George Floyd | Chauvin guilty on all counts | Sentenced to 22.5 years

[Rado_N]

Lads, no one argues about that. Chauvin’s job is obviously to take him into custody unharmed. It’s not about race or ethnicity. The criteria should be the same regardless of him being black or 7 ft white guy.

He obviously did wrong in his actions and will be punished for. Not saying he is innocent but what was his intentions and what punishment he should get in addition to prevent situations like these.

He’s a racist murderer and he should be sentenced accordingly.

Sadly it’s the American “justice” system so I don’t be shocked when he isn’t.

 

[Stevondo8]

He’s a racist murderer and he should be sentenced accordingly.

Sadly it’s the American “justice” system so I don’t be shocked when he isn’t.

And if he does get away with it, last years riots will look like child’s play.

 

[Rado_N]

And if he does get away with it, last years riots will look like child’s play.

Which will (again) be entirely justified.

 

[Stevondo8]

Which will (again) be entirely justified.

Agreed.

I feel like NWA had a song for situations like this...

 

[Maagge]

Sadly I think @Pexbo is right when he says the powers that be want rioting. Nothing better than when common folks take their eyes off the ball and argue amongst themselves.

 

[calodo2003]

Agreed.

I feel like NWA had a song for situations like this...

and Ice Cube.

 

[calodo2003]

Sadly I think @Pexbo is right when he says the powers that be want rioting. Nothing better than when common folks take their eyes off the ball and argue amongst themselves.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

 

[Enigma_87]

Do you know how long 9 minutes is? Has your mind ever gone blank for 9 minutes?

I’m trying to look it both sides of the story. In rush situations time flies by, sometimes if feels like slow motion.
It’s a very complicated subject with the balance is really hanging on a thread. There are lots of examples of excessive force by the cops and also lots of examples of officers ending up dead underestimating the situation or being taken aback from withheld suspects. There’s the police authority that has to be respected and also not give excessive power to officers that end up abusing it. I’m sure there will be a lot of other videos and angles that will pop up that will give more clarity to the situation and this is the first live one I’ve seen from the actual arrest.

That’s why I said I get what you are saying.

Unfortunately, it’s not entirely certain he will get the proper punishment, or even punishment (more than likely he will get some, though). We’ve been in situations like this before here when cops get off scot free.

Given all the publicity he will be. Doubt there is a chance he will get off the hook. I’m talking about intent, but regardless of it, someone ended up dead and malice or not he should be punished for it(and I don’t mean simply fired).

It’s a very delicate subject and will be held as an example that would prevent situations like this and yet criminals would still feel respect of the officers and allow them to do their job. It’s not black and white and not all cops are bastards and not all suspects are criminals and should be held to the ground for 9 mins..

I’m also pretty sure Chauvin has used that technique before and given the cameras or the partner besides him might have captured that and this could’ve been prevented, as regardless whether it is 9 or 5 mins it could still ended up bad as it did.

 

[Stevondo8]

and Ice Cube.

Wasn’t he in NWA? Getting massively off topic.

I’ve not followed the trial too closely, just reading end of day summaries, I just can’t comprehend how he doesn’t go down for murder, and the others go down as accomplices. Admittedly I don’t know the American laws and judicial system, but what more evidence is needed beyond the videos? He was killed in cold blood by cops who didn’t care.

 

[calodo2003]

I’m trying to look it both sides of the story. In rush situations time flies by, sometimes if feels like slow motion.
It’s a very complicated subject with the balance is really hanging on a thread. There are lots of examples of excessive force by the cops and also lots of examples of officers ending up dead underestimating the situation or being taken aback from withheld suspects. There’s the police authority that has to be respected and also not give excessive power to officers that end up abusing it. I’m sure there will be a lot of other videos and angles that will pop up that will give more clarity to the situation and this is the first live one I’ve seen from the actual arrest.



Given all the publicity he will be. Doubt there is a chance he will get off the hook. I’m talking about intent, but regardless of it, someone ended up dead and malice or not he should be punished for it(and I don’t mean simply fired).

It’s a very delicate subject and will be held as an example that would prevent situations like this and yet criminals would still feel respect of the officers and allow them to do their job. It’s not black and white and not all cops are bastards and not all suspects are criminals and should be held to the ground for 9 mins..

I’m also pretty sure Chauvin has used that technique before and given the cameras or the partner besides him might have captured that and this could’ve been prevented, as regardless whether it is 9 or 5 mins it could still ended up bad as it did.

