Forum menu
So 7 since 2005, hardly what anyone could reasonably call “a lot”, even if viewed as a proportion of the 97 concluded cases.
Still >0.
And doesn't disagree with my point. That;
a) by being >0 it's higher profile than other cases, but the case itelf isn't the start of any change, but the reaction to it perhapse is.
b) that not every incident of someone killed by a police officer is murder, the charge and conviction rates will never (and shouldn't) be 100%
. The jury reached this verdict without once even having to double-check with the judge again regarding the standard of proof required, for example. That’s one certain and legally well-drilled jury!
So no evidence of a perverse verdict, corruption, misdirection, etc then, just a switched on jury.
The main issue is the conviction for second-degree murder because it requires intent. The jury reached this verdict without once even having to double-check with the judge again regarding the standard of proof required, for example.
I'm sure they were well drilled enough to understand that 2nd degree murder can simply involve 'extreme indifference to human life' as opposed to requiring the prosecution to show intent to kill or even cause serious harm.
So, intent, or lack of it, is irrelevant to this case, and the medical evidence was very clear that the drugs in his system were not the cause of death.
I'm pretty sure the majority of adult humans understand the implications of the phrase "I can't breathe". If you are the person kneeling on another person's throat and they utter that phrase, you understand the implications. Maintaining that position, IMO, shows that you don't really care about the outcome.
Even the drugs in Floyd’s system, his narrowed arteries, and the lack of damage to his trachea and neck arteries
And you are clearly a well drilled medical expert. Given that the actual medical expert said that a healthy adult would have suffered the same fate.
i_scoff_cake
Free MemberThe main issue is the conviction for second-degree murder because it requires intent. The jury reached this verdict without once even having to double-check with the judge again regarding the standard of proof required, for example. That’s one certain and legally well-drilled jury! Three charges all decided in 9 hrs! Even the drugs in Floyd’s system, his narrowed arteries, and the lack of damage to his trachea and neck arteries couldn’t dissuade them of reasonable doubt that Floyd was killed by Chauvin, nor of reasonable doubt that he intended to do it.
You desperately wanted him to get away with it, don't you?
A jury that's been paying attention doesn't need to double-check definitions, especially when as you point out yourself there's a distinction which is completely essential to the decision. There's literally nothing suspicious there at all.
Intent when you suffocate a man over the course of several minutes is not much in doubt. Maybe you don't understand that he didn't have to start out planning a murder- but once he was choking him and chose to continue to do so, for nearly 10 minutes, while the person first warns you they can't breathe and then passes out, and even after his colleagues had called for medical assistance, in fact right up until the moment the medics arrived to try and un-murder him... Intent is hard to deny.
Three charges in 9 hours? Again nothing unusual.
And for thedistractions which the defence threw around like a squid squirting ink, they just had to listen to the medical expertise, which was clearcut. They were cynical distractions and easily seen through.
So, why is it that you so much wanted him to be found innocent of the crime he committed?
@i_scoff_cake - either you're taking the piss, or you're a closet racist or just plain daft
Your comments are as distasteful as they are inaccurate. "Lawful choked" my arse.
A lot of lawful policing looks quite ugly. Emotive in itself, if you run the video with many other videos of people resisting arrests and being lawful choked, would it still look open and shut?
I think that all of us recognise that being a cop is a pretty thankless and hard job, and sometimes ugly. I think also when your own colleagues, an attending paramedic and even a child can see your murdering some-one in broad daylight, something radical about the way that police carry out their job is probably required.
I think even in the UK where we have a somewhat naive view that at least "Our police forces are not as bad as those in the US" we could really could a lot worse than to have a look at what the police are for and the role we want them to play in our society
the lack of damage to his trachea and neck arteries
I can compress your common carotids (arteries in your neck) with gentle thumb pressure. You'll pass out. If I keep doing it, you die. There would, of course, be no perceptible damage to the blood vessels themselves. 'Lack of damage' is irrelevant here. Presumably the medical experts in the trial debunked that quickly and yet morons with an agenda* keep repeating it.
