Is a Fair Trial possible?
Yesterday a judge paused jury selection in the trial of the first police officer charged in the killing of George Floyd. Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters chanted outside the heavily fortified courthouse. Hennepin County District Court Judge Peter Cahill said he wanted to consult a state appeals court about whether to proceed with jury selection while a third-degree murder charge against former police Officer Derek Chauvin was unresolved.
Judge Peter Cahill
Judge Cahill was the judge who dismissed charges faced by organizers of a massive Black Lives Matter protest in 2015. He began his career as a defense attorney before serving as the top adviser to Amy Klobuchar when she was county attorney.
Derek Chauvin
The defendant, officer Derek Chauvin, faces second-degree murder and manslaughter charges. Video of the 46-year-old Black man pinned under the white officer’s knee for roughly 9 minutes will be the primary piece of the evidence against him.
Cahill held a brief hearing Monday to determine whether to reinstate a third-degree murder charge against Chauvin. For some reason a state appeals court suddenly ordered Cahill to reconsider the charge, which he had dropped months ago. Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, said that he plans to appeal the higher court’s ruling to the state Supreme Court this week. The Prosecutor, Matthew Frank asked the judge to halt jury selection until it’s clear what charges Chauvin will face. His office filed a motion with the appeals court to prevent the trial from moving forward until the issue is resolved.
As the crowd outside the courthouse grows there is only one thing we know for certain. The AG knows it, the Judge knows it, the prosecutor knows it, the defense team knows it and every juror will know it - an acquittal will mean rioting & violence. That is a lot of pressure to place on the head of Lady Justice.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
The pressure is enormous.
Trump and his supporters and I are all off topic.
The pressure should be enormous for the right thing to happen in this case, whatever it is. I, many of us, support law and order and we want to see it in action in this case.
So, you also agree that there is pressure?
"The pressure should be enormous for the right thing to happen in this case, whatever it is." Speaks for itself nicely, in my opinion. Same as you @1.
It's a slam dunk? Right vs Wrong?
What about the other 3 cops?
What's a slam dunk? And, right is always the preferred standard. What about the three other officers?
Considering they were rookies and questioned Chauvin's means of restraint, do you think they should be charged the same as Chauvin?
I think that's a good question to ask.
Well done. We will wait for the answer.
MsAubrey, just getting back here. What I think is justice should be served wholly in this case. If the officers involved, all things considered, are culpable it should come out in court and be dealt with properly in court and by jury. But, these are "charged times" and the community-at-large on both sides -acting to defend and convict- are swept up on opposite walls - leaving the middle ground bare between them.
I don't really know what happened in this case. The nuances escape me across the vastness of distance (shores). I can only read, share, and opine on what is shared openly and that comes with reasonable limits which I try hard to respect.
-Smile.
So, you never watched the complete video?
That would at least explain why you don't get why there's questions now regarding the escalation and final result.
Yes, I watched the video. Last year, I was responsible for posting the tragic video on a comment board on NT. What I don't know (what happened) means from a trial perspective is I reserve some points, statements, sense of the condition, until the trial begins and discussion renews itself and advances itself. There will be nuances, for there always are, that come out in a proceeding that rise (and fall). I hope I am clearer now. (Smile.)
Relevancy?
Justice. A proper trial determined to give justice to officer and in this case, victim? For the record, I will be okay either way. As I know I don't have all the details involved. But, I do have what is in front of the public to discuss.
The charge is murder, not manslaughter. That means they must prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd.
A very tall order.
Keith Ellison went from 3rd degree murder to 2nd degree and now back down to 3rd because he wants to offer up Chauvin on the alter of social justice as a symbol of all of America's past transgressions. It's on the jury now.
Vic, if he can prove this "tall order". . . what do you worry about the 'alter'? Curious.
Will history repeat itself? I remember the violent riots regarding these two cases ...
Those were supposed to be slam dunks too! Eric Holder even got involved on Michael Brown's case!
Never let a crisis go to waste!
Thus came consent decrees and the chance to slam local police for too many speeding tickets to minorities. (Holder's revenge)
Minorities is the operative word. Do you really imagine that minorities, plural, are worst drivers (greater speeders) than other law-abiding Whites? Just share with me the reason for your cynicism.
Don't know. National statistics might help.
Do you believe that all groups speed according to their percentage of the population?
The point is minorities and Others generally are as law-abiding as law-abiding Whites. Take stock of that.
I don't understand your question. Please elaborate.
