George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

CUE THE RIOTS. TYPICAL PIGS FACE NO ACCOUNTABILITY. TYPICAL LOSERS GOING TO RIOT. THEY GET WHAT THEY ASK FOR.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issue before the court is not what might have killed Floyd if he had not had any encounter with the police (and the suggestion of a possible drug overdose remains highly speculative); the question is what caused his death at the moment when it occurred - and if Chauvin applying his knee to Floyd's death cannot be ruled out as a cause then he is guilty of homicide, regardless of whether that was his intent.

Um ... ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It's kind of the foundation of our entire judicial system. The defense does not need to prove ANYTHING. The entire burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Presumption of Innocence wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issue before the court is not what might have killed Floyd if he had not had any encounter with the police (and the suggestion of a possible drug overdose remains highly speculative); the question is what caused his death at the moment when it occurred - and if Chauvin applying his knee to Floyd's death cannot be ruled out as a cause then he is guilty of homicide, regardless of whether that was his intent.

Um ... ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It's kind of the foundation of our entire judicial system. The defense does not need to prove ANYTHING. The entire burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Armstronglivs isn't from the US so he doesn't understand our laws. It doesn't stop him from weighing in on matters that don't concern him though.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/001-ben-garrison-george-floyd-432.jpg?itok=fNO82Qev

That's a very bad taste cartoon, even though an accurate idea is expressed. Posts like this just unnecessarily give clowns like Armstronglives, whose only purpose here is to broadly call everyone a racist, the material he needs to exist as a poster. You just "fed the troll" basically.

So the wife needs her medication to survive, you hide it from her and she dies.

This is what?

Presumption of Innocence wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issue before the court is not what might have killed Floyd if he had not had any encounter with the police (and the suggestion of a possible drug overdose remains highly speculative); the question is what caused his death at the moment when it occurred - and if Chauvin applying his knee to Floyd's death cannot be ruled out as a cause then he is guilty of homicide, regardless of whether that was his intent.

Um ... ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It's kind of the foundation of our entire judicial system. The defense does not need to prove ANYTHING. The entire burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Yes - the defence doesn't have to prove anything but you have missed the evidence that overwhelmingly suggests Chauvin killed Floyd - which is why he is facing homicide charges. Without evidence to suggest otherwise the defence will have no defence. "Reasonable doubt" will require real evidence, and not mere conjecture.

byron evans wrote:

Presumption of Innocence wrote:

Um ... ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"? It's kind of the foundation of our entire judicial system. The defense does not need to prove ANYTHING. The entire burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Armstronglivs isn't from the US so he doesn't understand our laws. It doesn't stop him from weighing in on matters that don't concern him though.

I am qualified in law; you and most of the other posters probably aren't. The US is a common law jurisdiction - as my country is - and so the legal principles involved are much the same. But you're quite right - murder by your police officers is largely an American issue.

Muldoon wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/001-ben-garrison-george-floyd-432.jpg?itok=fNO82Qev

That's a very bad taste cartoon, even though an accurate idea is expressed. Posts like this just unnecessarily give clowns like Armstronglives, whose only purpose here is to broadly call everyone a racist, the material he needs to exist as a poster. You just "fed the troll" basically.

With the overwhelmingly prejudiced observations and victim blaming on this thread you guys don't need to feed the troll. It's very obvious how racist your culture is. That is shown just now by how you maintain that the cartoon expresses an "accurate idea". It isn't accurate or fact; it is racially-motivated propaganda by the right.

Until we fix policing we will keep paying out everyone's money in giant settlements because we give cops limitless power.

comedyre1i3f 3 wrote:

Phenom Man wrote:

If I consume a lethal dose of fentanyl and then I am shot in the head, did the fentanyl kill me?

If you consume a lethal dose of fentanyl, have hypertensive heart disease, had COVID, and are showing symptoms of overdose (foaming at the mouth, difficulty breathing before being restrained, loss of emotional control, etc.) and someone scares you and you have a heart attack that in your state of respiratory depression causes you to die, are they a murderer? If you don't comply with a police order and have to be restrained, and the restraint causes you to have a heart attack and die, are they murderers? All of those other factors were large contributing factors in his death. to call this a murder requires ignoring everything else.