The thing is, it's only AllLivesMatter bootlickers* that are salty about the verdict. Any responsible police officer should support this conviction, since it fits with the 'bad apples' narrative they're so keen to promote (though this itself is daft - that Chris Rock explanation is perfect).
*Racists, presumably.
Any responsible police officer should support this conviction, since it fits with the ‘bad apples’ narrative they’re so keen to promote
Exactly. It it's just a problem of a few bad apples then all the good cops should want the bad apples kicked off the force.
Keep in mind, the saying is, "One bad apple spoils the barrel." You have to remove the bad apples immediately or the other apples quickly go rotten too.
Whilst this is the way it’s been framed by the media, it’s not completely true or accurate.
Well, you got schooled on that one, so perhaps best to acknowledge your error there. Fact is, that many people are killed by police officers, and a proportion of those are murder, yet there have been woefully few convictions. The same here; Jean Charles DeMenezes was murdered, let's face it, yet nobody ever faced proper justice for that, because the system protected them. That is wrong. The Chauvin verdict is monumental, because it shows that proper justice can work, has to work, even against those charged with protecting us. This can help to restore faith in the justice system, and send the message that nobody, not even police officers, are above the law.
I can compress your common carotids (arteries in your neck) with gentle thumb pressure. You’ll pass out. If I keep doing it, you die.
Doesn't take long either, we were taught to be very careful with stranglehold in martial arts.
There's a balance to be struck. We expect the Police to protect us. That may require them to kill someone in order to protect us. There's a real risk that a tragic error will be made when they use that power. Prosecuting someone for murder every time they make an error with a split second decision will pretty soon mean no one will be prepared to protect us.
The system failed DeGeneres, I'm not sure an individual murdered him. If anything, the current inquest concerns me more, when the public held the suspect and the Police then shot the attacker.
There's no doubt though that Floyd was murdered
If anything, the current inquest concerns me more, when the public held the suspect and the Police then shot the attacker.
Why does that one concern you more? I assume you mean the London Bridge one?
Second-degree murder
Any intentional murder with malice aforethought, but is not premeditated or planned
I suspect an appeal will hinge on the malice aforethought ("the intention to kill or harm, which distinguishes murder from unlawful killing"). Unintentional third-degree murder, perhaps. Certainly a UK verdict of unlawful killing would seem appropriate in a coroner's court, followed by a manslaughter or murder charge.
Court cases are always more complex than the headlines, but I think justice is served here based on "intent to harm".
Why does that one concern you more? I assume you mean the London Bridge one?
With the benefit of hindsight, I know, from the evidence given it seems to me that the guy had been caught and held with his hands secured, at which point the Police shot him in case the bomb vest was real. I get that they had to make a split second call but I would have thought there was a greater chance of not needing to kill him.
When I said "concerns me more" this is from the starting point of not really being concerned by the DeMenezes shooting. Tragic though that was, that was on the back of several failures in the process. I'm not suggesting that the London Bridge officers should face charges or anything.
I suspect an appeal will hinge on the malice aforethought (“the intention to kill or harm, which distinguishes murder from unlawful killing”).
This has been covered before. Thats the not the rationale for the verdict in Chauvin's case.
Here's the statute in Minnesota (my emphasis):
"609.19 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).
Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or
(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders."
Source: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19
There's no requirement for intent there. If you (accidentally) kill someone while assaulting them, it's second degree murder. Perhaps a lack of intent will be reflected in the sentencing. IANAL.
Call me old fashioned but I reckon that the jury were fully briefed on all these aspects and they arrived at an informed decision.
I know, from the evidence given it seems to me that the guy had been caught and held with his hands secured, at which point the Police shot him in case the bomb vest was real. I get that they had to make a split second call but I would have thought there was a greater chance of not needing to kill him.
I suspect that the possibility of a hand held trigger or one running down ones sleeve makes the prospect of handcuffing a suicide bomber unrealistic in the extreme.
I suspect that the possibility of a hand held trigger or one running down ones sleeve makes the prospect of handcuffing a suicide bomber unrealistic in the extreme.
I get that, better not to risk it, but if members of the public have got someone pinned to the ground without a bomb going off, I wonder if there was some scope to get him restrained without shooting him? Any handheld trigger would have gone off before then presumably?
