George Floyd trial,could you make a case for the defendant not being guilty of the charges?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Seattle, Mar 30, 2021.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    "So yeah, such it".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Is your goal to continue to be a reactionary, or do you have an actual point to make? Or are you afraid to make it?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    If you weren't such a latecomer to the thread, you'd know that most of us have already weighed in on the OP, many times over and in lengthy detail.
    Speaking of posturing garbage.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    I did demonstrate my own claim, which was to me and iceaura you sound like Hannity. You want the same thrill, go give Hannity a listen.
    No, I just acknowledged that you don’t have to listen to Hannity to sound like him, you just have to drink the same Kool-Aid.

    We all have people of of our own ilk, if you’re ashamed of yours, maybe a change of ilk is in order.
    How can an assertion of guilt by association be made if there isn’t a component of guilt to be associated? If you truly have no idea who Hannity is about, then why the offense at the comparison? For all you know Hannity could be as fine a human being as Richard Nixon or Donald Trump.
     
  8. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    In order to be charged for second-degree unintentional murder, you have to prove that they committed an intentional felony. In this case, it was third-degree assault. They had to prove that he assaulted him with the intent to cause substantial bodily harm.

    Was he assaulting him or restraining him? Does it all boil down to positional asphyxia? If so, was there proof that Chauvin had sufficient training on positional asphyxia? If so, can we assume that Chauvin knew what he doing? If that’s the case, then it should have been intentional second-degree murder. Am I right?

    MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE: Intentional

    (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation.

    MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE: Unintentional

    (2) causes the death of a human being without intent to cause the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  9. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Not interested. My statement is the correct position.

    Derek Chauvin was charged with and proven guilty of manslaughter, third degree murder, and unintentional second degree murder. Now he is a convicted felon rotting in jail for up to about 20 years.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2021
  10. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    No shit, Sherlock, but that doesn't answer my questions.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I believe the jury felt that since George Floyd had been crying out in pain, pleading with the officers namely Chauvin, that he couldn’t breathe for nearly ten minutes, any well-trained officer should have realized he was causing harm/injury. One could safely assume that Chauvin at that point, knew he was causing harm and didn’t care, because he kept “restraining” Floyd. After about 8 minutes of pleading, Floyd fell unconscious at which point he wasn’t at all a threat to the officers, so why would Chauvin feel the need to keep holding Floyd in that position? (This is when Chauvin’s attorney offered the “unruly crowd” scenario as why Chauvin may have restrained Floyd for so long.)

    But, the jury as we see, didn’t buy that. So, no intent to murder but Chauvin seemed to be intent on causing harm to Floyd; that seems reasonable to believe given Chauvin’s unwillingness to stop restraining Floyd when he could clearly hear that he was in distress.

    Chauvin may not have had the intent to harm Floyd from the beginning of the arrest, but at some point during, Chauvin demonstrated that he didn’t care if he was causing pain/harm to Floyd. He knew better, but didn’t “do” better. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove motive, only Chauvin knows why he didn’t stop restraining Floyd when he had time.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2021
  12. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    But would Chauvin have reason to believe that the restraint wasn’t the cause of him not being able to breath? If you remember, he was saying that he couldn’t breathe while he was in the police car without anyone kneeling on his back.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    When you think about it, if Chauvin heard Floyd pleading that he couldn’t breathe before he restrained him, why then, did he harshly and for a long duration, restrain him on the ground? The prosecution kept going back to what is reasonable to believe when it comes to what a veteran police officer should have known to do, in that situation.

    Officer Lane who was on the scene that day told the paramedics that they were just restraining him (Floyd) until they arrived. So, it’s customary to restrain someone during an arrest until they are unconscious? According to the various police staff who testified for the prosecution, Chauvin didn’t follow policy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2021
    candy likes this.
  14. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    He was having trouble breathing but he maintained that it was due to claustrophobia. They wanted him in the car but he fought and pleaded with them to put him on the ground. That doesn’t sound like an intentional assault. It looks bad but it’s subjective.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  15. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    The first officers on the scene had him in the vehicle before the other 2 arrived. Chauvin pulled open the opposite side door and threw the victim to the ground. It is on the video if you need to see it. Chauvin had his knee on the victim's neck while saying get up and get in the car. Also on video. It looks bad because it is bad.
     
