. However, at the very least the police officer was negligent in his duty of care and I suspect guilty of gross negligence manslaughter (which only requires his conduct to be below the standards of the reasonable police officer and so grossly unreasonable that it is deemed by the jury to be criminal). As it's extremely rare - almost unheard of - for police officers to be convicted of killing black people, in the line of duty, in the US - my guess is he'll be found guilty on the lesser manslaughter charge. That I think is what the defence is praying. " I agree with you. I’ve maintained my position from day 4 of the trial. In the UK if a police officer was found to be negligent resulting in the death of a suspect in custody then it would be classed as corporate manslaughter. I’ve not said at any point Chauvin will get away with it all. I’m challenging the OP’s position that it’s open and shut murder, a decision he’s reached from a single video source and without (apparently) paying any attention to any of the witness testimonies and cross examinations that have taken place so far. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There’s more than one video for a start so which are you referring to? One video shows a police officer kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes until he is dead. What does the other video show ? You’re assuming that’s what killed George Floyd. That’s not clear cut. One witness has already had his evidence discredited by the defence for his claim that the knee was a ‘blood ch0ke’ and had to back pedal and admit that no, a knee on the neck is not a ‘blood ch0ke’. Body cams from other officers show a lot more of the incident, the build up to the arrest, attempted transport and subsequent struggle with officers, then the restraint on the floor. All relevant when you’re talking about convicting someone of murder. It’s kind of important. Devil is in the detail as with all criminal cases. The majority of people do not understand the degrees of murder convictions.I talk about it everyday. Some people assume life in prison because if you kill a police officer and are convicted you either get life or the death penalty. Alot of people want that retribution. I does not apply to this case. So I predict unrest again. Take it as you will the outcome will not satisfiy. I’m not too clued up on the degree thing in American law. I only know UK criminal law which is simpler. There’s murder and manslaughter and that’s about it. But murder is common law and relies on both mens rea and reus actus of the suspect to be beyond all reasonable doubt for a conviction. I’d imagine it’s the same for first degree murder in America. And there are too many other factors that need to be considered that (in my observations at least) detract from the solidity of a murder conviction. Ie the phenomenal levels of fentanyl and meth, the previous OD from March and it’s similar side effects on Floyd... That’s not to say the knee on the neck wasn’t a factor, but I don’t think it’s provable beyond on reasonable doubt that’s solely what killed Floyd. Well, that's the point of the trial isn't it? It may not be murder if, for example, the jury accepts the defence claim that GF's health broke the chain of causation. Personally, I think that's unlikely as usually the law requires you to take your victim as you find them. Otherwise known as the thin skull rule. However, at the very least the police officer was negligent in his duty of care and I suspect guilty of gross negligence manslaughter (which only requires his conduct to be below the standards of the reasonable police officer and so grossly unreasonable that it is deemed by the jury to be criminal). As it's extremely rare - almost unheard of - for police officers to be convicted of killing black people, in the line of duty, in the US - my guess is he'll be found guilty on the lesser manslaughter charge. That I think is what the defence is praying. " The thin skull rule and the associated case with the remote control take me way back to Uni. I’m thinking along the lines of a lesser charge as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ? "What does that mean MrRightly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?"That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops "Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ? "It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot "No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot
No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ? "Yeah,so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot
No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ?
Yeah,so? "It was pathetic , imagine rioting because people couldn’t accept he lost , they didn’t steal any TVs though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot
No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ?
Yeah,so?
It was pathetic , imagine rioting because people couldn’t accept he lost , they didn’t steal any TVs though. "That wasn't a riot it was a insurrection. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot
No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ?
Yeah,so?
It was pathetic , imagine rioting because people couldn’t accept he lost , they didn’t steal any TVs though. "Why have you started talking about trump? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot
No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ?
Yeah,so?
It was pathetic , imagine rioting because people couldn’t accept he lost , they didn’t steal any TVs though.
Why have you started talking about trump? "I was talking about the reasons why people in America riot , Trump losing was one of the reasons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot
No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ?
Yeah,so?
It was pathetic , imagine rioting because people couldn’t accept he lost , they didn’t steal any TVs though.
Why have you started talking about trump? "hes like a hamster on his little wheel going round and round but never actually getting anywhere lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The real question is, those who live in USA, have you already decided what brand new TV you will get for free ?
What does that mean MrRightly?
That riots are coming. And a lot of those rioters will use the opportunity just to loot shops
Why are riots coming? Do you know the result of the trial ?
It doesn't really matter what will be result, unless its life in prison, people will riot. Papa needs a new pair of shoes. Well, there might even be some looting in UK, you should give it a shot
No thanks. There might be riots if justice isn’t served, it has happened before. Do you remember the riots at Capitol Hill when big baby Trump wouldn’t accept defeat ?
Yeah,so?
It was pathetic , imagine rioting because people couldn’t accept he lost , they didn’t steal any TVs though.