I'm simply asking, since you brought it up, if you think blacks and whites commit speeding offences in correlation to their percentage of the population?
In other words if one group is 13% of the population, do you believe they would only represent 13% of the speeding/aggressive driving?
Or is it tied to culture/environment?
No, I do not. Based on the way you're asking the question it could be higher or lower percentages than equal. However, I find the question mysterious, because I do not see the relevance to the topic.
The interest in tickets piggy-backed on your comment about "consent decrees" above. I simply tried to discover, more or less, what you understand about the practical policing in some minority communities ("across the tracks") where citizens are ticketed galore and nit-picked daily more than it is statistically established to be so in majorly populated (known as) White communities.
Don't forget the LA riots
Which of those riots occurred without provocation. Oh and the camera recorded the "woo-wee knots, contusions, and bumps" all over Rodney King's head and body. I am sorry for the riot, that said, keep agreeing with police violence in the streets (aka: street justice) and social unrest will continue in nearly every case. There are solutions, stop beating the "H" out of people and just pack them up and take them to jail where they can be dealt with properly.
A civil rights fight for equality from unexpected police violence, drives citizens to resort to extremes at times. "Majorly inconvenienced"? I am sorry, but some of this country's citizens have been inconvenienced (and robbed of their fair share) all their life.
Don't mouth bull patty. Civil rights fights for equality are real for millions of Americans. If some conservatives are proud of their peaceful and convenient existences booey for you. I have a good existence too. However, I can empathize and have compassion and just be better than clinical to those who have no, fewer, and are stripped of their rights and privileges while paying the maximum amount of taxation as the next guy or gal enjoying the best this land has to offer.
Says a man with obvious skin color that continuously opens doors for him into many 'intimate' boardrooms and privileged setting in this country to this day.
In this case of Rodney King or this case for which we are gathered today, Black Americans did not ask that Mr. King or Mr. Floyd to not go to jail and appear properly before a judge, we simply ask that video footage does not record our brothers being beat indiscriminately or crying and dying into the asphalt while a White man dispassionately disregards pleads for his life. Qualified immunity does not give law enforcement "our blue brethren" privilege to be reckless.
What do we live for if not each other as people first. . . . All our constructs have people in the midst of them—even when people are erased from them. Let's me be clearer: There is a stand taken even when it is not stated aloud.
And you can speak throw away lines. . . conveying little substance or esprit de corp (humanity), I'll stick with this: What we construct is worthless, when we forget to be "people" first!
I don't know about "what society's job" is then. Because it seems to me that we have a great many societal rules and regs, which you obligate even yourself to on a daily basis. Such as how we should participate in here. The "game" of life is what people construct it to be. Don't you know that? People make the rules. That's society's truest duty.
Make life better - not harder.
You're pushing a narrative at this point. I won't oblige it farther. We have community responsibility/ities to uphold together too. (We've interacted on this point once before, Texan.)
What the "H" are you driving at? And how do you intend to make it relevant to a 40-50-ish year old man named George Floyd?
A supposition? About respect too? And invoking Mr. Floyd's parents. . . I didn't figure that coming out, I admit.
Do you often theorize about Black American family life? I am just wondering. . . . Well, generally, we can be known to have early morning (4 AM before school for the children) bible study in the Christian homes among us - does that count?
What makes adults do and say anything they do? What makes King's greedy? And money a 'corrupter' in people's lives? What makes racists 'tick'? Inquiring. . . .
IMHO, this has the same makings as what happened in Apr of 92 in Los Angeles with the Rodney King trial and outcome.
It is not so much the courts and officers of same should know , but should suspect reasonably that if the verdict is not what the public expects , what can and likely will happen based on past history.
food for thought and contemplation.
Was King on drugs?
Not that i know of , but from what i read he was a convicted felon , not that thats an excuse for what happened to him either.
Only if you consider alcohol a drug.
In addition to being a convicted felon, he had a lifelong problem with alcohol. Those who prosecuted the LA police never allowed him on the witness stand for fear of exposing too much of either:
"Rodney King's criminal history played a large role in the high-speed chase that led to his arrest, in his controversial and violent arrest, and in the trials that followed. King explained his decision to flee--at a speed exceeding 110 mph--from CHP officers as resulting from a fear that his arrest for speeding would lead to a revocation of his parole and a return to prison: "I was scared of going back to prison and I just kind of thought the problem would just go away."
Gone but not forgotten!
I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider alcohol a drug.
