2 2
airdvr

The Trial of Derek Chauvin

Recommended Posts

Why not?

I haven't watched super close, but what I saw of jury selection seemed 'fair'.

The evidence is going to be pretty tough for the defense to overcome.

The fact that they have video of the entire death sequence is pretty damning.

"Fair" means both sides get to tell their side of the story, to an impartial jury.
When the prosecution has that strong of evidence, the accused often pleads guilty. Chauvin had a plea bargain set up, but then AG Barr shut it down (part of the deal was that Chauvin was to serve his sentence in federal prison, so Barr had to sign off on it). 

Just because the dude is clearly guilty and is likely to be convicted doesn't mean the trial won't be 'fair'.

What specific part do you think is 'unfair'? (Honest question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because he was scared doesn't give him a pass on sitting on someone's neck for 9 minutes. It is very hard for him to get a completely impartial trial, but, frankly, his victim didn't get one either.

Wendy P.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Just because he was scared doesn't give him a pass on sitting on someone's neck for 9 minutes. It is very hard for him to get a completely impartial trial, but, frankly, his victim didn't get one either.

Wendy P.

Very true.

But that has nothing to do with the 'fairness' of the trial.

Issues with evidence, issues with witness testimony, issues with jury impartiality.

Those would affect the 'fairness' of the trial.

Again, just because it's pretty clear he's guilty and will be convicted doesn't mean the trial won't be 'fair'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

No chance this poor sot gets a fair one.

I disagree. As an LEO he will probably get off on murder and be convicted of manslaughter. A far better deal than he would get if the situation was reversed. And better than he deserves. He did not need to do what he did and a reasonable person could foresee death as a possible outcome. It is possible that he did not care one way or another if Floyd lived or died, and it is possible that he wanted him to die. Either way it was murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just say that I don't believe Chauvin was responsible for his death directly.  Floyd died of a drug OD.  But...Chauvin and the others had a duty of care that was neglected.  One of those fools should have stepped in to make sure Floyd was OK.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I disagree. As an LEO he will probably get off on murder and be convicted of manslaughter. A far better deal than he would get if the situation was reversed. And better than he deserves. He did not need to do what he did and a reasonable person could foresee death as a possible outcome. It is possible that he did not care one way or another if Floyd lived or died, and it is possible that he wanted him to die. Either way it was murder.

I agree with your reasoning but I don't think Minneapolis is prepared for the backlash if it's not a murder conviction.  That's the unfair part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
12 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Let me just say that I don't believe Chauvin was responsible for his death directly.  Floyd died of a drug OD.  But...Chauvin and the others had a duty of care that was neglected.  One of those fools should have stepped in to make sure Floyd was OK.  

So you don't think that the fact that Chauvin was kneeling on his neck, and Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe, and Floyd then demonstrated all of the effects of asphyxiation had no bearing on the cause of death?

That's pretty much what the opening statement said.
That Floyd died of asphyxiation, that he showed all the behaviors of someone being asphyxiated and the one who caused that was Chauvin. 

And none of the autopsy results I can find show a cause of death as drug overdose. There were drugs present in his system, but not at levels that would have been fatal.

If you can show autopsy results that say different, please post them.

And, again, how does any of this affect the fairness of the trial?

If the defense attorneys can convince the jury that there is reasonable doubt that Chauvin wasn't responsible for the death, then he'll be acquitted. 
If the prosecutors can convince the jury that there isn't that reasonable doubt, he'll be convicted. 

Edit to add:

This posted while I was composing my post (no notification for some reason):

 

Quote

I agree with your reasoning but I don't think Minneapolis is prepared for the backlash if it's not a murder conviction.  That's the unfair part.

 

I really hope the jury only considers the facts of the case when deliberating.

I would suspect that they are going to get clear instructions on that. 

I would also strongly suspect that the city is making a LOT of preparations in advance of the end of the trial. I expect a fairly large amount of unrest no matter what the verdict.

Edited by wolfriverjoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, airdvr said:

I agree with your reasoning but I don't think Minneapolis is prepared for the backlash if it's not a murder conviction.  That's the unfair part.

It won't be just MN. Although I do believe that any conviction at all will ward off a large part of the anger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So you don't think that the fact that Chauvin was kneeling on his neck, and Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe, and Floyd then demonstrated all of the effects of asphyxiation had no bearing on the cause of death?

I heard that the people killed during 9/11 were all either overweight, had taken illegal drugs or had asthma that was aggravated by smoke.  But for some reason everyone blames Osama bin Laden for their deaths.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So you don't think ...

I really hope the jury only considers the facts of the case when deliberating....