One thing here is that the technique used was apparently part of training. That also will be hit upon by the defense rather hard when it’s their turn. That, to me, represents perhaps the biggest pothole here & what could help get him off completely. There’s always the possibility of complete exoneration.

But I’m with you, I think he will be found guilty of at least the third degree charge.

 

[Rado_N]

Agreed.

I feel like NWA had a song for situations like this...

Straight Outta Compton?
Obvious white text is obvious

 

[calodo2003]

Wasn’t he in NWA? Getting massively off topic.

I’ve not followed the trial too closely, just reading end of day summaries, I just can’t comprehend how he doesn’t go down for murder, and the others go down as accomplices. Admittedly I don’t know the American laws and judicial system, but what more evidence is needed beyond the videos? He was killed in cold blood by cops who didn’t care.

Yep. He did ‘We Had to Tear This Muthafecka Up’ solo which is about the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict.

 

[The Firestarter]

One thing here is that the technique used was apparently part of training. That also will be hit upon by the defense rather hard when it’s their turn. That, to me, represents perhaps the biggest pothole here & what could help get him off completely. There’s always the possibility of complete exoneration.

But I’m with you, I think he will be found guilty of at least the third degree charge.

Shooting a gun to kill is also part of training.

 

[calodo2003]

Shooting a gun to kill is also part of training.

Not seeing your point.

 

[Enigma_87]

Nah. He straight up murdered him. Murder requires malice or forethought. I don't think he went to that call planning on killing him

Yeah, this is my point. I don’t think he had the intention to murder him. That of course doesn’t make him innocent but is important to assess the whole situation. Still he has to do his job and take him into custody as Floyd did wrong and should’ve answered for those actions but not end up killing him obviously.

One thing here is that the technique used was apparently part of training. That also will be hit upon by the defense rather hard when it’s their turn. That, to me, represents perhaps the biggest pothole here & what could help get him off completely. There’s always the possibility of complete exoneration.

But I’m with you, I think he will be found guilty of at least the third degree charge.

Think this was denied? Otherwise this is big issue that needs to be corrected.

Complete exoneration is IMO out of the question given how closely the case is monitored. Also second degree manslaugher I think is obvious and should be easy to prove for the prosecution.

 

[calodo2003]

Yeah, this is my point. I don’t think he had the intention to murder him. That of course doesn’t make him innocent but is important to assess the whole situation. Still he has to do his job and take him into custody as Floyd did wrong and should’ve answered for those actions but not end up killing him obviously.

Think this was denied? Otherwise this is big issue that needs to be corrected.

Complete exoneration is IMO out of the question given how closely the case is monitored. Also second degree manslaugher I think is obvious and should be easy to prove for the prosecution.

I read an MPD training manual online that described the technique, pretty sure it was very recent, in the past two years. I think the supervisor testified that the duration of the technique used that was improper (can’t recall his words exactly right now).

Not sure what you mean by ‘monitored.’

 

[The Firestarter]

Not seeing your point.

The point is it doesnt matter what you are trained, you are responsible for what and how to employ. In this particular occasion , he should have stopped applying pressure after there was no more resistance.
This should be a Granada case in every country that is considered "rule of law", and the fact there is even uncertainty of the outcome here is really sad for the US.

 

[calodo2003]

The point is it doesnt matter what you are trained, you are responsible for what and how to employ. In this particular occasion , he should have stopped applying pressure after there was no more resistance.
This should be a Granada case in every country that is considered "rule of law", and the fact there is even uncertainty of the outcome here is really sad for the US.

Gotcha. I totally agree, but again I am discussing injecting doubt into the juror’s minds to get Chauvin off of some or all charges. There’s always the possibility of him walking, albeit slight, & the ‘he was just doing as he was trained’ is a direction the defense will undoubtedly go down to some degree. It only takes one juror.

 

[The Firestarter]

Gotcha. I totally agree, but again I am discussing injecting doubt into the juror’s minds to get Chauvin off of some or all charges. There’s always the possibility of him walking, albeit slight, & the ‘he was just doing as he was trained’ is a direction the defense will undoubtedly go down to some degree. It only takes one juror.

If it is a mistrial can they go again?

 

[Enigma_87]

I read an MPD training manual online that described the technique, pretty sure it was very recent, in the past two years. I think the supervisor testified that the duration of the technique used that was improper (can’t recall his words exactly right now).

Not sure what you mean by ‘monitored.’

Any link to that? What’s the appropriate timing by protocol?

By monitored I mean the case is blown worldwide. So Chauvin walking free would be a mockery.

