The “guilty on all counts” verdict in the trial of Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd was probably a fait accompli. The media had become something of a lynch mob. Before the jury returned their verdict, the President of the United States publicly prayed with Floyd’s family for “a just verdict,” and it’s understandable what verdict the family of the deceased was praying for. Congresswoman Maxine Waters called for more confrontation in the streets if Chauvin was not convicted. . Newspapers – in the hole for “impartial” news, not the opinion pages – continually referred to Chauvin killing Floyd when in fact autopsy showed enough fentanyl to be fatal three times over, a very serious pre-existing cardiovascular condition that could have killed him by itself, and more…but no artifacts of injury to neck, throat, or chest.
I thought reasonable doubt had been established in the course of trial…but I wasn’t on the jury.
There will certainly be appealable issues. There were people on that jury who had said on their questionnaires that they pretty much had already formed an opinion of guilt, but because they said they could set those opinions aside, they were allowed onto the jury.
The change of venue from the city where it happened was denied, on the grounds that the national publicity had permeated every corner of Minnesota. True enough…but there are communities and jury pools in other parts of Minnesota where the jurors wouldn’t have to worry that their own city would burn if they turned in a vote of Not Guilty.
In a volatile and highly politicized case such as this, I respectfully submit that the jury should have been sequestered the entire time, not just during deliberations.
The “spark of life” rule in Minnesota law allowed the prosecution to introduce heart-rending testimony as to what a wonderful person Floyd was (and coming from a loved one, I’m sure that was genuine), but Rule of Evidence 404(b) precluded the jury from hearing testimony from Floyd’s female victim who was pregnant when he robbed her at gunpoint and went behind bars for it, and that definitely tilted the scales of justice off balance. Perhaps this case will make the Minnesota State Supreme Court rethink the “spark of life” testimony/404(b) balance in such cases.
There were some weaknesses in the defense strategy. Testimony suggesting carbon monoxide poisoning from the exhaust of the patrol car? I rolled my eyes at that one.
That said, I don’t think the harsh criticism I’m seeing of defense attorney Eric Nelson is warranted. He was David against Goliath, the sole attorney of record that the police union could afford, against no less than three attorneys at the prosecutors’ table at any time and more behind the scenes backing them up, while Nelson’s only assistance in court came from a fledgling lawyer who had just passed her bar exam and was acting as sort of an intern. I thought he did a particularly good job cross-examining the State’s witnesses, and I think his necessarily long close was more professional than his prosecutorial counterpart’s.
I think the biggest mistake was Chauvin not taking the stand on his own behalf. As all my students have heard me say, when it comes down to “why did you do it as you did?” only you, the defendant, can truly answer. Those answers were never put to Chauvin’s jury.
I’m about out of space here, but we’ll discuss this more in my next entry. I am interested right now in your commentary on the matter, and particularly the comments of my fellow denizens of the courts and the criminal justice system. For those who’ve only followed the trial on mass media, I would urge you to go to www.lawofselfdefense.com for Attorney Andrew Branca’s much more balanced review of the matter.
I thought it was interesting that MN didn’t have a requirement to prove suspect’s intent in murder charges. To me this seemed like a deciding factor. Moving forward this should be a warning for all and a lesson on the use of force. Surely a better outcome for all would be to ease off the gas a bit and let things play out.
Attorney Andrew Branca covered the trial over at Legal Insurrection (https://legalinsurrection.com), and he pointed to an oddity in Minnesota law: while most states require intent to kill for “murder” — unlawful killing without intent is “manslaughter” — Minnesota statutes call pretty much all of it “murder”.
It’s just a quirk of Minnesota state statutes; don’t read too much into it. Just recognize that the crimes for which Derek Chauvin was accused are labelled “murder” in the statutes, but in any other state they would be “manslaughter”.
As I noted in a previous comment (see previous blog on Chauvin trial), this was a political “Show Trial” staged by the American Left. Everything that could possibly be done to “stack the deck” against Officer Chauvin was done. This included reaching a large settlement with the Floyd family and announcing it just as the trial got started.
This included a failure to move the trial to a better venue where a better shot at a fair trial might be possible. This includes greatly outspending the defense. (wonder how the budget for the Prosecution stacked up against the Defense? Outspending of 5 to 1? 10 to 1? 20 to 1? Will we ever know?)
This includes a tag-team match whereby multiple lawyers for the Prosecution took on the solitary attorney for the defense.
It includes the media in “full cry” for blood. And getting it as gallons of blood were splashed on the house of one of the witnesses for the defense. A message clearly sent to the jury who were not sequestered at the time. It includes high (and low) public officials exhorting the mob to deliver bloody violence if Officer Chauvin was not sacrificed on the alter of “Systemic Racism”.
I was not alive at the time so I never watched the Nazi “People’s Court” in operation. Nevertheless, I am certain that I am seeing the same dynamic at play in America today. Certainly, this trial has much more in common with the trials of the “People’s Court” then with a fair trial as specified by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Derek Chauvin. A rather “French” sounding name. The injustice of his case reminds me of the case of French Military Officer, Alfred Dreyfus. I wonder if Chauvin will serve out his term on “Devil’s Island” like Dreyfus?
Perhaps, if this country can manage to turn away from hatred and mob rule, Chauvin (like Dreyfus) will end up being exonerated on all charges. We can only hope that the Citizens of this country will wake up and turn away from the path of hatred and folly upon which they currently walk.
Can’t add a thing other than I’m glad I’m retired……………………………..
Dano
Wonder if there was a section of the courtroom reserved for kangeroos?
I resigned from my second Pd after being vigorously encouraged to lie about a DUI case and refusing to do so. The drunk guy was not inside his crashed car when I arrived on scene, but my supervisor and others wanted me to state he was in the driver’s seat. My supervisor ordered me to arrest the drunk, a lawyer, after a field sobriety test which he failed, even though the sergeant knew the guy was over a 100 yards away inside his home before I showed up. The sergeant had another officer go to the drunk’s house and bring him back to the scene so I could arrest him. I quit a few days later, after serving for 8 1/2 years.
Most of the population do not know of the many sleazy things that go on in their PDs.
That city was murdered today with that verdict…..the police leadership, the politicians and the citizens betrayed the police…..and now they will pay for that with the increase in murder, rape and robbery……the vacancies created as businesses flee the city …..and those people who supported this verdict will deserve everything that happens……..sad. I feel bad for Chauvin…..
I think this verdict, particularly the finding of guilty of murder vs. manslaughter will make it even harder to attract and retain high quality candidates for police officers. I also think we are very close to the point where any death of a black male who interacts with law enforcement, in certain jurisdictions, will result in prosecution of the involved officers and/or rioting, no matter what happened. We are quickly losing the rule of law in this country and our communities are paying the price.
See my above reply for the “murder vs. manslaughter” thing. Minnesota labels pretty much all unlawful killing as “murder”, even without intent, which other states label as “manslaughter”. The level of felony and sentencing are on par with other states’ “manslaughter” statutes.
It’s just the verbiage that’s odd, and it’s particular to Minnesota.
