@revelette3,
Is this the first one of these that seems so clear cut to you, Rev? It seemed to be the first time a lot of people all over the world saw a police killing as clearly unjust.
@snood,
I am in a discussion of this trial, the Derek Chauvin Trial as on the title of your own thread.
@revelette3,
Thanks for keeping the focus.
I don’t know what her name is, but the female prosecuting attorney doing the questioning now is just horrible. She seems unprepared and unsure of her direction. I don’t know if she is just too aware of the camera on her, or what her problem is, but she sure isn’t very impressive.
Considering the constant whining from the right about not prejudging, the agonies of jury selection and even going as far as questioning the need for a trial if everyone has already made up their minds, the only person responsible for the trial is Chauvin himself. He can always plead guilty and save the cost of a trial.
I don’t know if this is the right place to talk about this, but it seems, that for once, the right wing wants to limit the amount of stuff prejudicial to a verdict that’s out there prior to a trial which would mean looking at sub judice laws as applied in other countries.
George Floyd’s killing was so public and the response so viral that any talk of sub judice is irrelevant here, but in other cases it has validity.
Over here we have fairly stringent sub judice laws and with a few exceptions there isn’t the public wailing about jury selection, and it being difficult for the jury.
Going through the sequence of events here in a hypothetical case. A body is found, appeal launched, body identified, appeal for information, suspects arrested, suspects charged.
All of the above is reported freely at the time usually without any restrictions. However, once the accused has appeared in court and been formally charged sub judice rules kick in. The press is only allowed to report on court proceedings from that point in time, and even then the judge can stop certain things said in court being broadcast until after the verdict.
Let’s say the accused ex girlfriend contacts the newspapers with a kiss and tell about what a nasty bastard he was. If the papers were to print any of that before the trial they would be held in contempt of court and the sanctions are pretty serious.
Once a verdict has been reached all restrictions are lifted and the newspapers can print the ex girlfriend’s story without any bother.
Just something to think about.
The paramedic’s testimony was really shocking. Even though George Floyd no longer had a pulse Chauvin had to be asked to get off him so he could be treated.
Again it’s the blatant nature of all of this. It’s no, “Oh **** we fucked up, let’s try and fix it.” Instead it’s like they don’t give a **** they fucked up.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
The paramedic’s testimony was really shocking. Even though George Floyd no longer had a pulse Chauvin had to be asked to get off him so he could be treated.
Again it’s the blatant nature of all of this. It’s no, “Oh **** we fucked up, let’s try and fix it.” Instead it’s like they don’t give a **** they fucked up.
In a way, Chauvin’s evil, casual cruelty works in his favor- people will twist themselves into pretzels trying to find some motivations besides the simple fact - he decided he was going to end George Floyd’s life, and then he did it. He knew he was being watched while he did it, and he didn’t care because he figured he would certainly get away with it. After all (his thinking), he’s an officer of the law - nobody will believe he took a life simply because he could.
He probably didn’t even believe he’d be charged with anything.
Now that he’s having to stand trial, he’s probably hoping the jury has at least one Oralloy-type in there - someone who will defend and believe ANYTHING a policeman does. ESPECIALLY if he does it to a black person.
@snood,
What gets me is the bleating about all the evidence as if it somehow stops a fair trial.
Yesterday there was a picture in the local paper of a car that had ploughed into a house demolishing a wall. The driver failed a breathalyser test.
Nobody is moaning about her not having a fair trial because she’s been caught bang to rights.
So has Chauvin.
@snood,
snood wrote:In a way, Chauvin's evil, casual cruelty works in his favor- people will twist themselves into pretzels trying to find some motivations besides the simple fact - he decided he was going to end George Floyd's life, and then he did it. He knew he was being watched while he did it, and he didn't care because he figured he would certainly get away with it. After all (his thinking), he's an officer of the law - nobody will believe he took a life simply because he could.
Don't be silly. He looked so casual because he didn't realize that the guy was dying.
snood wrote:He probably didn't even believe he'd be charged with anything.
Again because he didn't realize the guy was dying.
snood wrote:Now that he's having to stand trial, he's probably hoping the jury has at least one Oralloy-type in there - someone who will defend and believe ANYTHING a policeman does. ESPECIALLY if he does it to a black person.
I'm someone who places facts and reality ahead of progressive delusion and hysteria.