And I can't say what Rodney King did to become a felon, but (wink-wink) you do know or have you heard that some police people are secret klan-members who seek out Blacks to give them "plantation time" in prisons as felons who get out and can not vote. (It's been evidenced in the congressional record by a former klans-member.)
It has always been convenient for strategic purposes to go trekking through the life of any individual looking for "planted" nuggets of why that person can't cope, be accepted, or be believed. (Thus, in Rodney King's case - the video was worth a thousand words.)
cant say i know myself what he( King) was convicted of that made him a felon, doesnt really matter to me .
i also "hear" a lot of things , no winks needed since if im forming an opinion on someones actions , thats whats looked at , any so called "planted nuggets " are usually "planted" there by the individual themselves, by their own actions and choices over time and have been documented long before they find themselves in trouble.
Have you in the past or recently became aware that some or any police departments have been or are becoming infiltrated or under the control of 'klanspeople'? I would like a direct answer if you would.
easy one , short one word answer ?
yes.
Good - Good.
Do you suppose or opine that, policing authorities should not have klans-people specifically using policing powers to control Black Americans for whom they have well-established animosity? That is, there does exist a communication 'barrier' that it may not be possible to properly overcome?
I don't know that it is helpful for you to repackage the question-there are indeed klans-people serving on police departments in our country. It was testified to in a Congressional hearing by a former klans-member. Moreover, you acknowledged the same @3.2.11. A fact rights itself every time.
And in case you wonder, I think people are so special to this planet and I love all of 'em collectively. Every damn relatively good one of us!
Have you ever seen the movie from the 80s called a soldiers story?
its about a black military unit that has an over bearing ww1 sgt training a group of black soldiers for shipment to europe in ww2, sgt ends up dead and its investigated by a black legal officer. ill make it short , the accused white soldiers were found to have not done the deed of killing the sgt , it was his own troops because he was exersizing his ( the sgts ) racism and bigoty he held against black troops that he himself felt were inferiour , uneducated and bringing the race down in the eyes of white people now why do i mention this ?
because in my short time the absolute most racist cop i ever met was a black cop that could very well have been that sgt in the movie , worse he would hunt people down just so he could vent his racism and to give them shit . and thought he was doing the right thing.
history tells us there has always been racism , logic tells us if thats true that racists will end up in the LEO profession, history points to the bull conners and such, right on up until today hell last night i was watching the news about how latinos are being targeted by a group of latino cops that call themselves the banditos ( bet the MC club will have something to say about that).
if you wish to talk to me about racism , we talk about it all , not the cherry picked white racism thats popular to bash or blamed for all social ills .
so by "fixing " or repackaging " i decided to make it known color of the racist doesnt matter , its always wrong and should be weeded out as soon as its found .
way i see it , if its a problem , and its wanting to be solved , all the real facts have to be looked at, as well as an absolute no tolerance attitude taken , from anyone.
did i make my point?
Oh yeah, you make your point. I am not offended to talk plain about race. Bet it. When you are already to present it plain and factual, let's get at it. I don't cherry-pick either. And I don't need a 'chaser' to get it out.
Now then, "A Soldier Story." An oddly excellent story about the 1940's integration of the army and the black sargeant who ran afoul of other young black soldiers out on the town --and one of them fought and killed him for his attitude and remarks. Denzel Washington stars in it. Excellent metaphor for life. And I loved the suspense and twist to the story at the end. I think and talk about that movie's impact on my thinking to this day!
Mostly, I do not encounter anyone who knows the movie or will take time to watch it. Mark in Wyoming, you're an interesting man for that one!
I saw it for the first time on HBO , and thought it was so good i taped it on the VCR and watched numerous times until the tape wore out .
With all the news coverage, the past riots and the current demonstrations outside the courthouse, is it even possible to put a fair and impartial jury in place to try him?
And that is the actual crux of the article i believe, I am surprised there has not been a request for a change of venue in this case. Where it could go to be tried , i have no clue.
There was and the judge denied.
I suppose the defence could ask for a change of venue, perhaps to Australia. Is there a procedure to require trial by judge alone in the event that an unbiased jury is an impossibility?
i dont think anyone can find an unbiased jury anywhere currently or at least wont be pointed out as being biased where ever the trials held in the states jurisdiction.
problem is the media was allowed to do its own digging into both parties and print whatever they found in the name of sensationalizm and all the dirty laundry so to speak is already out there for all to see, both sides underbellies have been tainted , how does one remain unbiased in that case?
