Derek Chauvin Murder Trial

[RiverDog]

It's pretty hard not to be following this trial. It's not on the same level as the OJ Simpson trial, but if not the lead story, it's been in the news constantly for the past week or so.

Just listening to the evidence and without having an opportunity to digest all of the testimony, it would appear to me that the prosecution has built a very, very strong case with multiple expert witnesses stating that the primary cause of George Floyd's death was the restraint placed on him when he was arrested. One witness even went into some very small details, noting Floyd's fingers indicating an attempt to breathe and the exact moment when his life ended. There has been some conflicting testimony and previous statements that don't jive with the overall theme, but by in large, it seems like the evidence is far beyond that which would create a reasonable doubt.

No matter the outcome of this trial, Chauvin's life as we know it is essentially over. Even if he's found innocent and released or convicted and serves several years, he'll never be able to re-enter society without an army of body guards following his every move.

[NorthHawk]

One of the most significant things to come out of this trial is the crumbling of the Blue Wall where Police Officers would not say anything negative about
another Officer. That Training Officers, the Police Chief, Detectives and others said under oath that this is not what the Police are trained to do, nor is
it acceptable is a big step in my opinion towards some type of Police reform where they may be held more accountable for their actions.
However, after seeing the video over and over, how could any reasonable person come to any other conclusion that kneeling on Floyds neck for almost 9
minutes be anything other than improper or criminal.

[RiverDog]

One of the most significant things to come out of this trial is the crumbling of the Blue Wall where Police Officers would not say anything negative about another Officer. That Training Officers, the Police Chief, Detectives and others said under oath that this is not what the Police are trained to do, nor is it acceptable is a big step in my opinion towards some type of Police reform where they may be held more accountable for their actions.

However, after seeing the video over and over, how could any reasonable person come to any other conclusion that kneeling on Floyds neck for almost 9
minutes be anything other than improper or criminal.

Completely prone on the pavement, handcuffed behind his back, and multiple other officers there to assist. I don't care if he was arresting King Kong, it was absolutely inexcusable. In my mind, the fact that Floyd had an underlying condition is nearly irrelevant except to consider to what degree of responsibility Chauvin should bear. The fact is that Floyd was a vibrant, active human being when he was taken down and was dead when the ambulance arrived.

The "Blue Wall" had come down long before the trial. However, I'm not prepared to agree to police reform just for the sake of reform. Most of the proposals I've heard will not address the 'problem'. There's over 700,000 cops in this country, and when you take into consideration the fact that the nature of their work places them in some very emotional, life threatening situations, it shouldn't be surprising to see a bad cop or bad police work from time to time. That doesn't mean that we should accept bad cops and bad police work, but it highlights the scope of the problem and the likelihood of a satisfactory resolution.

[c_hawkbob]

The "Blue Wall" had come down long before the trial

I disagree, I see this as the first solid evidence of the dissolution of the "thin blue line" as well, and see that as the one good thing about this whole incident. When else have we seen an officer's trainers, supervisors, fellow officers, et al testify against a cop in such a trial? This is huge, and it's new. It's the first indication that the police themselves recognize the need for a change as well. There have always been bad cops, it's nice to see that the vast majority that are good cops are finally done covering for them.

[NorthHawk]

Most of the Police Officers I have known get into policing because they want to help people and their community.
However, there are some unsavory types who seem to get into it to exercise power over others. The good Police Officers are justly horrified/disgusted by Chauvin's actions
and I would think hope for his conviction in this case.

[RiverDog]

The "Blue Wall" had come down long before the trial

I disagree, I see this as the first solid evidence of the dissolution of the "thin blue line" as well, and see that as the one good thing about this whole incident. When else have we seen an officer's trainers, supervisors, fellow officers, et al testify against a cop in such a trial? This is huge, and it's new. It's the first indication that the police themselves recognize the need for a change as well. There have always been bad cops, it's nice to see that the vast majority that are good cops are finally done covering for them.

I agree that it's perhaps the first time it's happened in a trial, but there's been literally thousands of cops that have been very public in their denunciation of Chauvin's actions, including his own PD. His defenders, even within the police ranks, have been few and far between.

[RiverDog]

Most of the Police Officers I have known get into policing because they want to help people and their community. However, there are some unsavory types who seem to get into it to exercise power over others. The good Police Officers are justly horrified/disgusted by Chauvin's actions and I would think hope for his conviction in this case.

The problem with police departments is that they have to procure their officers from the human race. Any occupation is going to have a certain percentage of "unsavory types". I don't know if the percentage of these types is any greater within police departments than it is an any other profession, but if even if it's just 1%, that represents 7,000 bad cops. The challenge is to identify them and cull them out.