The last murder trial I was involved in there, 2016, the charge was Intentional Homicide IIRC, the equivalent of First Degree Murder elsewhere. Happily, the defendant, who fired in clear cut self-defense, is now a free man.
Those who believe they’ve placated the mob with this verdict are in for a rather big shock, I suspect.
Yup.
Agreed.
I followed the trial via Mr Branca’s excellent coverage.
I’m of multiple minds of the verdict. Based upon what I saw, I wouldn’t have convicted. Based upon my understanding that I am more trained and knowledgeable of use of force than John Q. Public, I could accept that a jury could have found him guilty of one or two of the charges.
That they found him guilty of all three, and as fast as they did so tells me that the verdict wasn’t decided by the evidence or the arguments of the trial.
One of the finest accomplishments of our country was that we were truly all equal before the law. That has not been completely so for quite a while. Today it appears that another group is more equal than others. That group is the mob.
They’ve been paid their Danegeld. Now we see how long they will be satisfied.
Relatively quick verdict tells me that with all that evidence and testimony there was little analysis going on in that jury room. They were living in the fishbowl with large cats outside waiting to injure and destroy. The verdict was predictable. I’d call the jury gutless, but I wonder how many people would actually have stood up and said no, I believe he is innocent and I know my family will be targeted in the inevitable release of our names and addresses. Heroes are not the norm.
Relatively quick verdict, along with the jury not asking for clarification on “causation” — which the answer they got in court was ambiguous to say the least, and anything but helpful.
Yea, I think it was pretty much decided well before deliberations began, by factors outside the body of evidence presented.
Personally, I wouldn’t have voted to convict; reasonable doubt was well and truly established by defense counsel Eric Nelson’s brilliant cross-examinations even before the defense presented their case. Before the trial and all the evidence and testimony came out, I wasn’t so sure. (Does that make me an ideal juror? Maybe, but it also guarantees I wouldn’t have been selected.)
The appeal should be interesting, though.
Only problem with appeals is that it will be before either a liberal District or Spineless Supreme Court. Police across the country should consider a career change.
Mass,
You brought up some good issues which I haven’t heard before. It certainly would have been helpful to listen to Derek Chauvin explain his actions. What was he thinking at the time? If I was the judge, I would ask Chauvin to put his knee on my neck so I could feel what it was like. How deadly is that move? I assume it is not deadly to a healthy person since it is part of police procedure.
From what I’ve learned about the case, the deciding factor for me was the fact that Floyd was handcuffed behind his back while Chauvin knelt on him. To me, that seems like excessive use of force. If Floyd had not been handcuffed, I would probably acquit Chauvin. He had to restrain George, who died because he was unhealthy and made bad choices putting drugs into his own body.
It seems to me that on May 25th, 2020, two jerks ran into each other and gave Communists the appearance of an excuse to riot and loot. Both Floyd and Chauvin were jerks. In America, looting means it’s time to get new sneakers and TV sets. America is full of jerks now, and they vote.
I expect police to do less policing, so they won’t be accused of racism. I expect Communists to continue the revolution. When are we going to see store owners and patriots defending businesses? The Koreans did it successfully during the Rodney King riots in 1992. It is time for the police to stand down, and the patriots to stand up. Maybe there just aren’t that many patriots in cities. If Antifa tries to burn the suburbs, what will happen then?
I read Andrew Branca’s commentary each day and it was excellent. Nelson did an admirable job considering. I thought Chauvin should have testified as well but that’s easy for me to say.
Justice in America is, if not dead, on life support. The mob rules. Democrats, like the despicable Maxine Waters, can incite violence with no fear of repercussion.
Antifa can riot and burn Federal Court houses, but Patriots who protested at the Capitol are hunted down and prosecuted by the FBI.
George Floyd, dead felon, who overdosed and killed himself, is canonized by the media – itself an arm of the Democratic party. And the cry to defund the police is repeated nightly on every channel.
I am old. My time in Investigations on the street is over. I come from a long line of Police in my family. 4 generations. And today I would not want a loved one to enter into law enforcement. The personal risks are too high and there is precious little reward. I fear my Country is overun with socialists who only value what is evil. Whos only concern is what they can steal or enrich themselves with. And whos thirst for power overides justice, the law and the Constitution.
The felon is their ally. And a dead felon their Martyr. God help us going forward. Regards, 18DAI
Like many others, I paid attention to the trial, but was not in the courtroom. I was puzzled as to why the jury was not sequestered, why Derek Chauvin. did not testify, and why the defense brought up carbon monoxide poisoning. I still have some questions concerning police use of force and the need to continue said use of force against a compliant-and-then-some suspect. I have been continually appalled by the media and primarily mob-rule race grifting democrats. I would guess there will be an appeal, and anyone that thinks these guilty verdicts will cause a lessening of tensions is not really paying attention to what is going on. If you assert that George Floyd got the justice he deserved, then you can also assert he sufferred the consequences from his chosen behaviors and lifestyle. There are no winners in this case except those profiting off the misery., and working to compound all such misery. They can go to hell.
As with anti-Rights gun banners, there are already protests saying that these convictions are only a start. Look out.
When I first saw the video, my initial thoughts were that he was guilty as charged, but I’ve long since backed off from that. I wasn’t there, haven’t seen what the jury saw and for sure don’t trust the media especially with the way they had him convicted from the very start of this whole thing. More doubts began to arise when I heard about the drugs in Floyd’s system and his other health issues. Plus, isn’t it a very common tactic by suspects to claim that they can’t breathe to gain a possible advantage over an arresting officer? In the end though, in my opinion, no matter what the evidence was in his favor, Chauvin was going to be found guilty; there was no way he was ever going to get a fair trial and I think the effect of this outcome will be a very serious detrimental effect on law enforcement in this country for a long time to come.
It will be interesting to see, from a distance, whether the mostly peaceful demonstrations will continue, or whether they’ll just no longer get media coverage now that they’ve been used to threaten jurors.
I’m getting a feeling the Democrats have unleashed something they can no longer control, and probably don’t even understand.
IANAL, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a judge announce out loud that the defense pretty much has an ironclad appeal, while not declaring a mistrial.
That remark from the judge floored me, too.
The only good reasoning I can come up with is, if the judge declared a mistrial — and he had plenty of reasons to do so — the prosecution would re-file identical charges and the whole circus would likely be repeated in a few months.
At the defendant’s expense, of course; high-profile legal defense is expensive. The State, in contrast to the defendant, has effectively unlimited resources and can quite easily pursue charges as many times as they are allowed.
And there’s no cause to believe the next time would be any different.
Sparing the public and Derek Chauvin from the spectacle (and expense) of having to repeat the process was, I believe, high in the judge’s reasoning.
Don’t you have to have intent for a second degree murder charge?? What person thinks that these cops intended to murder anyone?
As John Farnam said in his latest column, no decent cop is going to put his life, career and future on the line for anyone when his bosses, city fathers and some citizens will destroy him to make themselves appear woke.
I fear for our future.
Don’t you have to have intent for a second degree murder charge??