Can anyone give a legal opinion as to what happens if virtually every juror is excused for cause? How many panels can they keep calling up? This could go on forever.
As far as i know it will continue until the jury pool is exhausted , cant say how that state runs theirs , but here if selected for a jury pool your on it for 6 months , and can be called multiple times to be seated in that 6 month period .
from what i understand 2 jurors have been chosen , and one has been dismissed for cause, it will be the old story of the prosecutor choosing his jury and the defense choosing theirs., thing is , the defense only has to get one person to believe the defense , the prosecution has to get all 12 to believe that side.
lets not forget , there is also alternets that need to be chosen , incase something happens with one of the sitting jurors .
I dont think anyone wants a mistrial because of someone on the jury. a hung jury is another matter. And a lot will have to do with jury instructions at the start of the trial.
There is nothing particularly new about this. That is, courts know how to high visibility cases. The steps have to be walked through before a conclusion is claimed, nevertheless.
The media, in the age of cable television and cable news is a market. That is, it is the job of anchors and commentators to create "shows" daily - a like it or lump it enterprise. Therefore, one will be hard-pressed to complain about them without reaching all the way back to Ted Turner (Founder - CNN) and see him turn current news into a consumerable-commodity. On that last, subsequently, be warned the news is neither friend or foe - it simply is 'deliverable.'
LMFAO, you really believe that?
after the past 2 years of claims of fake news , distorted news , unreliable news ?
the "news" is malliable by whom ever is delivering it in the way they wish to dictate the story and make it believable to those they are delivering it to.
Back in the day they use to call it "spin".
just like the recent outrage at cruzs trip to cancun , i was paying more attention to the developing story on newsoms recall in cali , and randy andy of NYS, crisis developing . And randy andy now has 3 crisis to face being "Americas governor".
Sexual harrassment cases ( what is it 5 or 6 accusations now?)
Nursing home death rates being modified to show less deaths
and NOW cases of covid patients being housed in group homes of disabled ( which last i knew that EO from randy andy is still in effect).with no record of accountability for resulting deaths .
Jury selection begins in Derek Chauvin's trial in the death of George Floyd. Here's what to expect - CNN
Buzz, i dont know if you will be able to open that , but the article explains the jury selection process in the jurisdiction , i figured it would help since i couldnt tell you more than some very basic stuff as it applies to where i live .
about halfway through the article it starts explaining what each side and the judge can do in that jurisdiction.
So you conclude what exactly about the news, Mark? Did I miss that?
I guess you did miss it . even though it was printed and spelled out.
the "news" is malliable by whom ever is delivering it in the way they wish to dictate the story and make it believable to those they are delivering it to.
And where does that differ from this:
While today's new is all that, it can still maintain a standard across the board and be impervious to lies.
No, I don't think it is. The pressure to convict is extraordinary.
Stop being sensational. The point is this: Just do justice and what is right by all the parties. The family to whom Mr. Floyd belongs deserves proper answers and actions; the community who watched the ordeal unfold locally and on media-platforms deserve an unambiguous proceeding, and everybody deserves a proper closure to this unfortunate event where a man died and was celebrated around the world for having lived and died under police 'control.'
Was he alive before his interaction with the police?
Yes.
Was he alive AFTER his interaction with the police?
No.
Did Floyd commit suicide while interacting with police?
No.
Did he ingest any substance before his interaction with the police to feed his addictions?
toxicology says yes Fenty. and meth. in lethal levels for an ordinary person , addicts usually have built up tolerances.
And most addicts usually realize they are commiting slow motion suicide by using eventually , unless it kills them .
Drugs or not, from what I gather he would still be alive if someone was not leaning on his neck.
You are acting like just because someone uses drugs, they have no rights and who cares if they die.
That can be your opinion if that suits you , It would be wrong .
The point actually IS cops have no way of telling a persons medical condition , or what other factors will have an effect when they approach some one
Sounds like to me some people think cops should know all this stuff beforehand , it doesnt work that way . guy can be having a diabetic episode acting drunk and beligerant , get tazed and their heart shits the bed , is that the cops fault? Its happened.
Cops dont know how long a person has been an addict , or if they stayed with the same drug through out , and they cant tell from looking what physiological effect or toll those drugs have taken on a person such as BP complication , damaged heart , breathing issues, just to name a few.