Question for me is what we’re his motives, intentions and fault in the situation.

 

[calodo2003]

If it is a mistrial can they go again?

I think so.

 

[calodo2003]

Any link to that? What’s the appropriate timing by protocol?

By monitored I mean the case is blown worldwide. So Chauvin walking free would be a mockery.

Question for me is what we’re his motives, intentions and fault in the situation.

Let me peek around for it. I don’t recall any specific time frame but remember reading broader statements like ‘until compliance,’ etc.

OJ case was broadcast worldwide, didn’t matter any. Wouldn’t be surprised if the notoriety was specifically used in juror selection either to try to eliminate jurors that would be swayed by the worldwide infamy of the trial.

 

[Enigma_87]

Let me peek around for it. I don’t recall any specific time frame but remember reading broader statements like ‘until compliance,’ etc.

OJ case was broadcast worldwide, didn’t matter any. Wouldn’t be surprised if the notoriety was specifically used in juror selection either to try to eliminate jurors that would be swayed by the worldwide infamy of the trial.

Cheers.

 

[calodo2003]

Cheers.

Think it’s in here (sorry!). This is not what I specifically read, I viewed a much smaller version of this.

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media...documents/MPD-Policy-and-Procedure-Manual.pdf

There has also been changes in the policies since Floyd’s murder, but I am sure you can find some search parameters from this.

 

[WI_Red]

Yeah, this is my point. I don’t think he had the intention to murder him. That of course doesn’t make him innocent but is important to assess the whole situation. Still he has to do his job and take him into custody as Floyd did wrong and should’ve answered for those actions but not end up killing him obviously.

Think this was denied? Otherwise this is big issue that needs to be corrected.

Complete exoneration is IMO out of the question given how closely the case is monitored. Also second degree manslaugher I think is obvious and should be easy to prove for the prosecution.

Wait, hold on. You saw that it’s is malice OR forethought, right? There was definitely malice in him, this was not an accident.

 

[Adam-Utd]

I read an MPD training manual online that described the technique, pretty sure it was very recent, in the past two years. I think the supervisor testified that the duration of the technique used that was improper (can’t recall his words exactly right now).

Not sure what you mean by ‘monitored.’

they said the technique wasn’t called for as he was already incapacitated on the floor. he labelled it dangerous and potentially life threatening.

make no mistake the police aren’t backing him up on his use of that technique at all.

@Enigma_87 you can try and rationalise it but this situation was never out of control. he wasn’t aggressive or threatening, he was just a big black man.

2 of them already had him in the police car, but for whatever reason he ended up being chucked onto the ground from the car.

4 of them had him held down in handcuffs sitting on his body, why on earth did he feel the need to drive the point of his knee into the back of his neck with all his weight behind it?

he 100% knows what he’s doing. even after several people point out saying he’s unresponsive and you’re killing him he does nothing to stop it. he’s either dumb as feck and extremely naive, or he intentionally wanted to kill him. my moneys on the latter.

if he doesn’t at least go to jail for manslaughter it’ll be absolutely amazed.

 

[calodo2003]

they said the technique wasn’t called for as he was already incapacitated on the floor. he labelled it dangerous and potentially life threatening.

make no mistake the police aren’t backing him up on his use of that technique at all.

@Enigma_87 you can try and rationalise it but this situation was never out of control. he wasn’t aggressive or threatening, he was just a big black man.

2 of them already had him in the police car, but for whatever reason he ended up being chucked onto the ground from the car.

4 of them had him held down in handcuffs sitting on his body, why on earth did he feel the need to drive the point of his knee into the back of his neck with all his weight behind it?

he 100% knows what he’s doing. even after several people point out saying he’s unresponsive and you’re killing him he does nothing to stop it. he’s either dumb as feck and extremely naive, or he intentionally wanted to kill him. my moneys on the latter.

if he doesn’t at least go to jail for manslaughter it’ll be absolutely amazed.

Gotcha on the incapacitation aspect, didn’t hear that yesterday. Great to see the thin blue line broken.

 

[Enigma_87]

Think it’s in here (sorry!). This is not what I specifically read, I viewed a much smaller version of this.

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media...documents/MPD-Policy-and-Procedure-Manual.pdf

There has also been changes in the policies since Floyd’s murder, but I am sure you can find some search parameters from this.

Thanks I'll look it up!

Wait, hold on. You saw that it’s is malice OR forethought, right? There was definitely malice in him, this was not an accident.

