Chauvin verdict

[Rewulf]

Guilty of murder? 

Manslaughter perhaps, or culpable homicide as the call it over there, despite the fact that the trial was 'interfered' with by various senators and the POTUS, an appeal is expected. 

But bearing in mind, in legal argument, no racism was implied or offered in evidence, the weaponisation of the whole matter by BLM and the left, literally left no other verdict available, justice? I think not.... 

Ever heard of Tony Timpa? 

https://www.cato.org/blog/cops-who-killed-tony-timpa-are-unfit-serve-courts-ensure-they-keep-their-jobs

[clangerman]

when you refuse to take the stand to clear your name the only one to blame for the verdict is YOURSELF! 

[discobob]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

no racism was implied or offered in evidence

But in "Their Trutch" and "Lived experience" it must have been.

Well in my truth I am an extremely good looking fella - you may disagree but it is my truth

 

[ditchman]

i wonder if the verdict would be any different if Trump was still the President ?????

[Agriv8]

5 minutes ago, ditchman said:

i wonder if the verdict would be any different if Trump was still the President ?????

I suspect it would but I think 'the new broom' wants this skeleton swept into the closet and hushed up.

Suspect he will have been carefully 'asked what to do' so the wheels of Justice  can be seen to be Turing in the right direction.

 

 

[12gauge82]

I'm unsure of American law but I don't believe it would fit the UK's definition of murder, it was a disgraceful act and I think under uk law it would fir manslaughter all day long, as for the racist element I saw no evidence for that before or after the trial BLM are just jumping on any bandwagon they can to further their real agenda. 

[JTaylor91]

I’m not sure how it works but he was found guilty of 3 charges:

Second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.

[oscarsdad]

50 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm unsure of American law but I don't believe it would fit the UK's definition of murder, it was a disgraceful act and I think under uk law it would fir manslaughter all day long, as for the racist element I saw no evidence for that before or after the trial BLM are just jumping on any bandwagon they can to further their real agenda. 

Agreed, the police officer was very clearly in the wrong and should rightly be punished for a despicable crime. 
 

BLM nonsense have martyred an unpleasant criminal scumbag in Floyd, he didn’t deserve to be killed like he was but certainly isn’t someone you’d want living next door. Only recently their “leader” has said she supports the looting of businesses by black people as even if they looted every business it would not be sufficient “payback” for slavery etc. Apparently missing the point that no white person alive now is responsible for slavery! Perhaps she ought to be looking towards the Arab world where slavery continues to be in place, but she’s probably too comfortable in her $millions mansion. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

when you refuse to take the stand to clear your name the only one to blame for the verdict is YOURSELF! 

When the only verdict can be guilty , or the threat of more riots and looting is a certainty , spurred on by dem congress men and women, its a bit pointless taking the stand ?

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html

Read the Tony Timpa case , and tell me why the cops who killed him are still in their jobs.

1 hour ago, ditchman said:

i wonder if the verdict would be any different if Trump was still the President ?????

I doubt it would be different, the US cant afford another not guilty verdict , doesnt make it right though.

[Walker570]

I do not think he was going to get a truly free and honest trial with all the pressure from interest groups , politicians etc etc, and it will likely go on and on with appeals.

I do not think it would have been different with Trump in charge because I think he would keep his fingers well out of it and leave it to the courts

It is getting very scary in the cities of the US and I have a friend in Texas who says he will no longer drive into Austin without a 45 on the seat alongside him. He was born and lived in the City but says he is now glad to not be living there with crime and drugs rife. I remember Austin 30 years ago as a tidy place to visit and with the thousands pouring in over the border a short distance south it is going to get a lot worse.

[Gordon R]

The verdict is right in my book, but I have nothing but contempt for those who have jumped on the bandwagon. They brought the racist element into the case and link the case to slavery. Quite how they do that is beyond me. Slavery was practised by people of all races, not just white people, but let's not let facts cloud the issue. Why do not they not turn their attention to modern day slavery and do something about that? 

Easy answer - there is no claim for compensation and no "reason" to loot.

[Rob85]

I read the defending lawyer tried to get the case thrown out as he couldn't receive a fair trial due to some idiot congresswoman from California prejudicing the jury saying that if he is not found guilty then they should be in the streets and become even more confrontational. From what I gather the judge dismissed this but did say something about it being the subject for an appeal court or something....anyone any info on that?

Politicians especially should keep their grubby hands off and let the justice system do it's work regardless of the outcome.

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, JTaylor91 said:

I’m not sure how it works but he was found guilty of 3 charges:

Second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter.

It's a sliding scale of recklessness and intention. First degree murder has to have a premeditative element to it and you have to be killing the victim with a knowing intent to kill him. Obviously this wasn't going to be the case here as it was a cop called to a scene.