Yes, it is likely that he hopes for jurors like that.
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:Can someone tell me what the heck is the significance to George Floyd appearing intoxicated in the Cup Food store? What difference does it make, no matter if he was a high as a kite, does that justify Chauvin's killing him?
They are going to claim that he died of a drug overdose and that the police officers restraining him was not a factor in his death.
@roger,
roger wrote:Anything prior to Floyd being put on the ground and under control isn't relevant. Anything after that is punishment - which isn't a police function.
What should they have done once he was on the ground? He probably would have resumed his struggle if they again attempted to place him in a police car.
@oralloy,
so killing him renders him compliant?
@farmerman,
They didn't realize that he was dying. They certainly didn't think that
they were killing him.
And who knows. Let's listen to their argument that they didn't in fact kill him.
@snood,
snood wrote:At the beginning of that ten minutes or so of time captured on video for all the world, we see that George Floyd was already handcuffed in the backseat of a police vehicle.
Actually he was refusing to let them put him in the police car.
snood wrote:Let's contemplate that for a second.
Why? It isn't true.
snood wrote:For all the talk of him marauding about in Cup foods appearing high; for all the talk of him ingesting drugs at the time of arrest; for all the arguments about what is, and is not correct police procedure to handle an uncooperative arrestee...
They had already cuffed him and put him in the backseat of the vehicle.
No they didn't. He refused to lat them place him in the back seat of the police car.
snood wrote:One of the things the prosecution will doubtless point out in the days to come, and among the many things that the defense will have to provide a plausible excuse for, is that the police then drag the cuffed man out, push him to the concrete, and start doing... god knows what.
Instead of providing an excuse for it, I expect that the defense will merely point out that it isn't true.
snood wrote:To our ignorant eyes, it sure appears that all four cops - especially Chauvin - are simply inflicting corporal punishment on Floyd. They appear to have no purpose but to cause him distress and physical pain.
Yes, but why wallow in ignorance?
snood wrote:The defense has an exceptionally weak case, IMHO. They have to make a credible argument that it was necessary to take a man already handcuffed and safely in the rear of their vehicle, out of the vehicle and grind him onto the pavement.
Nah. They can just point out that that isn't what happened.
snood wrote:I say they won't succeed in convincing 99.9999999999901 percent of people who hear their arguments.
What I'm afraid of is that one juror who in their heart would defend anything- anything - a policeman does, to whom any and all evidence is moot.
That's whose hands the outcome of the trial will ultimately be in.
There also could be jurors who disregard leftist hysteria and focus on actual facts and evidence.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:Exactly, if Floyd was causing trouble once he was cuffed and in the back of the vehicle that should be the end of it.
What followed after that was gratuitous.
Except, he wasn't in the back of the vehicle. He was preventing them from placing him in the back of the vehicle.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:Who gives a **** what was said. That's not important. He was arrested, cuffed and ready to go down the nick. That's where he should have been going.
I can't think of anything that he could have said that would warrant taking him out of the vehicle.
They didn't take him out of the vehicle. He prevented them from placing him in the vehicle.
@oralloy,
Peosecution witness, an EMC , was checking for his vitals while he was being suffocated. Are you saying the Minn Police Dept is as stupid as a bunch of gibbons or just on a murderous rampage?
You choose
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
They didn't realize that he was dying. They certainly didn't think that they were killing him.
A paramedic said he looked lifeless from 20 feet away. But you’re saying Chauvin couldn’t tell he was lifeless from right on top of him. The same paramedic checked Floyd’s carotid artery for pulse, with Chauvin watching while still kneeling on him, and told him there was no pulse. But you’re saying he didn’t know he was killing Floyd.
No one is that blind or crazy. Except maybe you. But I don’t even think you believe it - you just automatically defend whatever the police do.
I’m not going to run and search or it because it’s not worth the energy. But I clearly remember you saying this was a murder at the time it happened.
@snood,
Actually I didn't say anything at all about it at the time it happened.
I was focused on a much more important case (the lynching of Amy Cooper) and didn't take any notice of this case whatsoever.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:Prosecution witness, an EMC, was checking for his vitals while he was being suffocated.
Perhaps he didn't even die of suffocation.
farmerman wrote:Are you saying the Minn Police Dept is as stupid as a bunch of gibbons or just on a murderous rampage?
You choose
No. I do not choose either of those options.