It’s an oddity in the Minnesota criminal statutes, which Andrew Branca explained in his day-to-day coverage.
Pretty much all unlawful killing in Minnesota is labelled “murder” in the statutes, even killing without intent which other states call “manslaughter”. Thus, Minnesota doesn’t really have a “manslaughter” statute; it’s all “murder”. The severity of the crime for unintentional killing is comparable to other states’ manslaughter crimes, only the label is different.
The judge in this case gave the appearance to me of railroading the defendant while committing enough reversible error that he could salve his conscience by knowing he kicked the can to higher courts. Absolutely despicable and disgraceful. Both the judge and the lead prosecutor should be disbarred for misconduct.
Not just the lead prosecutor, but if you read Andrew Branca’s summary of closing arguments, Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell violated not only courtroom and legal ethics, but the law in claiming things that were knowingly wrong and trying to taint the jury’s opinion of Chauvin. He should also be disbarred, if not prosecuted.
Guilty of 2nd and 3rd degree murder AND manslaughter? I’m confused. Murder is an intentional act, manslaughter is an unintentional consequence that results in homicide.
I followed Branca as many here, but, I’m still confused. Doesn’t one count the other out, or am I trying to apply logic to an illogical concept?
I vaguely recall from Branca’s commentary and “murder” has a slightly wider definition in MN law. I’ll have to go back and try to find the reference.
Friend Larry McClain, the best common-sense explanation may be that George Floyd’s life ended twice all at once, which makes no kind of sense at all. Clearly none of the officers present at George Floyd’s apprehension expected George Floyd to die, but all the officers did have an expectation based on experience that if George Floyd was freed from pressure on the head and neck, that he would persist in resisting detention, encouraging dangerous public situations. IMHO, George Floyd’s death was due to appearing to resist arrest, plus a general lack of foresight by many, BUT NOBODY WANTED HIM TO DIE. Demand a non-scapegoat-lynching venue, with a non-PC appeal. Let us give warning and stop rioters.
In my honest opinion, George Floyd’s death was probably due to many contributing factors — fentanyl overdose, methamphetamines, underlying heart condition, extremely occluded coronary arteries (none of which the officers had any way of knowing), and the physical stress of fighting with officers for 10 minutes solid, etc. — but most of all, the fentanyl in his system. He had ingested three times what would probably have been a fatal dose. His arrest and restraint happened at the same time, but didn’t cause his death.
Also, in my “IANAL” opinion, the state’s expert who testified that Derek Chauvin’s knee was absolutely the cause of death, and while the fentanyl (or any of the other conditions above) would have killed anyone else it absolutely would not have killed George Floyd, perjured himself, and hard.
It’s fully possible that Derek Chauvin’s restraint technique loosely contributed to the death, but since the prosecution couldn’t say with any certainty even something so simple as where Chauvin’s knee was resting (on Floyd’s neck? shoulder? back? they couldn’t seem to decide), proving that it caused any particular physiological damage resulting in death is — and I’m being nice here — a stretch.
That uncertainty is called reasonable doubt. If there’s reasonable doubt, the verdict should have been Not Guilty.
There was talk of moving the trial to our county, local LE objected. The courthouse is in an old residential part of town and the National Guard would not have been able to get trucks through the narrow streets and under low wires in the area. There are plenty of local idiots ready to burn and loot and more would show up wherever the trial was held. It’s not over yet, more troops are still moving to the twin cities area. There has already been one drive by attack on National Guard troops, I hope there are no more.
The video was so damning. No matter how much drugs were in his system, Floyd was cuffed, and there were multiple officers present. Kneeling on his neck, even if it was procedure, could and was reasonably argued as unnecessary. Testimony from Lt. Richard Zimmerman, head of the homicide division, stating that the kneeling was unnecessary and could kill a person, held substantial weight too.
I think that, as bad as it may have looked, if multiple officers stood Floyd up after they had him cuffed, and forcibly moved him into the backseat of the cruiser, we wold not be having this conversation. That may have stirred up the crowd as well, and excessive force could have potentially been argued. Would have been a much smaller problem, though. Certainly if Floyd died in such a scenario in the back of the cruiser to a drug overdose, Officer Chauvin would not be headed to prison.
As Dave said above, there are no winners in this case.
Read Branca’s commentary. Alternative video (not shared by the media or prosecution) clearly showed kneeling on the back/shoulders, not the neck. Hence no injury one would expect from approx 200 lbs of cop and gear on their knee.
The media and the prosecution only tells the part of the whole truth that fits their narrative.
Floyd had asked to be removed from the patrol car.
It was on the video that was published on a UK site.
Also, as we learned from the testimony, Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd’s back, not his neck.
I think Matthew hit the nail squarely on the head. Nine and a half minutes kneeling on George Floyds neck while handcuffed was unreasonable and crossed the line. Granted, Floyd was no angel but he didn’t deserve the indifference and unprofessional conduct displayed by Chauvin.
This Officer’s actions lit the fuse that resulted in too many other Officers around the country that were senselessly murdered in the line of duty while trying to control the protests, rioting and looting that occurred because of Chauvin’s actions.
I certainly don’t believe that Chauvin should have been convicted of murder but manslaughter I think is a just conviction. Chauvin had a long history of excessive force complaints and probably should have been stripped of the badge long before he encountered George Floyd. Bad cops like this make the job so much harder for the good cops that strive to do the job the right way.
There does need to be reform on both sides. Accountability needs to be enforced for criminals that are on the revolving door track and cops need to fairly and equally enforce the law based on the facts, not the color of someone’s skin. Reform is inevitable, how the law enforcement community responds to that reform will be interesting to see.
Derek Chauvin gets no sympathy from me. He is a stain on the badge and an insult to the brave men and women that do the job day in and day out.
I believe he chose not to testify because he knew that he would not be able to justify his actions and I suppose he’ll have a long time to think about what he did. I hope the country can begin to heal and move forward in a peaceful manner.
You are making a lot of judgements on something you know very little about and seem to have bought the whole liberal line. Please don’t assume things and fan the flames of unsubstantiated rhetoric.
I was re-reading an old SF novel and the author brought up an interesting theory on why the elite left-wing liberals now in control of government behave the way they do in regard to angry mobs. He postulated that in their society, allowing the mob to run amuck is a form of learned submission, much like how wild animals react when faced with a larger dominant individual. They have learned that submitting to any demand, no matter how heinous, is the way to survive rather than standing up for one’s beliefs and fighting back. An interesting theory though the fact that the rest of us are to be sacrificed for their purported well being kinda sucks.
One comment I read on the Law of Self
Defense wrapped up the jury’s mood in a single sentence.
“I can only imagine the jury’s deliberations were close to “everyone for conviction say ‘guilty’ and everyone else say ‘I want to be murdered in my home.’”
Perhaps the lesson here is that if you are a police officer, and you have arrested someone and have them handcuffed and prone on the ground, and they keep saying “I can’t breathe” then maybe, just maybe you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, when a person can say that they can’t breathe, they actually can (although perhaps not well). That’s just physiology.