One of the things I worry about is that with all the bad press, demands for reducing protections for officers performing their duty, ordinary civilians having the power to discipline them, etc, is that it's going to make police work even less attractive, which would put pressure on departments to hire any and all applicants. We need to be doing just the opposite, give them the flexibility to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not watching this trial. To me it's one guy and not sure it indicates much. I'm not even sure police killings have dropped since Chauvin. Another person of African descent was shot a few days ago in Minnesota and there were protests and the like again. This doesn't even include the people shot or hammered by the police officers that don't get any coverage or aren't part of the usual narrative.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/minnesota-police-shoot-kill-man-traffic-stop-incident-77013203

As long as people are going to react crazy to every reported instance of this, it won't slow down because the number of police shootings is extremely small to start with, but it will likely never be zero or enough for most people. The reaction seems to come before the investigation. Sorry, but I don't want a legal system based on mob anger.

It's good to see this viewed as obviously inhumane treatment regardless of who was being arrested. I'm not holding my breath as far as the outcome. I hope it is enough not to see the city burned and ripped apart like the last time a major trial of police officers was done publicly and the outcome wasn't the desired one. But the mob decides what's enough, not the government or the law in these instances.

About the best I can hope for is that cops as dumb as Chauvin get booted from the force and start noticing their actions in public are always being watched and recorded now, so they better think about what they're doing more. They don't want to be the next cop on trial with their face plastered everywhere as the image of a bad cop. I think the citizen journalism will have more of an effect than anything else.

As far as the "Blue Wall" crumbling, we'll see about that. One obvious idiot who engaged in terrible behavior being called out isn't necessarily a crumbling of the "Blue Wall." Some politicians have turned on the police, but I'll wait a while before I start believing cops are now going to tell the truth and throw each other under the bus every time a police officer engages in questionable behavior. We'll see if this more PR or a real change in the long run.

[RiverDog]

As long as people are going to react crazy to every reported instance of this, it won't slow down because the number of police shootings is extremely small to start with, but it will likely never be zero or enough for most people. The reaction seems to come before the investigation. Sorry, but I don't want a legal system based on mob anger.

Agreed.

As far as the "Blue Wall" crumbling, we'll see about that. One obvious idiot who engaged in terrible behavior being called out isn't necessarily a crumbling of the "Blue Wall." Some politicians have turned on the police, but I'll wait a while before I start believing cops are now going to tell the truth and throw each other under the bus every time a police officer engages in questionable behavior. We'll see if this more PR or a real change in the long run.

Regardless of whether or not Chauvin is convicted, the George Floyd murder is a no brainer. It doesn't take a lot of courage to denounce someone that had their knee on a suspect's neck for over 9 minutes. Indeed, any officer that so much as refuses to acknowledge that Chauvin was in the wrong is going to be looked at with steely eyes. The trial testimony does not mean that the blue wall, if there is such a thing, has been reduced to rubble.

[RiverDog]

I think the defense shot themselves in the foot by calling that 'expert' witness who during cross examination was maneuvered into admitting that some type of life saving measures (CPR) should have been administered by Chauvin once Floyd was unresponsive and the whacky theory he put forth that Floyd could have died from carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of the cruiser's exhaust. It damaged his credibility, made him look like he and the defense are grasping for straws, throw enough chit on the wall and some of it will stick.

Closing arguments today. I admittedly haven't seen all the evidence, but my personal opinion from that of which I've seen is that it's about 80+% in favor of the prosecution, 20% or less in favor of the defense. I don't think that there's enough pro defense evidence to constitute a reasonable doubt and feel that there will or should be a conviction.

[NorthHawk]

Like someone on TV said the other day all it takes is to put doubt into one juror for there to be an acquittal.
That's what the defense is trying to do - sway one person, and it may happen.

[RiverDog]

Like someone on TV said the other day all it takes is to put doubt into one juror for there to be an acquittal.
That's what the defense is trying to do - sway one person, and it may happen.

That's not true. Guilt or innocense in a criminal trial in Minnesota requires that the jury reach a unanimous decision. If they cannot reach a unanimous decision, then it results in a hung jury, not an acquittal. If that happens, the state has the option of re-trying the case. I seriously doubt that they'll get 12 jurors to vote to let him walk based on the evidence they've presented.

After hearing the description of the 3 crimes Chauvin is facing, it seems to me that he's at least guilty of manslaughter. It's pretty damn hard to get around 9 minutes 29 seconds, handcuffed behind his back, and face down on the pavement.

