Forum
»
Poll: Prediction for outcome of Derek Chauvin trial
View Poll Results: What will the outcome be?
Voters: 118.| Mistrial (hung jury counts as mistrial) | 41 | 34% | |
| Full acquittal of all charges | 22 | 18% | |
| Guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter | 3 | 2% | |
| Guilty of 3rd degree murder and manslaughter | 7 | 5% | |
| Chauvin killed before jury deliberation | 4 | 3% | |
| Guilty manslaughter only, acquittal of all other charges | 41 | 34% |
- Results 1 to 30 of 30
-
Page 1 of 1
04-16-2021, 08:39 AM
-
#1
04-16-2021, 08:41 AM
-
#2
- rectifryer
- enlightened
-
- rectifryer
- enlightened
- Join Date: Sep 2012
- Posts: 25,634
- Rep Power: 208783
-
-
Mistrial, acquittal, some bullchit like that
By everyone's admission, the prosecution failed to describe how GF actually died,which was the entire point of the case.
The medical examiner is retarded and conflicting and defense clearly painted a picture of GF's drug using lifestyle. He was obviously very close with his dealer.
By everyone's admission, the prosecution failed to describe how GF actually died,which was the entire point of the case.
The medical examiner is retarded and conflicting and defense clearly painted a picture of GF's drug using lifestyle. He was obviously very close with his dealer.
Boycott foodservice industry crew
04-16-2021, 09:22 AM
-
#3
- QuentinSutpen
- Registered User
-
- QuentinSutpen
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Age: 56
- Posts: 3,148
- Rep Power: 9718
-
-
If I were on that jury, I would push for full acquittal. Even if everyone else wanted guilty, I'd be like Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men" and hold the line.
04-16-2021, 09:27 AM
-
#4
- CaliSuperSport
- Mercenary. Non-negotiable
-
- CaliSuperSport
- Mercenary. Non-negotiable
- Join Date: Apr 2012
- Location: Sacramento, California, United States
- Posts: 47,223
- Rep Power: 275363
-
-
regardless of the decision, I predict a week of comfy stream riots and watching Antifa eat lead, rubber bullets, and tear gas.
ωσяℓ∂ тяανєℓєя ȼяєω
Pre-Med crew
★ NUFC ☆
₪ DEFQON.1 AUSTRALIA 2016 ₪
177 lbs | O: 165 /// B: 275 /// S: 335 /// D: 390
04-16-2021, 09:28 AM
-
#5
- Audioslave
- Registered User
-
- Audioslave
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2004
- Posts: 5,222
- Rep Power: 18763
-
-
I voted manslaughter. I haven't been following it closely but I think they can prove reckless disregard for life if he was on his neck for over 3 minutes after he died. Also I believe the other cops said they should turn him over but he refused to.
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE
04-16-2021, 09:29 AM
-
#6
- miscinbro
- Registered User
-
- miscinbro
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2016
- Age: 43
- Posts: 22,420
- Rep Power: 46435
-
-
Originally Posted By Audioslave⏩
Voted manslaughter too, it just feels like something will have to happen to him, and it’s not like the jury has to defend their decision.I voted manslaughter. I haven't been following it closely but I think they can prove reckless disregard for life if he was on his neck for over 3 minutes after he died. Also I believe the other cops said they should turn him over but he refused to.
04-16-2021, 09:32 AM
-
#7
- Stizzel
- Rothbardian
-
- Stizzel
- Rothbardian
- Join Date: Apr 2008
- Location: Your Mom
- Posts: 83,747
- Subscribers: 1
- Rep Power: 384419
-
-
I dont think hes guilty of manslaughter but i think they will feel obligated to convict him of something
“It’s the bill of rights, not the bill of requests. Rights are not up for negotiations.” Thomas Massie, MAGA enemy #1
04-16-2021, 09:43 AM
-
#8
- JoshSP1985
- Anti-Circumcision
-
- JoshSP1985
- Anti-Circumcision
- Join Date: Aug 2009
- Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
- Posts: 66,936
- Rep Power: 214514
-
-
I think the Jury pressures themselves into manslaughter to try to appease the public.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
04-16-2021, 09:43 AM
-
#9
- JoshSP1985
- Anti-Circumcision
-
- JoshSP1985
- Anti-Circumcision
- Join Date: Aug 2009
- Location: Franklin, Indiana, United States
- Posts: 66,936
- Rep Power: 214514
-
-
Originally Posted By QuentinSutpen⏩
Same broIf I were on that jury, I would push for full acquittal. Even if everyone else wanted guilty, I'd be like Henry Fonda in "12 Angry Men" and hold the line.