Why have you started talking about trump?
hes like a hamster on his little wheel going round and round but never actually getting anywhere lol "Strange times when we agree. Going round and round he may be. But he has a huge following of millions that believe everything he says without thought or question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On the evidence despite chauvin being a sadist and exhibiting extreme negligence ,a guilty of murder should not be the outcome. There is too much doubt as to cause of death given the autopsy establishing no sign of asphyxiation and lethal doses of barbiturates in his system. Trials have to disregard the emotionality of the event and not assuage a baying mob and yet we all know that is exactly what will happen. Let's hypothesise ..if the circumstances were exactly the same and the dead guy was white , would chauvin even have been charged? I think a manslaughter charge should be the outcome. " There’s even more evidence today showing Chauvin was actually kneeling on Floyd’s clavicle and not his neck, which the police chief had to admit looked completely different from the phone footage being used by the prosecution as primary evidence. It’s all very very confusing and there’s too many questions. I think a negligent manslaughter charge would be appropriate myself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them." Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him "He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased. Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !"Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic "Is a "keyboard warrior" someone to posts angry messages with cheap insults on a web forum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic "You de-escalate and wait - as any competent police Officer in any country in the world would tell you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic
Is a "keyboard warrior" someone to posts angry messages with cheap insults on a web forum?"Maybe you will try to answer what should have officers done instead?I mean a real working solution instead of not doing anything? A lot of people are quick here to tell what the officers shouldn;t have done only. It seems reality is different from forum battles | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic
You de-escalate and wait - as any competent police Officer in any country in the world would tell you."You de-escalate and wait for what? Christmas? 10 Officers to arrive? And they would get him in the car then 4 officers couldnt? Well then, defund the police slogan should change, as they would definitely need a bigger police force sending 10 officers to each case | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !"Handcuffed prisoners can still be very aggressive. There are instances of police officers being badly bitten, kicked and even a Georgia sheriff's deputy who was fatally stabbed by a handcuffed inmate and another seriously another wounded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic
Is a "keyboard warrior" someone to posts angry messages with cheap insults on a web forum?
Maybe you will try to answer what should have officers done instead?I mean a real working solution instead of not doing anything? A lot of people are quick here to tell what the officers shouldn;t have done only. It seems reality is different from forum battles "Anything apart from killing him, would be step one. Then restrain him in a normal way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic
Is a "keyboard warrior" someone to posts angry messages with cheap insults on a web forum?
Maybe you will try to answer what should have officers done instead?I mean a real working solution instead of not doing anything? A lot of people are quick here to tell what the officers shouldn;t have done only. It seems reality is different from forum battles
Anything apart from killing him, would be step one.
Then restrain him in a normal way."Killing him was not intentional. And you know how to restrain in a normal way? You had a lot of practice on the streets arresting people? Again, it is easy to judge sitting and typing on the keyboard. Reality is different | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Ok, mr officer - keyboard warrior, you handcuff him and then what? You stand in the street waiting for him to do what? They have to deliver him to police station. How they gonna do that if he resists any way of doing so? What, they are going to stand there in the street for a couple of hours for until he gets bored and agree to go with them ?
Epic logic, keyboard warriors and their logic
Is a "keyboard warrior" someone to posts angry messages with cheap insults on a web forum?
Maybe you will try to answer what should have officers done instead?I mean a real working solution instead of not doing anything? A lot of people are quick here to tell what the officers shouldn;t have done only. It seems reality is different from forum battles
Anything apart from killing him, would be step one.
Then restrain him in a normal way.
Killing him was not intentional.
And you know how to restrain in a normal way? You had a lot of practice on the streets arresting people? Again, it is easy to judge sitting and typing on the keyboard. Reality is different
"No, I'm not a police officer. But I imagine killing someone, isn't the normal way of restraining someone. And I imagine knee to the neck, in such a way as might kill someone, is not the normal way. You being angry, doesn't alter the reality of the situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Handcuffed prisoners can still be very aggressive. There are instances of police officers being badly bitten, kicked and even a Georgia sheriff's deputy who was fatally stabbed by a handcuffed inmate and another seriously another wounded."Bollocks. Get someone to lie you face down with your hands tied behind your back and see how aggressive you can be. Even if you try to stand up, you can be put down again with minimal effort. I had 6 TA Fusiliers face down and tied up back in the day and i controlled them with my feet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Handcuffed prisoners can still be very aggressive. There are instances of police officers being badly bitten, kicked and even a Georgia sheriff's deputy who was fatally stabbed by a handcuffed inmate and another seriously another wounded.
Bollocks.
Get someone to lie you face down with your hands tied behind your back and see how aggressive you can be. Even if you try to stand up, you can be put down again with minimal effort.
I had 6 TA Fusiliers face down and tied up back in the day and i controlled them with my feet."Like a pupeteer ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Handcuffed prisoners can still be very aggressive. There are instances of police officers being badly bitten, kicked and even a Georgia sheriff's deputy who was fatally stabbed by a handcuffed inmate and another seriously another wounded.
Bollocks.
Get someone to lie you face down with your hands tied behind your back and see how aggressive you can be. Even if you try to stand up, you can be put down again with minimal effort.
I had 6 TA Fusiliers face down and tied up back in the day and i controlled them with my feet.
Like a pupeteer ?"They were STABS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Handcuffed prisoners can still be very aggressive. There are instances of police officers being badly bitten, kicked and even a Georgia sheriff's deputy who was fatally stabbed by a handcuffed inmate and another seriously another wounded.
Bollocks.
Get someone to lie you face down with your hands tied behind your back and see how aggressive you can be. Even if you try to stand up, you can be put down again with minimal effort.
I had 6 TA Fusiliers face down and tied up back in the day and i controlled them with my feet."It is actually not bollocks, the facts I posted are all verifiable if you would care to look. And as for the aggression part, in training, I was able to roll my head, sink my teeth into the instructor's shin bone and kick out with my legs. I then got a good beating, but I proved my point. I can only guess that your 6 part-time soldiers were not aggressive enough or that you are exaggerating your role. I guess we will never know. Meanwhile, I am happy that the experts are managing the trial competently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Handcuffed prisoners can still be very aggressive. There are instances of police officers being badly bitten, kicked and even a Georgia sheriff's deputy who was fatally stabbed by a handcuffed inmate and another seriously another wounded.