[NorthHawk]

I agree with you 100%, but the speaker was talking about the Defense Attorney's tactics given the evidence.
He seemed to think that a hung jury would eventually mean Chauvin would get to walk.
He has to be convicted of one of the charges and do time for things to move forward from this event, in my opinion but for some it won't be
enough unless he gets life.

[RiverDog]

I agree with you 100%, but the speaker was talking about the Defense Attorney's tactics given the evidence. He seemed to think that a hung jury would eventually mean Chauvin would get to walk. He has to be convicted of one of the charges and do time for things to move forward from this event, in my opinion but for some it won't be enough unless he gets life.

If there's a hung jury, they'll almost have to try him again. For one, anything less than a conviction on at least one of the charges and there's going to be rioting nation wide for weeks. An announcement of a new trial is about the only thing that will come close to quelling the anger. Even if he's eventually clear of the criminal charges, there's the possibility of a civil, wrongful death lawsuit being filed against him (think OJ). A conviction will almost certainly be appealed. Point is that this is by no means the end of the story.

Chauvin's normal life is effectively over. Even if he walks or serves a light sentence, someone is very likely going to serve their own version of justice on him.

IMO even if Chauvin were to get life it wouldn't be enough for some people. There are some that are so incensed that they wouldn't be satisfied if Chauvin got the death penalty. They'd demand that he be burned at the stake.

[RiverDog]

Leave it to Maxine Waters and her big mouth to give Chauvin "a lifeline":

The judge in Derek Chauvin's murder trial in the death of George Floyd criticized recent comments by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and said her words could be grounds for the defense to appeal a verdict.

Chauvin's lawyer asked the judge to declare a mistrial over Waters' comments, arguing that she had prejudiced the jury. Judge Peter Cahill denied the request, but said that Waters' comments were "abhorrent" and that she may have handed the defense a lifeline anyway.

"We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational,” Waters told reporters when asked what would happen if the Chauvin trial, which is wrapping up this week, ends in acquittal. “We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Cahill said as arguments in the case concluded Monday and the jury began deliberations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... cid=msnews

[mykc14]

Leave it to Maxine Waters and her big mouth to give Chauvin "a lifeline":

The judge in Derek Chauvin's murder trial in the death of George Floyd criticized recent comments by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and said her words could be grounds for the defense to appeal a verdict.

Chauvin's lawyer asked the judge to declare a mistrial over Waters' comments, arguing that she had prejudiced the jury. Judge Peter Cahill denied the request, but said that Waters' comments were "abhorrent" and that she may have handed the defense a lifeline anyway.

"We've got to stay on the street and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational,” Waters told reporters when asked what would happen if the Chauvin trial, which is wrapping up this week, ends in acquittal. “We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

"I'll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," Cahill said as arguments in the case concluded Monday and the jury began deliberations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... cid=msnews

Yeah, I saw that. So frustrating and stupid. I think just about everybody in America understands what would happen if Chauvin somehow walks, heck I expect there to be unrest no matter what. Why give them an out, why incite violence?

[Aseahawkfan]

Guilty across the board. Maybe Minnesota won't burn. What a nice change that obvious violent abuse by a police officer is confirmed.

[c_hawkbob]

With the the OJ Simpson and Breonna Taylor trials in mind I was nervous since the closing arguments, but as soon as we got word that a verdict was returned so quickly I got calm. I knew he would be found guilty on at least one count. I AM SHOCKED they came back on all counts! I really thought 3rd degree was the best we could hope for.

[Aseahawkfan]

I was thinking 3rd degree myself. They must have had some real good evidence to get all the charges. It was obvious inhumane abuse by a senior officer in charge if the situation. Glad the message was sent.

[RiverDog]

Manslaughter was a slam dunk and IMO just added as insurance against an innocent verdict of the murder charges. I felt that the most appropriate charge was 3rd degree murder as Chauvin did not get off him for 9.5 minutes, an incredibly long period of time much of which there was zero physical movements made by the suspect. The squeezing and bending of the suspects fingers, while he was handcuffed, was further evidence that clearly showed that Chauvin had no concern for the welfare of the suspect.

However, I was a little surprised that they got the Murder 2 conviction as the definition of it is that it is a result of an assault, and in my mind, it wasn't an assault as Chauvin wasn't the aggressor, rather he was responding (entirely inappropriately) to Floyd's resisting arrest. I'm not necessarily saying that I wouldn't have voted for a Murder 2 conviction had I been on the jury, just that it would have been a lot more difficult argument for me to accept.

This case is far from over. The defense will undoubtedly demand a mistrial based on Maxine Watters' public comments, and if the judge's opinion is any kind of gauge, they stand a fair chance of getting the conviction overturned.