What they do know is what is presented to them during the contact , and whatever dispatch tells them when the individuals name is run, go look up George Floyd rap sheet, thats likely what dispatch told those on scene .
so what was presented here? bogus bill, a froggy nervous reaction with initial non compliance according to initial reports when it happened explained away by one of floyds friends as cops made him nervous because he was shot by a cop before , ok understandable , until the rap sheet comes over , felony assault with a firearm? that would make ANY cop that wants to be alive at the end of his shift take different precautions , and i dont care who they are.
that doesnt give the cops the right to ground and pound , but it does give them provocation to take the individual to the ground and retain control of the individual protecting themselves from the individual and the individual from doing something most normal people wouldnt .
Do i think the knee on the neck was a bit much? I do ,same control would have been achieved with a knee in between the shoulder blades facing the individuals feet.
So somehow you agree that the cop was in the wrong yet come up with scenarios to justify it.
maybe because its not as cut and dry as some wish it to be .
And i do have a particular problem with the claim the knee to the neck was the cause of death . IF properly applied , there would have been no way an individual could even whisper they couldnt breath , let alone speak or scream it as alleged, so that makes me wonder just how much pressure was applied , or if the ground control technique was used as a pychological deterent to keep the individual from moving.
glad im not going to be on that jury.
And sometimes it is.
Nine minutes on his neck seems a little extreme to me. It shouldn't take more than two minutes for three or four officers to handcuff him behind his back and if necessary plastic-tape his feet together - what the hell could Floyd do then? escape? shoot or stab or even punch the officers? NINE MINUTES???
only to those that dont think and have a pre determined outcome in mind.
And yet we all know the two had previous history and knew each other plus there is video evidence.
No matter how it is sliced and diced, it should have never ended as it did.
Exactly. If it was such an ordeal, they could have bound his hands and feet. There was no need for what he did.
Oh i can see a lot of things that went wrong Buzz , i already said i thought the knee to the neck was the wrong one , from my understanding , he became uncooperative being loaded in the car and was put to the ground , thats when his feet should have been ziptied since he was already cuffed ,
I remember my dad teaching me to street fight , street fighting there are no rules , its who gets there first with the most and anything and everything is fair , as he told me , he who controls the others head usually wins the fight . grab someone by the ears or the nostrils and their head is sure to follow where ever they are led.
knee to the neck to some controls the head , knee in between the shoulder blades as i use to like , controls the head and upper torso with the threat of full weight being used if needed, and the head isnt that far from the shoulders.
I think the judge denied a change of venue because no matter where they went, it would be the same scenario as far as a jury pool.
What worries me is people that want to be on the jury and will lie to do so.
I was in a fight once as a kid and was winning so the dude tacked me and basically kept hugging onto me on the ground.
I took wrestling in school after that.
I can agree with that , with a caveat,
no one knows how long or how much for sure Floyd had used fenty or meth, long term use of just meth causes heart problems as one of my relatives is currently finding out .
I would be willing to bet the "cleanest" 5 years he had was the 5 years he spent in jail in texas for the felony assault with a fire arm , for which he was released in 2014, he had 6 years to fall back into his "bad " habits that landed him in jail most times .
As for the 2 of them having a previous history? ive heard that as well, just how extensive , i havent seen , but a bouncer as floyd was at one time as reported , would know the cops that showed up when called .
wrestling or boxing . either works .
I learned the hard way to keep my hair real short.
dad told me to do something , i said F NO...second biggest mistake of my life. as he came out of his chair , i was out the door and had a good head start down the street. 36 inch legs didnt matter , dad caught up. I had hair down to my waist at the time. this was late 70s
all he did was reach out and grab a handful of hair , and stop. Remember what i said about where the head goes the body goes? head stopped short , body tried to keep going until it was almost level to the ground , then came the big slam down with dad looking down at me . End of discussion as he put it. 2 hrs later i shaved my head . after doing what he told me to do.
well thats always a possibility too , but problem with that is it usually leads to more hung juries. which leads to a retrial with a whole new jury. same can be said about someone that wants on the jury solely to convict and will claim to be unbiased or impartial.
It will all come down to the jury instructions for the charges levied , and whether or not the jury has to be unanimous to convict , which is the usual case in murder trials , so all it takes is 1 person out of 12 to hang the jury.
and that is not a fair or impartial jury from the git go.
I there there could be both. People that want a conviction and people that want an acquittal.
I would have to admit I would be bias. I would be kicked out quick.