*PUREBLOOD CREW*
*DAD CREW*
*SUPER STRAIGHT*
*NATURAL DICK CREW*
*CCW*
04-16-2021, 09:53 AM
-
#10
- rampagefc77
- Registered User
-
- rampagefc77
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Age: 39
- Posts: 20,625
- Rep Power: 153167
-
-
Originally Posted By Audioslave⏩
Would echo this. He was reckless and it cost the man his life. An average person likely wouldn’t have died under those circumstances, given the drugs on his system and underlying conditions, but the situation was controlled, the force seemed excessive, and he didn’t move even after he passed out. This wasnt a split second life or death scenario, it became a sustained questionable choice after a few minutes of Floyd being contained.I voted manslaughter. I haven't been following it closely but I think they can prove reckless disregard for life if he was on his neck for over 3 minutes after he died. Also I believe the other cops said they should turn him over but he refused to.
Any of the murder charges seem impossible to prove. Too many contributing factors to the death.
04-16-2021, 10:02 AM
-
#11
- tk217
- Methodological Naturalism
-
- tk217
- Methodological Naturalism
- Join Date: Jan 2010
- Posts: 55,496
- Rep Power: 57514
-
-
manslaughter.
For sure involuntary.
Intentional act, accidental result.
Kneeling on someone's neck for 10 minutes is criminally negligent. Behavior is reckless and shows indifference toward human life but not extreme enough to elevate to 2nd degree murder.
You could argue "10 minutes" is enough time to 'cool off' on a decision especially when the guy is prone the entire time.
For sure involuntary.
Intentional act, accidental result.
Kneeling on someone's neck for 10 minutes is criminally negligent. Behavior is reckless and shows indifference toward human life but not extreme enough to elevate to 2nd degree murder.
You could argue "10 minutes" is enough time to 'cool off' on a decision especially when the guy is prone the entire time.
04-16-2021, 10:02 AM
-
#12
- memcop
- Crassiest Modulator Alive
-
- memcop
- Crassiest Modulator Alive
- Join Date: Aug 2010
- Posts: 41,881
- Rep Power: 2018771
-
-
I'm leaning toward some form of a mistrial.
I am in no way certain of anything though.
Some serious points to consider.
1. The prosecution changed its position on how GF was murdered halfway through their defense. There was no knee on the neck and wouldn't have mattered. He simply was not murdered by a knee to the neck as reported. There is no dispute to that fact. All doctors said blood would have made up through the other carotid artery and his airway wasn't impeded with a knee.
2. There was some serious prosecutorial misconduct. Repeated. On record. The last account withholding evidence and attempting to introduce it after the defense has rested. This evidence that was withheld was a basis of a defense theory and a contribution to death.
3. The venue was already iffy at best. Have you ever seen a trial where the national guard had to fence of the building, stand watch, provide active riot response against rioters, and make dozens of arrests? How about that in addition to another officer accused of a killing in the same jurisdiction while the trial is happening? The jury is under duress.
I am in no way certain of anything though.
Some serious points to consider.
1. The prosecution changed its position on how GF was murdered halfway through their defense. There was no knee on the neck and wouldn't have mattered. He simply was not murdered by a knee to the neck as reported. There is no dispute to that fact. All doctors said blood would have made up through the other carotid artery and his airway wasn't impeded with a knee.
2. There was some serious prosecutorial misconduct. Repeated. On record. The last account withholding evidence and attempting to introduce it after the defense has rested. This evidence that was withheld was a basis of a defense theory and a contribution to death.
3. The venue was already iffy at best. Have you ever seen a trial where the national guard had to fence of the building, stand watch, provide active riot response against rioters, and make dozens of arrests? How about that in addition to another officer accused of a killing in the same jurisdiction while the trial is happening? The jury is under duress.
Homerotic Modulator, Envious of Idiocy
04-16-2021, 10:10 AM
-
#13
- gachase21
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Georgia, United States
- Posts: 31,767
- Subscribers: 4
- Rep Power: 389233
-
-
^^^ I am with that in addition the jury wasn’t sequestered.