[c_hawkbob]

Manslaughter was a slam dunk and IMO just added as insurance against an innocent verdict of the murder charges. I felt that the most appropriate charge was 3rd degree murder as Chauvin did not get off him for 9.5 minutes, an incredibly long period of time much of which there was zero physical movements made by the suspect. The squeezing and bending of the suspects fingers, while he was handcuffed, was further evidence that clearly showed that Chauvin had no concern for the welfare of the suspect.

However, I was a little surprised that they got the Murder 2 conviction as the definition of it is that it is a result of an assault, and in my mind, it wasn't an assault as Chauvin wasn't the aggressor, rather he was responding (entirely inappropriately) to Floyd's resisting arrest. I'm not necessarily saying that I wouldn't have voted for a Murder 2 conviction had I been on the jury, just that it would have been a lot more difficult argument for me to accept.

This case is far from over. The defense will undoubtedly demand a mistrial based on Maxine Watters' public comments, and if the judge's opinion is any kind of gauge, they stand a fair chance of getting the conviction overturned.

I believe it was Shep Smith's newscast that it was explained by a legal expert that by that state's guidelines that if a person dies as a result of your actions and those actions are a felony (not necessarily assault) that's enough for Murder 2. That's why in that state they refer to second degree murder as "unintentional murder"; you don't have to be trying to kill him, you just have to be committing a felony that results in his death. In that light I say it is the single most appropriate conviction. Even though I seriously only expected 3rd degree at best and was worried it would be manslaughter.

[RiverDog]

I believe it was Shep Smith's newscast that it was explained by a legal expert that by that state's guidelines that if a person dies as a result of your actions and those actions are a felony (not necessarily assault) that's enough for Murder 2. That's why in that state they refer to second degree murder as "unintentional murder"; you don't have to be trying to kill him, you just have to be committing a felony that results in his death. In that light I say it is the single most appropriate conviction. Even though I seriously only expected 3rd degree at best and was worried it would be manslaughter.

I know that the precise definition varies from state-to-state, but this is what I was looking at with regard to 2nd degree murder:

n. a non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Exact distinctions on degree vary by state. (See: murder, first degree murder, manslaughter)

https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... ree+murder

Not a lot of wiggle room there. According to that definition, Murder 2 has to have been the result of an assault.

But was there a point where Chauvin's actions turned into an assault? 9.5 minutes handcuffed behind the back and pinned to the pavement goes way beyond actions required to subdue a suspect that was resisting arrest.

[c_hawkbob]

As long as you're arguing the point might as well get the pertinent definition (as in specific to that state):

Second-degree murder charge
Second-degree murder is causing the death of a human being, without intent to cause that death, while committing or attempting to commit another felony. In this case, the alleged felony was third-degree assault. Chauvin is charged with committing or intentionally aiding in the commission of this crime.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/202 ... 286597002/

So it didn't have to be assault but in this case it was ... third degree anyway.

[RiverDog]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/04/19/derek-chauvin-murder-manslaughter-charges-sentencing-breakdown/7286597002/

So it didn't have to be assault but in this case it was ... third degree anyway.

You'll have to point out to me the part where the judge (or anyone else) said that it didn't have to be an assault. From the linked article:

Judge Peter Cahill told jurors they must find that the former officer intended to commit an assault....“It is not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to inflict substantial bodily harm, or knew that his actions would inflict substantial bodily harm, only that the defendant intended to commit the assault, and George Floyd sustained substantial bodily harm,” Cahill said.

Or are you saying, in general and not necessarily with regard to Chauvin, that there could be some other underlying felony besides assault?

[c_hawkbob]

Dude, I literally just did! Reread what I put in quotes, particularly the italicized portion!

It says "while committing or attempting to commit another felony". It does not say while committing assault.

It goes on to say IN THIS CASE the other felony was third degree assault. But as for the way the law is written that other felony needn't necessarily be assault.

[RiverDog]

Dude, I literally just did! Reread what I put in quotes, particularly the italicized portion!

It says "while committing or attempting to commit another felony". It does not say while committing assault.

It goes on to say IN THIS CASE the other felony was third degree assault. But as for the way the law is written that other felony needn't necessarily be assault.

Alright, fair enough, you won that debate. Through my research, I've also seen where a driver of a car involved in a drive-by shooting can be convicted of Murder 2, and that definitely isn't an assault. So I stand corrected.

[c_hawkbob]

Merci Monsieur!

[RiverDog]

Merci Monsieur!

No sweat. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but hopefully it doesn't happen very often.