I might appear bias , but thats because i have spent time on both sides of a shield , and I may have a different understanding about what is being faced , for me its would end up being which side told and presented the more believable story backed up with facts that can be proven beyond any doubt .i would likely end up on the jury in spite of all thats been said . i know the defense would choose me because even if he couldnt be sure of the other 11 , he has a chance to convince me. worst case scenerio is hope for the sole hold out to hang the jury. and then get a retrial and thats all the defense needs really. just one person , and like i said the prosecution needs all 12 for a conviction.
I'd like to know why it took that ambulance so long to get there to begin with; the officers called an ambulance before they tried getting him in the squad car.
I don't know. Traffic? Did the call not indicate the urgency? Distance from the hospital? All ambulances busy? Who knows?
It's not an attack on you Buzz. It's simply another observation that goes along with the amount of time that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck. I would be questioning more than what's on the surface is all.
average response time from call placed to arrival at scene is 7 mins according to google in the USA , that time increases to 14 mins in rural areas , and that is accounting for "perfect responses " where no traffic, construction or other factors play a part such as weather .
That is also not taking into account that the closest unit might not be the one dispatched because they are already out on a call.
Thanks. That pretty much sums up average response times. I believe [If I'm remembering correctly], it took the ambulance took 11 min. from call to arrival.
At least it wasn't Detroit where there are times when no one shows up at all.
Well if the 11 mins is correct , thats still not that far out of the norm , those extra 4 mins can be accounted for by traffic , construction along the chosen route add in the fact the responding unit might not have been the closest , but was the closest available to respond and those extra 4 mins in response time gets eaten up pretty fast.
lets not forget we have no idea how the incident was reported , if classified as a respiratory issue due to panic attack by those on scene , that could factor in the urgency the EMT crew took in getting to the scene where as a reported heart attack would speed things up in response.
Agreed. That's why I was curious about if it should've taken that long or not.
I think in my area, we're spoiled... there's a hospital 12 blocks away and I've never seen an ambulance take more than 5 min. from call to arrival even when it's NOT a more significant emergency.
LOL im the opposite , average response time to me for emt is about 15 mins on a good day , we got 6 inches of snow last night , so i would add another 3-5 mins due to road conditions , for LEO response thats hit or miss, if there is a unit close on patrol , it can be as little as 3 mins , if they are a distance away 15-20 mins , a lot can happen in those time frames.
LOL. I never considered it to be an attack on me. You addressed the question to me and I did the best I could to answer. Mark provided similar answers to mine.
More importantly, Mark is rendering a diagnosis of impending death. There is no evidence to suggest Mr. Floyd's "tolerances" could definitively kill him in mere moments if left to his own devices or under regular exertion. Mark is making an alibi to use as reasonable doubt. And the prosecutor, if he is worth is salt, should prepare an answer for it when the time comes.
And we have video footage to interpret appearances and facial expressions. How long approximately should it take three to four policemen to slap on some handcuffs to a man who declares he can't properly breath?
Okay - try this: Wouldn't telling Mr. Floyd I will allow you to feel you can breath if you let us put our cuffs on you, deal - Mr. Floyd?
What you suppose Mr. Floyd (who had stated he did not wish to die that day already to police) would have said to that proposition?
The ambulance is a distraction. It will likely not be chargeable or relevant to this trial. BTW, if memory serves me, this was not Mr. Chauvin's first official complain over the use of this neck compression procedure. I might have to look it up in his 'record.'
LEO response time in my area is 30 seconds to 5 minutes. Most of the time LEOs are bored around here.
yes there is video footage , it took less than a min for 1 officer to place the cuffs on once determination to take into custody was made , the claims of breathing difficulty came after the cuffs were on .
thats second one is irrelevent since no deal had to be made to get the cuffs on floyd , he was already cuffed .
and another thing, just because a person is cuffed / restrained , does not mean they are NOT a danger to themselves , or the officers .
I would hope a prosecutor would have an answer, if they cant , they wasted a lot of money going to law school IMHO , but the reasonable doubt is already out there by the time he can give any answer , it seems to be valid for now it appears.
This seed should be titled “ Chauvin will not get a fair trial”.
he already hasnt in the court of public opinion, in the actual court , both sides will have to prove and meet the bar of beyond any reasonable doubt .
the prosecution has to prove to 12 jurours beyond any reasonable doubt guilt ,
the defense only has to prove to one that there is reasonable doubt of any kind .
"The rioting that can follow a trial’s verdict is driven by deep-seated, long-standing racial problems. However, commentary by politicians and reporters can worsen those tensions, creating misconceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of cases. For example, before any investigation had been completed, Vice President Kamala Harris, then a United States senator, said Chauvin clearly “murdered” Floyd , while others insisted the crime was open and shut.
