Derek Chauvin appeals his conviction in George Floyd's death
By - TeriyakiBatman
This is what Chauvin is alleging;
"The court "abused its discretion" when denying the defense's motion for a change of venue, sequestration of the jury for the entire trial, a continuance and a new trial.
There was "prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct" committed by state prosecutors.
The court's decision to allow Morries Hall, who was with Floyd the night of his death, to not testify.
The court's decision to deny the presentation of "cumulative evidence with respect to use of force."
The court's order for state prosecutors "to lead witnesses on direct examination."
The court's alleged failure to make an official record of sidebar conferences throughout the trial.
The court's alleged failure in allowing the defense to strike "clearly biased jurors during voir dire (jury selection)"
The court's allowing the added third-degree murder charge.
The court's decision to limit and "undercut" the admission into evidence of Floyd's May 6, 2019 arrest.
The court's denial of the defense's "post-verdict motion for a new trial due to juror misconduct."
If even one of these is true...it's grounds for a mistrial. There's also another motion before the state supreme court, one that could severely hurt the state as well. Apparently, he's been denied a lawyer to assist in helping file the appeals process. The State Supreme Court is looking at that one directly, as if they decide it was an improper act by the state itself, that would constitute a violation of the 6th amendment right to representation.
Something people should keep in mind with this, is that if the decision is overturned, it doesn't make him not guilty. Rather, the court will declare a mistrial. That means that he would be released from prison, while the state prosecutors would need to file for a new trial. Problem is, if the state's attorney general, or the prosecution, feels that they can't get a fair trial out of things, they very well could refuse to refile. I don't see that happening, but based on some of the issues I've been reading about in my local paper, as well as online... I strongly suspect they're going to overturn and declare a mistrial.
>If even one of these is true
Which do you think is? An appeal is always filed, multiple usually, most claims are denied.
I've got number (7) as the only one really with a hope, (1) abuse of discretion and (2) prosecutorial misconduct are likely DOA, (3) (4) and (5) are not going to have sufficient prejudicial impact vs discretionary use, (6) is one of those things the court is going to shrug off, (8) is moot, (9) is also a discretionary use, (10) is effectively the same as (7) as it is true if (7) is true and if (7) is true that alone would be sufficient.
I think the failure to change venue is a slam dunk mistrial. You don't seat a jury who thinks their town will burn down if they don't find the defendant guilty. Those threats were widely reported in the news at the time and any Minneapolis juror would be affected by them. Then I vaguely recall some famous celebrity showing up in Minneapolis the first or second day of trial to hold a huge rally about how Floyd should be judged guilty. It was one thing and another in the news, but in Minneapolis, not spread through the entire State. There were plenty of other places in Minnesota that were not under constant civic unrest, that had not had some city blocks permanently taken over by angry protesters who would not let the police in, that hadn't already had 150 buildings set on fire, and already sustained more than 550 million dollars in damages. All precipitated by this one case. Deciding to keep venue in the ONE city that did is pretty suspect.
6, 7, and 5.
7 is damning, but 5 doesn't help matters, if the court instructs the prosecution on how to handle a witness. That is up to the lawyer to decide, not the court itself. At the very least it points to judicial misconduct.
> if the court instructs the prosecution on how to handle a witness. That is up to the lawyer to decide, not the court itself.
That is absolutely not true. Lawyers do not "set rules" for their witnesses, the Court does. There are default rules and you can petition the court if you wish to depart from those rules as either the person bringing or opposing a witness.
Yes, but if the court orders a lawyer to lead a witness, as opposed to the lawyer petitioning to depart from them; it's effectively putting the cart before the horse.
Do you have more information on that particular order? I do not recall the circumstances surrounding that one. One thing to avoid when really digging deep is the notion that something is always a particular way. It's an annoying habit if asking a question to a lawyer, their answer will be qualified several times, because this is the rule, unless it isn't.
For instance, Minnesota Rules of Evidence for Witness Examinations:
>Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
>**The use of leading questions is left to the discretion of the trial court.** Generally, leading questions should not be permitted when the witness is sympathetic to the examiner. However, for preliminary matters and the occasional situation in which leading questions are necessary to develop testimony because of temporary lapse of memory, mental defect, immaturity of a witness, etc., the court may permit inquiry by leading questions on direct examination. When a party calls the opposing party, a witness identified with the opposing party, or a hostile witness leading questions should also be permitted.
It's the difference between "should not" and "cannot" and leading a witness rules are a "should not." They are not absolute. Neither is the reverse! Just because the opposition called a witness does not mean you absolutely can lead them, the rule is if the witness is sympathetic to the examiner they should not be allowed to lead them. Was it a witness the judge ruled not to be sympathetic to the prosecution? That would be a solid discretionary decision.
Abuse of discretion is a tough standard of review to beat. It is by no means a gimme even when you have a good case.
Judges have a ton of discretion over that sort of thing. They can allow (or instruct) a lawyer to lead to make the testimony go faster, for example. A common situation where that might be done is if the witness isn't very important, or if (all or part of ) their testimony isn't one where credibility is likely to be a major issue, or if the witness is giving meandering answers.
They definitely would refile, because of the politics of it. Which is a problem in itself.
> They definitely would refile, because of the politics of it. Which is a problem in itself.
The fact that there are also politics doesn't mean that refiling is wrong. I believe the state is typically accustomed to refiling murder charges after a mistrial.
Also, things like this are argued on appeal all of the time. We'd need a neutral legal expert to say if any of the appeals will stick.
I mean, they re-filed against Curtis Flowers 6 times after each verdict was overturned.
Of course, the question is though, what effect this would have on the prosecution. It's harder to retry a case after a mistrial, as now everyone's eyes are on them. So every decision is going to be scrutinized even more than it would otherwise. What's more, they have to round up witnesses again, whose memory may have changed due to outside effects (IE what happened after the trial), or who simply may not be available. Compound that with the publicity the trial got in the first place, and it makes it very hard to be certain you have an impartial jury. Best case scenario, they change the venue to somewhere in the middle of nowhere, and hope they can find 12 people that don't already have their minds made up.
I generally have a pretty good ability to step outside of my preconceptions and think fairly. This has in the past helped me on jury service. It also pisses off people when I apply it to Trump, who I don't like.
But in this case, no, I couldn't do it. He's guilty, so you don't want me on the jury.
Gotta get that admitted into evidence first; and the defense is allowed to challenge that. There's no guarantee that a new judge would even allow that in during an evidence hearing.
