Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The defense would put on a forensic pathologist who faults Chauvin for not providing immediate medical aid to a pulseless Floyd, talks about carbon monoxide in open air, and evokes incidental paragangliomas as possible contributors, yet still not entertain the argument you offered before the jury.
Hope this helps.
So you are making a case for “ineffective counsel”?
For some reason this person is eager to see an acquittal. Judge Cahill has seen the prosecution’s case and he obviously disagreed with the contention that the prosecution failed to meet the basic elements for murder 2, murder 3, and manslaughter 2.
Some people are crippled by their biases, like those who keep saying Chauvin will be acquitted or that the prosecution failed to make its case. Meanwhile, the reasonable people with attachment to reality are waiting to see the closing arguments and how the jury will weigh the information and testimonies provided.
As Nov3 noted below, it is standard to file motions to dismiss in cases like this. Having said that, I also think we are at a point in time & in place where simply enduring the status quo is no longer an option. More fully explained here:
"For example, people with something to lose tend toward conservative choices politically as well as economically. Nothing wrong with that necessarily. Just an observation about the influence of Loss Aversion heuristic on actual decision making. We are more apt to endure the status quo, even as it slowly deteriorates, than we are to call for “radical” change.
Regrettably, however, when the call for change comes, it often requires a far greater upheaval to make the necessary transformations, or, on occasion, the situation has deteriorated beyond the point of no return. In those situations we find ourselves wondering why we waited so long before doing something."
Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts
from: Facione, Peter. (2015). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts, Insight Assessment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3
Acquital motions are standard in cases like this. It's a checks and balances for the defense to use such a motion. I'd be more Leary if a defense lawyer wasn't doing his job in bringing such a motion.
Just as most objections are raised, that too is done mostly to give alert to the judge .
These lawyers are protecting their careers during this trial. Make no bones about it. When attry Nelson made that formal presentation with Chauvin on his choice to plead the fifth. It was also to cover his arse that he had fully counseled his client on the risks and his decision was chauvins alone. Blowback by clients is one way to get an appeal stating the lawyer did not fully represent the client or raise motions.
Agreed. Even so, depending on how the jury decides, the Defendant can always appeal. Or, in the case of a mistrial, begin the process all over, or, take a plea, or ...
As has been pointed out many times, Floyd made that claim before the nine minutes. So either he was lying then - in which case Chauvin had good reason to not believe him afterwards - or he was telling the truth - in which case it was something else which killed him and not Chauvin’s actions.
It is possible that the rookie officers were naive and trusting, they hadn’t yet experienced how lying and deceptive and dangerous real criminals are, so they more easily believed Floyd.
Guy goes into an emergency room, complaining he can't breathe. A doctor knocks him to the floor, two orderlies jump on his back, and the doctor holds his knee to the guys neck, for more than nine minutes. When the guy dies, the doctor says we didn't harm him, he was a dead man walking when he came through the door. How could you think we did anything wrong?
Derek Chauvin just invoked his Fifth Amendment right. If he is innocent, what does he have to hide? This is the same logic that conservatives always use on this forum. How do you feel about that now?
It is normal for defendants not to testify, but I don’t think it’s normal for this to be described as them taking the fifth.
Derek Chauvin just invoked his Fifth Amendment right. If he is innocent, what does he have to hide? This is the same logic that conservatives always use on this forum. How do you feel about that now?
Most Defendants won't testify even if they're innocent, so Chauvin did what his Counsel wanted him to do. That said, I am very curious to see if he could explain what was in his head during those 9 minutes, looked pretty bad. I wish he would have explained:
- his intent
- his training and use of force
- why he continued for 9 minutes when Floyd said he couldn't breath.
I still think it unlikely Chauvin will be convicted, we'll most likely have a hung jury when all's said and done.
The key point to all of this is pretty simple. Approx. 5-6 min in, one of the cops checked for a pulse and could not find one. That cop told Chauvin who acknowledged that no pulse was found and continued with neck and backpressure. At no time did anyone start life-saving measures, change the position of the back/neck, roll Mr. Floyd on his Left which is standard protocol when moving out of prone position to reduce aortic pressure, or verify if Mr. Floyd was even conscious / moving.
Think about it, Chauvin and two other cops were restraining essentially a dead person for 1-2 min before the ambulance showed up and none of them noticed the guy was not moving or struggling. I don't claim to be a genius but I know what a dead person versus a live person looks, feels, and behaves like and I am sure most of you could easily guess the difference if you have no first hand experience.
I would think if someone was restrained on the ground with three people on that person and the restrained person is no longer moving, this would end the need for a three-cop prone restraint. Mr. Floyd would be alive if the cops just said "guys not moving or responding, let's move off his back". That is all it would have taken here.
As has been pointed out many times, Floyd made that claim before the nine minutes. So either he was lying then - in which case Chauvin had good reason to not believe him afterwards - or he was telling the truth - in which case it was something else which killed him and not Chauvin’s actions.
It is possible that the rookie officers were naive and trusting, they hadn’t yet experienced how lying and deceptive and dangerous real criminals are, so they more easily believed Floyd.
You couldn't tell that his voice was getting lower and lower? You didn't hear that he didn't have a pulse? The two rookies wanted to help but he wasn't having it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