This is me just wondering if there was an alternative with the benefit of hindsight, not being critical of the decision made on the spot.
MoreCashThanDash
Full MemberWith the benefit of hindsight, I know, from the evidence given it seems to me that the guy had been caught and held with his hands secured, at which point the Police shot him in case the bomb vest was real. I get that they had to make a split second call but I would have thought there was a greater chance of not needing to kill him.
Thing about de menezes is that at no time should it have been a "split second decision", the whole thing was a fiasco that somehow turned a long long chain of slow events into a panicky "split second decision", it's a situation that the police created basically out of nothing. That's not just the fault of the officers who pulled the trigger, they were put in an absurd situation but the whole operation was off the rails. Wrong man, is where it starts. But then they followed him literally onto a bus, off a bus, all under close observation- he could have been stopped and challenged at any time. He was to be stopped "before entering the underground" but that didn't happen either (that was a big enough screwup that at least one officer claimed they had challenged him outside the station, even though it never happened)
So on the one hand "Aaah panic must shoot this guy before he sets off a bomb" but 5 minutes earlier "Yeah let's just sit on this bus and watch him for a bit then let him walk into the underground". People always use the excuse of the heightened terror threat etc but that doesn't explain any of that, it makes it worse. Because maybe most importantly, if he were a suicide bomber he was given fantastic opportunities to kill a load of people as he moved through those crowds. It failed on every level, it can't be defended as "we had to do X because we thought there was a risk" because if there was a risk, it was too bloody late.
So, it's not directly comparable to George Floyd's murder, it's a whole different set of problems and much less about the officers on the ground. IMO the aftermath was way worse though. The IPCC investigation was restricted and wasn't given all of the information they should have had, police accounts turned out to be false, convenient misinformation was allowed to spread... I mean, the only person to be punished for any of it was the IPCC secretary who leaked the information that showed the police commissioner had misled the public. Cressida Dick was promoted.
Oh- "in case the bomb vest was real." there wasn't a bomb vest or any genuine reason to suspect one, even the "bulky clothing" was an invention.
MCTD - thanks
The Chauvin verdict is monumental, because it shows that proper justice can work, has to work, even against those charged with protecting us
Chauvin isn't the first officer convicted of murder so I don't see how it's 'monumental'.
The Chauvin verdict is monumental, because it shows that proper justice can work, has to work, even against those charged with protecting us
I disagree. They were in a unique position that the murder was quite literally filmed, from start to finish, from multiple angles. There was live commentary, some of it from expert witnesses (such as paramedic). There should never have been any other outcome. It was one of the most simple convictions you could image given the overwhelming evidence.
The suggestion that the outcome could not be predicted, despite all of that evidence, is everything you need to know that racism is still endemic in US society and systems.
The suggestion that the outcome could not be predicted, despite all of that evidence, is everything you need to know that racism is still endemic in US society and systems.
Or that other causes of death were considered given the heart disease and level of drugs in his system?
Don't think its been posted on this thread but here is the initial police report on George Floyd, seems the entire dept is corrupt.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1384622849562873856?s=20
Or that other causes of death were considered given the heart disease and level of drugs in his system?
It wouldn't make any difference if he was in the last days of terminal cancer, it would still be 2nd degree murder if his death was the result of felony offence such as, I don't know, perhaps something like kneeling on the neck for 9 mins.
You really are struggling with this concept aren't you?
It wouldn’t make any difference if he was in the last days of terminal cancer, it would still be 2nd degree murder of his death was the result of felony offence such as, I don’t know, perhaps something like kneeling on the neck for 9 mins.
You really are struggling with this concept aren’t you?
You do realise that things are not always as simple as they look?
<blockquoteYou do realise that things are not always as simple as they look?
You do realise that if a suspect says I can't breath, if bystanders say he can't breath, if a paramedic says to stop, and the cop carries on whilst every single action is recorded on multiple cameras then yes, it is simple.
You do realise that if a suspect says I can’t breath, if bystanders say he can’t breath, if a paramedic says to stop, and the cop carries on whilst every single action is recorded on multiple cameras then yes, it is simple.