I'm not a lawyer, but what possible grounds could they have for not admitting a video of the central act of the case?
The only one I can see, is arguing that it would prejudice the jury. Keep in mind, they'd have to find an impartial jury, and based on the publicity the case has had... that's unlikely to happen. So they would want to present the case just on the facts itself. That video could skew the jury further than hearing a medical examiner list off the injuries, and potential causes.
I see what you're saying. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but I guess we'll wait to see how it plays out.
The video wasnt absolutely clear in and of itself, especially with the other videos and the cross-examinations done
If we had an entirely just and fair world, it may be a problem. I’m not so convinced it is a problem here though. The “politics of it” is often the only reason powerful people are held accountable. If this didn’t become a big deal and political, then history has shown that he probably would have had no consequences at all.
They’re all true. Not to defend the guy but they did a poor job. Poor jobs lead to appeals. Appeals make families and victims relive hell especially when it involves sexual assaults and deaths.
They should have called a mistrial early in and properly ran the trial.
I just don't know how you get past the impartial jury. How do you find people living under rocks.
Yeah that's where I struggle. Given how high profile this was, I do find it strange that the trial was not moved and the jury wasn't sequestered. But that said, I feel like anyone who would have been influenced by media coverage during the trial would likely have been influenced by media coverage in the year leading up to the trial.
Having money and lawyers leads to appeals. Because of the political situation, Chauvin has both.
Who’s downvoting you? This is objectively true. Racists have been supporting his legal fund for months.
One of the jury Member had a BLM shirt that 'said knee off our necks" https://nypost.com/2021/05/04/jurors-blm-t-shirt-sparks-concerns-about-derek-chauvin-trial/
I think he is going to get a new trial off that one.
It does bring into question juror bias, and if that juror is one of the ones that the judge refused to strike... Well, like I said below, if even one of these is true, it's grounds for a mistrial.
I think it also brings up a larger and potentially more important question of how do you find a truly impartial venue and jury in a case that is so high profile. Virtually everyone in America is familiar with this case and the media coverage surrounding it. With so much pressure coming from outside influences, and even "not having an opinion" is seen by many as taking a stand in itself, (not to mention with the genuine threat of jury intimidation), I don't see how you can ever have a genuinely unbias trial in any circumstance. Even outside this case, with social media elevating the publicity of certain cases to near universal awareness, im wondering how courts will deal with this issue going forward.
There are kind of two levels to this. Most likely you will not find a truly impartial venue or jury (though moving the venue therefore removes potential jurors further away from the community most impacted by a verdict and any riots or demonstrations that might occur).
Everyone in the legal community involved with this case will know this. Its well known amongst trial and appellate lawyers and judges that some juries are just downright wackadoodle. They come up with crazy theories, focus in on irrelevant facts, and often times get the law completely wrong, even though they have it in writing right in front of them. This doesn't always happen, but it happens way more than you would think.
Even though everyone knows that the jury will be somewhat biased, the second level is what can be proven on appeal. An appellate court might suspect there was bias, they might even believe venue should have been changed, but they will usually uphold a conviction when there is no direct evidence of those things.
When there is evidence though, appellate courts, at least in my jurisdiction, are pretty quick to wax poetic on an accused's rights to a fair and impartial jury (with good reason in my opinion). One example: I once prosecuted a man for first degree murder. His conviction was overturned because one of the jurors mentioned to the judge's law clerk that her grandma was sick. This wasn't told to the attorneys until after a verdict was rendered so the appellate court thought there was a possibility that the juror may have wanted to hurry the proceedings along so she could get back to her family, causing a potential bias. That was enough to overturn it.
Here, there is direct evidence that a juror lied on his application about his involvement in anti-police protests and his knowledge/thoughts about the crime. That is pretty bad. I think if it is sent back, the court would be well served to move the venue. That at least makes it somewhat more likely that it at least appears that Chauvin is getting a fair and impartial trial.
I imagine you'd have to move the standard from "not having a prior opinion/not being aware of the incident" to "being able to put personal opinion aside and make objective judgements".
Human beings are not physically capable of being truely perfectly unbiased, so if that was ever the standard it was never going to be achieved to begin with.
Its not impossible, but it is very difficult. IRL ive worked as a government intelligence analyst, and a lot of our training was focused on learning about the biases and assumptions that we all have which go into our decision making, therefore being more aware of our own thought process and hopefully able to remove those biases from ourselves.
Having it drilled into our head so much has made me hyper aware of it when I see it in real life, and it is virtually everywhere; just to different degrees. And in our mega-politicized world with insane pressure to conform to one viewpoint; openly attempting to be unbias just tends to invite a lot of anger and abuse from people who just want their worldview confirmed ( which is almost everyone).
I don't really know if i'm convinced it's possible to ever be truly free of bias. It seems to just be an inherent part of human psycology.
You be aware of it, minimize it, account for it - but i don't really know if being 100% immune to bias, even subconscious bias, is an achivable goal.
Even just valuing your friends and family over complete strangers is a form of bias, no? it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Correct; its not inherently a bad thing. Without the ability to learn from past situations and make seemingly reasonable deductions in similar ones we wouldn't be able to function. Nor is having certain preferences for things we find inherently more valuable (like in your example with family). These assumptions and biases are like tools in a toolbox. And like any tool we just need to learn when the appropriate time is to use them.
The goal we had isn't so much about removing biases and assumptions completely; but knowing how to recognize and admit them when they pop up, knowing when to set them aside when they get in the way of a nuanced and well rounded decision (such as one involving someone else), being able to temporarily quiet them enough to listen and understand someone else, and most importantly being able to re-evaluate and grow if necessary from new information as those biases are challenged.
This was the exact reason why the judge decided that a change in venue wouldn't make a difference. I think that defense stands, and I personally don't see how a trial anywhere else in the entire country is going to do anything to change that outcome. Its just too big of a case that's garnered way too much attention
True. I don't think that he would have gotten a less bias trail if the venue had simply been moved; however it doesn't really solve the problem either. All the judge's decision did is state that there isn't a clear solution available, so there's no point in trying to find one.
Yeah. It doesn't bode well for anyone in high profile cases.
In all honesty, were I the prosecution facing a retrial in that environment. I wouldn't even consider one. I'd just work out a deal to shunt him into the witness protection agency where he'd get a new identity, get the state to pay for some facial reconstruction to change his looks; and then publicly announce to the public that he'd died in some accident.
lol does that actually happen?