Bollocks.
Get someone to lie you face down with your hands tied behind your back and see how aggressive you can be. Even if you try to stand up, you can be put down again with minimal effort.
I had 6 TA Fusiliers face down and tied up back in the day and i controlled them with my feet.
It is actually not bollocks, the facts I posted are all verifiable if you would care to look. And as for the aggression part, in training, I was able to roll my head, sink my teeth into the instructor's shin bone and kick out with my legs. I then got a good beating, but I proved my point. I can only guess that your 6 part-time soldiers were not aggressive enough or that you are exaggerating your role. I guess we will never know. Meanwhile, I am happy that the experts are managing the trial competently."This is just making you sound like an apologist. Just as well this is an anonymous forum eh? Imagine people you care about knowing that you can find excuses for an inexcusable murder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologists for these uniformed maniacs need to give their heads a wobble. 4 x (at least) 200lb police officers kneeling with all their weight on a probe, handcuffed (restrained) man who offered no threat to them. One of the officers put his weight through the victims neck!!! Fuck - nothing is even remotely acceptable about any of this. Try getting one person to lie on top of you for just a few minutes and see how the pressure from one person starts to affect breathing - then multiply that by four!!! Fucking savages in uniform - all four of them. Yep, because those 4 savages couldnt get 1 man in the police car, so they should just let him go and definitely not restrain him
He was handcuffed with his hands cuffed behind his back. The very second that happened (about nine minutes previously) pressure restraint should have ceased.
Get your missus to tie your hands behind your back and see how aggressive you can be !
Handcuffed prisoners can still be very aggressive. There are instances of police officers being badly bitten, kicked and even a Georgia sheriff's deputy who was fatally stabbed by a handcuffed inmate and another seriously another wounded.
Bollocks.
Get someone to lie you face down with your hands tied behind your back and see how aggressive you can be. Even if you try to stand up, you can be put down again with minimal effort.
I had 6 TA Fusiliers face down and tied up back in the day and i controlled them with my feet.
It is actually not bollocks, the facts I posted are all verifiable if you would care to look. And as for the aggression part, in training, I was able to roll my head, sink my teeth into the instructor's shin bone and kick out with my legs. I then got a good beating, but I proved my point. I can only guess that your 6 part-time soldiers were not aggressive enough or that you are exaggerating your role. I guess we will never know. Meanwhile, I am happy that the experts are managing the trial competently.
This is just making you sound like an apologist. Just as well this is an anonymous forum eh?
Imagine people you care about knowing that you can find excuses for an inexcusable murder. "I am not apologising for anything or anyone, merely stating facts. I can tell that you are over-emotional on this subject so I will continue to leave it to the logic of those directly involved to find the truth. Your nonsensical ramblings are irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s a lot of inaccuracies in what some people are posting about this. Like they’re not paying attention to the actual trial and evidence being given. For example, Floyd was not restrained on his belly. He was not restrained by all four officers for the duration of the incident. There’s even evidence today that the knee wasn’t on Floyd’s neck. There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. If we have to talk about the ins and outs of the case here try and stay factual, emotionally detached and objective, without insulting each other. " So you didn’t watch the 9 minute video of 4 x 200lb + men pressing down on him for that entire time and even resisting paramedics attending to him?? This is peak denial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s a lot of inaccuracies in what some people are posting about this. Like they’re not paying attention to the actual trial and evidence being given. For example, Floyd was not restrained on his belly. He was not restrained by all four officers for the duration of the incident. There’s even evidence today that the knee wasn’t on Floyd’s neck. There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. If we have to talk about the ins and outs of the case here try and stay factual, emotionally detached and objective, without insulting each other. So you didn’t watch the 9 minute video of 4 x 200lb + men pressing down on him for that entire time and even resisting paramedics attending to him?? This is peak denial." No I didn’t. I saw a video of four officers attempting to transport a prisoner who was uncompliant and in clear medical crisis who was then restrained on the floor after resisting. I then saw one officer maintain the restraint on the subject whilst the others attempted to control an openly hostile crowd. I saw them then refuse to allow an off duty firewoman with no ID to attempt first aid and then the paramedics throw him in an ambulance and drive him away without stabilising him first. If you saw 9 minutes of four people on top of Floyd then you’ve watched something different to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. " It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Chauvin will be found not guilty. Mr Floyds friends at the scene are not testifying, the drug issue and resisting arrest for using fake money, trying to rip off an Asian food store. If he just complied he would still be alive or maybe not if the drugs he was being fed by his friend didn't finish him off eventually. I don't believe there is racism at the root of the problem in this case. Chauvin is married to a lady of Asian descent so that argument flies out the window. The black lives matters movement hijacked this case and used it like a political tool which will eventually backfire on them too. Will this case make the world a better place , hell no. It's put the black situation back 200 years. There are more black people in authority, in the arts, and sporting heroes than ever before in history but now they're regarded as people who cause trouble and not to be engaged with leading to more segregation. No one kicked up a fuss when a black guy beat the shit out of a white policewoman in front of his daughter. No one's mentioning Mr Floyd armed robbery causing a woman to lose her baby. It's time for black America to wake up to it's own cultural failings and stop relying on the race card. If it's that bad relocate. Instead of sitting on the sofa and getting overweight about it. Remember America belongs to the indigenous people and one day it will return them." Aren't you just a peach?! Haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. " I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. " Relax, don't be triggered by my responses to your thoughts.