Speaking from experience, that is a common ploy of criminals who want to get some advantage over the officer
With all the drugs in his system, you could have dropped a feather and killed him. He was walking dead and would have died soon anyway. Such a waste of resources.
Viewing this from Canada, I will not repeat the great comments above. It has been stated that Chauvin was a thug, perhaps, and Floyd was definitely a thug. From my perspective, Floyd died of poor health choices, poor lifestyle choices, and drug overdose. The jury were so badly intimidated, I am not surprised they voted to convict on all counts. I am surprised they did not sequester the jury for the entire time and hold the trial elsewhere. This was a railroad job, and Chauvin the railroadee. I am saddened by the lack of justice, the mob rule, the police not being backed by the city there and elsewhere in the country. Why would anyone of integrity now desire to become law enforcement. I unfortunately see many dark years ahead for both our countries because of this woke idiocy. I’m not sure civilized society can survive.
Hi Mas,
Per your recommendation, I followed Mr. Branca’s reporting of the trial on Legal Insurrection and Law of Self Defense. Thing appeared to be going very during the defense’s cross of the State’s witnesses and good foundation was being built that Chauvin was following MSP policy. However, when it came to the defense’s case in chief, the defense did not expand on the early success and build its solid foundation. To my knowledge, they didn’t present the training that MSP officers had received, especially concerning “excited delirium” and the officer techniques in restrain and management of the suspect exhibiting these symptoms. Clearly, that’s what the officers believed as witnessed by the body cam audio. That makes me wonder if that training did not support Chauvin’s actions? Other articles I have read suggest exactly the opposite, that the training and guidance did support their actions. Either way, it was never presented for the jury to see with their own eyes. A
If Chauvin was not going to testify in his own defense, then Nelson should have articulated what was in Chauvin’a mind to defend his actions. It appears to me that Nelson relied too much on his success in impeaching State witnesses, and neglected to build on that success in his own case in chief. Branca mentioned that the defense had multiple witnesses in their list, but did they call them all? The first defense use of force expert was a disaster, according to Branca. He was the only defense use of force expert, right?
I thought a manslaughter conviction was possible and likely warranted. While there might have been extenuating circumstances, Chauvin and the officers did not take as much care of Floyd in the final minutes when things had plainly gone wrong as they should have. As you taught us, one need only be negligent for one second. I’m still scratching the head over the murder conviction and think they are as much political and societal, i.e., sending a mess to police (opposite of jury nullification?) as opposed to founded in the facts of the case.
I’m signed up for tonight’s webinar on Legal Insurrection. Should be interesting!
and the civil war continues….
I gotta say, Mas, that this is the first time I must disagree with you. As Matthew above said, it is inexcusable that, with the manpower present, Floyd couldn’t have been shoved into the back of a squad car within minutes after being cuffed. If he was such a threat and so strong as to be combative and a danger to officers, how, at the same time, could be be on the verge of death due to his heart condition and drugs? And this is ASIDE from the fact that the accusation against him didn’t call for such an escallation of force. I’m reminded of the poor man in New York who was killed for selling loose cigarettes. Petty crimes shouldn’t be met with S.W.A.T. style response. Floyd arguably would still be alive today if it weren’t for police malfeasence.
“To protect and serve” should be more than a bumper sticker, and said protection applies to ALL citizens, regardless of the charges or accusations against them.
Just my two cents….
Stu, they had tried to get him into the car, and couldn’t make it work. The defense theory is that he died in part due to his own extreme exertion resisting arrest, presumably knowing that his cardiovascular system was in a precarious condition.
Yes. And Floyd had asked to be taken out of the squad car.
Information availble since thhe incident came down clearly had Floyd requesting two things, as they tried to stuff him into the car. One, I can’t breathe, two, I need to lay down. THIS is why they gave off stuffing him, and brought him to a safe place where he could be laid down on the ground. Chauvin’s training, recently completed, had taught him to recognise the syptoms of drug overdose and resultant systeminc collapse….. Floyd continued his rowdy fighting until he was grounded (temember, atHIS own request). and Chaivn’s knee was on HIS UPPER BACK< not neck, precisely as he was trained to do. One of the other officers assisting had taken that same training along wiht Chauvin, and they had both come to the same conclusion about Floyd's overdosed condition indepentently, then shared their thoughts, and agreed. They followed protocol as trained to do.
Rembmer, as well,and Mas mentioned it, there was absolytely NO trauma to Floyd's bdy consistent with excessive pressure on the neck, airways, surrounding musculature.
Further, Floyd had been in the same pickle two years or so ago, another occasioin where he had ingested a massive dose of fentanyl to avoid getting caught with the drug, but that dose apparently was smaller, as he was brought to hospital and recovered. I do not know whether this evidence was allowed to be put before the jury. I rather suspect not, as it would have been difficult to hold Chauvin a murderer for dealing with Floyd's clealr toxic drug overdose, and knowing Floyd nad walked that same road not long ago under remarkably siilar conditioins. I can sort of see how evidence of his previous violence invovling firearms with that pregnant woman would be inadmissible, as it was not really relevant to the instant case. But his drug behaviour and history SHOULD have been put before the jury.
Let us hope justice will at least be attempted and suitable appeals launched. Meanwhile it might appear that the fores of moloch are now stanched for a season, and perhaps Minneapolis might not go up in smoke in the next week or two.
If I were a cop on that force, I"d quickly assure I was no longer…. move to another department, or quit and go find a paper route or something. If Chauvin and his partner can be charged in a case like this, WHO is safe?
I also find it utterly iunacceptible that the City loudly and prominently paid out Mn$27 to the wretch's family, AND that the jurors were not suitably isolated from that knowledge. They should have been totally isolated, no access to news, TV internet, etc, during the entire trial from the time of selection. They were not…..
Tionico, very good and informative post
I have not seen the phone video. What I have seen are all three of the body cam video from all of the officers involved, start to finish. I saw nothing in any of those videos that rose to the definition of murder. The police were polite in trying to restrain him. They tried to calm him down. He fought them every minute of it. They got him in the squad car and he kicked his way out of it before they could get the doors closed.
There is a part where you could hear one of the junior officers ask about George being on drugs. The more senior officer said that it appeared that way based upon his rapid eye moments. An ambulance was on the way and they decided to try to keep him restrained so that he did not hurt himself or someone. They were holding him in a place where he seemed calmer than in the back of a squad.
I did not see malice in the officers’ actions. I did not hear malice or hate in their voices or verbal commands. All I saw was a man that would not comply with lawful orders and was fighting three officers. Had I been on the scene I don’t think I would have acted differently than these three.
I have not heard of these body cam footages being seen by many. Were they shown in the trial? They paint a very different picture than what we have been led to believe by the media.
Bob, you should be able to find all the videos on Attorney Andrew Branca’s site, http://www.lawofselfdefense.com.
Unfortunately, most non law enforcement people don’t have an accurate view of it and think it’s easier than it is to control even a handcuffed person.