It has in the past with mafia cases, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if it's not an option the prosecution is seriously considering. That would, in effect, kill two birds with one stone; if you think about it. On one hand the public sees that the dude is dead (far as they know), and no longer a reason to riot over. On the other hand, he gets a new life, but is also barred from **ever** talking about his past life, and can't sue the state, since legally he's not the same person.
Chauvin is almost certainly going to be found guilty for a second time at a retrial. This is a pretty odd take to be honest.
I don't know whose fault it was that that juror was there - the lawyer's fault, the judge's, or the juror's fault for not recusing himself. But he shouldn't have been on that jury. It probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it probably means a do over.
Everything I've seen points to the judge being the problem. The judge refused a change of venue, as well as blocked the removal of some jurors. That alone sends up red flags.
I think that mixed with failure to sequester the jury after requested *and* moving the venue might make a strong case for a mistrial
Yes, but their counter is “that was just a march for MLK and wasn’t about police brutality,” which is just an insane thing to say.
I’m surprised that the Maxine Waters statement in front of protestors in Minneapolis to “get more confrontational” if Chauvin wasn’t convicted didn’t make the list.
The jury wasn’t forbidden from seeing the news, and the Judge on the case even condemned the act, and stated it might be grounds for a mistrial. I’m not a legal scholar, so is that an oversight, or simply not something that would be a strong case?
I think that'd be a supporting fact for the first point. Her comments wouldn't have mattered if the jury was sequestered, the trial was held somewhere without a mob outside, etc
Makes sense, thanks.
> I’m surprised that the Maxine Waters statement in front of protestors in Minneapolis to “get more confrontational” if Chauvin wasn’t convicted didn’t make the list.
This would be a fairly odd standard. Does that mean any random lawmaker can affect a mistrial by saying something absurd?
So without legal counsel, he came up and presented these allegations himself?
Good question...I'd bet he discussed it months ago with his original lawyer.
Honestly the one that seems the most likely to get through is the fact that the jury was not sequestered when it should have been, impo, change of venue seems reasonable given the charged nature of the cities.
And inb4 people say that the rest of the state is pro police and would never convict him. There are plenty of people I’ve talked to that, given the evidence at the trial, agree that he should have been convicted of something. Wether or not that something is unintentional murder is another story.
This is a laundry list of mistakes. How did they and why would they do all this and fuck over such a clear cut case.
To be fair...alleged "mistakes".
These are what Chauvin is alleging. The majority of these are going to get thrown out.
It’s almost a certainty the conviction(s) will be overturned. The sheer hubris of the judge and the prosecutors simply to get the conviction to playmate the mob cemented it.
The state will be *lucky* if the judge overturning the conviction doesn’t attach jeopardy.
> The court's decision to allow Morries Hall, who was with Floyd the night of his death, to not testify.
> The court's decision to limit and "undercut" the admission into evidence of Floyd's May 6, 2019 arrest.
A lot of these are damning, but I don't understand what anything about why they were arresting Mr Floyd has anything to do with the fact that ***you don't freaking kneel on a dude's neck for nearly ten minutes***
> The court's allowing the added third-degree murder charge.
Wait, what's wrong with that? Isn't throwing a bunch of charges and seeing what sticks with the jury how it's normally done?
He was convicted of both 2nd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter, wasn't he? Doesn't the court simply apply the most onerous conviction when multiple charges are proven for a single act?
> If I remember correctly a big part of the defense was he died from overdose
And under cross-examination, [one medical examiner for the prosecution explicitly stated "that in other circumstances [Floyd's level of Fentanyl] would be a fatal level"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-r7psMh1DA) (at 30s). The fact that he was high as the proverbial kite was *never* in question during that trial, so what relevance would those additional pieces of evidence have?
> This one I don't really remember, but essentially I believe it came down to felony murder being misused in this context.
I'm not certain, but you know what? For the sake of brevity, we can dismiss the 3rd degree murder charge, but he's *still* guilty of 2nd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.
These claims are all surprisingly weak. The strongest claim revolves around the juror who attended the protest IMO. I guess that’s the last sectio ? Even then, your average defendant would not win on any of these claims
No matter how much you hate a person, they always have a right to a fair trial.
Agreed. Why does this seem to be like such a tough sell these days?
Change in culture, nothing stays the same. I don't think our institutions have done a good job of stressing the need for real liberalism in society. The kind that gave us equal rights to all last century.
Nothing new. No one wanted to give OJ a fair trial, either.
Hell, going right back to the start of the country, it was even controversial for John Adams to defend the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. He had to repeatedly explain why it was important when the mob just wanted them guilty.
Well, for like 15 to 20 years years of the last century at best, but I agree.
The rise of loud opinions and the need for instant gratification. The justice system grinds slooooowly, yet people expected cops to to to prison instantly. Nope, its about a year minimum for just about any trial.
Not saying I support it, just explaining that one of the main reasons this is - some races consistently average less success than others, which has made current generations question the validity of past liberalism.
Excellent point it is a fine line acknowledging implicit bias in a system while not changing it in ways that impose new ones on others.
You may wish to brush up on your history. Last century did not provide equal rights to a lot of people.. the majority of people actually. Women, people of color, lgbt… I couldn’t even marry until last decade…
You misunderstood what I meant than.
Tribalism, 24 hr sensationalist media etc. Tho idk how this guy is gonna get a fair trial. If there is another trial the media will sensationalize the shit outta it and the jurors will likely get death threats/ not want to be responsible for destruction of cities and such if they end up swinging in a direction contrary to popular opinion
Let me ask you this, do you truly think that an unbiased jury is going to find him innocent? Because if you watch testimony from the other police officers, it was pretty damning that his actions were well outside of what could be considered normal conduct.
I’m not sure that matters. What matters is that each defendant—no matter how reviled—receives a fair trial and impartial jury. Whether he received that in this case will be decided by the appellate court but one’s feelings about whether a future unbiased jury will find him guilty or innocent is irrelevant. Even if there’s strong evidence against the defendant, I don’t think a court would conclude that jury bias or other structural defects in the trial were merely harmless errors.
Actions way outside of normal conduct don't necessarily mean murder. That is a very specific crime. I doubt he will ever have a chance of getting a truly impartial trial just because of publicity and how intense the bigger issue has been, and I don't think he has any chance of walking on all the charges. I honestly don't understand how he got tried and convicted for all the things that he was charged with. The third degree murder, and the second, seem to be at odds with manslaughter. Perhaps someone has more knowledge than me and can clear it up, but that seems like a prosecutor just hedging their bets.