Your words firmly implied that the balance of evidence so far pointed towards an OD, whereas actually we've had zero medical expert testimony. I'll watch with interest when it is introduced, but for the moment the words of non-medical (expert) witnesses are close to meaningless on this point.
As I said, I'll be surprised if he's convicted on any of the counts, but as noted above, I agree with the negligence theory.
I don't know enough about how murder 2 and 3 are constructed over in this particular State., so can't comment as to whether DC's conduct and mind-state fall within the definition.
I suspect like our own system analysis on this point will revolve around the mens era aspect - i.e., intention to cause death or at least serious harm. Still not convinced Asphyxiation has anything to do with that as it relates to the causation aspect of the Actus reus.
Anyway, the prosecution obviously believes it has at least a small chance for conviction on murder 2 or 3, but seems to be zeroing in on manslaughter, so far.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think Chauvin will be found not guilty. Mr Floyds friends at the scene are not testifying, the drug issue and resisting arrest for using fake money, trying to rip off an Asian food store. If he just complied he would still be alive or maybe not if the drugs he was being fed by his friend didn't finish him off eventually. I don't believe there is racism at the root of the problem in this case. Chauvin is married to a lady of Asian descent so that argument flies out the window. The black lives matters movement hijacked this case and used it like a political tool which will eventually backfire on them too. Will this case make the world a better place , hell no. It's put the black situation back 200 years. There are more black people in authority, in the arts, and sporting heroes than ever before in history but now they're regarded as people who cause trouble and not to be engaged with leading to more segregation. No one kicked up a fuss when a black guy beat the shit out of a white policewoman in front of his daughter. No one's mentioning Mr Floyd armed robbery causing a woman to lose her baby. It's time for black America to wake up to it's own cultural failings and stop relying on the race card. If it's that bad relocate. Instead of sitting on the sofa and getting overweight about it. Remember America belongs to the indigenous people and one day it will return them." So many degrees of wrong in this post I will answer them all when I finish work...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. Relax, don't be triggered by my responses to your thoughts.
Your words firmly implied that the balance of evidence so far pointed towards an OD, whereas actually we've had zero medical expert testimony. I'll watch with interest when it is introduced, but for the moment the words of non-medical (expert) witnesses are close to meaningless on this point.
As I said, I'll be surprised if he's convicted on any of the counts, but as noted above, I agree with the negligence theory.
I don't know enough about how murder 2 and 3 are constructed over in this particular State., so can't comment as to whether DC's conduct and mind-state fall within the definition.
I suspect like our own system analysis on this point will revolve around the mens era aspect - i.e., intention to cause death or at least serious harm. Still not convinced Asphyxiation has anything to do with that as it relates to the causation aspect of the Actus reus.
Anyway, the prosecution obviously believes it has at least a small chance for conviction on murder 2 or 3, but seems to be zeroing in on manslaughter, so far.
"I didn’t firmly imply anything, and that wasn’t how I wanted to come across. I was thinking pragmatically about the evidence heard thus far and the kind of verdict as it stands on what was a most likely outcome. If I’m making a point, I’m direct. I don’t imply. The point I did make was that it wasn’t clear cut as some have made out on the thread. The suggestion that all four officers laid on top of Floyd for the full 9 minutes and that’s what killed him....is nonsense. I’ll be homing in on the expert medical testimony myself as I think that’s key for the defence more than anything else. The mens rea is always the hardest part to prove in any case. I’m surprised the prosecution haven’t gone down the line that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other from door work and had beef with each other. That would be the only way to even suggest the mens rea of Chauvin. I don’t know enough about the degree system in any state, I only know uk criminal law so I’d be speculating if I said anything other than manslaughter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. Relax, don't be triggered by my responses to your thoughts.
Your words firmly implied that the balance of evidence so far pointed towards an OD, whereas actually we've had zero medical expert testimony. I'll watch with interest when it is introduced, but for the moment the words of non-medical (expert) witnesses are close to meaningless on this point.
As I said, I'll be surprised if he's convicted on any of the counts, but as noted above, I agree with the negligence theory.
I don't know enough about how murder 2 and 3 are constructed over in this particular State., so can't comment as to whether DC's conduct and mind-state fall within the definition.
I suspect like our own system analysis on this point will revolve around the mens era aspect - i.e., intention to cause death or at least serious harm. Still not convinced Asphyxiation has anything to do with that as it relates to the causation aspect of the Actus reus.
Anyway, the prosecution obviously believes it has at least a small chance for conviction on murder 2 or 3, but seems to be zeroing in on manslaughter, so far.
I didn’t firmly imply anything, and that wasn’t how I wanted to come across. I was thinking pragmatically about the evidence heard thus far and the kind of verdict as it stands on what was a most likely outcome. If I’m making a point, I’m direct. I don’t imply.
The point I did make was that it wasn’t clear cut as some have made out on the thread. The suggestion that all four officers laid on top of Floyd for the full 9 minutes and that’s what killed him....is nonsense. I’ll be homing in on the expert medical testimony myself as I think that’s key for the defence more than anything else. The mens rea is always the hardest part to prove in any case. I’m surprised the prosecution haven’t gone down the line that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other from door work and had beef with each other. That would be the only way to even suggest the mens rea of Chauvin. I don’t know enough about the degree system in any state, I only know uk criminal law so I’d be speculating if I said anything other than manslaughter. "Yes, it's a very interesting point that the history (interpersonal / work-related) between D & V has so far been completely ignored by both sides. I wonder whether it will be mentioned at all. Would certainly make for interesting watching. I actually think motive (in some US States) is relevant to mens rea - it's not here, of course. Here is would simply be a matter of whether or not DC intended to kill or cause GF GBH. Our equivalent of 'murder 2' is probably what's generally referred to as subjective recklessness manslaughter (previously manslaughter by unlawful act) - in that instance all that would be required was that DC foresaw a risk of death and unreasonably went onto take the risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. Relax, don't be triggered by my responses to your thoughts.