Members of the jury literally had to drive home to an area that was under state of emergency with a curfew- and the j please instructions “don’t don’t watch the news”
They literally had emergency alerts on their phones saying there was a curfew for social unrest.
Um, yea- and this after multiple motions to sequester for the jury, as well as multiple motions to change the venue.
The prosecutorial misconduct started even prior to the trial.
Strong possibility of at least one hold out/ hung jury
Members of the jury literally had to drive home to an area that was under state of emergency with a curfew- and the j please instructions “don’t don’t watch the news”
They literally had emergency alerts on their phones saying there was a curfew for social unrest.
Um, yea- and this after multiple motions to sequester for the jury, as well as multiple motions to change the venue.
The prosecutorial misconduct started even prior to the trial.
Strong possibility of at least one hold out/ hung jury
04-16-2021, 10:18 AM
-
#14
- Audioslave
- Registered User
-
- Audioslave
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2004
- Posts: 5,222
- Rep Power: 18763
-
-
Originally Posted By rampagefc77⏩
I think that's important. Not only was he on him 3 minutes after death but even the other officer came over and advised that they should get off and turn him over. He had plenty of time and advice from fellow officers that indicated what he was doing was wrong. He was cuffed, limp, and even eventually dead... to stay on him under those circumstances for that long seems like reckless disregard for life. I'm not on the jury and haven't been following it closely enough but it does seem like manslaughter to me.This wasnt a split second life or death scenario
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE
04-16-2021, 10:28 AM
-
#15
- memcop
- Crassiest Modulator Alive
-
- memcop
- Crassiest Modulator Alive
- Join Date: Aug 2010
- Posts: 41,881
- Rep Power: 2018771
-
-
Originally Posted By gachase21⏩
But I will say he is man-slaughtered him. I want that on record. I have no equivocation in that regard. It was an easy trial to win but they couldn't resist themselves.^^^ I am with that in addition the jury wasn’t sequestered.
Members of the jury literally had to drive home to an area that was under state of emergency with a curfew- and the j please instructions “don’t don’t watch the news”
They literally had emergency alerts on their phones saying there was a curfew for social unrest.
Um, yea- and this after multiple motions to sequester for the jury, as well as multiple motions to change the venue.
The prosecutorial misconduct started even prior to the trial.
Strong possibility of at least one hold out/ hung jury
Members of the jury literally had to drive home to an area that was under state of emergency with a curfew- and the j please instructions “don’t don’t watch the news”
They literally had emergency alerts on their phones saying there was a curfew for social unrest.
Um, yea- and this after multiple motions to sequester for the jury, as well as multiple motions to change the venue.
The prosecutorial misconduct started even prior to the trial.
Strong possibility of at least one hold out/ hung jury
DC had the absolute duty to protect GF while in his custody. How much it's worth in prison is a whole other conversation.
Homerotic Modulator, Envious of Idiocy
04-16-2021, 10:29 AM
-
#16
- gachase21
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Georgia, United States
- Posts: 31,767
- Subscribers: 4
- Rep Power: 389233
-
-
Originally Posted By rampagefc77⏩
This is more or less my feelings on this matter for the most part.Would echo this. He was reckless and it cost the man his life. An average person likely wouldn’t have died under those circumstances, given the drugs on his system and underlying conditions, but the situation was controlled, the force seemed excessive, and he didn’t move even after he passed out. This wasnt a split second life or death scenario, it became a sustained questionable choice after a few minutes of Floyd being contained.
Any of the murder charges seem impossible to prove. Too many contributing factors to the death.
Any of the murder charges seem impossible to prove. Too many contributing factors to the death.
I just don’t think the prosecution correctly presented their case in the manner needed to secure a conviction- including cause.
As well, I don’t think the trial was conducted in a manner to prevent a possible mistrial.
04-16-2021, 10:29 AM
-
#17
- FarmersSon
- Old but not ancient
-
- FarmersSon
- Old but not ancient
- Join Date: Apr 2021
- Posts: 5,041
- Rep Power: 181854
-
-
I haven't watched the trial but have been following closely. It is my understanding that in order to find Chauvin guilty, the prosecution needs to show the Chauvin was a 1. a substantial cause of death and also 2. that the force was not justified. Both beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on what I have read, I think a reasonable person could have doubts that Chauvin caused Floyds death. To me, based on the ******** in Floyds system, it would be reasonable to think that might be the cause of death.
