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.
I think Chauvin was following procedure at the start. We now know that, at the end, he clearly wasn’t following procedure for someone in Floyd’s condition. But the question is: at what point in time should he have changed procedures?
When Floyd stopped resisting? But he might just have been trying to get the police to drop their guard and relax their supervision so he could start fighting again.
When he said he couldn’t breathe? He said that before he was even placed in this restraint, and it apparently wasn’t true then so why should they believe it now?
When he stopped talking? I don’t know. Is it normal for someone to talk while being restrained?
When he stopped breathing? Chauvin’s knee wasn’t on his chest so he wouldn’t have felt that.
When his heart stopped? In a hospital he’d have been on a heart monitor and the doctors could have seen this straight away. But this wasn’t a hospital.
When Chauvin was told he didn’t have a pulse? When an EMT told him to stop, he did so. He had previously been told by a cop that there was no pulse, but it’s so unusual for someone to die from this procedure that he couldn’t have expected this and the cop was just a rookie so he probably didn’t believe it. (Yes, I know someone in the crowd had said she was an EMT and wanted to check his pulse, but she had no proof of her claim and I don’t know if Chauvin even heard her say this. When someone who clearly was qualified told him to stop, he did so. We must also take into account that this EMT took longer than expected to arrive.)
We are speaking - judging - from the knowledge of what happened afterwards; Chauvin was acting based on his knowledge of what had happened in the past and might have happened in this case. He couldn’t see into the future. There are reasons for his slowness to react, those reasons need to be fairly examined, and it is an open question whether he exceeded a reasonable amount of time.
We at least agree Chauvin didn't follow neck restraint policy at some at some point.
Though I could quibble with the reasons you give for his actions, I'll stick to only one :
Chauvin was acting based on his knowledge of what had happened in the past and might have happened in this case
Floyd was searched. He was prone on his stomach, handcuffed behind his back. Four cops on the scene. Even if he could breathe, what threat did he pose, how could he actively resist ? In Chauvin's experience, or testimony from other experienced officers, did a subject in Floyd's condition and position suddenly jump to their feet, escape from the cuffs, and pose a threat ? Add what Chauvin was told about no pulse, the suggestion he turn Floyd on his side, no movement at all by Floyd. I suppose Floyd could have been a combo Shaolin monk and Houdini who faked no breathing and an escape artist as well.
I generally support police who use force when they have to make split-second decisions. This isn't that type of case.
It's rare to find a person who is that doubtfull. You.would in some cases be unqualified for jury duty.
If you doubt you are alive, doubt you breathed in oxygen, or doubt you have ever walked, you might need professional intervention.
It's another to be so indecisive, that making a clear decision hinders your daily life.
You would be dismissed. As your mindset keeps you from forming a logical set of facts.
I don't think you are as nieve as that. You are more likely wishing to pass the buck since holding someone's criminal actions in your hands holds you accountable for that decision.
It’s a fairly common problem with jurors now that they tend to not convict on circumstantial evidence because they see crime shows etc and think you always need forensic evidence to convict someone. There has been quite a few cases in the last 10-15 years where if the same evidence was presented in 1980 the jury would have probably come to a guilty verdict
As long as there is doubt in my mind I could not convict.
I have no doubt in my mind. I will not convict. Not even if they burn our cities down. Cowardice is a heinous trait.
We were accused of systemic racist injustice every time our police officers were vindicated in court and acquitted. Now that the trial is open to the world, all humanity is the jury. Let even the Taliban see the cowardice in the home of the brave and land of the free.
No people like Chauvin aren't police, they are pigs. My father got offended when I used that but I replied it is offensive to call people like that officers. I'm not calling officers pigs, just ones that are corrupt. You're not corrupt, I wouldn't call you such.
Just a refresher since some seem to think that this is simply a matter of convicting or not on one charge. Chauvin is actually facing three charges, and from what I read he could be found guilty on one but not the others (partial verdict). Anyone that automatically says they would not convict seem to have not actually followed the trial and evidence presented, or what Chauvin is actually being charged with.
In my opinion, there is absolutely no doubt that he will at the very least be found guilty of second degree manslaughter, with the possibility that he may even be found guilty of third-degree murder. Sentencing guidelines for those can be anywhere from 10-15 years, but the judge has discretion to add to that. I am not too sure Chauvin will be convicted of the most serious charge, second-degree murder.
Regardless, no matter what the outcome, as always and forever, there will STILL be riotin' and lootin' there's just no denying that. Short of Chauvin receiving the death penalty these ignorant rioters will use any excuse to engage in general mayhem.
Chauvin is facing three charges: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.
The jury will be instructed to consider each charge and verdict separately. So Chauvin could be found guilty of one charge but be acquitted of the others. He could, of course, also be found guilty or acquitted of all three.
Each charge will come with a detailed set of instructions for the jurors to follow as they seek to reach a unanimous verdict. For instance, to convict Chauvin on second-degree unintentional murder while committing a felony, the jury must decide that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin caused Floyd's death while committing a felony. In this case, that felony is third-degree assault, which has to involve "substantial bodily harm."
The jury will have to consider complicated definitions of what it means to "cause" a person's death, and what constitutes "substantial bodily harm."
The third-degree murder charge is also complex, asking jurors to consider whether Chauvin committed "an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."
For second-degree manslaughter, prosecutors have to prove that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.”
None of the charges prosecutors chose to levy against Chauvin require them to prove that he intended to kill Floyd.
Of course, the jury has to consider all these charges under the further complication of the lawful standard for police use of force, which must be "objectively reasonable" from the perspective of another reasonable officer in the same situation.
And then no matter the verdict, will come appeals.
Most of these officers will find a loop hole in either the trial or the judges ruling on some process. The 'fair' trial is subjective.
I'm beyond tired of the rioters thinking that's how you show acceptance of a court system. My way or the highway is not how this system is set up. Yes I am going to be upset if the jurors turn a blind eye. Doesn't mean that I am going to trash property that another citizen worked hard to own.
My ire would be with showing exception based on a badge. Let's hope this case does show prudence and regard for humanity. Mr Floyd never deserved the death sentence at the hands of a public servant.
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.