Yeah I saw it. Trying to wrap my head around the situation. I've read Chauvin record before and surely in such a long career you will have(possibly) multiple of examples of excessive force or at least some background that would point to this particular case. It's odd as feck really. He just seem to froze there for like 5 mins or so with his knee on his neck when Floyd was not moving anymore.

@Adam-Utd cheers for the input.

he’s either dumb as feck and extremely naive, or he intentionally wanted to kill him. my moneys on the latter.

well this is what I don't get. I mean he must be fecking dull to have the intent to kill him with so many colleagues and bystanders filming the whole thing. You have security footage, all cops have cameras on them, dashboard cams, store cams, people filming him and him seeing it. It just doesn't compute.. Seeing the above video - looks like manslaughter coming from the video posted today - reckless actions that he knew might be dangerous (surely used it in the past or has had training) leading to a death.

Floyd looked like he was on drugs, was resisting arrest, known fellon and in times like this might be seen as unpredictable even in cuffs. It's either a case of excessive use of force reaching far beyond breaking point(which of course being a trained cop, knows it is dangerous) or cold blooded murder which he would think he would get away with.

 

[calodo2003]

Thanks I'll look it up!


Yeah I saw it. Trying to wrap my head around the situation. I've read Chauvin record before and surely in such a long career you will have(possibly) multiple of examples of excessive force or at least some background that would point to this particular case. It's odd as feck really. He just seem to froze there for like 5 mins or so with his knee on his neck when Floyd was not moving anymore.

@Adam-Utd cheers for the input.



well this is what I don't get. I mean he must be fecking dull to have the intent to kill him with so many colleagues and bystanders filming the whole thing. You have security footage, all cops have cameras on them, dashboard cams, store cams, people filming him and him seeing it. It just doesn't compute.. Seeing the above video - looks like manslaughter coming from the video posted today - reckless actions that he knew might be dangerous (surely used it in the past or has had training) leading to a death.

Floyd looked like he was on drugs, was resisting arrest, known fellon and in times like this might be seen as unpredictable even in cuffs. It's either a case of excessive use of force reaching far beyond breaking point(which of course being a trained cop, knows it is dangerous) or cold blooded murder which he would think he would get away with.

He had literally no incentive to be concerned with any of that. Cases against cops historically have an Ivory soap purity percentage of not succeeding; winning a case of this ilk against a police officer was unthinkable until recent years.

Hopefully this will be a watershed moment, a turning point, but historically, the police have won lawsuits at a tobacco company rate.

Don’t be too excited, it’s almost 600 pages!

 

[Skizzo]

Wait, hold on. You saw that it’s is malice OR forethought, right? There was definitely malice in him, this was not an accident.

Where are you getting that OR from?

 

[WI_Red]

Where are you getting that OR from?

In Minnesota as I read it (and I am NOT a lawyer), 1st and 2nd degree murder has a premeditation component (or other specified non premeditated circumstances). 3rd degree is for when the killing is not premeditated but the circumstances are so heinous.

I realize I should not have used “malice or forethought” since many states use “malice aforethought” as part of their murder definition. Got the words crossed in my brain.

 

[Skizzo]

In Minnesota as I read it (and I am NOT a lawyer), 1st and 2nd degree murder has a premeditation component (or other specified non premeditated circumstances). 3rd degree is for when the killing is not premeditated but the circumstances are so heinous.

I realize I should not have used “malice or forethought” since many states use “malice aforethought” as part of their murder definition. Got the words crossed in my brain.

Gotcha. Was just wondering if something was phrased or alluded to in a different way. Everything I’ve dealt with has been aforethought but that’s all been in California. Granted my experience has mostly been in relation to prior DUI’s and then them crashing and killing/injuring someone again and that angle comes into play. Even without planning, acts that should reasonably be known to cause death or gbi can still be argued under that premise, although obviously it’s harder to prove at times.

 

[WI_Red]

Gotcha. Was just wondering if something was phrased or alluded to in a different way. Everything I’ve dealt with has been aforethought but that’s all been in California. Granted my experience has mostly been in relation to prior DUI’s and then them crashing and killing/injuring someone again and that angle comes into play. Even without planning, acts that should reasonably be known to cause death or gbi can still be argued under that premise, although obviously it’s harder to prove at times.

that makes sense. The malice aforethought portion of the CA definition of murder is still seared into my brain from being in the Police Explorers almost 3 decades ago.