Jim, you seem to think that because I disagree with how Chauvin handled this incident that I’m buying into the “liberal” party line and have no law enforcement experience. I can assure you that you are wrong on both counts. I trained cops back in the day and every cop I know (and it’s a lot) were disgusted with the actions of Chauvin. The depraved indifference he displayed in his “handling” of Floyd made the job a hell of a lot harder for every good cop on the job. He crossed a line, period.
Mas and I have known each other for going on 40 years. I have trained with and for Mas and we respect each others opinions. He doesn’t automatically dismiss others opinions. Your dismissive attitude towards some of the comments on here is uncalled for. You “assume” somebody is a liberal or non law enforcement because they didn’t side with Chauvin.
Judgmental much ??
My apologies Mas. You asked for opinions and there are a lot of different takes on this issue in the comments. I get a little tired of people like Jim that slap a “liberal” tag on someone because they don’t like a person’s comment. It’s uncalled for.
You don’t have to be a liberal to be disgusted by the actions of Chauvin.
@ Linda – “The depraved indifference he displayed in his ‘handling’ of Floyd made the job a hell of a lot harder for every good cop on the job. He crossed a line, period.”
I think that your comment illustrates one of the major points that Mas made above. Derek Chauvin should have taken the stand. He is the only person on this Earth that can tell us what was going through his mind during those fateful 9 ½ minutes during which he restrained George Floyd with his knee.
Was he fearful that Floyd would resume fighting if he were released from restraint? Was he fearful that the crowd would try to interfere if they shifted position? Had he been specifically told (or trained) to maintain that restraint position until medical personnel were on-hand to begin treating the suspect?
Did he hear and understand the comment of the other officer stating that he could not find a pulse? Given all the noise that the crowd was making, did he understand that George Floyd might actually be in destress? Or, knowing that the paramedics were on their way and would be there shortly, did he think the best thing to do was hold-in-place until they were on the scene?
Had he been angry over the resistance put up by George Floyd? Was emotion overruling his better judgment? Was that expression on his face really a “power trip” as so many have accused? Or was it a tight-lipped expression caused by the stress that he was under in this very stressful situation?
Only Derek Chauvin can answer the above questions. The impression made by the video of this incident is so damning that an explanation is required.
In the absence of his taking the stand and explaining his state-of-mind during those 9 ½ minutes, a lot of people are prone to project the worst possible motives for his actions. If these bad motives are actually true, then Chauvin is, indeed, guilty of manslaughter at the least. However, if he thought that he was following approved guidelines and that his actions were correct, then maybe the blame should have been placed on bad policies rather than by using Derek Chauvin as a scapegoat to cover up policy errors.
Mas is absolutely correct. Whatever the dangers he would face under cross-examination, it could not be worse then letting that video tape do all the talking.
If a successful appeal is made and Derek Chauvin is granted a new trial, then I hope he will SERIOUSLY reconsider his decision to “take the 5th” and not testify. It should be totally clear, at this point, that if Derek Chauvin does not speak up for himself then no one else will do so. In his case, standing mute is a direct path to prison because it lets the media “write the narrative” for his actions and it lets the jury assume the worst for his motives.
Just my thoughts and opinion for what it’s worth I believe the jury convicted on emotion and not fact and a political leaders and political people had no business putting their two cents in before the jury was out not sequestering the jury I would think that this is almost a guaranteed grounds for a retrial or getting the conviction overturned with the new trial too much influence from the outside and maybe a change in venue where the trial is held even though it’s been Nationwide I think no matter what happens the officer involved is going to get a raw deal no matter what comes down the pike next
Don P,
I think it may be time for you to get a new keyboard. The key which produces periods isn’t working. : )
Roger, didn’t you know? Periods have been cancelled by the liberals. 🙂
Did you not listen to the medical examiner say he was not overdosed. Im an extremely conservative gun owner and without a doubt the video shows an arrogant bad cop who didnt give a damn about the suspect and there is no excusing his remaining on Floyds neck after he was unconscious. His actions killed the man. The defense expert even agreed with those of the prosecution. Your comments sound like those from all cops stand together no matter what. Im surprised at your comments. The media and elected officials did inflame things but they were not the jury. The two things need to be separated. On the whole I agree with you 99.9% of the time and this is the first time I know of that I do. I think Chauvin was guilty of some level of manslaughter but not intentional murder
I believe that the ME said what the prosecution wanted him to say. His toxicology report showed 3 times the lethal dose of fentanyl. Yes, I understand that users have more tolerance than non-users. That doesn’t change the blood levels.
Also, remember his girlfriend’s testimony about his previous reaction to a large dose of drugs.
Also, recall that Nelson wasn’t allowed to get testimony on excited delirium.
Also, Chauvin was making significant efforts to accommodate Floyd’s professed distress.
READ THE TOX PANEL from the autopsy. That was made publically availble about a week after Floyd’s death.
The percentaves (micromoles per dcilitre of blood” are fixed fact, determined by careful analisis of the decedent’s own blood taken at the hospital upon admittance shortly after nis death.
Drug chemistry is not a matter of speculation. That concentrationi of fentanyl is three to four times what has been considered fatal for a long time. He also had a very hjigh concentratioin of meth again, from the tox panel of the autopsy report, and widely cosidered to be about twice a fatal dose.
I do not know what the medical examiner was talking about, nor how much he might have been paid to say what he said. Remember, that examiner is a political position. He answers to SOMEONE higher up in Minneapolis political systems. Neutral witness? Hardly. I also watched the testimony of that black LAPD “expert witness” on use fo force.. she had a burr under her saddle blanket, and was not interested in putting neutral truth in front of the jury, but offering her hugely swayed perosnal opinion to the jury. They musta bought it. Nor did she give any response to the facts relating to the specific mitigatioin training both Chauvin and his second officer at the scene had taken not long before this incident.
James, unfortunately, videos never show it all and your judgement on something you were nowhere near is irresponsible
If it was me in Chauvin’s shoes, I would have insisted on testifying for reasons you mentioned Mas. Especially so in this case.
However, I do not see how I would have possibly kept my knee over or on the neck area for as long as Chavin did. (Yet I try to never say never)
Not that removing his knee or even providing CPR is likely to have helped (not Floyd’s chance of surviving and not the political/social/emotional/racism montra raging in the country).
I would not relish performing CPR in the street with a hostile mob behind me.
Additionally, the police were expecting the ambulance with paramedics any minute.
I would not have left my knee on Floyd’s neck/shoulder especially knowing everyone was recording as were the body cams. I wouldn’t have left him proned either.
2 nd mistake was when the off duty EMS called them out I would have said are you willing to help us. If you think he needs immediate aid, please how can we assist.
I also think some contempt of cop played a part. Pride cometh before the fall.
I hear you, Paul. If I recall correctly, the off-duty firefighter said she didn’t have her ID with her. If I was the officer and unable to confirm that the volunteer citizen had the training you’d expect, I probably wouldn’t let her near the arrestee either.
My understanding is that Mpls Police had been trained to handle a suspect in custody exhibiting behavior and conditions as in Floyd’s case. The procedure, to protect the suspect (to say nothing of everyone else), was that which Chauvin applied.