Having said that, I voted mistrial. Aside from the irregularities that have been mentioned, I think it will be difficult for a full jury to reach a unanimous decision.
Having said that, I voted mistrial. Aside from the irregularities that have been mentioned, I think it will be difficult for a full jury to reach a unanimous decision.
MFC
04-16-2021, 10:39 AM
-
#18
- DeshaunWatson
- Verified
-
- DeshaunWatson
- Verified
- Join Date: Jun 2014
- Posts: 19,647
- Rep Power: 135286
-
-
Should walk free. Manslaughter tho.
04-16-2021, 10:43 AM
-
#19
- DuracellBunny
- Has new batteries!
-
- DuracellBunny
- Has new batteries!
- Join Date: Nov 2005
- Posts: 15,594
- Rep Power: 201320
-
-
Ignoring their fear of what will happen if they don't convict, it all comes down to whether the jury understands the important disctinction:
Do theybelievehe is guilty?
Judging only on things presented in court, did the prosecution establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
If they go with the latter, then they should acquit; but I think they will go with the former and convict. As to which crime? That will depend on the loudest voice in the room.
Do theybelievehe is guilty?
Judging only on things presented in court, did the prosecution establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
If they go with the latter, then they should acquit; but I think they will go with the former and convict. As to which crime? That will depend on the loudest voice in the room.
Screw nature; my body will do what I DAMN WELL tell it to do!
The only dangerous thing about an exercise is the person doing it.
They had the technology to rebuild me. They made me better, stronger, faster......
04-16-2021, 10:44 AM
-
#20
- gachase21
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Georgia, United States
- Posts: 31,767
- Subscribers: 4
- Rep Power: 389233
-
-
Originally Posted By memcop⏩
I think it was crucial he actually got convicted as a message.But I will say he is man-slaughtered him. I want that on record. I have no equivocation in that regard. It was an easy trial to win but they couldn't resist themselves.
DC had the absolute duty to protect GF while in his custody. How much it's worth in prison is a whole other conversation.
DC had the absolute duty to protect GF while in his custody. How much it's worth in prison is a whole other conversation.
The importance of meeting obligations needs to be reiterated.
I'm surprised some of the activist groups haven't been more vocal in expressing disapproval of the prosecution.
They should be pissed the prosecution left room for error for no reason- fighting venue change, fighting against jury sequestration.
Multiple last min data dumps...
And especially the contradictory arguments.
They had a guilty person in front of them, there was no reason to not cover all bases.
They may get a conviction still, we'll see I guess.
04-16-2021, 10:56 AM
-
#21
- QuentinSutpen
- Registered User
-
- QuentinSutpen
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Age: 56
- Posts: 3,148
- Rep Power: 9718
-
-
Just as an FYI to you guys saying "Manslaughter"
You typically think of manslaughter as just unintentionally killing someone.
But it's not that simple. Minnesota statute has a more narrow definition of manslaughter. With Chauvin's actions, do you really see "culpable negligence," "unreasonable risk," "consciously [taking] chances" of death or great bodily harm?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205
A person who causes the death of another ... by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another
You typically think of manslaughter as just unintentionally killing someone.
But it's not that simple. Minnesota statute has a more narrow definition of manslaughter. With Chauvin's actions, do you really see "culpable negligence," "unreasonable risk," "consciously [taking] chances" of death or great bodily harm?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205
A person who causes the death of another ... by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another
04-16-2021, 11:01 AM
-
#22
- Audioslave
- Registered User
-
- Audioslave
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2004
- Posts: 5,222
- Rep Power: 18763
-
-
Originally Posted By QuentinSutpen⏩
"By the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another." Yes, I think that can be proved here.Just as an FYI to you guys saying "Manslaughter"
You typically think of manslaughter as just unintentionally killing someone.
But it's not that simple. Minnesota statute has a more narrow definition of manslaughter. With Chauvin's actions, do you really see "culpable negligence," "unreasonable risk," "consciously [taking] chances" of death or great bodily harm?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205
A person who causes the death of another ... by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another
You typically think of manslaughter as just unintentionally killing someone.