So you believe that toxicology and evidence of his heart disease should have been a priori excluded because it was so obviously a case of strangulation? Why even have a trial?
Say I push you off a cliff and you bounce down, breaking an arm, lots of bruising and such but have a heart attack and die due to an underlying condition. Are you saying its the underlying condition that was the cause or me pushing you off 😕
Why even have a trial?
Because even the scummiest shitbag deserves a fair trial.
So you believe that toxicology and evidence of his heart disease should have been a priori excluded because it was so obviously a case of strangulation? Why even have a trial?
Because the majority of the medical experts believe that the toxicology and heart disease were NOT the cause of death, I'm going with their opinion.
Happy to reconsider if your expert qualifications suggest they are wrong.
Say I push you off a cliff and you bounce down, breaking an arm, lots of bruising and such but have a heart attack and die due to an underlying condition. Are you saying its the underlying condition that was the cause or me pushing you off
From Wikipedia
The eggshell rule (also thin skull rule or talem qualem rule)[1] is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems,[2] with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
What I still struggle with with is that if that teenager had tried to intervene rather than just standing at the side filming then Chauvin would probably have got off with it because the defence would be that he was being distracted by the crowd. Defence even tried that in the summing up but it didn't even slightly stick. The idea that you can't intervene because someone will get off with it and you can't actually succeed against 4 police is horrible.
Because the majority of the medical experts believe that the toxicology and heart disease were NOT the cause of death, I’m going with their opinion.
My argument was with the notion that it was obvious murder just from the video. This just isn't true because a thorough medical examination was needed to rule out other causes of death or contributory factors.
So you're backtracking on your earlier crass comments...🤔
Can I come round and kneel on your neck for a few minutes?
I'm not backtracking on anything. Things aren't always a simple as they look is my point.
My argument was with the notion that it was obvious murder just from the video.
No, that’s a new argument now. I expect there’s be another few new ones if we go on. It looks like murder, smells like murder and quacks like a murder. But we’re civilised, so we give the **** a trial to give him a chance to mount a defence. He took that chance. He failed.
Clever use of the word 'Crowd' Looked like 1/2 dozen people.
Crowd yes, but 50 people would be considered as a crowd. A misdirection if ever i saw one.
It looks like murder, smells like murder and quacks like a murder.
Tell me how exactly you could deduce with certainty that it wasn't a medical episode such as an overdose just from looking at a video?
Tell me how exactly you could deduce with certainty that it wasn’t a medical episode such as an overdose just from looking at a video?
In the court setting such as this was from the medical testimony.
Your argument and point arent holding water. You cant say 'from the video' without including the toxicology reports too.
Obviously from the video alone nobody could say and we'd be forced to agree with your point, but its not just the vid is it, its a jury getting the full facts.
Your argument and point arent holding water. You cant say ‘from the video’ without including the toxicology reports too.
Hence why I was arguing with someone higher up in the thread that the video itself wasn't enough.
Sigh...what's the point?
Tell me how exactly you could deduce with certainty that it wasn’t a medical episode such as an overdose just from looking at a video?
My basic first aid at work training makes me think that watching someone having their neck knelt on for 9 minutes, complaining they are struggling to breathe, struggling to breathe and then losing consciousness, I'm not likely to be dealing with a drug overdose.
ODing while being simultaneously choked to death by a police officer would be really unfortunate tbh.
Tell me how exactly you could deduce with certainty that it wasn’t a medical episode such as an overdose just from looking at a video?
Have you ever seen anyone who's taken too much opiate? They're drowsy / sleeping to the point of being unconscious - certainly not resisting arrest. So yes I would say even from the video evidence alone it's absolutely clear that his death was not caused by an opiate overdose. We additionally have a post-mortem exam, toxicology and medical experts that said it wasn't that.
You're flip-flopping. At first you were concerned about intent, apparently in agreement that Chauvin killed him, but did so accidentally. When that argument was roundly rebuffed, you're now suggesting that he didn't, in fact, die of suffocation, he died of an overdose? Get a grip.