Then, when the political situation exploded, the MPD changed their prescribed procedure and backed-away from defending Chauvin.
How could cops cope with the prospect of being Chauvin-ized?
It would seem as they would be better off refraining from taking the suspect into custody, thereby delaying assuming responsibility for his protection. They would be in a better position if they loosely “corralled” the suspect and call paramedics.
I acknowledge that such a tactic would be time-consuming and expensive. Nevertheless, if we are (as a consequence of Floyd/Chauvin) going to suffer a slow-down in police services, the cops have to protect themselves against anything going wrong “on their watch”.
I’d like to know what Mass thinks of this possibility.
Google “Ferguson Effect.”
Yup.
Thank you Mas, but what do you think about(?):
“It would seem as they would be better off refraining from taking the suspect into custody, thereby delaying assuming responsibility for his protection. They would be in a better position if they loosely “corralled” the suspect and call paramedics.”
I expect cops to stampede for the exit door. But for the few who stay on their posts, is there any viable tactic for avoiding conspicuous (albeit mistaken) culpability for the death of a suspect?
In this case, Mark, Mr. Floyd’s initial refusal to show his hands was consistent with a surreptitiously armed man angling for a chance to shoot an officer; that’s why one young cop pulled a gun on him and cuffed him immediately. Had he simply been compliant and said, “Officer, the young man inside thinks my $20 bill is counterfeit. If that’s true, some SOB has foisted a counterfeit $20 onto me…probably none of us would ever have heard the names George Floyd or Derek Chauvin.
Thank you Mas. So, the problem is not as simple as I had imagined. (Not surprised to discover that.)
Generally, the problem is that there is a very high coincidence of a suspect who seems to be in distress AND he represents a high risk of jeopardy to the cops.
Whenever a cop is called to respond, or observes an apparent violation, it’s too often the case that the suspect isn’t interested in settling the matter at the cashier’s window of the court house. He’s trying to escape and he is likely to use lethal force to that end.
There seems to be no viable solution to this problem. It’s not viable to try to enforce laws; nor is it viable to abandon a precinct or classification of suspect to remain lawless.
There are many problems with this case. Even though publicity about the events surrounding Mr. Floyd’s death was national, I believe the prosecution should have requested a change of venue to protect the record. I believe the court erred in failing to sequester the veniremen from the outset to, so far as possible, isolate the final jury from outside pressures.
Like you, I believe the prosecution’s tactic of not charging the lesser offense of assault in order to force a conviction on the more serious charge reflects the lynch mob mentality of the entire proceeding. I believe the evidence reduced at trial not only raised a reasonable doubt, but established it as a matter of law. A finding by an appellate court that the verdicts were against the great weight of the evidence and are thus unsupportable would be appropriate in my view.
One matter that neither you nor anyone else has commented on, to my knowledge, is that the jury’s findings are inconsistent. The elements of the manslaughter are inconsistent with those of the murder charges. While I was unable to listen to the court’s instructions to the jury, the result would indicate they may well have been inadequate, if not incorrect.
In sum, I do not believe this defendant received a fair trial to which he was entitled.
Agree.
Officer Chauvin was hung out to dry just as Kyle Rittenhouse will be hung out to die. The inmates have taken over this country and sanity has gone the way of the dodo bird. I’m not a legal eagle so I don’t understand all the terms used but I don’t understand how he was guilty of ALL the charges. It seems to me that if you are guilty of manslaughter, you aren’t guilty of murder or vice versa. Guess they won’t have to “defund” the police force because they will all quit. I sure wouldn’t put my life on the line with no backup from my department or those who hired me.
I agree with your reasoning on why Chauvin should have testified. I also believe that getting on the stand would have presented an opportunity to humanize him, since the media had months to characterize him as an evil, racist automaton. I did not watch the whole proceeding and confess that I had bought into his guilt. However, after watching closing arguments, I truly felt that “reasonable doubt” was off the charts.
Guilty or not guilt the trial should have been moved from Minneapolis. The guilt verdict was a don’t hurt me. No way for him to receive a fair trial under the circumstances.
I was in the guilt corner before the trial. Nelson swayed me to not guilty. Plenty of reasonable doubt. I also think he was over charged.
I would have taken the stand.
Politics should not have played a part.
No doubt a new trial is coming after appeal.
The defense failed to counter misinformation by the prosecutor on the theory of carbon monoxide contributing to the death. Oximetry of 98% does NOT disprove CO poisoning, as carboxyhemoglobin is read as oxyhemoglobin by standard oximeters. I doubt anyone at the time thought to use the special 5-frequency oximeter that would be needed to assess for carbon monoxide in the blood.
That said, the carbon monoxide theory is a minor point–just one more causation factor among many. The bigger failure was defense’s expectation that reasonable doubt was so firmly established without the need to put Sgt. Chauvin on the stand. The jury likely put a lot of weight on the failure of Sgt. Chauvin to be able to articulate the reasons for his choices.
As a physician and after reviewing the autopsy and a significant chunk of the evidence, i think it is most likely that Mr. Floyd died while being held in the prone position and not because he was held in the prone position.
Finally, Chauvin’s failure to respond to his fellow officer’s report of an absent pulse or to the suggestion that they roll Floyd into a “recovery position” likely appeared to be callous indifference to the jury.
I do wonder if this will lead to an increase in early retirement among police officers, or alternatively, an increase in “conflict-free law non-enforcement”. “STOP! or I will say STOP again!” (Isn’t that the UN Peacekeeper Model?)
Doctor Jeff,
Notice how the media work. They search the news trying to find instances of racism. They can’t find any, so they have to manufacture racist acts. This act looked racist, so they had to spin it that way. Can’t they find some KKK members performing a racist act somewhere in America? I guess not. The lengths to which the media must go to show racism, testify that racism is pretty hard to find in America.
I am not an expert on American criminal law but I find the rationale included in many of the comments to be self-deluding. His background suggests that George Floyd was no angel and testimony indicates that there were several factors (drugs and health issues) that may have exacerbated the situation but these in no way excuse the way that physical force and constraint were utilized by Officer Chauvin. Floyd was cuffed and prone and otherwise manageable. His statements indicating that he could not breathe indicated, at the very least, that he was having difficulty breathing. Chauvin showed apparent indifference and did not exercise force intelligently or appropriately and this directly resulted in Floyd’s death. If, as one comment noted, Floyd had died of the effects of the drugs in his system AFTER having been restrained APPROPRIATELY the issue may have been different but that was not the case. We will never know if the drugs in his system would have killed him because he was caused to die by another method. This defence is unviable as it is based on 20/20 hindsight: Chauvin had no way of knowing the potentially fatal level of drugs in Floyd’s system, only that he may have been intoxicated.
It should also be emphasized that the punishment for passing counterfeit currency is NOT the death penalty and a single law enforcement officer is not empowered to act as executioner without trial. Even if Floyd had been a previously convicted murderer that would not have provided any justification as to the circumstances of his arrest.