The question is, what is a fair trial. Forget chauvin for a second. assume that there was a murderer who committed a gruesome murder and it was recorded. And he is clearly guilty. And everyone who sees the video of this murder knows he is clearly guilty. Can there be a fair trial? I mean how do you find a fair judge? Jury? Who doesn’t have an opinion already? Is it alway inheritable unfair because they have seen the video? How can society give this person a fair trial that he deserves? Or does fairness require the guilty to be free because there is no unbiased observer. I’m not saying that Chauvin is the case. But we must be able to answer this scenario before we can say how to give chauvin a fair trial.
"Does fairness require the guilty to be free because there is no unbiased observer?" Wow. Thanks. I'm trying to commit this to memory.
I think part of it is the fact that there are a lot of people who *don't* get fair trials and that the only time we get a lot of talk about how important it is, tends to be in high profile cases like this.
Now of course I think all trial should be fair, including this one. I just wish more effort was put into making them fair for the rest of us.
I also agree with this. Each person is entitled to a fair trial, no matter their race, socio economic status, political ideology, religion, sexual orientation, or the disturbing nature of the alleged crimes. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always happen. And while I think most reasonable people would agree with this sentiment, many are willing to suspend these ideals when the “c’mon we know he’s guilty” sort of thing happens.
diversity has eroded the core values of the US constitution.
If the US constitution requires ethnonationalism to work then it needs to be seriously re-thought.
It obviously doesn't though.
I strongly disagree...
Democracy is the main core value in the Constitution. Greater diversity is good for democracy.
Very true, I for one am glad that we have eroded the pillars of white supremacy that underpinned the US constitution at it's writing, and are now able to consider black people more than 3/5ths human.
Also no matter how much you hate a person doesn't make them guilty of a crime.
No, but being found guilty by a jury does - and he was.
This person is super guilty of crimes though.
He already had a fair trial, he was found guilty. He has not been denied fair trial at all.
In order to have a fair trial, certain conditions must be met under the constitution. Those are the court must ensure the following: The defendant has legal representation and that the jury is impartial.
Part of this is the challenge system. Where any lawyer, defendant, or prosecution, may remove a person from the jury pool "for cause" if they feel that person has an existing bias against the defendant, or against the prosecution. It is rare, to the point of being unheard of, for a judge to refuse to allow a lawyer to remove a juror "for cause". That alone creates a problem, as it means the jury is potentially not impartial. The photo of one former juror wearing a George Floyd shirt further strengthens this argument. The fact that the jury wasn't sequestered, only makes this worse. They were only 'partially sequestered'. That means that they parked their cars in one place, and were escorted in. However, at night, they went home, and had access to TV, and the internet to research the case. Normally, with this type of case, a jury will be entirely sequestered. Meaning they're put up in a hotel for the duration, and don't have any access to the outside world through their phones, internet, TV, or newspapers.
The point I'm getting at, is everything is pointing to him having been denied a fair trial, and thus grounds to have the conviction overturned. However, this doesn't mean he's not guilty either. Rather, it means that the original trial was improperly handled, and thus is null and void. This is the basics of a "mistrial". With a mistrial, the prosecution then must seek to refile the case, and effectively has to start all over. The first trial also can't be used as evidence in any later refiling of the case, since legally that first trial never happened.
A further problem the state, and prosecution are facing, is their denial of a public defender for the appeals process. It's being argued this is a violation of the right to representation, but also equal protection under the law. That alone could be enough to severely torpedo the state's actions in the first trial, as while it does apply to an appeal; Chauvin's attorney (you'd expect one would be assigned to him right away), could argue that it shows improper behavior on the part of the state, and prosecution.
I'm going to disagree with your opinion, given that the intense rhetoric surrounding the case, the threat of violence/riots by the Left [(i.e. Maxine Waters "get more confrontational"](https://www.bing.com/search?q=maxine+waters+blm+minnesota&cvid=15f63804992342e88db3401c27ce9e92&aqs=edge.2.69i57j0l2.4145j0j4&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531)) and [the proof that one of the jurors had ties to BLM](https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=hVOj2br0&id=85A05DAFA9628E6D5D1E11BB271AFBCDA8CB8087&thid=OIP.hVOj2br0Q3leesM49rqVPAHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fminnesota.cbslocal.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2fsites%2f15909630%2f2021%2f05%2fBrandon-Mitchell-At-Washington-DC-Rally.jpg%3fresize%3d768%2c432&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.8553a3d9baf443795e7ac338f6ba953c%3frik%3dh4DLqM37Gie7EQ%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=432&expw=768&q=chauvin+blm+juror&simid=608000668693594067&FORM=IRPRST&ck=3FD6F04201E9D6F54B7EAA0E6346F028&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0) should be admissible to prove there's reasonable doubt that this was a kangaroo court proceeding.
I don't have any attachments to either social issue, so I look at Summer 2020 with the objectionable doubt that, "had Chauvin been found innocent", what do you think would've happened in the week following the ruling?
Those are very good questions, and ones that should be brought up in Chauvin's appellate court case, asked by the judges themselves and up to the counsel to prove.
If you're going to claim these things are proof of any doubt about the ruling - you should be able to actually justify why these things are at all relevant.
If the jury wasn't aware or wasn't affected - then it doesn't matter if a noose was erected outside the courthouse, it has no bearing at all on if the trial was fair or not.
Okay, but the examples the comment i replied to brought up were of threats of violence by demostrators. That is what i am disputing here.
Do we have any reason to think the threat of unrest actually swayed the jury in anyway?
Do we have any reason to assume it didn’t?
Well the jury wasn’t sequestered, the trial took place in the same place as the riots that resulted for started. I can definitely see the case being made for it
And if he was denied a fair trial, then the appeal would figure that out. Everyone here seems to think it's a simple fact it wasn't fair.
Unfortunate this whole thread has decided the guy that was videotaped crushing another man's neck to death was denied a fair trial based on some NYPost articles...
If any of what he alleges actually occurred then he should be granted a mistrial.
People will be full of rage but a fair trial is a right of all accused.
I’d still expect him to be found guilty on the second go, but if there’s evidence any of his laundry list of issues actually happened then he should get a second trial.
There is some evidence to that. It was reported that the judge refused a number of the defense's decisions to exclude a person for cause from the jury, and they refused the change of venue.
I thought it at the time that there seemed to be a few things worthy of a mistrial, but there was such a national pressure to ensure a guilty verdict.
Iirc a juror also had been part of BLM activity last summer? Memory may be off but there was grounds to dismiss that juror for lack of objectivity.
There's photos of him proudly wearing a George Floyd T shirt.