Trials, however, are based on the evidence and elements of crimes. They are designed to separate the material from the mythological. A good example is the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, which provoked days of rioting. The shooting was widely called murder by national figures and commentators. To this day, because of wildly inaccurate media coverage, pundits and protesters still refer to Brown holding up his hands and pleading, “Don’t shoot!” However, the officers involved were never charged despite long, repeated federal and state investigations that found no criminal culpability. Indeed, the Obama Justice Department and other investigations refuted the hands up, don’t shoot claim .
Chauvin’s trial has some of the same problematic elements of incomplete or distorted coverage and commentary. It clearly is much stronger than the Michael Brown case — and one can not overestimate the impact of the videotape of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck for almost 10 minutes as Floyd pleads “I can’t breathe.” The video is seared into the minds of many, provoking anger and disgust. Admittedly, I view cases from the perspective of a longtime defense attorney, but this one has defense points that are rarely reported but could prove decisive in this trial.
The four officers charged — Chauvin, Thomas Lane, Alexander Kueng, Tou Thao — responded to a call alleging that Floyd passed counterfeit money. The first major defense point was captured on body-camera video as Lane spoke to Floyd, sitting in a parked SUV. When Floyd refused to show his hands, Lane pulled his gun and yelled at Floyd to show his hands. After Floyd replied, “Please don’t shoot me, man,” Lane put away his gun and said, “I’m not shooting you, man.”
Floyd is then seen staggering as he is moved to a police cruiser. He admitted he had been “hooping,” or taking drugs. He then resisted getting into the cruiser, saying he was claustrophobic and couldn’t breathe. Lane is heard offering to sit with him, roll down the windows and turn on the air conditioning. Floyd continued to insist “I cannot breathe.” A struggle then led to Floyd on the ground, with Chauvin kneeling on his neck. As shocking as the video image is, Chauvin is likely to cite Minneapolis police training material that describes such restraint for an uncooperative suspect.
The biggest defense point will come from official autopsy and toxicology reports. The autopsy did not cite restraint as the cause of the death, instead citing “cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).” (The family’s autopsy disagrees, citing death by asphyxiation). The preliminary finding of the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.”
The autopsy states that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. The level of fentanyl was extremely high, and documents from the autopsy attribute the following statement to Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s chief medical examiner: “Fentanyl at 11 ng/ml — this is higher than (a) chronic pain patient. If he were found dead at home alone & no other apparent cause, this could be acceptable to call an OD [overdose]. Deaths have been certified w/levels of 3.”
Sounds to me like floyd was playing russian roulette with a semi automatic handgun with a round in the chamber instead of a revolver, knowing his own bp and heart condition every time he chose to use the drugs found in his system.
i wonder how many that will be seated on the jury will see it that way as well if presented? and it likely will be .presented as part of the autopsy and toxicology report.
To "divi" this up a little and hopefully remove some monotony, there is a real 'internal' problem with how police train to protect the public and how the public is UNTRAINED to respond do it. Why does our society not bother to explain what the role of policing is to the public so that the public does not run aground of it.
For example, I called the police on a neighbor's unfamiliar to me child entering through her garage; and, I watched horrified when the police arrived guns drawn to approach the house. (That was not in mind that anybody should get shot when I "made the call.") After being traumatized by a near-shooting (the kid did not overreact inside the house after the police sneaked in and confronted him), I thought about that for a long time. To this day, I respect and work with officers to keep the peace in my neighborhood, but I never know what will make an officer go all "guns drawn" upon entering the scene.
In this one regard, the public is a "sitting duck."
He had significant medical problems as well as a drug problem. Resisting arrest is never a good mix.
Why don't we address that?
Is applying pressure to one who is resisting arrest part of the policy of the Minneapolis Police Department?
The role of Policing is simple - to protect the public.
For example, I called the police on a neighbor's unfamiliar to me child entering through her garage; and, I watched horrified when the police arrived guns drawn to approach the house. (That was not in mind that anybody should get shot when I "made the call.") After being traumatized by a near-shooting (the kid did not overreact inside the house after the police sneaked in and confronted him), I thought about that for a long time. To this day, I respect and work with officers to keep the peace in my neighborhood, but I never know what will make an officer go all "guns drawn" upon entering the scene.
In this one regard, the public is a "sitting duck.