Second degree, third degree and manslaughter are separated by the recklessness involved and the level of expectancy of fatality that can be drawn from the actions. So if you're found guilty of the most severe crime, you're going to be guilty of the lesser ones by default.

Second degree murder covers actions where it is blatantly obvious that a fatality is highly likely and that those actions were entirely unwarranted and unnecessary. So, holding a person's neck down with a knee for 9 minutes - and continuing to hold it down even after the person is unconscious - goes way beyond necessary force and it would have been evident to anyone around that limiting someone's oxygen supply for 9 minutes runs a huge likelihood of killing them. He had several opportunities to release the fatal grip and chose not to. The jury decided there were no reasonable mitigating circumstances.

Had he released it after 6 or 7 minutes, or if he'd been stopped from releasing the pressure by external forces, then the lesser charge of 3rd degree might have come into play. It would still have been reckless and unnecessary, but to a lesser extent. A rational, reasonable person could still have seen it would be fatal, but perhaps in the circumstances, it might have been more understandable. If he'd released immediately after it was apparent he'd lost consciousness, he could well have got away with manslaughter - the force was still excessive and unnecessary, but there would have been evidence of a deliberate attempt to avoid killing him.

In this case though, the time length of over 9 minutes was stupidly long and there was no attempt made to release the grip even after unconsciousness. There was no attempt made to introduce life saving measures when it became obvious he was not breathing. There were no extenuating circumstances that realistically impeded his ability, duty of care or rationality to excuse his actions. And with the rather weak defence given, a guilty verdict on all three was inevitable. 

[12gauge82]

24 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The verdict is right in my book, but I have nothing but contempt for those who have jumped on the bandwagon. They brought the racist element into the case and link the case to slavery. Quite how they do that is beyond me. Slavery was practised by people of all races, not just white people, but let's not let facts cloud the issue. Why do not they not turn their attention to modern day slavery and do something about that? 

Easy answer - there is no claim for compensation and no "reason" to loot.

Interesting view point, do you mind if I ask, do you believe the police officer intended to kill Floyd? 

[SpringDon]

26 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

It's a sliding scale of recklessness and intention. First degree murder has to have a premeditative element to it and you have to be killing the victim with a knowing intent to kill him. Obviously this wasn't going to be the case here as it was a cop called to a scene.

Second degree, third degree and manslaughter are separated by the recklessness involved and the level of expectancy of fatality that can be drawn from the actions. So if you're found guilty of the most severe crime, you're going to be guilty of the lesser ones by default.

Second degree murder covers actions where it is blatantly obvious that a fatality is highly likely and that those actions were entirely unwarranted and unnecessary. So, holding a person's neck down with a knee for 9 minutes - and continuing to hold it down even after the person is unconscious - goes way beyond necessary force and it would have been evident to anyone around that limiting someone's oxygen supply for 9 minutes runs a huge likelihood of killing them. He had several opportunities to release the fatal grip and chose not to. The jury decided there were no reasonable mitigating circumstances.

Had he released it after 6 or 7 minutes, or if he'd been stopped from releasing the pressure by external forces, then the lesser charge of 3rd degree might have come into play. It would still have been reckless and unnecessary, but to a lesser extent. A rational, reasonable person could still have seen it would be fatal, but perhaps in the circumstances, it might have been more understandable. If he'd released immediately after it was apparent he'd lost consciousness, he could well have got away with manslaughter - the force was still excessive and unnecessary, but there would have been evidence of a deliberate attempt to avoid killing him.

In this case though, the time length of over 9 minutes was stupidly long and there was no attempt made to release the grip even after unconsciousness. There was no attempt made to introduce life saving measures when it became obvious he was not breathing. There were no extenuating circumstances that realistically impeded his ability, duty of care or rationality to excuse his actions. And with the rather weak defence given, a guilty verdict on all three was inevitable. 

I initially thought that it couldn’t be murder but thanks to you, I now see that it could be nothing else. Very interesting, thank you.

Have you considered a career in the legal sector?

[Cosmicblue]

Given the tinderbox instability of the US society right now on so many fronts it seemed inevitable that a guilty verdict would be returned - I suspect the jury received 'guidance'.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Interesting view point, do you mind if I ask, do you believe the police officer intended to kill Floyd? 

I suspect he didn't set out to kill him in the first instance, but when it became clear he was seriously injuring Floyd, he didn't back off. At that point he seemed content to continue to put Floyd's life at risk.

I am unsure why you find that viewpoint interesting. What is your view?