Your words firmly implied that the balance of evidence so far pointed towards an OD, whereas actually we've had zero medical expert testimony. I'll watch with interest when it is introduced, but for the moment the words of non-medical (expert) witnesses are close to meaningless on this point.
As I said, I'll be surprised if he's convicted on any of the counts, but as noted above, I agree with the negligence theory.
I don't know enough about how murder 2 and 3 are constructed over in this particular State., so can't comment as to whether DC's conduct and mind-state fall within the definition.
I suspect like our own system analysis on this point will revolve around the mens era aspect - i.e., intention to cause death or at least serious harm. Still not convinced Asphyxiation has anything to do with that as it relates to the causation aspect of the Actus reus.
Anyway, the prosecution obviously believes it has at least a small chance for conviction on murder 2 or 3, but seems to be zeroing in on manslaughter, so far.
I didn’t firmly imply anything, and that wasn’t how I wanted to come across. I was thinking pragmatically about the evidence heard thus far and the kind of verdict as it stands on what was a most likely outcome. If I’m making a point, I’m direct. I don’t imply.
The point I did make was that it wasn’t clear cut as some have made out on the thread. The suggestion that all four officers laid on top of Floyd for the full 9 minutes and that’s what killed him....is nonsense. I’ll be homing in on the expert medical testimony myself as I think that’s key for the defence more than anything else. The mens rea is always the hardest part to prove in any case. I’m surprised the prosecution haven’t gone down the line that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other from door work and had beef with each other. That would be the only way to even suggest the mens rea of Chauvin. I don’t know enough about the degree system in any state, I only know uk criminal law so I’d be speculating if I said anything other than manslaughter.
Yes, it's a very interesting point that the history (interpersonal / work-related) between D & V has so far been completely ignored by both sides. I wonder whether it will be mentioned at all. Would certainly make for interesting watching.
I actually think motive (in some US States) is relevant to mens rea - it's not here, of course. Here is would simply be a matter of whether or not DC intended to kill or cause GF GBH.
Our equivalent of 'murder 2' is probably what's generally referred to as subjective recklessness manslaughter (previously manslaughter by unlawful act) - in that instance all that would be required was that DC foresaw a risk of death and unreasonably went onto take the risk. "In that regard he could still potentially be convicted of murder 2 then. Depends how strongly the prosecution pushes video evidence of Chauvin knowing that Floyd was having a medical episode. It was clear to Officer Tao that much is clear. They could push that narrative to enforce the murder accusation. Then I think it will swing on the medical evidence. I know for certain that here in the UK, we look at whether or not a death in custody was preventable. If a subject was going to die anyway then there’s usually no criminal action brought (doesn’t stop professional standards and the IOPC trying mind). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But remember the definitions for murder 2 and murder 3.... Murder 2 .... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru a deliberate action (knee on neck) Murder 3..... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was not deliberate, but excessively reckless (knee on neck) Manslaughter 2 ... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was accidental but not excessively reckless The issue is do you consider the action of putting knee on neck AND the time it was in that position to be an acceptable action in that situation If answer is no.... then you have to decide if it was deliberate, reckless or accidental " Just wanted to repost this as it can refocus the conversation.... and what in effect the legal definition of each is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s a lot of inaccuracies in what some people are posting about this. Like they’re not paying attention to the actual trial and evidence being given. For example, Floyd was not restrained on his belly. He was not restrained by all four officers for the duration of the incident. There’s even evidence today that the knee wasn’t on Floyd’s neck. There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. If we have to talk about the ins and outs of the case here try and stay factual, emotionally detached and objective, without insulting each other. So you didn’t watch the 9 minute video of 4 x 200lb + men pressing down on him for that entire time and even resisting paramedics attending to him?? This is peak denial." No you are the one in denial of the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that floyd died from asphyxiation and plenty to suggest he died because of drugs delirium and heart trouble. Therefore a murder verdict should not be returned. A court cannot convict if the defence proves reasonable doubt despite the fact that chauvin is a nasty sadist . We should all take race out of the equation and think dispassionately because that is clouding judgement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But remember the definitions for murder 2 and murder 3.... Murder 2 .... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru a deliberate action (knee on neck) Murder 3..... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was not deliberate, but excessively reckless (knee on neck) Manslaughter 2 ... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was accidental but not excessively reckless The issue is do you consider the action of putting knee on neck AND the time it was in that position to be an acceptable action in that situation If answer is no.... then you have to decide if it was deliberate, reckless or accidental Just wanted to repost this as it can refocus the conversation.... and what in effect the legal definition of each is " It looks like you are taking forum battles too seriously. Someone like a self proclaimed expert of a swingers forum I saw the same on your expert opinions before USA presidential elections Trust me, nobody really cares that much on this forum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But remember the definitions for murder 2 and murder 3.... Murder 2 .... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru a deliberate action (knee on neck) Murder 3..... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was not deliberate, but excessively reckless (knee on neck) Manslaughter 2 ... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was accidental but not excessively reckless The issue is do you consider the action of putting knee on neck AND the time it was in that position to be an acceptable action in that situation If answer is no.... then you have to decide if it was deliberate, reckless or accidental Just wanted to repost this as it can refocus the conversation.... and what in effect the legal definition of each is It looks like you are taking forum battles too seriously. Someone like a self proclaimed expert of a swingers forum I saw the same on your expert opinions before USA presidential elections Trust me, nobody really cares that much on this forum "Each state has its own view on different charges of murder. He was just trying to clarify for some people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But remember the definitions for murder 2 and murder 3.... Murder 2 .... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru a deliberate action (knee on neck) Murder 3..... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was not deliberate, but excessively reckless (knee on neck) Manslaughter 2 ... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was accidental but not excessively reckless The issue is do you consider the action of putting knee on neck AND the time it was in that position to be an acceptable action in that situation If answer is no.... then you have to decide if it was deliberate, reckless or accidental Just wanted to repost this as it can refocus the conversation.... and what in effect the legal definition of each is It looks like you are taking forum battles too seriously. Someone like a self proclaimed expert of a swingers forum I saw the same on your expert opinions before USA presidential elections Trust me, nobody really cares that much on this forum