If you put your knee on the neck of a person in an intensive care unit, already fighting for their life, and they die with your knee on their neck, you will have committed a homicide. Floyd's condition - whatever it was - does not exonerate Chauvin. He was not dying until Chauvin suffocated him.

Muldoon wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The issue before the court is not what might have killed Floyd if he had not had any encounter with the police (and the suggestion of a possible drug overdose remains highly speculative); the question is what caused his death at the moment when it occurred - and if Chauvin applying his knee to Floyd's death cannot be ruled out as a cause then he is guilty of homicide, regardless of whether that was his intent.

Didn't this confused person purport to be an expert on American criminal law? I think even a person with layman's knowledge of the American legal system could figure out the legal errors in that paragraph, not to mention the exaggerations.

As you are not a legal expert nor even a layman with knowledge of the law you are not in a position to point out any "errors". But you are supremely confident in your ignorance.

A homicide requires that death was a consequence of the actions of the accused and that he intended his actions, even if death was not an intended outcome. The legal presumption is that a person intends the natural consequences of their actions. To prevent someone breathing can kill them. Chauvin is legally presumed to know that. Floyd died. To be reckless of whether or not death ensues or grossly negligent is homicide - which is what Chauvin and his fellow officers are charged with. To intend death is murder. That would be more difficult to prove, but in this case 2nd and 3rd degree homicide are easily established. Floyd died with Chauvin's knee on his neck. The only way Chauvin could get off is if Floyd had a heart attack prior to that act. He didn't. He begged for his life till he died. I would call that murder.

[quote]Burning Bush wrote:

If George Floyd was moments away from dying when the police arrived, and they touched him on his shoulder just before he collapsed and died, the police would hardly be guilty of homicide.(quote)

You realise how ridiculous that conjecture sounds when you compare it to the fact that Floyd had Chauvin's knee on his neck for nearly 9 minutes while he begged for his life?

The ability to feel compassion for another human being seems to have bypassed many here. Those 9 minutes of a man dying are amongst the ugliest you might ever see.

Your ignorance shows yet again; a defence requires a defence. Without evidence that casts doubt on the prosecution case there is no defence. In this case, the prosecution is easily made. The actions that led to Floyd's death were recorded for the world to see. Because you have no legal training you know none of this - or anything else that is relevant to the case. You are an opinionated dolt who has wandered into court off the street to give your non-professional opinions.

Not in my hood wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There is no end to the effort that many make here to exonerate a white police officer who has killed a black man - even when the act of killing can be observed occurring over 8 excruciating minutes. It speaks volumes about the attitudes that lead to acts like this. Slavery may have ended over 150 years ago and Jim Crow nearly 60 years ago but some things still haven't changed much in America.

How about the black police officer and Hispanic officer that were involved in this case?

Thanks for further making my point.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Muldoon wrote:

Didn't this confused person purport to be an expert on American criminal law? I think even a person with layman's knowledge of the American legal system could figure out the legal errors in that paragraph, not to mention the exaggerations.

As you are not a legal expert nor even a layman with knowledge of the law you are not in a position to point out any "errors".

A lot of presumptions in that sentence.

This statement by you - "if Chauvin applying his knee to Floyd's death cannot be ruled out as a cause then he is guilty of homicide" - is a glaring legal error; a misstatement and misapplication of applicable law. The standard is wrong and the burden is wrong. You are a fool and a joke.

And your belief that because you allegedly practice law in some unidentified foreign country with a legal system based on English common law, that you are somehow an expert in Minnesota law is equally laughable. That's not even true between states in the US, which is why each state has its own bar exam. Chauvin's charges are statutory, not common law, and the case is governed by the Minnesota Rules of Evidence and Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure - all three of which you know nothing about.

Just go back to calling everyone who thinks you're a pompous race-baiting troll a racist, and quit trying to play lawyer on the internet.

Lol imagine trying to convince someone that the definition of murder or manslaughter is variable among the various states' judicial systems.

Really missing the forest for the trees here bro.

I think here we have the crux of his ignorance.

whether or not you have your knee on their kneck may be irrelevant.

If prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that said knee in ITU CAUSED death, or was reckless etc in stopping him living etc, then it would be prudent for defense to mount an evidential defence.

I think you might have heard the argument; died with covid vs died from covid?