[oscarsdad]

There will be more riots now anyway after a hero cop has shot dead a huge 15 year old who was inches from stabbing another girl, probably fatally. As usual, the family have claimed she was a peace loving honours student. Watch the video circulating - she was doesn’t look very peace loving to me and I hope the officer is ok. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, chrisjpainter said:

In this case though, the time length of over 9 minutes was stupidly long and there was no attempt made to release the grip even after unconsciousness. There was no attempt made to introduce life saving measures when it became obvious he was not breathing. There were no extenuating circumstances that realistically impeded his ability, duty of care or rationality to excuse his actions. And with the rather weak defence given, a guilty verdict on all three was inevitable

I appreciate the thorough explanation, which works on some levels, but there are some 'issues'

First one is simple, Chauvin , and the other officers present, are cops , executing an arrest, the fact that they didnt show due care in that is the main issue.
I will again point out the Tony Timpa arrest , where virtually the same thing happened, no murder charge , all 4 cops exonerated and returned to duties.
The differences ? Timpa was white , and Floyd was black.

Now if a cop has to be VERY careful every time he has to arrest and restrain a black individual, it wont be long before would be black criminals get wise , and exploit the issue, perhaps thats already happening?

The US has a lot of cops, and needs a steady stream of recruits into the ranks, its a decent career , and a large amount of applications make for good choices for the 'right' kind of officer, the ones with intelligence, but also a tough streak, so they dont fall apart under pressure.
Some areas need robust policing to cope with high instances of violent crime, Chauvin was policing just such an area, and Floyd was a big guy, and Chauvin knew he had a violent past.
The arrest was flawed , Chauvin, and his colleagues followed procedure, but messed up in the care of the man in custody. It happens... It happens here , and it happens in most countries.
Negligence = manslaughter, and while you make a good case for 2nd degree murder, the judiciary/establishment knew that would not pacify the mob.
Further more , if Chauvin doesnt get a hugely disproportionate sentence , that wont pacify the mob either.

That in itself will deter many potential US police officers now, and in the future from joining up, if they cant do their job , in situations that would give most of us nightmares, for fear of sparking off random riots every time , then you either end up with anarchy or a police state.

This is far from over, Chauvin will get his appeal, this will get dragged out, while they wait for the dust to settle.
Rock and a hard place.
Throw Chauvin to the dogs , and hope the mob are satisfied (They wont be )
Give Chauvin a light sentence , hope the mob are bored by it all now they wont riot (They wont be)

Either way, becoming a US police officer has become somewhat less popular than it was.

[Walker570]

My memory is kinda hazy but I believe a similar incident happened here in the UK,  back about 40years ago because every member of our force had to go through a days restraint techniue training.  The one particular wrist/thumb hold would have a grown man on his knees asking for mercy.    I know, having seen my partner reduce a very large man to tears when he gibbed at getting into our patrol car nice and peacefully. Non of our training involved six or eight coppers jumping on a potential prisoner like it was a rugby scrum as seen on the finals of the youtube car chases.

The one thing we did find out was that if the potential prisoner was under the influence of drugs then that could suppress the pain that could be inflicted and again I know because a young relatively athletic young man got his wrist dislocated because he could not feel the pain I was applying.  This training certainly saved a lot of officers and potential prisoners getting seriously hurt.    

The main overpowering feature was you never grasped anyone around the neck and if there were suficient officers present one would protect the prisoners head.

Drugs became a major problem and it was an obvious drug related situation in this US case.

 

[chrisjpainter]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I appreciate the thorough explanation, which works on some levels, but there are some 'issues'

First one is simple, Chauvin , and the other officers present, are cops , executing an arrest, the fact that they didnt show due care in that is the main issue.
I will again point out the Tony Timpa arrest , where virtually the same thing happened, no murder charge , all 4 cops exonerated and returned to duties.
The differences ? Timpa was white , and Floyd was black.

Now if a cop has to be VERY careful every time he has to arrest and restrain a black individual, it wont be long before would be black criminals get wise , and exploit the issue, perhaps thats already happening?

The US has a lot of cops, and needs a steady stream of recruits into the ranks, its a decent career , and a large amount of applications make for good choices for the 'right' kind of officer, the ones with intelligence, but also a tough streak, so they dont fall apart under pressure.
Some areas need robust policing to cope with high instances of violent crime, Chauvin was policing just such an area, and Floyd was a big guy, and Chauvin knew he had a violent past.
The arrest was flawed , Chauvin, and his colleagues followed procedure, but messed up in the care of the man in custody. It happens... It happens here , and it happens in most countries.
Negligence = manslaughter, and while you make a good case for 2nd degree murder, the judiciary/establishment knew that would not pacify the mob.
Further more , if Chauvin doesnt get a hugely disproportionate sentence , that wont pacify the mob either.

That in itself will deter many potential US police officers now, and in the future from joining up, if they cant do their job , in situations that would give most of us nightmares, for fear of sparking off random riots every time , then you either end up with anarchy or a police state.