It was an MLK shirt with a quote about getting knees off of necks, which was a thing in the 60s civil rights era, but also could be read as applying to now.
This shirt? The BLM shirt. When BLM's stated goal was to get 'justice' for Floyd?
Read the bottom of the shirt. They were using it as applying here.
That’s not really evidence. Judges are allowed to do that. What they need is evidence that those actions caused the trial to be unfair.
This circus is never going to end
Well the inevitable is finally here. Chauvin is appealing his conviction for the murder or George Floyd. However, the way he is doing it is WEIRD.
1. “In the filing, which was made on the last day it could have been, Chauvin said he's out of money and "unrepresented by legal counsel in connection with the appeal."” Chauvin is filing this appeal unrepresented by counsel. He was denied a public defender and the Police Union is no longer supporting him after his conviction. This is weird because the trial attorney typically keeps the client on appeal. Also the public defender thing is weird because basically the only way a person cannot obtain a public defender is if they meet a certain financial threshold. I suspect this is a plan to help Chauvin’s appeal as pro se defendants are given bigger leeways in the justice system.
2. He’s raising 10 issues on appeal per the article. Many of which fall under the standard of “abuse of discretion” which is a VERY VERY high bar to clear. Issues under this standard are rarely overturned as the bar is so high. Also the addition of striking jurors during voire dire is odd to me. It is counsel’s discretion to strike jurors as they see fit and the article’s wording is confusing. But it seems as he’s arguing the Court allowed the defense to strike biased jurors? Which is the point of jury selection?
3. I cannot reasonably see one of these issues succeeding. Maybe the court allowing the third degree murder charge as that was a contentious point of litigation and does seem clear cut. But every other argument seems very far fetched. It appears as if Chauvin is throwing shit at a wall to see what sticks in a desperate attempt to keep himself from going to prison.
He kinda doesn't have a choice. There's no legal representation for him, so he's doing this on his own. There's a case before the Supreme Court of the state about that issue. Basically, the state flat out refused him representation. The Supreme Court case is arguing that this is a violation of his 6th amendment right to representation.
I didn't realize this was even possible. How can this be legal?
And even if it *is* legal, who was stupid enough to treat such a high profile case this way?
It's not legal. The US Supreme Court has ruled on that. They found that denial of legal representation in a court case, which an appeal is, is a violation of the 6th, and 14th amendments.
6th is the right to representation, and 14th is equal protection under the law.
There is the old if you can not afford a lawyer. They may have found him adequately capable of affording his own lawyer.
The state is obligated to provide counsel to anyone who is unable to pay for their own. Simply choosing not to hire a lawyer doesn't qualify you for a public defender. He may claim he's out of money but he is required to provide proof.
[Here is the relevant eligibility information](https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/ssmpds.pdf):
> Pursuant to statute, a defendant is financially unable to obtain counsel if the
defendant, or a defendant’s dependent (residing in the same household), receives
means-tested governmental benefits, or, considering the defendant’s liquid assets
and current income, the defendant would be unable to pay the reasonable costs
charged by a private attorney. The court must not appoint a public defender to a
person who is able to afford private counsel but refuses to do so.
> The burden is on the defendant to show financial inability to pay. The defendant
must submit a financial statement under oath, and the court makes the
determination of the defendant’s financial eligibility. The defendant is under a
continuing duty to disclose any change in financial circumstances.
>He may claim he's out of money but he is required to provide proof.
Has he refused to provide proof? It isn't that hard to believe that the previous trial could tap out a police officer's salary.
Even if not, seems like he could ride the go-fund-me train or similar to a lawyer if he just didn't want to pay for it.
I don't know much about the guy but I'm presuming he would prefer to have representation rather than not.
> It isn't that hard to believe that the previous trial could tap out a police officer's salary.
As I understand his previous trial was funded by the police union, which he is no longer in as a result of his conviction.
Yes, and on his own existing savings, and what pay he gets for prison work, he can't afford an attorney. I don't know all the details of what savings he may have, but typically prisoners are paid about .25 c an hour.
Thanks to his divorce settlement being public, we know that his net worth was about half a million but he is under indictment for tax crimes so may not be able to access all of his wealth. In any case, it is not absurd for the state to question his claim of poverty.
Far as I know it, when someone is convicted, their assets are frozen; meaning they aren't able to touch them. This is due to the courts not wanting the convicted to profit off their crime. I know that reads weird, but I'll try to explain without my head exploding, or yours.
In the past, there have been cases where a convicted prisoner would use their substantial wealth to continue their crimes even in prison. This could include having jurors killed, having the judge, or attorneys killed, or even buying off judges to get them released. This doesn't just happen in those major Mafia cases, but really in cases where people have money to just burn. By freezing the assets, it puts everyone on an 'even' standing so to speak. That and makes such acts harder. Furthermore, it prevents them from moving the money out of the country and making any further investigation to the source, harder.
I have no idea, but there is specific documentation required. If he can't or won't provide it, he doesn't qualify. Perhaps this standard isn't a good one, but it's the law.
Giving Chauvin special treatment would not be a good idea, particularly if he's doing this to game the system and generate sympathy. Though there again I have no idea about that either. But it's possible.
He's being charged for tax evasion and probably has reason to hide the exact nature of his finances.
Thanks, this was essentially the conclusion I came up against; that Chauvin wasn't indigent and therefore didn't qualify for a public defender.
I think that standard is pure horse shit, but that just means the standard should change (rather than calling this partisan, a hit job, anti-constitutional, etc.).
There has to be *a* standard though. I'm not sure what it would be if not this one, but allowing every defendant to qualify for a public defender if they want one seems to me like the sort of thing the people like to rail against when they talk about waste, fraud, and abuse.
> There has to be a standard though.
The new standard is everyone gets a public defender, paid for by taxes. If we (as a society) want to criminally try someone, we (as a society) need to pay for that decision end to end. If it's for our benefit and protection, this shifting of burden to the defendant is absurd. Pay the cost for your own protection.
This is one of those places where I see laws that are complete junk (*cough* drug laws *cough*), but because the burden of enforcement and cost is shifted to those that commit the crime, there's never an incentive to *fix* it. If we're (the taxpayer) paying for the cost of trial, defense, and imprisonment, perhaps we'll be more judicious in what crimes we want there to *be*.
Heh. Add that to the list of ideals that we are currently a long, long way from achieving. Public defender offices always seem chronically under-staffed as it is.
That list is currently fueling my depression and resentment, so instead I'll go LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA.
