George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

douglas burke wrote:

runnerboy70 wrote:

The American media are dishonest, corrupt, moral degenerates...

About the same as used car salesmen and lawyers.

The GOAL of the people in charge of hiring Writers is ALWAYS to try to find the Most Fair, Impartial, Objective Writers possible, unfortunately a few bad apples who have agenda's, bias's get through the cracks, but they have an extensive vetting process that tries to keep that to a minimum.

That's just another incredibly naive view you have posted. That may have been true at one time, but it is demonstrably false in at least the last 4-5 years. Spend a week reading CNN, NBC or Fox News (arguably the three worst offenders regarding fair and/or objective journalism) and see if you can honestly re-post what you just did. I'm not sure if any of those outfits even pretends to be fair or objective anymore.

Ward Cleaver wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But with Chauvin's knee on his neck for nearly 9 minutes it couldn't possibly be true that he couldn't breathe. What are the prosecutors thinking! He was faking it! Unfortunately, he did die - right after saying he couldn't breathe and begging for his life.

Do you know how many times GF said he couldn't breathe that day?

Yet he died only a few minutes after protesting this fact to Chauvin while under the policeman's knee. But to you he was only making repartee. You're quite a Klansman.

There is a principle called "reasonable force". That line was crossed - or the police officers involved wouldn't be facing homicide charges.

They're facing homicide charges because the state government is afraid of having more buildings burned down.

There was no homicide. It was an OD. Face reality.

Bad Wigins wrote:

They're facing homicide charges because the state government is afraid of having more buildings burned down.

There was no homicide. It was an OD. Face reality.

Bad Wigins wrote:

They're facing homicide charges because the state government is afraid of having more buildings burned down.

There was no homicide. It was an OD. Face reality.

Reality has never been your strong point.

Bad Wigins wrote:

They're facing homicide charges because the state government is afraid of having more buildings burned down.

There was no homicide. It was an OD. Face reality.

Only if Biden allows that to happen.

Interesting point about the incident in question: His agency policy allowed that type of restraint. I, as a cop, didn't have any problem with it - until he failed to stop when Floyd complained he couldn't breathe, and then went unresponsive. Very quickly it went from cop justified in restraining someone - to murder, manslaughter, or however they eventually deem it after trial.

That said, I doubt he'll be convicted of murder (they'd have to show he intended to kill him. He didn't). It is however fitting for a count of manslaughter (which is the legal equivalent of : I was an idiot, and as a result, somebody died).

As many people have pointed out, the city (and many others) are likely to burn once again, no matter the verdict. I'm not sure what burning and looting does to solve anything. Just makes the racial divide even worse than it already is, and victimizes innocent business owners. Unfortunate that what doesn't garner media attention is all the Blacks who are wonderful, hard-working and upstanding citizens, and equally, all the cops who work hard every day protecting and serving. That doesn't sell papers. The only ones that sell are those than fan the flames.

Well, for better or for worse it looks like the beginning of the end of qualified immunity for police officers is here. If NYPD is repealing qualified immunity, it probably won’t be long before other departments do as well. It’ll be interesting to see where police recruiting and where policing in general stands when all of this is said and done.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/us/nyc-police-reform-nypd/index.html

the 5-0. wrote:

Interesting point about the incident in question: His agency policy allowed that type of restraint. I, as a cop, didn't have any problem with it - until he failed to stop when Floyd complained he couldn't breathe, and then went unresponsive. Very quickly it went from cop justified in restraining someone - to murder, manslaughter, or however they eventually deem it after trial.

please think about what you have written.

'complained he couldnt breathe'....do you beleive every word of every drugged up nut you arrest who is fighting you? especially when they have been shouting it all the time?

'went unresponsive'.....the technique is designed to subdue someone. he was subdued - as required. (yes, i agree that subdue and unresponsive are different and need to be differentiated for - and this was a bad error.

'very quickly'.....well, i think thats the two minute thing. it wasnt very quick. it is claimed to have been deadly slow. if you think it was very quick - you find him innocent.

That said, I doubt he'll be convicted of murder (they'd have to show he intended to kill him. He didn't). (quote)

You don't quite understand what intent means in law. Murder does not require planned forethought. If Chauvin continued with actions that at some point he could see would result in Floyd's death - and did so - then that is intent sufficient to establish murder.

8 minutes and 46 seconds shows that Chauvin knew what he was doing - as the bystanders clearly recognized as they begged him to stop. Murder.

Armstronglivs wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

please think about what you have written.

'complained he couldnt breathe'....do you beleive every word of every drugged up nut you arrest who is fighting you? especially when they have been shouting it all the time?

'went unresponsive'.....the technique is designed to subdue someone. he was subdued - as required. (yes, i agree that subdue and unresponsive are different and need to be differentiated for - and this was a bad error.

'very quickly'.....well, i think thats the two minute thing. it wasnt very quick. it is claimed to have been deadly slow. if you think it was very quick - you find him innocent.

8 minutes and 46 seconds shows that Chauvin knew what he was doing - as the bystanders clearly recognized as they begged him to stop. Murder.

and the bystanders begged for GF to stop resisting and just get in the car and DC, as trained to do, maintained restraint until the ambulance arrived. How many murders call an ambulance and try and calm a person down and work with them and then decide to slowly kill them while people watch?

hdhehwjwkskkxd wrote:

Well, for better or for worse it looks like the beginning of the end of qualified immunity for police officers is here. If NYPD is repealing qualified immunity, it probably won’t be long before other departments do as well. It’ll be interesting to see where police recruiting and where policing in general stands when all of this is said and done.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/25/us/nyc-police-reform-nypd/index.html

That will end the police as we know it. They will waste their salary on lawyers for false allegations and real, but will never recoup anything when proven innocent, for the majority that do.

Not all areas are the same wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

8 minutes and 46 seconds shows that Chauvin knew what he was doing - as the bystanders clearly recognized as they begged him to stop. Murder.

and the bystanders begged for GF to stop resisting and just get in the car and DC, as trained to do, maintained restraint until the ambulance arrived. How many murders call an ambulance and try and calm a person down and work with them and then decide to slowly kill them while people watch?

You call 8 minutes and 46 seconds of Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck "working with him"? What crime had Floyd committed - or was about to commit - that required this? I'm sure that in the Old South you would have seen a lynching as much the same - a necessary form of "restraint".

Armstronglivs wrote:

That said, I doubt he'll be convicted of murder (they'd have to show he intended to kill him. He didn't). (quote)

You don't quite understand what intent means in law. Murder does not require planned forethought. If Chauvin continued with actions that at some point he could see would result in Floyd's death - and did so - then that is intent sufficient to establish murder.

Good old armstronglivs. Even disagreeing with the bbc.

What is second-degree murder?

Mr Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder, which means causing death without intent. The maximum sentence is 40 years.

But, unlike some deranged people, i will let facts get in the way of the awful bbc;

Minnesota Second-Degree Murder

Created by FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated June 03, 2020

Second-degree murder is an intentional killing, but is less serious than first-degree murder because some malicious factors aren’t present.

sorry, the second and third lines above are meant to be italicised as quotes from the bbc. i am quoting the bbc saying that 2nd degree murder is without intent. which is wrong.

Oh - so second-degree murder isn't really serious then - even though it's still called murder? That must make it ok. Unfortunately for Chauvin it is also easier to prove - which is why the prosecutors have opted for it.

pupil3142 wrote:

sorry, the second and third lines above are meant to be italicised as quotes from the bbc. i am quoting the bbc saying that 2nd degree murder is without intent. which is wrong.

You don't have to apologize for getting things wrong. It is a given.