 

[Eriku]

Yes, some people are obviously guilty and yes they are entitled to a legal defence. That is not the issue. The issue is having a legal system that enables them to wriggle out of their guilt time after time. That's why this case is a watershed moment. People know what they saw and they're not taking that shit anymore especially from police officers who have been abusing their power long before smartphones and social media were even a thing.

What part of that don't you understand?

Let’s look at what you said.

Nobody's disputing that. Were talking about representing people who are blatantly guilty. Everything that is presented in this case is completely secondary to the fact that there is a video of guy with a knee on his neck for 9 minutes ending up dead. There's no ambiguity in the video whatsoever.

So, it seems that you’re saying certain obvious cases don’t deserve a defence. Question then is: who the feck decides where that line goes?

It seems to me that you don’t understand the implications of what you’re saying.

 

[Tarrou]

the scary thing is if there was no video there likely wouldn’t be a trial, and if there was the chances of conviction would be tiny

but there is a video showing cold blooded murder and we’re still not confident he’ll go down

 

[P-Nut]

the scary thing is if there was no video there likely wouldn’t be a trial, and if there was the chances of conviction would be tiny

but there is a video showing cold blooded murder and we’re still not confident he’ll go down

Scary as feck isn't it. I expect him to get the manslaughter charge, which in itself is a joke as there is no way this was an accident.

 

[Adam-Utd]

the scary thing is if there was no video there likely wouldn’t be a trial, and if there was the chances of conviction would be tiny

but there is a video showing cold blooded murder and we’re still not confident he’ll go down

the thing that makes me think it’s no accident is - why was he pulled out of the car when he’s already secured?

why are they holding him down for so long? what exactly are they waiting for?

the biggest thing that confuses me is why does an ambulance arrive? surely that means they’ve called one ahead of time - so what were they expecting to happen?

@Enigma_87

I think you underestimate just how brazen these people can be. he’s smart in the way he’s covering it by making it look like a “normal” arrest. you’ve fallen for it by thinking it’s just a restraining technique gone bad, but you have to ask why so long, why does it require 4 men for 9 minutes?

why does he do nothing to adjust his positioning or check on floyds condition when people were complaining and saying he was unresponsive and dying.

that last part alone is the difference for me. he has the chance to realise his mistake, but instead he doubles down on it and pulls out his stick to make sure nobody gets close enough to disrupt him.

murderer.

 

[2mufc0]

the thing that makes me think it’s no accident is - why was he pulled out of the car when he’s already secured?

why are they holding him down for so long? what exactly are they waiting for?

the biggest thing that confuses me is why does an ambulance arrive? surely that means they’ve called one ahead of time - so what were they expecting to happen?

@Enigma_87

I think you underestimate just how brazen these people can be. he’s smart in the way he’s covering it by making it look like a “normal” arrest. you’ve fallen for it by thinking it’s just a restraining technique gone bad, but you have to ask why so long, why does it require 4 men for 9 minutes?

why does he do nothing to adjust his positioning or check on floyds condition when people were complaining and saying he was unresponsive and dying.

that last part alone is the difference for me. he has the chance to realise his mistake, but instead he doubles down on it and pulls out his stick to make sure nobody gets close enough to disrupt him.

murderer.

Yeah it went on for too long, he completely ignored Floyd's pleas that he couldn't breathe and should have been able to tell he was going to pass out. He also could have checked his pulse etc which he never did.

If you watch the video closely you can see him making small movements to get a tighter contact with his neck.

To be fair the defence lawyer is doing a great job of muddying the waters which can sway some people's opinions. This one is pretty clear cut once you look at the facts.

 

[RedPed]

Let’s look at what you said.



So, it seems that you’re saying certain obvious cases don’t deserve a defence. Question then is: who the feck decides where that line goes?

It seems to me that you don’t understand the implications of what you’re saying.

Some people really are not very smart. Nobody's arguing about the right to a defence. There's a well-known phrase that says "literally getting away with murder". The issue is the legal system that enables people who are blatantly guilty to walk away unpunished. And if you're going to try and make any kind of rationlisation for Chauvin, you can kindly feck off.

Try and keep up.

 

[Eriku]

Some people really are not very smart. Nobody's arguing about the right to a defence. There's a well-known phrase that says "literally getting away with murder". The issue is the legal system that enables people who are blatantly guilty to walk away unpunished. And if you're going to try and make any kind of rationlisation for Chauvin, you can kindly feck off.

Try and keep up.

Where have I been rude? What you said could EASILY be interpreted as he doesn’t deserve a defence. No need to be an arsehole about it.

And I would like to see Chauvin convicted, for the record.