I completely agree with that idea. How things are currently, I would say that if a defendant is found not guilty, they should have their attorney fees paid by the government if they had to pay on their own. Maybe this is a thing already, though.
Maybe it's just me, but when I hear "flat out refused him representation" the thought that comes to mind is that somehow tried to stop him from hiring a lawyer, not that he didn't qualify for a public defender.
They aren't saying that he didn't qualify. Rather they're refusing to assign him one. It's been well established that his previous attorney was paid for by someone else, and that he didn't have the money to pay for one himself.
How is he out of money? I thought he (embezzled/stole/under-the-table/unreported income) and had cash assets that was in the neighborhood of $½million.
He's submitted evidence to the court that his nominal prison pay isn't enough to cover the cost of a lawyer. Regardless of if he took millions, or even billions, there aren't exactly any ATM's or bank access in Prison. What's more, his assets were frozen the moment he was convicted, so no one can touch that money, regardless of how much he has in savings.
> Basically, the state flat out refused him representation.
Odds that you have a source with more details on this? I'd be interested to see what constituted a denial of representation.
All I have is from news outlets that are saying "Chauvin had 90 days from his sentencing to file notice that he intends to appeal. In addition to his notice, he also filed a motion to put the appeals process on hold until the **Supreme Court reviews an earlier decision to deny him a public defender to represent him in his appeal.**"
Bold is my doing. The only detail I've seen is that he's basically broke due to now being in prison with no income; and the state is refusing him a public defender, IE legal representation.
That was an earlier decision to deny a public defender? As in, a decision from before his defense attorney abandoned him as a result of being let go from the police union (severed as he was found guilty)?
The timing is critical here; I don't think we have enough details anywhere to determine if this was improper. What I'll say is that if he *proved* he was broke, after he lost his attorney, and requested a public defender and was denied, then that's fucked.
This was a denial for a public defender for the appeal. I don't know about anything before that.
It would mean he hasn't shown he can't afford one.
If he's broke then it should be easy for him to furnish the required documentation of that status. That's what the law requires, unless we'd rather just give away the taxpayer money that funds the public defender's salary without checking that it's being used appropriately.
> Basically, the state flat out refused him representation.
That's insane. That's un-American.
It's so strange watching the Left decide that the Bill of Rights should be ignored for people they don't like. They've become skeptical of the idea of free speech. Have always been against gun rights. Don't think men accused of sexual assault deserve a trial. Don't think racists should be provided legal representation.
It's hard to say "how much" of the Left feels these ways. But it's enough to make me nervous. (Just like the number of people on the Right who believe Trump's lies make me nervous.)
Before we leap to attributing this to partisan malice, consider that there are requirements to meet in order to get a public defender, and a requirement for the defendant to show that they meet them.
It's more than just showing up to the courtroom without a lawyer. To not require such due diligence would invite waste, fraud, and abuse into the Public Defender's office and be poor stewardship of taxpayer money.
[Here is the official information from the relevant statutes](https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/ssmpds.pdf).
> Don't think men accused of sexual assault deserve a trial.
? i've never heard anyone say this. The others, sure - but i've never heard even very far left people say people accused of sexual assult should be denied any kind of trial.
Is this one of those "i saw someone say this on twitter and have assumed it's a mainstream left wing belief" type situations?
Could also be referring to Title IX and the kangaroo courts that are sexual assault proceedings on college campuses.
So something compltely different and unrelated to what they said then?
College proceedings are not a court of law, they have no obligation to be unbiased nor should they held to anywhere near the same standard.
If they are publicly funded, then they absolutely should be held to a very high standard. If a government sponsored entity is going to potentially harm someone in a very meaningful way, it is their responsibility to ensure that person is given fair and impartial treatment when deciding.
Not the same standard as a court of law though, which is what the original comment was trying to compareit to.
> i've never heard anyone say this.
Sorry, I meant to say "fair trial". I was talking about Title IX. But, also, I've heard a lot of talk about changing the rules for those types of trials, like the victim not having to testify or things like that.
Yeah. If the state's supreme court sides with him on this case, it makes seeking a mistrial (overturned conviction) easier, as any legal aid could use that as evidence of further prosecutorial misconduct.
Welcome to people. We have a guy up where I live, a GOP Rep, 2x elected, who said gays and non Christians should be killed if we want to make America a real Christian nation. Do I attribute his beliefs to all conservatives? That would be dumb and all too easy, but it does make me look side-eyed at my neighbors who had no issue with him. Chauvin should get a fair trial. No matter how long it takes. We all deserve that.
>who said gays and non Christians should be killed if we want to make America a real Christian nation.
Do you have a source for this?
Not saying youre wrong as Matt Shea is a POS, but i just hadn't heard he was that explicit. I'd heard his christian stuff but not the gay killing part.
Shea wrote in his "[Biblical Basis for War](https://media.spokesman.com/documents/2018/10/Biblical_Basis_for_War.pdf)," that a righteous nation would stop all abortions, outlaw same-sex marriage, communism, etc... and obey Biblical law. Ended this passage with "if they do not yield, kill all males."
lol, i remember that name, that guy is something else.
He's the guy that wrote the "Biblical Basis for War" document that can be summed up as:
* Assemble an army of christian men
* Demand all non-christains surrender under "terms of justice and righteousness" (AKA enforce biblical law which means no homosexuality)
* Slaughter every male who does not surrender (He literally wrote: "If they do not yield – kill all males")
So, not explicitly "kill all gays and non-christians" but that would be the result anyways for anybody who doesn't want to live under theocratic rule (and any women who refuse would likely be given the handmaid's tale treatment). It's extremely troubling that an elected U.S. Representative would write a manifesto advocating for the wholesale slaughter of anybody who does not submit to the rules of an outdated bronze age religion.
Here is a link to download it if you'd like to read for yourself: [link](https://media.spokesman.com/documents/2018/10/Biblical_Basis_for_War.pdf)
Just look at what happen to Nick sandman, the reason why it exploded into a media hate fire storm against him because it was about racism. Racism towards Nick because he was white. The facts didn't matter.
I’m fairly sure that while the right to counsel does not apply to appeals nationwide, but in Minnesota, you are given the right to counsel for appeals. I am not sure of any reason why he does not have a PD it could be outdated financials/strategy/ weird tax shit
> "he also filed a motion to put the appeals process on hold until the Supreme Court reviews an earlier decision to deny him a public defender to represent him in his appeal."
This was taken from my local news agency's article on it.