Hopefully the jury uses common sense and takes everything the snake oil salesman present with a grain of salt.

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

I heard that the people killed during 9/11 were all either overweight, had taken illegal drugs or had asthma that was aggravated by smoke.  But for some reason everyone blames Osama bin Laden for their deaths.

Exactly, but spin and lies obscure the facts with smoke.

The defense is entitled to present every issue regardless of the weight of such evidence.Lets look at the two medical reports:

"A full autopsy report on George Floyd, the man who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police last month, reveals that he was positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The 20-page report also indicates that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at the time of his death, although the drugs are not listed as the cause"...

The autopsy report from Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office concludes the cause of death was "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." That conclusion, death due to heart failure, differs from the one reached by an independent examiner hired by the Floyd family; that report listed the cause of death as "asphyxiation from sustained pressure."

Under the law you take victims physical limitations as they come. Some are Olympic athletes in prime physical and the toughest mental disposition. Others may have many medical issues. But in the end its the unlawful, unreasonable, actions of the accused that must be established.

So the opening statement by the defense lawyer that Mr. Floyd swallowed drugs to conceal evidence at the time of arrest is a lie. No big deal thats a part of trials everywhere. It reminds me of the old "The first casualty of war is the truth". Just insert trial for war.

IMO both medical examiners reports are damning for the defense.The video and medical reports are the heart of the matters at hand. But the trial is just starting and like a book it ain't over till its over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Let me just say that I don't believe Chauvin was responsible for his death directly.  Floyd died of a drug OD.  But...Chauvin and the others had a duty of care that was neglected.  One of those fools should have stepped in to make sure Floyd was OK.  

I’ll say it again, take the George Floyd challenge. Have someone kneel on your neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds while you are stone cold sober and get back to us with the results. Make sure they only weigh 140 pounds though. If you’re not on drugs you should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Why was he complaining about not being able to breath before he was on the ground?

So...believe Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office or random internet user airdvr...

who to believe?! /s

sarcasm aside, please charge the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office with perjury since you think they're so clearly lying on their autopsy report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So...believe Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office or random internet user airdvr...

who to believe?! /s

sarcasm aside, please charge the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office with perjury since you think they're so clearly lying on their autopsy report.

https://www.startribune.com/floyd-s-autopsy-makes-medical-examiner-a-rare-target-of-anger/571343522/

Nationwide, people expressed outrage when prosecutors released the preliminary findings of George Floyd’s autopsy, highlighting cardiovascular disease and “potential intoxicants” in his system, as if those factors might explain his death as police officers pinned him to the ground.

The findings contained just one mention of physical trauma, noting that Floyd’s body showed no signs of asphyxia or strangulation. The public and some medical professionals cried foul, putting Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s medical examiner, squarely in the hot seat.

Just sayin'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional info found online.

AB walked us down the list of substances for which NMS labs tested. Those values he
highlighted were:

4ANPP precursor and metabolite offentanyl present
in Mr. Floyd’s blood.
Methamphetamine
19 ng/ML which he described as “very near the low end” and “a
stimulant hard on the heart.”
Fentanyl 11. He said, “that’s pretty high.” This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.
Norfentanyl
—- 5.6 metabolite of fentan

 

AB said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death.

ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, airdvr said:

AB said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death

But, he wasn't found dead in his home; he was found dead with a man kneeling on his neck. Fuck Derek Chauvin and every cop just like him. He deserves the death penalty - by bunga bunga. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, airdvr said:

I agree with your reasoning but I don't think Minneapolis is prepared for the backlash if it's not a murder conviction.  That's the unfair part.

There it is then, we are a society that cannot afford justice where our police are concerned. Let's just up him a pay grade, give him full retirement benefits, a new Tesla and name the street where he killed Floyd Chauvin Way. That'll make everyone happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Just sayin'.

So that was the preliminary report. The final report was different.

Again, if you think they changed the final report because of public pressure then back up your words with some actions - write to the public prosecutor, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, olofscience said:

So that was the preliminary report. The final report was different.

Again, if you think they changed the final report because of public pressure then back up your words with some actions - write to the public prosecutor, at least.

Are you saying it's not at least a possibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Are you saying it's not at least a possibility?

If you knew anything at all about science, it's not just about possibility but probabilities.

Same with this - sure, there's a possibility they doctored the report due to public pressure. But if they swear an oath on pain of perjury and present the report as evidence to a court, then at least have some really good evidence if you want to call the medical examiner out.

For example, if more 3rd-party experts concur with the preliminary rather than final report, show that. But all you've shown is that the medical examiner might have changed their own conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2