  16. Thus Spoke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    150
    That’s not true. Way to go, Candy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    https://www.wsj.com/video/police-bo...ing/18E43BDB-F4B9-4396-821C-0E72F7251B60.html

    Yes, it’s an unfortunate tragedy but I don’t think it’s second-degree murder. Manslaughter? Yes! Murder? No.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  17. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Clipped this from an article posted on CNN:

    The second-degree unintentional murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd’s death “without intent” while committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault. In turn, third-degree assault is defined as the intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm.

    The third-degree murder charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd’s death by “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”

    The second-degree manslaughter charge alleged 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.”

    The video posted above doesn't exonerate the officers from what followed after that.

    Thus Spoke, do you think that Chauvin didn't get a fair trial, or that the jury just got it wrong?
     
  18. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,074
    Thus Spoke: Do you believe that footage posted by WSJ in Aug 2020 is more relevant than the footage shown during the trial?
    What I referred to was from the security camera on the donut place.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    ¿S-apostrophe?
     
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Dogmatic much?
     
  21. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Subjective opinions are not demonstration. At best, they are argumentum ad populum.
    Again, do your own homework. I have no doubt that you lack the ability to differentiate between different views you disagree with.

    "Parroting" (your word) implies some degree of mimicry. But backpedal all you like.

    Only collectivists and bigots (but I repeat myself) think in terms of group identity, especially their own.

    An association fallacy can be either negative or positive (guilt or honor). Everyone here knows that any association you make to Hannity is intended to be negative. So the guilt is wholly your own implication. Hence guilt by association is you implying something negative with a fallacious association, since I don't listen to Hannity.

    But go ahead, try to tell us that you meant nothing negative about Hannity and nothing negative about me by extension of the faulty association.
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    He started claiming he couldn't breathe while claiming claustrophobia, resisting getting in the car, and not being restrained in any way that would compromise breathing. He was so big that three officers fail to get him secured (doors closed) in the car. Every seasoned officer has heard complaints about not being able to breathe many times, from just pull cuffs on a person. It's very common. It's also very common, as a prosecution witness testified under cross-examination, for seemingly unconscious druggies to suddenly become a threat. A big guy three officers couldn't control. The crowd only added to the potential threat; it was not the entire threat. And the entire preceding interaction between them belies that Chauvin had any intent to harm Floyd, as he was the pinnacle of patience and accommodation. With a large enough suspect, police train to use pain to force compliance. Go look it up, as if you haven't ignored me telling you all this before (and no doubt will continue to). The prosecution does have to prove motive in crimes involving intent. That's how intent works.

    That is a lie, plain and simple. It took three officers (including Chauvin) to attempt to get him into the car, and they failed when he wouldn't let them shut the door (not secured in the car) and he shoved himself out the other side. The body cam footage clearly shows, if you bother to look, that Chauvin didn't have a grip on Floyd when he suddenly hit Chauvin's chest/body cam. Unless you think Chauvin is telekinetic, it is not possible that he yanked Floyd from the car. If you think what you believe is on video, your preconceptions are blinding you.
    Wrong again. It was one of the onlookers telling Floyd to get up. Notice in the onlooker video how that voice is so much louder, i.e. closer to the camera.

    A lot is obscured in that footage, which is why the prosecution preferred it over the full body cam footage.
     
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Correction to the above: The prosecution doesn't have to prove motive, but testimony/evidence of motive can speak to intent, which the prosecution failed to prove. Had they prosecuted it as a hate crime, they would have been required to prove motive, but they offered zero evidence that it was racially motivated.
     

Share This Page