If the neighbor's "child" had a gun and was determined to rob/kill you, you'd be thanking the cops instead of being so surprised. Btw, they have to protect themselves as well as you.
Too, so, harsh that you missed the point of this 'break-up' story.
The public is most uninformed about how to behave in the presence of law enforcement. It is another case of "Officer X" is not (essentially) your friend when On Duty. The officer WILL hurt you if he or she desires to do so—reasons vary.
Why is the public not informed (educated by PSA) on the proper way to address and 'relate' to law enforcement during a check/incident?
Whose responsibility is it to share the "rules of engagement" as they legally stand (with the public)? The possessor or creator of those rules or the citizens for whom they are meant?
Do we want an informed (and potential safe) public? If so what can we do to make it so?
How is the public supposed to know when his or her constitutional or statutory right or set of privileges are being violated in a LEO stop?
You want parents to teach law enforcement statues and constitutional rights to their children - is that right?
Curious. Do you wish parents to stay current with policing powers too? Practically-speaking, would you obligate law enforcement departments to inform parents of new changes or corrections to their enforcement practices in a timely manner?
Er', home-training won't inform anybody about up-to-date police practices, in my opinion.
Having looked at high-resolution video of this disturbing incidence on Youtube (where I found it myself), admittedly Mr. Floyd acted combative and refused to be seated in the police car. That is clear. However, death is disproportional to the situation. (I am working this out 'on the fly' at this point.)
Sorry tex but things are not like when my grandparents raised my parents or when my parents raised me or even when i raised my own kids .
parents can try but there is one very big problem. society itself has a far bigger and greater influence and impact. and usually its those within their own age groups that doesnt know shit from shinola , thats doing the influencing .
Black Americans can look upon police officers in performing of their duties with a jaundiced eye. The sentiment is exacerbated when it is rumored or determined that klans people are serving in some near or remote departments. Mr. Floyd from the outset (opening of his long verbose 'delivery') seems to be 'assured' that were he to get hauled off by the police (at this time) he was not going to survive.
Irony is, if I can be so rude as to state it that way, is Mr. Floyd died in plain sight, on the asphalt, with a video camera rolling, everything caught on multiple tapes, and public onlookers.
as for the jaundiced or jaded eye thing , I wish i could say they didnt have a reason to be jaded , but i can not. the facts dont support it , and the harder the cops try the further back they fall.
rumors and media sensationalism before all facts can be determined true is another problem , that stuff makes it around the world twice before the truth is even awake , let alone out of bed .
Irony is, if I can be so rude as to state it that way, is Mr. Floyd died in plain sight, on the asphalt, with a video camera rolling, everything caught on multiple tapes, and public onlookers.
its not rude , its a true statement , isnt the modern era great though? with all the modern advancements , we still have those that will act like rubber neckers at a fatal traffic accident driving past slowly , or to go back further , gather to watch a train wreck , its something they cant turn their heads from and wont do anything about after it happens . only now its captured for posterity with modern convienience. and tools / toys
I hope that Chauvin is treated the same way the minorities, especially Native Americans have been treated by the police in Minneapolis for decades.
Fair is fair.
Hi, Kavika! I am going to need some information to get up to speed on this 'issue.' What has been going one in Minneapolis with the Police and Native Americans? Please assist. I care.
Just for starters plus years of personal experience in Minneapolis with the cops.
This is a pretty powerful article. I simply do not know the Native American perspective. It is good to be informed of what one knows not. Yes! This is helpful to get us all - conservatives too - to pull together (in the end). It is time for this nation to become one and indivisible so help it (God).
Here's Sandra Bland being stopped by police
I wasn't planning to head off in this direction,. . .but if Vic will allow it: Watch the first 9:26 minutes of two citizen interactions involving the same Texas officer of the Law:
I covey the thoughts of those who watch the first ten minutes (only it is relevant) of this video.
I was treated HORRIBLY by an Oscoda officer because I was not from Oscoda. Just sayin. Even the lady at the courthouse said, "Yeah, we have a lot of complaints about that officer in particular. Even if you decide to fight it, you'll still have to pay it, get the points, and pay court costs. He's hoping you'll do that, because they're building a new police station. He targets out of towners." She was very apologetic and nice, but sometimes... it's just about money. And sometimes... it's about throwing around that egotistical dick.
My situation was no where near the shit that's in that video.
That was asinine! That guy was an ASSHOLE!
[Deleted]
[Do not share chats or private note on the public forum]