Given the testimony presented and the inability of defence counsel to refute much of it it would appear that the jury rendered a wholly supportable verdict. Derek Chauvin DID cause the unjustified death of George Floyd and was found guilty.
I submit that you either read Branca’s summaries, or else take MAG40 (or at least the legal 20 half). I appreciate your admission that you don’t know the law. That said, you’re neglecting several relevant truths & realities — which is very dangerous.
Which ‘truths & realities’ am I neglecting?
Also, I admitted to ‘not being an expert’, which seemed appropriate; perhaps I should have simply stated that I am not a lawyer specializing in criminal law. I am not ignorant of the law as a concept or as a citizen.
I would also state that, although I have not taken MAG40, I have been Mr. Ayoob’s loyal reader since @1978. I have read enough of his work to avoid being a ‘jail-house lawyer’ (most of the time, anyway).
Forgive me if I came across as a legal expert myself; I am not. I am merely repeating what experts I trust have said. 1. Branca meticulously laid out the reality that a reasonable person, in Chauvin’s place, could have believed that Floyd had a pulse right up until the moment that the paramedics arrived. 2. “The [real] medical examiner [not Baden, who never touched the corpse, but based his opinion on the video]… found ‘no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.'” (Branca) A reasonable person could conclude that Floyd died of cardiac arrest, induced not by Chauvin’s actions, but by Floyd’s own choices. 3. Given the totality of the circumstances, I am skeptical that your assumption of “manageable” would be agreed to by all reasonable persons. (This feeds back into #1 and speaks to Chauvin’s restraint of the suspect.) Thanks for taking the time to consider these ideas, and how they might relate to the accuracy of the jury’s conclusions.
Perhaps I should have said “legal accuracy” of the jury’s conclusions. Please do not misunderstand: this is not a concession of perceived guilt. Rather, I am seeking to distinguish between what a casual observer might believe, and what the evidence allows a jury to determine.
Perhaps the most important reality here that touches every American citizen is whether the judicial system was allowed to function as it was originally designed. Within the scope of this comment, I do not seek to address what someone who was not on the jury believes. People have a right to believe whatever they want (if I disagree with those beliefs, I may choose to respectfully debate them); but a jury is obligated to determine guilt or innocence within very specific legal boundaries. If they step outside of those boundaries, their conclusion ought to be null and void.
“Innocent until proven guilty” may not be a perfectly flawless judicial philosophy. But it is — far, far, far & away! — the best system this world offers. If opinions are allowed to override it, and intimidation is allowed to destroy it, we have a very serious problem indeed.
State codes can vary widely in the elements of a specific crime. I kind of wish I’d followed the trial so I might have figured out how one could be charged with 2nd degree murder (requires intent), 3rd degree murder and manslaughter. Would have been meaningful if someone in the various media had explained that-unless they did and I missed it. Still, I can’t really see the 2nd degree murder verdict.
The system I had the most experience with had two separate degrees of manslaughter instead of 3rd degree murder. Voluntary (requires a reckless,wanton act that one should have known could result in death/SBI) manslaughter and involuntary (sometimes referred to as accidental/stupid action) manslaughter. The only thing I can figure is that in Minnesota, 3rd degree murder is voluntary manslaughter and manslaughter is involuntary manslaughter.
Don’t know how Minnesota selects judges but expect that the judge had his eye on the political winds and a possible seat on a higher court. Appears to be numerous grounds for appeal, wonder what the competing upside/downside of the appeals might be to aspirations?
URK! the memory (and quite a few other things) aren’t as exact as I’d like. The grey cells started twitching a few minutes ago and I dug out the law books from where I currently live. Involuntary manslaughter is the reckless, wanton act that results in death. Voluntary manslaughter requires only a deliberate act, without malice or justification, that causes death. My apologies.
Rather oddly, both are rated as a class 5 felony. They were graded differently where I was first trained.
@ WR Moore – “Still, I can’t really see the 2nd degree murder verdict.”
I am not an attorney so my understanding my be wrong. Nevertheless, my take on the 2nd degree murder verdict is that it is really “Felony Murder”. Apparently, Minnesota lumps two or three kinds of “unjustified homicide” in the general 2nd degree murder category. Their version of 2nd degree murder does not necessarily align with 2nd degree murder in other States. In many States, 2nd degree murder requires an intent to kill.
However, as I understand it, an unintentional death that occurs during the commission of a felony (aka Felony Murder) is classified as “2nd Degree Murder” in Minnesota.
So, the conviction of Derek Chauvin for 2nd degree murder, in this case, is based upon the concept of George Floyd’s death being a “felony murder”. The theory, again as I understand it (and again, I am not an attorney), is that Officer Chauvin’s restrain of George Floyd was so excessive that it became an illegal assault rather than a lawful use of force by a police officer. The prosecution theory is that this illegal assault was so “over-the-top” that it became a felony in-and-of itself.
Clearly, during the course of this restraint (or immediately thereafter), George Floyd, expired. Therefore, his death after this assault is a “felony murder” which, under Minnesota Law, is 2nd degree murder. As such, it does not have to be shown that Officer Chauvin intended to kill George Floyd. Only that George Floyd died during the commission of a related felony.
The problem that I have, with this legal theory, is that the underlying felony is directly related to the death. Normally, if someone assaults someone and they die as a result, one is directly charged with intentional murder. Felony murder is normally reserved for cases whereby an individual is involved in a crime but did not directly (or even indirectly) cause the death.
For example, two men decide to stage an armed robbery of a store. One man acts as the look-out and get-away driver. The second man does the actual armed robbery. This second man ends up shooting the store clerk who then dies of gunshot wounds. Both men are caught. Normally, the actual “trigger man” would be convicted of intentional murder. The look-out/get-away driver would be convicted of felony murder since he did not, directly, participate in the killing of the store clerk.
In this case, however, felony murder was used to “get around” the need to establish intent on a direct murder charge. One does not normally see a felony murder charge applied alone without there being a co-defendant charged with the actual murder (although I envision cases where it could happen). I have never seen a case where a felony-murder statue was used, in this way, against the person accused of being responsible for the actual death of the victim.
It shows the political motivations at work in this case. It shows how the prosecution stretched the law, like a rubber-band, in order to “REACH” for that 2nd degree murder charge.
Again, I am not an attorney, but could not this unusual (non-standard) use of the 2nd degree murder statute be an issue upon appeal? The argument being that the underlying charge, which the Judge allowed to stand, was actually a flawed application of Minnesota Law. In order words, that Derek Chauvin was “improperly charged” with 2nd degree murder and that, therefore, his conviction for the crime was also improper and should be thrown out?
Anyway, this is my understanding of how Derek Chauvin ends up convicted for 2nd degree murder in addition to manslaughter. Again, I am not an attorney so if my understanding is wrong, then (please) someone let me know.
Why kneel on a man’s neck when he’s handcuffed and belly down? Stupid, show of power, unnecessary.
Did Chauvin contribute to Floyd’s death? Most likely.
Did Floyd overdose with three times the fentanyl in his system necessary to overdose? Most likely.
Did Chauvin and his fellow cops use excessive and unecessary force? I think they did.