But it's not that simple. Minnesota statute has a more narrow definition of manslaughter. With Chauvin's actions, do you really see "culpable negligence," "unreasonable risk," "consciously [taking] chances" of death or great bodily harm?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205
A person who causes the death of another ... by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE
04-16-2021, 11:08 AM
-
#23
- sloop
- HEY NOW
-
- sloop
- HEY NOW
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Location: Ohio, United States
- Posts: 49,164
- Rep Power: 830268
-
-
Working from home now I've been able to watch 30-40 hours worth of the trial so I am very familiar, but by NO means an expert.
I votedMistrial.
Like others, I do feel the jury will probably get him onsomethingjust to appease the mass of retards standing by waiting on their riot orders.
I votedMistrial.
Like others, I do feel the jury will probably get him onsomethingjust to appease the mass of retards standing by waiting on their riot orders.
04-16-2021, 11:11 AM
-
#24
- QuentinSutpen
- Registered User
-
- QuentinSutpen
- Registered User
- Join Date: Nov 2020
- Age: 56
- Posts: 3,148
- Rep Power: 9718
-
-
Originally Posted By Audioslave⏩
Proved beyond reasonable doubt?"By the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another." Yes, I think that can be proved here.
You don't get the adjectives in the statute. It's not "negligence" or "risk." It's "culpable negligence" and "unreasonable risk," which means Chauvin had to go way beyond the pale.
The context takes away the "culpable" and "unreasonable" words ---- Chauvin was a police officer engaged in his duties, arresting a man who just committed a crime. He and the other officers tried, in good faith, to put Floyd in the back seat; but Floyd (heavily intoxicated) kept resisting. The prone position occurred only after their failed efforts to put Floyd in the car without hurting him.
That's why I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk," cause they tried to arrest Floyd without trouble. But he kept acting up.
Sure, you can say there were mistakes. They could have turned him over after he passed out, offered medical aid. If it was just "negligence" or "risk," then you got a better shot. But I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk."
04-16-2021, 11:18 AM
-
#25
04-16-2021, 11:20 AM
-
#26
04-16-2021, 11:23 AM
-
#27
- Barteh
- Registered User
-
- Barteh
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2012
- Location: -, -, Netherlands
- Age: 36
- Posts: 20,781
- Rep Power: 125767
-
-
Gonna go with a mistrial. There's bound to be 2-3 jurors who won't go along with convicting him "for the greater good" when there's too much reasonable doubt surrounding Floyd's death.
04-16-2021, 11:26 AM
-
#28
- sloop
- HEY NOW
-
- sloop
- HEY NOW
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Location: Ohio, United States
- Posts: 49,164
- Rep Power: 830268
-
-
Originally Posted By QuentinSutpen⏩
Well said bro.Proved beyond reasonable doubt?
You don't get the adjectives in the statute. It's not "negligence" or "risk." It's "culpable negligence" and "unreasonable risk," which means Chauvin had to go way beyond the pale.
The context takes away the "culpable" and "unreasonable" words ---- Chauvin was a police officer engaged in his duties, arresting a man who just committed a crime. He and the other officers tried, in good faith, to put Floyd in the back seat; but Floyd (heavily intoxicated) kept resisting. The prone position occurred only after their failed efforts to put Floyd in the car without hurting him.
That's why I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk," cause they tried to arrest Floyd without trouble. But he kept acting up.
Sure, you can say there were mistakes. They could have turned him over after he passed out, offered medical aid. If it was just "negligence" or "risk," then you got a better shot. But I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk."
You don't get the adjectives in the statute. It's not "negligence" or "risk." It's "culpable negligence" and "unreasonable risk," which means Chauvin had to go way beyond the pale.
The context takes away the "culpable" and "unreasonable" words ---- Chauvin was a police officer engaged in his duties, arresting a man who just committed a crime. He and the other officers tried, in good faith, to put Floyd in the back seat; but Floyd (heavily intoxicated) kept resisting. The prone position occurred only after their failed efforts to put Floyd in the car without hurting him.
That's why I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk," cause they tried to arrest Floyd without trouble. But he kept acting up.
Sure, you can say there were mistakes. They could have turned him over after he passed out, offered medical aid. If it was just "negligence" or "risk," then you got a better shot. But I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk."
04-16-2021, 11:35 AM
-
#29
- Jayarbie
- Registered User
-
- Jayarbie
- Registered User
- Join Date: Apr 2010
- Age: 55
- Posts: 22,214
- Rep Power: 133991
-
-
Originally Posted By QuentinSutpen⏩
The culpable negligence and unreasonable risk apply when he continued to kneel on his neck for 3 minutes after he lost consciousness instead of administering aid.Proved beyond reasonable doubt?