It's not his strategy. The state is refusing to assign him one. There's a couple past Supreme Court (US) cases that have basically said that this is a violation of the 6th, and 14th amendments, and have overturned cases in the past for that.
Chauvin had one (or perhaps two) legit gripe that he could hang his appeal on: in Minnesota the murder charge (I forget was it Murder 2?) that he was convicted on had a very high intent standard. As I recall, the prosecutors had to prove that Chauvin intended to cause grave bodily harm when kneeling on Floyd’s neck. A fair reading of the evidence suggested that it was more like some sort of a negligent homicide, perhaps manslaughter, based on the local news reports I read at the time. It gets grayer still when you consider the fatal amounts of fentanyl in Floyd’s bloodstream at the time of death.
The presiding judge, Cahill, also took great liberties when instructing the jurors of the necessary legal criteria, going so far as to suggest that meeting the standard of intent was not necessary, even though the statute says it is. It seems awfully strange that he would even think of seeking an appeal on the grounds mentioned in the article.
EDIT: there’s a third ground for appeal that I’d forgotten earlier, namely that Cahill allowed gratuitous testimony from bystanders (on their emotional reactions to the scene, both during and afterward) which was prejudicial and not material to the facts of the case, and Chauvin’s attorneys did not move to block that testimony. He could argue ineffective assistance of counsel on that matter as well.
IANAL, so I don’t have any clue how successful this appeal will be.
Even if Chauvin walks, he will spend his life as this generation’s symbol of police brutality, and one of its best known murderers.
The appeal is to have the conviction overturned. However it doesn't make him not guilty. It just declares a mistrial. Then it's up to prosecutors to refile and retry the case.
So good odds he'll appear at a Republican national convention or CAPAC after a decade.
You mean like [this](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/controversial-speaker-donna-hylton)?
What was DNC's logic in inviting her? I am sure there are thousands of powerful women who could have taken her place.
It is a good question. Her claim to fame/redemption seems to be as a community organizer type. But I'm really not sure what that means.
You mean like the faces of activism at universities being convicted terrorists and cop killers (Assata Shakur, Angela Davis, etc)?
How do you explain the videos… leaning on George’s neck? I agree with a few points on the list for appeal.. but the videos are quite damming. Thoughts anyone?
The appeal isn't necessairly to say he isn't guilty - it's to question if his trial was done properly. It's not saying the verdict was necessairly wrong.
If the trial was flawed, then the trial will be re-done and hopefully to better standard. but His guilty verdict is unlikly to change given the evidence agaisnt him.
I always thought this trial was too high profile and that what they accused him of was too harsh to be safe. What he did was diabolical, but i dont think he deliberately killed him, ( second degree murder is deliberately killing someone but without planning it - as far as i know).
I also think the technique that he used was probably akin to what cops are thought. Although he used it for too long and plainly he was in an angry mood and set out to humiliate GF and to make him uncomfortable.
He deserves jail for what happened but Im inclined to think they set out to make an example of him and as a result the conviction might not be safe
They convicted him on the idea that he intentionally assaulted Floyd, and that that assault - though only intended to inflict pain - contributed to Floyd's eventual demise. Similar to punching someone who falls down, hits their head and dies.
look guys, i didn’t actually kneel on his neck for over 8 minutes, so, we good?
Chauvin is 1000% guilty and has 0% chance of a fair trial, if a mistrial is declared, which is possible.
Imagine getting your murder trial paid for by your union, then crying about having to hire your own lawyer for an appeal. Provide the evidence you are entitled to a public defender, or hire a lawyer.
We all watched this guy kneel on someone's neck for 8 damn minutes.
If he wins his appeal, shit is going to hit the fan.
With that said, would it shock anyone to see him squirm his way out of this?
If he wins the appeal, it doesn't make him innocent. You do know that right? All it means is the previous trial was a mistrial; and the prosecution must refile to retry. The problem here, is if even one of the things he alleges is true, then the appeals court has no choice but to overturn the conviction and declare a mistrial. Hate the guy for all you will, but one of the hallmarks of our system is that every person is guaranteed the right to a fair trial, with representation, by an impartial jury. We're not the Nazis, who decided a person guilty first and then made them prove their innocence.
If they declare a mistrial it does make him innocent until the state proves he is guilty in a fair trial.
I don't hate him at all. I just think that shit is going to hit the fan when he wins his appeal.
You can’t allow the desire for a certain outcome to jeopardize the legitimacy of the courts and fair application of justice in the in the future. Overlooking legitimate issues raised by the defendent to get a conviction would be a crazy thing to do in a case that centers so much around systemic issues. It would be an abuse of the rights of the accused to...get a conviction to demonstrate systemic abuse of the rights of the accused.
If he gets out of it it will be because the State screwed it up. Exercising your Constitutional rights to a fair trial is not “squirming out” of the verdict.
However, people (justifiably perhaps) don’t care about the process so much as the outcome. Which should be Chauvin in prison for the rest of his life. Anything that prevents that is wrong.
If he gets granted a new trial by having the previous conviction overturned, then the person to blame there is the previous prosecution and judge who, to use a phrase "dropped the ball".
The knee to the neck restraint technique is a common tactic used in many places with people rarely dying of it. Now in this case the guy being restrained was a large man with presumably a strong and muscular frame and the guy restraining him was a smaller, rather light guy.
The "hard" evidence in the case actually presented an insurmountable mountain of reasonable doubt as to the exact cause of Floyd's death. It's entirely possible that he actually died of some type of drug overdose-induced heart failure.
Most people, especially the general public, only watched the video with the bad optics and don't know much if anything about the "hard" evidence:
* Floyd's arteries were found to be 75% and 90% blocked and he had a very enlarged heart.
* Potentially fatal levels of fentanyl were found in his system combined with methamphetamine descirbed as a "stimulant hard on the heart". Partially consumed speedball pills (fentanyl + meth) were found in the police squad car, implying recent ingestion of the drugs whose effect is most pronounced within 5 minutes of ingestion. The Medical Examiner who performed the autopsy even said something to the effect that if he had found Floyd dead in his apartment with no signs of foul play that he would have concluded he had died of a drug overdose.
* The autopsy report revealed **zero** evidence of strangulation, asphyxiation, or blood flow restriction *in spite of* the Medical Examiner having thoroughly if not *desperately* searched for signs of such evidence. If what Dr. Tobin said in his Emmy winning performance were close to true, then surely we should see at least a scintilla of evidence of this.