Each state has its own view on different charges of murder. He was just trying to clarify for some people. "It is just funny that he has to give 2 warnings that people would prepare for his eventual explanation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But remember the definitions for murder 2 and murder 3.... Murder 2 .... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru a deliberate action (knee on neck) Murder 3..... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was not deliberate, but excessively reckless (knee on neck) Manslaughter 2 ... not premeditated (planned) but killed thru an action that was accidental but not excessively reckless The issue is do you consider the action of putting knee on neck AND the time it was in that position to be an acceptable action in that situation If answer is no.... then you have to decide if it was deliberate, reckless or accidental Just wanted to repost this as it can refocus the conversation.... and what in effect the legal definition of each is It looks like you are taking forum battles too seriously. Someone like a self proclaimed expert of a swingers forum I saw the same on your expert opinions before USA presidential elections Trust me, nobody really cares that much on this forum
Each state has its own view on different charges of murder. He was just trying to clarify for some people.
It is just funny that he has to give 2 warnings that people would prepare for his eventual explanation "Some people do not scroll up they just respond to the previous post. It's understandable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S" I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race." You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose" I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police." what are you saying here.. ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police. what are you saying here.. ?" I'm saying that the statistics give some information that put context onto the above claim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police." And the numbers have a tell take sign on who is doing the more gun violence. Mostly likely to get shot by both police and by ethnicity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police. what are you saying here.. ? I'm saying that the statistics give some information that put context onto the above claim. " What is your conclusion from those figures ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police." I was equally shocked to read that the 13% of black Americans commit more than 50% of the total murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the US 
I think I might start looking elsewhere in the world for somewhere to live, the US really does have problems  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police. I was equally shocked to read that the 13% of black Americans commit more than 50% of the total murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the US
I think I might start looking elsewhere in the world for somewhere to live, the US really does have problems "Perhaps you should spend some time there and get some real perspective. It is quite shocking to see cities broken down by racial profile and see just how divided by race the United States really is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Guilty as, Putting a knee to the neck to subdue a much bigger man, maybe I’d turn a blind eye to, if you then got him up & slung him in a wagon. Putting a knee to the neck of a man for nine minutes in which for about four of them he’s quiet & motionless & then refusing to let someone else administer cpr after he’d been told there was no pulse? Well that stopped being manslaughter about three minutes ago on the time scale add the lack of assistance allowed & as far as I’m concerned it turned it into murder. Chauvin forgot why he was there, “To protect & serve.” Cops seem to think serve means their bosses in city hall, it doesn’t, it means the people, all of the people, not just some of them. S I do agree with you. And, I would like to see him convicted of a murder charge, but unfortunately, I figure he will only get a manslaughter conviction at the most. When there's a white police officer involved, it never works out fairly, ever. Can you imagine if it was black officers and a white man on the ground in handcuffs, with one black officers knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, hearing the white man saying, I can't breath over and over, and calling for his dead mother, until finally his pulse stopped. All of it being recorded in life time and put on worldwide tv. Anyone with a brain knows that case would be different, and the officers would get convicted on worse charges and serve much more time. That's just the known facts based on a past history of bias when it comes to race. You do realise you talk bollocks? There are more white people killed in USA by police and do you see a lot of media coverage about those cases? Riots? Looting? Why do you think it is so, maybe nobody cares when a white criminal is killed. But if you touch a black criminal, all hell is breaking lose I can't post links here. But if you Google. "Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2021, by race" You'll see the numbers. Nearly double the number of white people are killed by the police than black people. Black people make up approx 13% of the population. That tells you which ethnicity is more likely to be shot and killed by the police. I was equally shocked to read that the 13% of black Americans commit more than 50% of the total murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in the US
I think I might start looking elsewhere in the world for somewhere to live, the US really does have problems
Perhaps you should spend some time there and get some real perspective.
It is quite shocking to see cities broken down by racial profile and see just how divided by race the United States really is"And yet those cities that have the majority of racial inequality are controlled by 1 political party for decades. Is it a social/ economic issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Obviously Mr.Rightly, you couldn't comprehend what I wrote. Which doesn't surprise me in the least. I never mentioned anything about the number of whites killed vs blacks killed by police, or about riots, or about looting, ect..ect... with all your unrelated ramblings. I was talking the fact of racial bias against blacks by white police officers that has always occurred. That is a historical fact, whether you accept that fact or not means nothing what so ever to me, but it will show you whether you have a mental lacking or not for facts. " Your racial bias is only shown by the media. That's the point, you don't see white people being killed by police officers, because nobody cares, even though there are more white people killed. So why there are so little outrage if there are more whites killed than blacks in sheer numbers? Maybe because you just follow what you see in the media and that's all? Media likes to bait people like you as they get the views | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. Relax, don't be triggered by my responses to your thoughts.
