ALM V BLM

You might find this interesting. His lawyers would be insane to try to use your excuse as an excuse.

Minneapolis police chief: George Floyd's death was 'MURDER'

Specifically:

Mr. George Floyd’s tragic death was not due to a lack of training — the training was there,’ Arradondo wrote. ‘Chauvin had his knee on Mr Floyd’s neck for over seven minutes, and for those last minutes he knew that Floyd was non-responsive.

‘This was murder — it wasn’t a lack of training. This is why I took swift action regarding the involved officers’ employment with MPD,’ he continued.

Chauvin and Tou Thao – another officer involved in the fatal arrest - both had previously taken department training to prevent suffocation in people being restrained face down years earlier, the police chief said.
You are still missing the point; you put forward a statement where you suggested we all agree with you that he did that because they wanted to kill him. Sorry, but no we do not all agree.

I made no statement or reference as to whether my personal reasoning for disagreeing with you should be utilized by his defense team. I'm no defense lawyer and this is no courtroom.
 
No. You're wrong. Read my post above. He'd been specifically trained not to do it. So in fact had been trained that TO DO IT might kill someone. And he did it anyway.
That is still not the same to me as disagreeing with you that he did that because they wanted to kill him.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
That is still not the same to me as disagreeing with you that he did that because they wanted to kill him.
What's this 'they' business? I've been talking about Chauvin.

Had he shot him in the head one could argue that it might not have necessarily meant to kill him. But I can't see a jury believing it.
 
What's this 'they' business? I've been talking about Chauvin.
Your words :facepalm:

Reasonable doubt. I think we'd all agree that if someone knelt on someone's neck for 8 minutes it would be because they wanted to kill them; or they were in fear of their life and wanted to subdue them; or they didn't know that by doing so, it would kill them. I can't think of another reason?
Had he shot him in the head one could argue that it might not have necessarily meant to kill him. But I can't see a jury believing it.
o_O:confused: This is getting even weirder now. Perhaps I'm not fully awake as I haven't had my coffee yet; are you suggesting a shot in the head can be argued as not meant to kill, but a neck restrain can't? Totally confused now. And yes, I agree I can't see a jury believing that a headshot was not meant to kill, I don't believe it either.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
@Bl4ckGryph0n My words were talking hypothetically. Not referencing Chauvin. Something lost in translation I think. I can see where the confusion has come from but in the quote above, I was talking about 'someone', not Chauvin specifically.
 

pratty

Active Member
I have only seen a couple of images from the video of the incident. They show the cop with his knee "on his neck". The impression I had got from the media and others describing the restraint was that his knee was on his throat, hence not being able to breathe. Or that his face must have been smothered into the ground preventing him from breathing.

The pictures I've seen however show the knee is placed towards the back of the neck and slightly to the side. And his head is turned to one side, not directly face down. The knee is on the neck, but also across the base of his skull and his upper back, which would spread the pressure of the cop's knee accross that whole region, not just the neck. And even then it's hard to tell if there was pressure being applied to the carotid artery which would cut off blood to the brain.

In my opinion, just as a someone who did Judo for many years and learned choke holds and pins, that the position of the knee and the victim would suggest an intent to restrain, rather than kill. Again just from the 2 images Ive seen. It would have been very uncomfortable but I think a low risk of killing a healthy person of Floyd's size.

I think the cop will have a hard time explaining why he was in that position for 8 minutes or why he ignored Floyd saying he couldn't breathe. But my point here is that people saying he had his knee on his neck isn't the straight forward murderous act it's being implied to be.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
. But my point here is that people saying he had his knee on his neck isn't the straight forward murderous act it's being implied to be.
It is when you've been specifically trained that by doing so you would kill someone.

A layman might be able to use ignorance as an excuse.
 

tahirti3

Active Member
The knee does not need to be across his throat.the knee was pushing his throat into the ground and could affect his ability to breath.even the fact that his head was turned would not relieve the pressure on his throat.we are talking about a grown man using a lot of his body weight to pin floyds neck to the floor for over 8 minutes.
The fact is that this was a trained officer who should have known better.
 

pratty

Active Member
In my opinion it wouldn't.

What was his training regarding restraints?

It is when you've been specifically trained that by doing so you would kill someone.
Would kill them or could kill them?