This is far from over, Chauvin will get his appeal, this will get dragged out, while they wait for the dust to settle.
Rock and a hard place.
Throw Chauvin to the dogs , and hope the mob are satisfied (They wont be )
Give Chauvin a light sentence , hope the mob are bored by it all now they wont riot (They wont be)

Either way, becoming a US police officer has become somewhat less popular than it was.

Yes, it's going to be a rocky next few weeks. The defence had so little to work that a guilty verdict was almost inevitable. His closing statement included the line that he acted within the law and appropriately, which was probably the last line he should have been uttering given the circumstances. That was going to antagonise the jury immediately. But it's one of the vagaries of the American justice system. By having so many types of unlawful killing verdicts, it's asking the jury to differentiate on too many issues and at too finer level. When anyone's put in that situation, they default to the easiest thing and I reckon a guilty verdict based on all the evidence and then on top of that the incessant and vitriolic media coverage was to give the people what they want, regardless of whether it merited it was the easiest thing. They were quick, too! 10 hours is a rapid amount of time for such a high profile case. In this country I think he'd have been done for manslaughter and the judge would then have the power to slap on a pretty length prison sentence. It's easier for a jury that's not meant to have special understanding to understand that!

My guess is he'll probably get handed 20 years medium security and quietly released on 10 - if they can arrange the quietly bit!

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

I suspect he didn't set out to kill him in the first instance, but when it became clear he was seriously injuring Floyd, he didn't back off. At that point he seemed content to continue to put Floyd's life at risk.

I am unsure why you find that viewpoint interesting. What is your view?

This is my thinking. I just can't see him not knowing that he was gravely endangering him. He had ample opportunity to break the hold without risking the wellbeing of either him or his colleagues, yet he kept on, even well after it was clear he was unconscious. That's what takes it beyond manslaughter. The tricky part for me is the gap between 2nd and 3rd degree. Without being in court, my thoughts are it was enough for 2nd, but maybe there's an argument to say that he was being distracted enough by the presence of a baying crowd, so that he wasn't aware. Also, none of his fellow officers checked Floyd's wellbeing and they were probably in a better position to, given how Chauvin had to be positioned to restrain him.  Tight call, maybe but the jury seemed convinced in 10 hours

Edited April 21, 2021 by chrisjpainter

[JohnfromUK]

5 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm unsure of American law but I don't believe it would fit the UK's definition of murder, it was a disgraceful act and I think under uk law it would fir manslaughter

Agreed - no premeditated aspect.  In the UK, I believe the charge would have been manslaughter - and my expectation (based on the evidence I have heard) is that he would be that he would have been found guilty.  Do I believe it was a fair trial - No - for the reasons given below.

1. That the President was saying the verdict should/must be guilty ........ before the jury had finished deliberating
2. That a (apparently well known) politician was 'threatening' violence if the verdict was a 'not guilty' ..... before the jury had finished deliberating
3. That the trial was conducted in the area where the alleged crime occurred - which would make a fair trial very difficult.
4. The overall 'baying mob' aspects and near hysterical 'performances' by some of the agitators in the mob.  I'm not sure how much of that would have been known to the jury - but they must have known that should they have returned a 'not guilty verdict' - there would have been a massive threat to them personally.

Those circumstances in my view render the trial unfair.- even though I believe a guilty verdict for at least manslaughter was just.  Murder, - I simply don't understand the American definitions well enough - but by UK definition it was not (in my view) murder.

[Rewulf]

16 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That a (apparently well known) politician was 'threatening' violence if the verdict was a 'not guilty' ..... before the jury had finished deliberating

Maxine Waters , and not the first time she has done this either, and rather hypocritically , part of the baying mob of dems who called for Trumps impeachment for 'incitement' to riot.

[12gauge82]

23 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Agreed - no premeditated aspect.  In the UK, I believe the charge would have been manslaughter - and my expectation (based on the evidence I have heard) is that he would be that he would have been found guilty.  Do I believe it was a fair trial - No - for the reasons given below.

1. That the President was saying the verdict should/must be guilty ........ before the jury had finished deliberating
2. That a (apparently well known) politician was 'threatening' violence if the verdict was a 'not guilty' ..... before the jury had finished deliberating
3. That the trial was conducted in the area where the alleged crime occurred - which would make a fair trial very difficult.
4. The overall 'baying mob' aspects and near hysterical 'performances' by some of the agitators in the mob.  I'm not sure how much of that would have been known to the jury - but they must have known that should they have returned a 'not guilty verdict' - there would have been a massive threat to them personally.

Those circumstances in my view render the trial unfair.- even though I believe a guilty verdict for at least manslaughter was just.  Murder, - I simply don't understand the American definitions well enough - but by UK definition it was not (in my view) murder.

No premeditation and I don't believe he intended to either kill or seriously and permanently injure him so that's exactly how I see it, imo good assessment. 

Edited April 21, 2021 by 12gauge82