Your words firmly implied that the balance of evidence so far pointed towards an OD, whereas actually we've had zero medical expert testimony. I'll watch with interest when it is introduced, but for the moment the words of non-medical (expert) witnesses are close to meaningless on this point.
As I said, I'll be surprised if he's convicted on any of the counts, but as noted above, I agree with the negligence theory.
I don't know enough about how murder 2 and 3 are constructed over in this particular State., so can't comment as to whether DC's conduct and mind-state fall within the definition.
I suspect like our own system analysis on this point will revolve around the mens era aspect - i.e., intention to cause death or at least serious harm. Still not convinced Asphyxiation has anything to do with that as it relates to the causation aspect of the Actus reus.
Anyway, the prosecution obviously believes it has at least a small chance for conviction on murder 2 or 3, but seems to be zeroing in on manslaughter, so far.
I didn’t firmly imply anything, and that wasn’t how I wanted to come across. I was thinking pragmatically about the evidence heard thus far and the kind of verdict as it stands on what was a most likely outcome. If I’m making a point, I’m direct. I don’t imply.
The point I did make was that it wasn’t clear cut as some have made out on the thread. The suggestion that all four officers laid on top of Floyd for the full 9 minutes and that’s what killed him....is nonsense. I’ll be homing in on the expert medical testimony myself as I think that’s key for the defence more than anything else. The mens rea is always the hardest part to prove in any case. I’m surprised the prosecution haven’t gone down the line that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other from door work and had beef with each other. That would be the only way to even suggest the mens rea of Chauvin. I don’t know enough about the degree system in any state, I only know uk criminal law so I’d be speculating if I said anything other than manslaughter.
Yes, it's a very interesting point that the history (interpersonal / work-related) between D & V has so far been completely ignored by both sides. I wonder whether it will be mentioned at all. Would certainly make for interesting watching.
I actually think motive (in some US States) is relevant to mens rea - it's not here, of course. Here is would simply be a matter of whether or not DC intended to kill or cause GF GBH.
Our equivalent of 'murder 2' is probably what's generally referred to as subjective recklessness manslaughter (previously manslaughter by unlawful act) - in that instance all that would be required was that DC foresaw a risk of death and unreasonably went onto take the risk.
In that regard he could still potentially be convicted of murder 2 then. Depends how strongly the prosecution pushes video evidence of Chauvin knowing that Floyd was having a medical episode. It was clear to Officer Tao that much is clear. They could push that narrative to enforce the murder accusation. Then I think it will swing on the medical evidence. I know for certain that here in the UK, we look at whether or not a death in custody was preventable. If a subject was going to die anyway then there’s usually no criminal action brought (doesn’t stop professional standards and the IOPC trying mind). "Seems the conversation has (predictably) gone off-topic here. Any thoughts on yesterday's evidence? I thought it was pretty compelling, as far as negligence goes. I don't think adds anything to the murder charges (i.e., in respect of DC's mens rea). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. Relax, don't be triggered by my responses to your thoughts.
Your words firmly implied that the balance of evidence so far pointed towards an OD, whereas actually we've had zero medical expert testimony. I'll watch with interest when it is introduced, but for the moment the words of non-medical (expert) witnesses are close to meaningless on this point.
As I said, I'll be surprised if he's convicted on any of the counts, but as noted above, I agree with the negligence theory.
I don't know enough about how murder 2 and 3 are constructed over in this particular State., so can't comment as to whether DC's conduct and mind-state fall within the definition.
I suspect like our own system analysis on this point will revolve around the mens era aspect - i.e., intention to cause death or at least serious harm. Still not convinced Asphyxiation has anything to do with that as it relates to the causation aspect of the Actus reus.
Anyway, the prosecution obviously believes it has at least a small chance for conviction on murder 2 or 3, but seems to be zeroing in on manslaughter, so far.
I didn’t firmly imply anything, and that wasn’t how I wanted to come across. I was thinking pragmatically about the evidence heard thus far and the kind of verdict as it stands on what was a most likely outcome. If I’m making a point, I’m direct. I don’t imply.
The point I did make was that it wasn’t clear cut as some have made out on the thread. The suggestion that all four officers laid on top of Floyd for the full 9 minutes and that’s what killed him....is nonsense. I’ll be homing in on the expert medical testimony myself as I think that’s key for the defence more than anything else. The mens rea is always the hardest part to prove in any case. I’m surprised the prosecution haven’t gone down the line that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other from door work and had beef with each other. That would be the only way to even suggest the mens rea of Chauvin. I don’t know enough about the degree system in any state, I only know uk criminal law so I’d be speculating if I said anything other than manslaughter.
Yes, it's a very interesting point that the history (interpersonal / work-related) between D & V has so far been completely ignored by both sides. I wonder whether it will be mentioned at all. Would certainly make for interesting watching.
I actually think motive (in some US States) is relevant to mens rea - it's not here, of course. Here is would simply be a matter of whether or not DC intended to kill or cause GF GBH.
Our equivalent of 'murder 2' is probably what's generally referred to as subjective recklessness manslaughter (previously manslaughter by unlawful act) - in that instance all that would be required was that DC foresaw a risk of death and unreasonably went onto take the risk.
In that regard he could still potentially be convicted of murder 2 then. Depends how strongly the prosecution pushes video evidence of Chauvin knowing that Floyd was having a medical episode. It was clear to Officer Tao that much is clear. They could push that narrative to enforce the murder accusation. Then I think it will swing on the medical evidence. I know for certain that here in the UK, we look at whether or not a death in custody was preventable. If a subject was going to die anyway then there’s usually no criminal action brought (doesn’t stop professional standards and the IOPC trying mind).