Your speaking as if it's a 100% certainty, like bullet to the back of the head. Even those who are against neck restraints say it's because they are potentially dangerous, not because they are guaranteed to kill.
 

pratty

Active Member
The knee does not need to be across his throat.the knee was pushing his throat into the ground and could affect his ability to breath.even the fact that his head was turned would not relieve the pressure on his throat.we are talking about a grown man using a lot of his body weight to pin floyds neck to the floor for over 8 minutes.
The fact is that this was a trained officer who should have known better.
How does this prove intent to kill? Which is what we're talking about. Nobody is saying the restraint wasn't without risk.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
In my opinion it wouldn't.

What was his training regarding restraints?


Would kill them or could kill them?

Your speaking as if it's a 100% certainty, like bullet to the back of the head. Even those who are against neck restraints say it's because they are potentially dangerous, not because they are guaranteed to kill.

This is the case which I think will almost guarantee a conviction. Chauvin knew about this and was given additional training as a direct result of this prior case.

So I'd say if this officer had been told that by kneeling on someone's neck they might kill them. Had completed training to this effect, and then, with little or no mitigating circumstances decided to do it anyway (AND was warned by others several times during the kneeling that he was doing harm), the only logical outcome is that he did it deliberately surely? That's for the jury to decide.
 

BrightonChris

Distinguished Member
This thread has turned into a low rent role play of an american court trial.
All we're saying is that there is some uncertainty which could lead to an acquittal. Even if you're on the side that says there is no uncertainty, this thread is evident that there is. Obviously there will be a lot more information presented at the trial. Not much point in going back and forth trying to read Chauvin's mind as to intent.
 

pratty

Active Member
Over 8 minutes and he didnt intend harm!
Harm? You are moving the goal posts just to score a point nobody is even contesting. We are talking about whether he intended to kill him.

And if you read my initial post you would see I said he would have a hard time explaining why he held him as he did for 8 minutes, I'm sure it was intended to be unpleasant. But I'm not convinced the way he restrained him was intented to kill.
 

tahirti3

Active Member
He was trained to know it could kill.why then do it?
Floyd didnt need to be restrained in that way.
But we will just have to wait and see what the jury thinks
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
This thread has turned into a low rent role play of an american court trial.
All we're saying is that there is some uncertainty which could lead to an acquittal. Even if you're on the side that says there is no uncertainty, this thread is evident that there is. Obviously there will be a lot more information presented at the trial. Not much point in going back and forth trying to read Chauvin's mind as to intent.
Agreed. But that applies to pretty much any crime doesn't it? Except where the criminal has left a note or some kind of manifesto.

As I've said, reverse the roles of Chauvin and George and would anyone be saying, 'the guy didn't necessarily mean to kill the policeman? I doubt it.
 

BrightonChris

Distinguished Member
Agreed. But that applies to pretty much any crime doesn't it? Except where the criminal has left a note or some kind of manifesto.

As I've said, reverse the roles of Chauvin and George and would anyone be saying, 'the guy didn't necessarily mean to kill the policeman? I doubt it.
I've no idea. Thought experiments are a complete waste of time
 

DrPhil

Distinguished Member
It is incredibly naieve to not acknowledge that the nature of the charge along with the recent bodycam footage makes a conviction considerably less secure.

Nobody here is making the case that Chauvin should walk. I am simply trying to look objectively at the legal definitions reasonable doubt, and the coroner's report.

I felt that increasing from 3rd to 2nd was a bad move at the time, and that was even before the bodycam footage.
 

rustybin

Distinguished Member
It is incredibly naieve to not acknowledge that the nature of the charge along with the recent bodycam footage makes a conviction considerably less secure.

Nobody here is making the case that Chauvin should walk. I am simply trying to look objectively at the legal definitions reasonable doubt, and the coroner's report.

I felt that increasing from 3rd to 2nd was a bad move at the time, and that was even before the bodycam footage.
That's what I think it'll boil down to for the jurors. Can you reasonably believe he did it on purpose. Only he knows. But imo, given his training and his role, it is reasonable to believe he understood the likely outcome of his actions. But I think knowing what little I know of the American legal system it's impossible to know which way this will go.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
It is incredibly naieve to not acknowledge that the nature of the charge along with the recent bodycam footage makes a conviction considerably less secure.

Nobody here is making the case that Chauvin should walk. I am simply trying to look objectively at the legal definitions reasonable doubt, and the coroner's report.

