The Derek Chauvin Trial

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That's different...

That's Texas. Mr. Green

(Just in case anyone mistakes my intent here, I'm saying that Texas is good.)

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I don't see how first-week rookies who challenge a senior officer and are overruled are letting him get away with something.

What were they supposed to have done to stop him?

If I was a Private First Class in the Army, and when deployed in a theatre of war I witnessed my battle buddy, or my squad leader, or my platoon sergeant or my company commander physically abusing or intentionally injuring a prisoner who was already in custody, I would warn them to stop. If they did not stop, I would physically
stop them. I know in my heart I could not stand idly by and pretend it wasn’t happening just because they outranked me.

It is the same thing with these rookie cops. They need to figure out if they are trying to protect their careers, or trying to protect the people they took an oath to protect.

<edit>
I want to be clear: I know this would not be an easy thing to do. The right thing to do is often not the easy thing.

1 Reply

@snood,

This guy was not in custody. He was actively preventing the police from placing him in the back of the squad car.

How are first-week rookies expected to know that this was not a proper way of subduing someone who is resisting arrest?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

He was lying motionless with no pulse and no respiration for over five minutes. There was no reason to keep baring down on his neck unless the intent was to harm him. It was obvious to every witness, and unless the rookies are blind or stupid it was obvious to them too.
That’s what the jury found. That’s why Chauvin was convicted. No matter how you try to turn it around.

If I remember correctly, during the Chauvin trial you were even trying to say Chauvin had no idea he was harming Floyd.

If you still believe that, you’re stupid or crazy.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

He was lying motionless with no pulse and no respiration for over five minutes. There was no reason to keep baring down on his neck unless the intent was to harm him. It was obvious to every witness, and unless the rookies are blind or stupid it was obvious to them too.
That's what the jury found.

A jury has yet to find anything at all regarding the first-week rookies.

snood wrote:

That's why Chauvin was convicted. No matter how you try to turn it around.

Pointing out facts is not turning anything around.

snood wrote:

If I remember correctly, during the Chauvin trial you were even trying to say Chauvin had no idea he was harming Floyd.
If you still believe that, you're stupid or crazy.

He had no idea that he was killing the guy.

He may have known that he was causing him discomfort.

2 Replies

Some very good news

https://scontent.fhou1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/p843x403/186515211_327199668769280_6032071597750168349_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=84a396&_nc_ohc=Tu_rTjzI9B4AX8AjsAC&_nc_ht=scontent.fhou1-2.fna&tp=6&oh=086c670c130df622bae18c530e70a720&oe=60C91DF2

0 Replies

There is a good Wikipedia article on Krasner.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

He had no idea that he was killing the guy.

Breathing is necessary to life - everyone knows this - and if you stop a persons breathing long enough, you kill them:
- he was told by Floyd that he couldn't breathe around 20 times, so he can't say he didn't know he was restricting his breathing
- he was told by many pedestrians that Floyd couldn't breathe, so he can't say he didn't know
Chauvin ignored all of these protests. Ignoring protests is not the same as not knowing - it is a decision to ignore what is happening

- One of the rookies asked if they should roll him on his side....well after Floyd stopped resisting. The rookie was obviously concerned regarding Floyds ability to breathe. Chauvin ignored this.
- as a training officer he must know which positions a person can breathe easiest in. Prone is not it. Chauvin ignored this.
- Even in basic first aid you learn about this - it is on your side. Presuming police are trained in first aid - Chauvin ignored this.
Chauvin ignoring the above is not him 'not knowing he might kill him'. It is him ignoring the risk that he could kill him.

- anyone who thinks for just a moment will know that if you compress the chest, you restrict persons ability to breathe. Chauvin chose not to think about this.
- the police are taught about positional asphyxiation (seeing so many people have died from it), and Chauvin acted contrary to safe practice
- Floyd went from resisting, to normal resting rigidity, to limp...a limp body associated with uncounsciousness.
- even then Chauvin his limp unconsciousness, and kept his knee on his neck
Chauvin basically ignored the above, in order to keep kneeling on Floyds neck. Ignoring is not the same as not knowing.

Once a person is unconscious, their ability to breathe is even more important to protect. That's one of the reasons people are taught in basic first aid to turn people into the recovery position (on their side) when they are found unconscious but breathing.

I very much doubt that Chauvin didn't know he was at high risk of killing Floyd. Judging by his reactions on scene (and that is what this comment is - just a judgement) it appeared he just didn't care. This would no doubt be a large part of why he was found guilty.

The rookies are another matter.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- he was told by Floyd that he couldn't breathe around 20 times, so he can't say he didn't know he was restricting his breathing
- he was told by many pedestrians that Floyd couldn't breathe, so he can't say he didn't know
Chauvin ignored all of these protests. Ignoring protests is not the same as not knowing - it is a decision to ignore what is happening

Or perhaps he didn't believe the protests.

vikorr wrote:

I very much doubt that Chauvin didn't know he was at high risk of killing Floyd. Judging by his reactions on scene (and that is what this comment is - just a judgement) it appeared he just didn't care.

Your assessment is tainted by your anti-white racism. Non-racists don't think that way.

vikorr wrote:

This would no doubt be a large part of why he was found guilty.