Seems the conversation has (predictably) gone off-topic here.
Any thoughts on yesterday's evidence? I thought it was pretty compelling, as far as negligence goes. I don't think adds anything to the murder charges (i.e., in respect of DC's mens rea). "was on news yesterday and expert was saying in effect they were making him breath through a straw... it was pretty damning... but i must have changed view several times on varying experts! jury have a shitty job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There’s no conclusive evidence that asphyxia killed him and plenty of evidence of a drugs overdose. It's not disputed by either the prosecution or defence that GF was in a prone position and that the officer knelt on his neck. We also haven't heard 'evidence' that GF died of an overdose yet, so not sure who is paying close attention to the trial here. In fact, we've heard zero evidence yet that the course of death was a drug overdose. Drugs in the system doesn't necessarily break the chain of causation. What this will turn on is whether or not drugs were the substantial and operative cause of GF's death - thus breaking the chain of causation. One significant point coming from the trial so far is that the police are saying they got it wrong - from the Chief on down - all saying that kind of restraint was excessive, not part of training, values or anything vaguely associated with the discharging the duty of care officers have when they take a suspect into custody. This means at the very least DC is likely to be liable for gross negligence manslaughter. However, I don't expect him to be convicted. I didn’t say ‘Floyd died of an OD’ or anything so concrete and matter of fact, so please don’t condescend to me. They don’t need to prove conclusively that an overdose killed him, just there’s enough doubt to the asphyxia theory to prevent a murder conviction coming back. ‘Mama’s’ evidence was also indicative of an overdose, as was the witness ‘Hall‘ pleading the 5th (which can be used by the jury to draw an inference), so not sure why you’re claiming there’s been ‘zero’ evidence of an overdose. I’ve been consistent from the start that I believe Chauvin was criminally negligent - from his conduct through the incident, his lack of empathy about the suspect in his authority and his negligence in recognising Floyd was in a medical crisis. I’ve worked with US cops (admittedly from a different state) and their training is wildly different from the UK, however they still have a duty of care to their suspects in custody (their procedures for suspects shot by police is extremely different tho). Chauvin showed no regard for that care in his actions and for that, I believe a manslaughter charge (we would call it corporate manslaughter here) would be wholly appropriate. Relax, don't be triggered by my responses to your thoughts.
Your words firmly implied that the balance of evidence so far pointed towards an OD, whereas actually we've had zero medical expert testimony. I'll watch with interest when it is introduced, but for the moment the words of non-medical (expert) witnesses are close to meaningless on this point.
As I said, I'll be surprised if he's convicted on any of the counts, but as noted above, I agree with the negligence theory.
I don't know enough about how murder 2 and 3 are constructed over in this particular State., so can't comment as to whether DC's conduct and mind-state fall within the definition.
I suspect like our own system analysis on this point will revolve around the mens era aspect - i.e., intention to cause death or at least serious harm. Still not convinced Asphyxiation has anything to do with that as it relates to the causation aspect of the Actus reus.
Anyway, the prosecution obviously believes it has at least a small chance for conviction on murder 2 or 3, but seems to be zeroing in on manslaughter, so far.
I didn’t firmly imply anything, and that wasn’t how I wanted to come across. I was thinking pragmatically about the evidence heard thus far and the kind of verdict as it stands on what was a most likely outcome. If I’m making a point, I’m direct. I don’t imply.
The point I did make was that it wasn’t clear cut as some have made out on the thread. The suggestion that all four officers laid on top of Floyd for the full 9 minutes and that’s what killed him....is nonsense. I’ll be homing in on the expert medical testimony myself as I think that’s key for the defence more than anything else. The mens rea is always the hardest part to prove in any case. I’m surprised the prosecution haven’t gone down the line that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other from door work and had beef with each other. That would be the only way to even suggest the mens rea of Chauvin. I don’t know enough about the degree system in any state, I only know uk criminal law so I’d be speculating if I said anything other than manslaughter.
Yes, it's a very interesting point that the history (interpersonal / work-related) between D & V has so far been completely ignored by both sides. I wonder whether it will be mentioned at all. Would certainly make for interesting watching.
I actually think motive (in some US States) is relevant to mens rea - it's not here, of course. Here is would simply be a matter of whether or not DC intended to kill or cause GF GBH.
Our equivalent of 'murder 2' is probably what's generally referred to as subjective recklessness manslaughter (previously manslaughter by unlawful act) - in that instance all that would be required was that DC foresaw a risk of death and unreasonably went onto take the risk.
In that regard he could still potentially be convicted of murder 2 then. Depends how strongly the prosecution pushes video evidence of Chauvin knowing that Floyd was having a medical episode. It was clear to Officer Tao that much is clear. They could push that narrative to enforce the murder accusation. Then I think it will swing on the medical evidence. I know for certain that here in the UK, we look at whether or not a death in custody was preventable. If a subject was going to die anyway then there’s usually no criminal action brought (doesn’t stop professional standards and the IOPC trying mind).
Seems the conversation has (predictably) gone off-topic here.
Any thoughts on yesterday's evidence? I thought it was pretty compelling, as far as negligence goes. I don't think adds anything to the murder charges (i.e., in respect of DC's mens rea). "Easily done. I’ve not had a chance to catch up yet. I’ll be listening to it whilst I train. It doesn’t surprise me if the prosecution is pushing the negligence element. I personally think it’s the only real ‘crime’ from what I’ve seen. Appalling lack of duty from Chauvin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