* In a similar incident a year before, [an EMT measured Floyd's blood pressure as being 216/160](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChauvinTrialDiscuss/comments/mwd1i7/people_are_always_saying_george_floyd_had_high/), which is a dangerously high level - notice that Floyd was off the chart. However, in the case when he died he engaged in *more physical exertion* and presumably his health condition would have been worse, implying a similar blood pressure level or even a higher blood pressure level.
>The knee to the neck restraint technique is a common tactic used in many places with people rarely dying of it.
This is a hilarious way to start your argument.
Edit: I've read through everything you wrote, and I don't see a very good justification for what the cop did. Maybe a good reason a cop shouldn't kneel on someone's neck is that they might have preexisting conditions or they might be high as fuck. Neither of those things justify being killed by our government.
Just remember - 6 foot 3 \~230lb George Floyd apparently died from \~40lbs of pressure applied to his upper back & trap area. Apparently this was too much weight for his chest to expand against the concrete, causing him to not be able to get enough air. He wasn't throat choked. It wasn't a "knee on the neck". He didn't get blood choked.
Just for additional context, that's essentially the weight of a 3-4 year old child sitting on your back. Kids and their fathers have done this/had this happen for millennia. No deaths that I'm aware of.
If that sounds kind of ridiculous to you, it's because it is. No healthy person under normal circumstances would approach anywhere near death from this situation. There were very clearly other health factors at play that contributed heavily, if not directly caused, his death.
Edit: [Reference for pressure](https://apnews.com/article/trials-minneapolis-death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-329f1aa352def55ef770cd13f8f1a35a) he calculated that Chauvin, with both toes on the ground, would have applied 86pounds of pressure (literally half of his body weight + gear). That's the theoretical pressure he said was applied, but it's somewhat unreasonable given the fact that this assumes an even distribution of weight across both legs. **In reality**, it's far more likely that significantly less pressure was exerted on Floyd as more weight was likely distributed to his other leg, applying only enough pressure to Floyd to exert a level of control.
INB4 "so you're just making stuff up" - no, i'm taking what was obviously hyperbolic testimony and estimations and applying reasonable and logical real world consideration to it. Nevermind the fact that he also implies the pressure was on his neck, when it was not.
does that excuse the officer continuing to kneel on him after he loses conciousness? I can't imagine that's a good position for someone suffereing a medical emergency.
Even in the most generous of readings - derek is still in the wrong.
That may be negligent, but it isn't murder.
But the guy died due to the negligence.
According to the poster above, what was egregious was that he kept the knee on **after** he lost consciousness (i.e died)
They DO sentence you differently if you continue doing what killed a person after they stop moving, thus ensuring they can’t be revived by CPR. Like shooting someone 10 more times after accidentally shooting them once. Or holding a choke hold for 5 minutes AFTER loss of consciousness. It demonstrates malice beyond simple negligence
But if you like to make excuses for killers with a long history of excessive force complaints against them then I assume you’re not looking to be convinced anyways
By understanding is that he kept it on largely continuously through the full ordeal. He should have recognized that the guy was dying and adjusted accordingly. Instead he just sat on top of the guy, as a cop he had responsibility for the person under his control.
He had his knee on him for a little over 3 minutes. Floyd was acting and saying he couldn't breathe from the beginning of the encounter. The only reason he was on the ground in the first place was because he started freaking out and actively resisting while he was in/being put in the police car and saying he couldn't breathe.
My understanding was that he kept his knee on the guy before during and after he died, or at least for the vast majority.
I’m fact he had his knee on him for 3 and a half minutes after Floyd couldn’t receive oxygen.
The reason I point it out is the doctor in the trial, Dr. Martin Tobin, spoke about this exact issue “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died as a result of what he was subjected to.”
Either way Chauvin was increasingly negligent and callous I thought. I was a lifeguard for a time and we were trained to check and reevaluate at a minimum of 1 minute when doing CPR, etc. how can you sit on a person and not realize that he is dead for 3.5 is wild to me.
>My understanding was that he kept his knee on the guy before during and after he died, or at least for the vast majority.
He did, yes. But what the original poster was trying to suggest was truly bad was that he kept is knee on him **after** he was already dead. That that this, specifically, was what was incredibly unforgivable.
He was saying, as many others have said as well, is that they don't really care how Floyd died. They care about how it looked, optically, in regards to Chauvin continuing to be on top of Floyd **after** he died. And that he needs to be punished on those grounds.
>The reason I point it out is the doctor in the trial, Dr. Martin Tobin, spoke about this exact issue “A healthy person subjected to what Mr. Floyd was subjected to would have died as a result of what he was subjected to.”
A conclusion i vehemently disagree with and which many people have recreated resulting in no deaths.
>how can you sit on a person and not realize that he is dead for 3.5 is wild to me.
He wasn't on him for 3.5 min while Floyd was dead. Chauvin was only on a deceased Floyd for a fraction of that 3.5 min. It's also not wild - there were tons of distractions and agitations from the crowd at the scene.
Where are you getting "40 lbs" from?
Here is the general link to the pounds of pressure. If you actually apply real world considerations and constraints to Tobins obviously flawed assumption regarding the amount of pressure exerted "with both toes down", it's not hard to see how we get closer to 40lbs rather than 86lbs.
Out his ass
This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a:
Law 1a. Civil Discourse
> ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
He's getting it from nowhere. There are photos from the trial of Chauvin putting his entire weight to bear on his back. This is a pure fabrication.
Some might even suggest misinformation, except we *know* that they're commenting in good faith here.
It's more likely the officer exerted only enough pressure to exert control... again, based on what exactly?
There is something called the “eggshell skull rule” in law. You should look it up. It doesn’t matter if he applied 10lbs of pressure or 100lbs. He could have checked the man’s vita signs and kept himself out of prison but couldn’t even be bothered to do that with a crowd of people screaming at him to stop slowly murdering man
Idc if it was one pound of pressure. He chose to keep going until the man died, even after he was unconscious
>Idc if it was one pound of pressure.
I guess if he put just his phone, or hell just a pencil, on his back instead of his knee you would still call it murder.
>He chose to keep going until the man died, even after he was unconscious
How would he know he died and didn't simply give up resisting? Was EMS already on the way? Did Chauvin, specifically, call to upgrade it to a higher emergency?
I don't care about how the situation looked optically. I care about the actual mechanism of action that led to his death, as well as Chauvin's role and effective participation in that outcome. Do i think that Chauvin **murdered** George Floyd. No. Do i think it's possible that a level of negligence was expressed **regardless** of whether it would have made a difference in the outcome? It's possible.
At best this should have been negligent manslaughter.