He was found guilty of crimes that specifically include lack of intent in their definitions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Or perhaps he didn't believe the protests.

Quite possibly, which is precisely what I addressed in the rest of my post - the grounds for assessing whether or not to believe them. These multiple grounds for risk assesment that you failed to quote or comment on when writing your comment below:

Quote:

Your assessment is tainted by your anti-white racism.

Fact is - the colour of Floyd / Chauvin is irrelevant to the decision making process. If a white person had died - I'd still say Chauvin was guilty of murder. If Chauvin had been black - I'd say she should get done for murder. And oddly for an alleged antiwhite racist - the white rookies - I'm saying they won't get done for murder.

So yes...so very, very racist of me.

And here I am in this thread also saying here as a Black Australian, I've experienced racism from White Australians just once in my life, and the greatest amount of direct racism I've witnessed is from minorities to white Australians...

...oh the hate I'm displaying - and again, so very, very racist of me.

Wait, this anti-white racism allegation is being made by a poster who on these forums, has never once supported a black person involved in a conflict with a white person...who always finds the black person in the wrong / the white person in the right...who never admits to any perspective of the black person / wholeheartedly support perspectives of the white people...
-----------------------------------------------------

Chauvin knew what he was doing restricted breathing, so he knew Floyd would have difficulty breathing. He knew this was occurring over a long period, and he knew the risks would increase. He knew all the other criteria I mentioned.

And if he has any doubt - then he has an obligation to have a medical professional decide the issue, and to not put the prisoner at risk. Ie. As a police officer empowered to deprive people of their liberty - he takes on an obligation to ensure the necessities of life to the best of his ability (as he takes away their ability to do so)

On Floyd becoming compliant (he was for a long time), and particularly on Floyd becoming comatose, knowing the complaints and the risks...again, he had an obligation to Floyds to ensure the necessities of life. Recovery position should have occurred a lot, lot earlier.

Not a single one of these principles changes based on the race of either party.

1 Reply

It doesn't even change for country. In any circumstance, even were Chauvin the tiniest female police officer of an ethnic minority...I'd still come to the same conclusion. In judging right & wrong, race is irrelevant. The only time race becomes relevant is when it is raised by the parties themselves - or a motivation for bad behaviour by the parties themselves, and then, not always.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

What precisely is not true in vikorr’s description of you?

vikorr wrote:

...a poster who on these forums, has never once supported a black person involved in a conflict with a white person...who always finds the black person in the wrong / the white person in the right...who never admits to any perspective of the black person / wholeheartedly support perspectives of the white people...

1 Reply

@snood,

Well, he's lying about me always finding the black person in the wrong. He is also lying about me always finding the white person in the right. He's lying about me never once supporting a black person involved in a conflict with a white person. And he is lying about me never admitting to the perspective of a black person.

The only thing that he is correct about is me wholeheartedly supporting the perspectives of the white people in these conflicts.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

These multiple grounds for risk assesment that you failed to quote or comment on when writing your comment below:

I didn't quote them, but I commented on them when I said that you only think that way because of your racism.

Non-racists don't think that way.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Uh huh - likely you couldn't find a single thing wrong with the considerations used to assess (because race is irrelevant to them), so you ignored them. Just like you ignored context favouring Mr Cooper in the Coopers incident, and context favouring Ahmoud Arbery etc. Anything that doesn't favour the white person (for you), you ignore or call irrelevant (usually without reasoning why / how it is 'irrelevant' - and a token 'it doesn't count' isn't reasoning)....then delusionally, you think the other person is the racist.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I didn't ignore anything. I pointed out that you only think that way because you are a racist.

I can also explain why irrelevant stuff is irrelevant, if such a question were ever to come up in a conversation. I doubt that it ever will come up in conversation however, since such things are usually quite obvious.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You've been asked multiple times to explain why you think something is irrelevent (The Coopers converstaion was the last one)- you haven't yet in these type of discussions.

....just like it you are obviously being asked why you ignored the other knowledge & considerations that would contribute to Chauvin's assessment....yet you admit doing so...once again without providing any reasoning.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The only thing that he is correct about is me wholeheartedly supporting the perspectives of the white people in these conflicts.

And yet, you can't link a single place where any of the other things I said is wrong.

...and you continue to engage in this pattern of extreme double standards (which you apparently can't see).

...while claiming you don't engage in such double standards

...yet never able to show where you don't.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

It's not my job to prove myself innocent of your untrue accusations against me.

I'm not going to play your game of "prove you're not a racist". Just be happy that you didn't say it to my face.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

You've been asked multiple times to explain why you think something is irrelevent (The Coopers converstaion was the last one)- you haven't yet in these type of discussions.

The reason why your side details are irrelevant is because nothing about those side details changes the fact that she legitimately felt threatened. And as such, she had every right to protect herself.

vikorr wrote:

....just like it you are obviously being asked why you ignored the other knowledge & considerations that would contribute to Chauvin's assessment....yet you admit doing so...once again without providing any reasoning.

I didn't ignore anything. I've repeatedly addressed them in my past few posts.

1 Reply

The Derek Chauvin Trial

Quick Links

My Account

able2know