He shouldn’t be a cop. Cops need to make sure curve is used when needed, not as a show of power. Chauvin and his fellow cops should never be allowed in law enforcement again. Should they do (some) time? Yes.
Was this trial monkey business? Yes. Chauvin was considered guilty just to appease the unappeasable mob.
Should Chauvin’s family receive the settlement they did? No. Tax payers money could be better spent. That amount of money could maybe go towards police training with better results.
The mobs on the streets won’t stop until they are stopped. BLM and ANTIFA are domestic terrorists. Politicians inviting confrontation and condoning the burning and looting should be held accountable.
Given what’s going on, is there a need to refund the police? There’s a real possibility LEOs will start looking for something else to do. Cities will burn, and then, citizens, business owners, etc., will start defending themselves with deadly force.
Are we a step closer to a civil war with each passing day?
Time will tell. But the possibility that might happen is real.
I’d that the leftists’ game? Let it all go to hell, so they can declare martial law, push gun confiscation, etc.? I think so.
The Constitution is hanging by a thread!
There’s no option to edit these posts? Bummer! Hopefully readers will spot the typos and autocorrect mistakes. (Rolls eyes!)
Pat Riot,
Yeah, it was Floyd’s family that received the settlement, not Chauvin’s.
Next we will see St. George awarded the Medal of Freedom posthumously. There were so many improper aspects to this trial that one hopes it will be appealed and redone.
I heard so much medical malarkey during this case that I deserve a degree in medicine. Pay a lawyer or expert enough and they will provide what you want, even if they don’t have proper background or credentials. This case is just one more rung moving us down the end of democracy. Wokeness and cancel culture has destroyed the First Amendment, many forces are working to cancel 2A, and the “Patriot Act” effectively nullified the Fourth Amendment. Only seven left and if Biden stuffs the court, all bets are off.
Mas,
This is off-topic although it does deal with legal issues.
The Tennessee Legislature is considering passing a law that (as I understand it) does a couple of things:
1) It allows someone claiming a “justified used of force” to request that civil actions be frozen until all criminal charges are cleared up. As you know, a self-defense action may result in both criminal and civil actions being brought against any individual who claims self-defense. Defending against both can be overwhelming and costly. So, this law would prioritize the criminal counts before the civil actions. Since Tennessee already exempts a person found to have acted in self-defense from civil actions, this means that a successful affirmative defense on the criminal charges may short-cut the civil case to the point where they become moot.
2) It allows for an immunity hearing on the self-defense action. I suppose that the purpose of this is to establish civil immunity even in cases where no criminal counts are charged.
See this link:
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1148&GA=112
This is, obviously, a desirable update to Tennessee Law. I know that other States (like Florida) use the concept of an immunity hearing. However, putting the civil actions on hold is new to me. Do other States have a similar hold on civil actions, for self-defense, until all criminal charges are cleared up?
If Mr. Floyd couldn’t breathe, how was he able to continuously keep saying, “I can’t breathe”. It does require breathing to be able to speak. I think this unjust outcome was predetermined, to usher in more control, and attempt to take away our rights as Americans…never mind facts or reason when dealing with people incapable of rational thought.
If you are totally confused by all of this, you’re probably not far from the truth.
If you are certain you know exactly what’s going on, you probably need to get yourself confused.
With the Chauvin case taking the spotlight some very important news slipped under the radar. The Supreme Court has refused to hear three 2nd Amendment cases. How long has it been since the Supreme Court ruled on a 2nd Amendment case? I believe it’s been thirteen years.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/549071-supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-three-gun-ownership-cases
This is the only place I know where we-the-people can share our thoughts. I read every post to get a feel for what the people think, without the fake news. Thank you to everyone here.
Hi Mas,
My thoughts are when they arrested him they took him into their custody. They are then responsible for his welfare. Once he became unresponsive it was their duty to check on him. The last 3 minutes of the video shows a kind of reckless indifference by continuing to kneel on him.
Years ago we were taking a mentally retarded person into custody to go to the hospital and they were violently resisting. Two of us were kneeling on top while our third officer was going for the hottel strap. The guy just quit breathing on us and became unresponsive. Luckily we were in the parking lot of the fire department. They loaded him up and headed for the hospital. Luckily we got him back on the way. No drugs in his system. Ahh the memories……….
You were lucky that you were able to revive your suspect. You were also really lucky not to have an angry mob pressing you on all sides while taking video of you the entire time with their cell phone cameras.
Derek Chauvin, and this fellow officers, were not so lucky.
I think that the angry mob contributed to the death of George Floyd just as much as any restraint by Derek Chauvin. The pressure of the angry mob was actually counter-productive. Instead of influencing Derek Chauvin to let up on the restraint and do a better job of checking on the health of the suspect, the pressure of the mob made him (and his fellow officers) feel like they could not back off an inch until the paramedics were on the scene.
It is too bad that the mob could not sit in the dock alongside Chauvin. If he is guilty of felony murder, then so are they. Their BLM-based indoctrinated attitudes were another contributing factor (along with the heart disease, drugs, restraint, fighting exhaustion, etc.) to the “perfect storm” of factors that killed George Floyd.
Being “Woke” kills! From abortion, to mob violence, to the destruction of the family unit, to the loss of morality, to crime, corruption and drug use, to their turning away from God; Left-Wing ideology is a Satanic death-ideology. It is a mindset that leads only downward toward death and destruction. If this Nation does not turn away from this path, we are DOOMED!
Let’s face the truth. The jury had to convict regardless of any evidence presented. Jurors names and faces are public record. Any juror that refused to convict would no longer have a life, literally. In fact, they would have very real and valid reason to fear for their lives from the hoards of angry mobs hell bent to destroy the city in their two-year old tantrums.
They would not be able to go anywhere in public without constant harassment or even credible death threats and maybe some attempts. Their life would be over where they live and they would have to move far away in a hope to have some normalcy again.
I would like to think that there were people on that jury that saw the evidence and did not feel it rose to the level of murder, but still rendered a guilty verdict because they knew what an innocent verdict would mean for the city, the country, and their lives forever more.
That doesn’t make it right, but when you have a family you have to worry about, it does make it understandable.
I do think the charges went too far, but, the Officer used either excessive or un nessecary force. That is clear from the videos. From the first moment I knew he was going to have to be found guilty for that. I just hope the lives of his fellow officers that day are not too negatively impacted by his act. As an officer myself i know fully the difficulty of finding the right moment to stop once use of force has been justified, as they say, that is why we get paid the big money. Just like the get away car driver, you can be held responsible for things you did not do, the death in this case is one of those things. If we were not a nation involved in Civil Cold War there might be lessons from all this. But, I for one do not hold out much hope.
Winston Churchill is quoted as saying “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last” . Let’s see what results the penalty phase brings from some of our “repressed” citizens looking for that wide screen tv while expressing their “sorrow” aka smash-n-grab.
Linda, you assume too much. I’m not going to get into the “who has been a cop longer and who knows more of them.” I see you are also a little dismissii yourself. Have a good life
Comments are closed.