I felt that increasing from 3rd to 2nd was a bad move at the time, and that was even before the bodycam footage.
I'm afraid the naivety on this is equally yours. And you're not looking at it all objectively.

Why does the bodycam footage make a conviction less secure? You haven't said. It can work in the prosecution's favour as well you realise. It shows that Floyd was not a serious threat and was complaining about his health. As I said on the previous page, no-one puts a man in the position they did for 8 minutes knowing he had difficulty breathing. And then kneels on his neck.

How do you think Chauvin is going to reasonably explain this action? Including leaving him unconscious for 3 minutes?

Also worth nothing that the judge hasn't authorised the release of the video yet, and it was Lane's attorney who filed in an attempt to get the case against Lane dismissed.

You've mentioned the coroner's report, but again you haven't elaborated on what I asked on the previous page about your asphyxiation claim. You of course don't have to, but I'm not sure what your point is here or where your information is from.

Finally you still seem confused on the charges. If Chauvin isn't convicted of second degree murder, he can still be convicted of third degree and/or second degree manslaughter.

All the eggs aren't in one basket now. The increase in charge to second degree doesn't dismiss the other charges.
 

DrPhil

Distinguished Member
Why does the bodycam footage make a conviction less secure? You haven't said.
I have said:
The other simple fact is he also said he couldn't breathe BEFORE they restrained him. Which essentially confirms that his breathing difficulty was not (at least initially) caused by Chauvin's actions.

It shows that Floyd was not a serious threat and was complaining about his health.
Exactly. It shows that he was already complaining about his health, so Chauvin did not necessarily not cause the problems that killed him, although he undoubtedly didn't help either.

Coupled with the coroner's original report stating they asphyxiation was not the cause, I don't see why this opinion is causing so much debate.
 
Last edited:

Marv

Member
The case is'nt as clear cut with the full footage now out there now and the drugs in his system.

flloyd autosy.png
 

DrPhil

Distinguished Member
If Chauvin isn't convicted of second degree murder, he can still be convicted of third degree and/or second degree manslaughter.
You are right, and I stand corrected. The reports initially said the charge had been upgraded from 3rd to 2nd. But you're right, the 2nd degree charge is in addition to 3rd degree murder and the manslaughter charges so he can still be aquitted of one and found guilty of the other(s).
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
I have said:




Exactly. It shows that he was already complaining about his health, so Chauvin did not necessarily not cause the problems that killed him.

Coupled with the coroner's original report stating they asphyxiation was not the cause, I don't see why this opinion is causing so much debate.
It's an opinion (and that's fine) though it's one that doesn't take into account all the facts.

Let me explain using your words.

You say that Chauvin did not necessarily cause the problems that killed him (I'm assuming the extra "not" in your quote is a typo).

That's not entirely true. All officers are being charged because they are all responsible for negligence in their treatment of Floyd. As I said earlier, no handbook or training in the world tells you to place a man struggling for breath in a prone position on his stomach. Then kneel on his neck, and ignore the fact he lost consciousness for 3 minutes.

I'm sure the defence will push hard on the fact now that they knew of his breathing difficulty before they did this manoeuvre. So why did they proceed to do it and not correct their mistake when it was clear Floyd was in trouble? People don't just lose consciousness for no reason.

The bodycam footage could be easily as damning for the defence.

"The coroners original report stating asphyxiation was not the cause."

That's now in dispute and not the sole reliable report to take into account.

Also that report has been questioned because of it's reliance on the fact that fentanyl and methamphetamine were "significant". However it failed to elaborate on how much was in his system, and indeed the notion of their significance has now been called into question. There are also other issues with the initial report that have been questioned - I think one was the conclusion that the heart failed due to heart disease, but another examiner found no evidence of heart disease. It's also been presented that the initial report was rushed and not as thorough as it should have been, and not as thorough as the independent report.

This is obviously going to be an area of contention come the case.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

The Best Movies and TV Shows Coming To Netflix in October 2020. Tom's Thumbs.

Trending threads

Latest News

Philips TVs available in more Currys PC World stores
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sonus faber announces Il Cremonese ex3me special edition speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
KEF unveils LS50 Meta speaker and S2 Floor Stand
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
KEF announces LS50 Wireless II speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
The AVForums podcast is moving to Wednesdays
  • By Stuart Wright
  • Published
Top Bottom