You don't get the adjectives in the statute. It's not "negligence" or "risk." It's "culpable negligence" and "unreasonable risk," which means Chauvin had to go way beyond the pale.
The context takes away the "culpable" and "unreasonable" words ---- Chauvin was a police officer engaged in his duties, arresting a man who just committed a crime. He and the other officers tried, in good faith, to put Floyd in the back seat; but Floyd (heavily intoxicated) kept resisting. The prone position occurred only after their failed efforts to put Floyd in the car without hurting him.
That's why I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk," cause they tried to arrest Floyd without trouble. But he kept acting up.
Sure, you can say there were mistakes. They could have turned him over after he passed out, offered medical aid. If it was just "negligence" or "risk," then you got a better shot. But I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk."
You don't get the adjectives in the statute. It's not "negligence" or "risk." It's "culpable negligence" and "unreasonable risk," which means Chauvin had to go way beyond the pale.
The context takes away the "culpable" and "unreasonable" words ---- Chauvin was a police officer engaged in his duties, arresting a man who just committed a crime. He and the other officers tried, in good faith, to put Floyd in the back seat; but Floyd (heavily intoxicated) kept resisting. The prone position occurred only after their failed efforts to put Floyd in the car without hurting him.
That's why I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk," cause they tried to arrest Floyd without trouble. But he kept acting up.
Sure, you can say there were mistakes. They could have turned him over after he passed out, offered medical aid. If it was just "negligence" or "risk," then you got a better shot. But I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk."
04-16-2021, 11:43 AM
-
#30
- Audioslave
- Registered User
-
- Audioslave
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2004
- Posts: 5,222
- Rep Power: 18763
-
-
Originally Posted By QuentinSutpen⏩
I don't really see how GF "acting up" prior plays a role here. Fast forward to the point where he is on the ground, cuffed, limp and then dead. Then explain why the officer decided to stay on top of a dead man. It seems like this has nothing to do with GF. The defense claimed the reason for this was because of the crowd that surrounded the scene. They claim that is why Chauvin stayed on him and wasn't aware of GF's situation - because they were too intimidated by the crowd. Maybe some jurors will believe that defense - I don't.Proved beyond reasonable doubt?
You don't get the adjectives in the statute. It's not "negligence" or "risk." It's "culpable negligence" and "unreasonable risk," which means Chauvin had to go way beyond the pale.
The context takes away the "culpable" and "unreasonable" words ---- Chauvin was a police officer engaged in his duties, arresting a man who just committed a crime. He and the other officers tried, in good faith, to put Floyd in the back seat; but Floyd (heavily intoxicated) kept resisting. The prone position occurred only after their failed efforts to put Floyd in the car without hurting him.
That's why I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk," cause they tried to arrest Floyd without trouble. But he kept acting up.
Sure, you can say there were mistakes. They could have turned him over after he passed out, offered medical aid. If it was just "negligence" or "risk," then you got a better shot. But I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk."
You don't get the adjectives in the statute. It's not "negligence" or "risk." It's "culpable negligence" and "unreasonable risk," which means Chauvin had to go way beyond the pale.
The context takes away the "culpable" and "unreasonable" words ---- Chauvin was a police officer engaged in his duties, arresting a man who just committed a crime. He and the other officers tried, in good faith, to put Floyd in the back seat; but Floyd (heavily intoxicated) kept resisting. The prone position occurred only after their failed efforts to put Floyd in the car without hurting him.
That's why I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk," cause they tried to arrest Floyd without trouble. But he kept acting up.
Sure, you can say there were mistakes. They could have turned him over after he passed out, offered medical aid. If it was just "negligence" or "risk," then you got a better shot. But I don't see "culpable negligence" or "unreasonable risk."
You can call it a "mistake" but boy is a an egregious one - so egregious I think you can say culpable negligence. And of course they could have gotten off of him and turned him over - one of the officers suggested that to Chauvin. However, Chauvin refused to. Like I said, I haven't followed the case close enough to understand why he wouldn't get off of him not only after the officer told him to but after he stopped breathing. Also, he didn't testify so I am unsure what was going on in his mind.
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts