# Will Derek Chauvin be convicted?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Chauvin has been charged with three crimes: second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. 


*Second-Degree Murder. *This can arise in four different ways: (1) intentionally killing someone, but without premeditation (and without any aggravating factors that might make it first-degree murder), (2) killing someone unintentionally, but while committing a drive-by shooting, (3) killing someone unintentionally, but while using violence to commit a felony, (4) killing someone unintentionally, but while trying to injure that person, if that person has a restraining order against the offender. Second-degree murder can carry a maximum sentence of 40 years.
*Third-Degree Murder. *Third-degree murder is an unintentional killing that occurs as a result of a "depraved mind." This archaic language has led to some confusing legal analyses, but it is generally thought of as acting recklessly, with a total indifference to human life. An example would be speeding at 100 miles per hour through a school zone and unintentionally killing a student crossing at an intersection. Third-degree murder can carry a maximum sentence of 25 years.
*Second-Degree Manslaughter. *Second-degree manslaughter is a killing that results from an offender's negligence. Negligence—a hugely important legal concept—can be more simply thought of as carelessness. It is a failure to act with the level of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. Second-degree manslaughter can carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I don't know, and I don't care. The mob will riot whatever they decide. Buildings will burn, more people will die, politicians will wring their hands and pass more knee jerk laws. Rioting is the only spectator sport that I watch any more.

The fact is that he is already as good as convicted. What they are doing now is just for show.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

The SJW crowd has already crucified him and many others regardless of the outcome of the court. Vile.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> I don't know, and I don't care


I don't know, and I do care


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

georger said:


> The SJW crowd has already crucified him and many others regardless of the outcome of the court. Vile.


Absolutely true


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

HDRider said:


> I don't know, and I do care


That's why you are a better man than I am. Not only is my give a **** broken, I don't remember where I left it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> That's why you are a better man than I am. Not only is my give a **** broken, I don't remember where I left it.


In no way would I claim to be a better person

Truth be told, I admire your attitude. I wish I could adopt it.


----------



## georger (Sep 15, 2003)

Bigger problem is the imposed censorship on free speech in my view because if I were to say what I truly thought and felt, I'd be deleted and kicked out.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

georger said:


> Bigger problem is the imposed censorship on free speech in my view because if I were to say what I truly thought and felt, I'd be deleted and kicked out.


Again, very true, and sadder still is how wide spread that silencing has become an accepted (and expected) practice as our good friend @mreynolds just showed in another thread.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

At the risk of compounding the confusion of the Minneapolis situation; Would Chauvin be on trial if the same event transpired 30 year ago?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> At the risk of compounding the confusion of the Minneapolis situation; Would Chauvin be on trial if the same event transpired 30 year ago?


I don't think so. If so, it wouldn't be the brainless, SJW spectacle that it has become today.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> I don't know, and I don't care. The mob will riot whatever they decide. Buildings will burn, more people will die, politicians will wring their hands and pass more knee jerk laws. Rioting is the only spectator sport that I watch any more.
> 
> The fact is that he is already as good as convicted. What they are doing now is just for show.


Yep.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> I don't think so. If so, it wouldn't be the brainless, SJW spectacle that it has become today.


I am not sure why you say that.

Are you suggesting that policing would be so much better by now that the situation would have played out with the loss of life?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I am not sure why you say that.
> 
> Are you suggesting that policing would be so much better by now that the situation would have played out with the loss of life?


What I am saying is that had this exact same situation happened thirty years ago, and it probably has, I don't think that we would be seeing it play out the way that it has in politics and the MSM. We are in a completely different world from then. Rodney King didn't get the same response that this is. In fact, most people didn't notice until the riots AFTER the verdict. Now, we have pre-emptive riots from emboldened criminals..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> Now, we have pre-emptive [orchestrated] riots from emboldened criminals..


I needed to add one word. I hope you don't object.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I needed to add one word. I hope you don't object.


Not at all. I'd go even a little further and say that they have political support _and_ corporate sponsorship.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> Not at all. I'd go even a little further and say that they have political support _and_ corporate sponsorship.


It is a big band performance


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'll bet 5 to 1 in the yes! If he walks the city will burn . I'm not going to be a judge on this...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Probably guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter, but will probably be convicted of 3rd degree murder.

He should get a new hearing if it is 2nd or 3rd degree murder conviction, because there is no way he could receive a fair trial in Minneapolis. Jurors will be afraid to not convict. I think they might end up with a hung jury. I guess what I am saying is it doesn't appear he is guilty of 2nd degree murder, so what it will come down to is there at least one brave person on the jury.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> one brave person on the jury


When was the last time one person burned down a city on purpose?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> When was the last time one person burned down a city on purpose?


I'd like to think if I was on a jury, I would vote based on the evidence and let the politicians deal with the crap they created.

I think individual heroes are the only way we get out of the mess we are in right now. I'm hoping there is at least one on the jury.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> I'd like to think if I was on a jury, I would vote based on the evidence and let the politicians deal with the crap they created.
> 
> I think individual heroes are the only way we get out of the mess we are in right now. I'm hoping there is at least one on the jury.


Right....If only the system would work the way it was intended to.

The wife has been glued to the TV as if she were a jury member...I couldn't help but watch some---

So far, the prosecution, based on the testimony of expert witnesses, including one who literally "wrote the book" on intensive medical/pulmonary care, maintains that the victim sustained hypoxic brain damage leading to seizures and cardiorespiratory arrest and death due to the physical trauma of the accused kneeling on his back....despite the lack of evidence of trauma at autopsy, lack of measurements of blood oxygen levels or pulse oximetry. The expert's diagnosis of seizure is based on observing ONE spastic kick of a leg while the victim was being restrained.

Secondly, the experts deny that the victim's cardiac condition (he was found to have high grade (90 & 70% occlusion) of two of the 3 main coronary arteries and severe hypertensive cardiomyopathy at autopsy did not contribute to his death, nor did the amphetamines nor fentanyl found in his blood stream on toxicology exam at levels high enough to be consistent with death due to drugs.

In short, the prosecution case is based on diagnoses which are merely speculative (plausible, but speculative nonetheless) with no direct confirmatory evidence, while ignoring obvious health issues which could have accounted for the death by themselves (also speculative, but more plausible. At least there's hard data to say they were present).

Tell me, if a perp is chased by a cop towards a cliff, and the desperado decides to escape capture by jumping to his death, who is responsible for that death?

If I were the defense lawyer, I'd get healthy subject to lie on the floor with a cop kneeling on his upper back for 30 minutes while measuring the guy's pulse oximetry (you know-- that little clothes pin thing on his finger). I'll bet dollars to donuts the oxygen level doesn't go down.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doc- said:


> Tell me, if a perp is chased by a cop towards a cliff, and the desperado decides to escape capture by jumping to his death, who is responsible for that death?


Is this an old black and white movie?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

The defense's case relies on the fact that the suspect had health issues, and drugs in his system, and he would have died whether or not the cop was kneeling on his back alternating with kneeling on his neck. I personally believe that if the cop(s) had not done that, George Floyd would not have been just walking down the street and died at that same moment. If he would not have, the cop caused his death.

I would love to take someone up on doc's challenge that having someone handcuffed behind his back, face down on the concrete with a person on their back does not have their oxygen level diminish. It's an easy thing for anyone to try at home. I work at a hospital, I'll see if I can grab a pulse ox and a volunteer and try it with simulated handcuffs. 

The video does show, with perfect clarity, that the cop's weight was fully on the suspect's neck at various times. I would like to have people try that as well.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

todd_xxxx said:


> The defense's case relies on the fact that the suspect had health issues, and drugs in his system, and he would have died whether or not the cop was kneeling on his back alternating with kneeling on his neck. I personally believe that if the cop(s) had not done that, George Floyd would not have been just walking down the street and died at that same moment. If he would not have, the cop caused his death.
> 
> I would love to take someone up on doc's challenge that having someone handcuffed behind his back, face down on the concrete with a person on their back does not have their oxygen level diminish. It's an easy thing for anyone to try at home. I work at a hospital, I'll see if I can grab a pulse ox and a volunteer and try it with simulated handcuffs.
> 
> The video does show, with perfect clarity, that the cop's weight was fully on the suspect's neck at various times. I would like to have people try that as well.


I think an argument can be made that Chauvin exercised poor judgment.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

HDRider said:


> I think an argument can be made that Chauvin exercised poor judgment.


I think it goes beyond poor judgement when the person you are kneeling on loses consciousness and you continue to kneel on him for another 3+ minutes. 

We're all arm-chairing it, but at the end of the day, I see him being convicted.


----------



## Wellbuilt (Dec 25, 2020)

No the guy probably would not of just up and died 
But he died from a drug induced hart attack 
He did not die from being suffocated 
The cop may get convicted the same way bitten got elected , but he is Innocent


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

todd_xxxx said:


> I think it goes beyond poor judgement when the person you are kneeling on loses consciousness and you continue to kneel on him for another 3+ minutes.


You think Chauvin killed him in cold blood?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

HDRider said:


> You think Chauvin killed him in cold blood?


I don't think it was premeditated murder, and I don't believe he was trying to kill him, but I believe he purposely and willfully was punishing him, and had no regard for his well being, and it contributed to his death.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Ultimately, it's his own damn fault. I think things would have gone better for Floyd had he simply cooperated with the arresting officers. Being a career criminal, an untimely death at the hands of police or other criminals, intentional or otherwise, is a work related hazard. When choosing a life of crime, you accept that fact. It's not up to the rest of the world to mitigate that risk for you.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Trust me if "they" say you are under arrest it's a done deal!!! That's what bail bonds and lawyers are for...


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

kinderfeld said:


> Ultimately, it's his own damn fault. I think things would have gone better for Floyd had he simply cooperated with the arresting officers. Being a career criminal, an untimely death at the hands of police or other criminals, intentional or otherwise, is a work related hazard. When choosing a life of crime, you accept that fact. It's not up to the rest of the world to mitigate that risk for you.


That is a nice, easy way to exonerate that cop, but it's irrelevant. I think the guy was a POS, I don't think he contributed to society, and to be honest, I don't care what happened to him. Regardless, cops don't have the right to cause your death because you are worthless.


----------



## Wellbuilt (Dec 25, 2020)

todd_xxxx said:


> That is a nice, easy way to exonerate that cop, but it's irrelevant. I think the guy was a POS, I don't think he contributed to society, and to be honest, I don't care what happened to him. Regardless, cops don't have the right to cause your death because you are worthless.


I agree 100% couldent of said it better 👍


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

todd_xxxx said:


> That is a nice, easy way to exonerate that cop, but it's irrelevant. I think the guy was a POS, I don't think he contributed to society, and to be honest, I don't care what happened to him. Regardless, cops don't have the right to cause your death because you are worthless.


I'm not exonerating the cop. I just believe that Floyd played the bigger role in his own demise. He chose his path. He put himself in a position that he didn't have to be in. He deserves most of the blame. But, he's getting none of it. They want to make a martyr out of him. Unfortunately, making a martyr out of scum like him only serves to embolden the like minded.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> I'm not exonerating the cop. I just believe that Floyd played the bigger role in his own demise. He chose his path. He put himself in a position that he didn't have to be in. He deserves most of the blame. But, he's getting none of it. They want to make a martyr out of him. Unfortunately, making a martyr out of scum like him only serves to embolden the like minded.


Just think if he got in the car with no protest and went to booking. He'd be walking around today.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

I think its a really sad situation when the death of a thug with the long criminal history this guy had causes a law enforcment officer a missed day of work, his job, career, or time in prison. Spend some time reading up on this guy, its way more than some money laundering and drugs. 

In this case he is on video resisting several officers trying to put him in the back of the police car. Did the officer use to much force restraining him? Thats a hard call to make. Did the thugs poor health and being under the influence of drugs affect his death? Hard to image it did not. If this was a covid issue his death would be listed as covid related, but for some reason the same thought process does not seem to be applied to his drug use, poor heath, and resulting death. 

3 charges? How did the office do all 3? Seems they are trying to find a charge that will stick and to me that would be worth the case being tossed out. 

From my limited knowledge of what i have read and seen on video I might consider the 2nd degree manslaughter charge, then I would remember the thugs size and actions a few minutes before. 

His walking free is going to depend on being lucky enough to have a juror using logic, being hardheaded, and not willing to let others sway his opinion.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

HDRider said:


> Just think if he got in the car with no protest and went to booking. He'd be walking around today.


With the thugs familiarity with the whole arrest process that is the most accurate statement one can make about the whole situation.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Just think if he got in the car with no protest and went to booking. He'd be walking around today.


Yes.
Same with the fella that got shot, instead of tased.
It's really simple. Cooperate with police. Don't start a fight with them. If you do, there should be no reasonable expectation that it will end well for you.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Redlands Okie said:


> 3 charges? How did the office do all 3? Seems they are trying to find a charge that will stick and to me that would be worth the case being tossed out.


I recall them doing something similar with the Zimmerman trial. They were under so much political pressure to get him for something that the judge, knowing how weak the prosecutions case was, told the jury that they could convict on a lesser charge, if they so desired. BS, IMHO. If you want a murder one conviction, go for it and make your case. Manslaughter? Go for it. But pick one.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> The defense's case relies on the fact that the suspect had health issues, and drugs in his system, and he would have died whether or not the cop was kneeling on his back alternating with kneeling on his neck. I personally believe that if the cop(s) had not done that, George Floyd would not have been just walking down the street and died at that same moment. If he would not have, the cop caused his death.
> 
> I would love to take someone up on doc's challenge that having someone handcuffed behind his back, face down on the concrete with a person on their back does not have their oxygen level diminish. It's an easy thing for anyone to try at home. I work at a hospital, I'll see if I can grab a pulse ox and a volunteer and try it with simulated handcuffs.
> 
> The video does show, with perfect clarity, that the cop's weight was fully on the suspect's neck at various times. I would like to have people try that as well.


You left out the part where he resisted arrest and had to be forcibly restrained.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I have not been actively following the case, but found this on Chauvins previous activity.









Prosecutors: Chauvin knelt on 14-year-old boy’s back


The former Minneapolis police officer charged with murder in the killing of George Floyd knelt on the teen’s back for 17 minutes in a domestic assault call from 2017, according to a court document filed by the office of the Minnesota Attorney General.




www.mprnews.org





The court filing says the child tried to talk with officers about his mother, but they yelled at him to stand up. The officers quickly grabbed him and Chauvin hit the child in the head with his flashlight.

Two seconds later, Chauvin grabbed the boy’s throat and struck him again in the head with the flashlight.

“The child cried out that they were hurting him, and to stop, and called out ‘mom,’” according to the filing.

Chauvin applied a neck restraint, causing the child to temporarily pass out and fall to the ground. The officers placed him in the prone position and handcuffed him behind his back while his mother pleaded with the officers not to kill her son and told her son to stop resisting. 

“About a minute after going to the ground, the child began repeatedly telling the officers that he could not breathe, and his mother told Chauvin to take his knee off her son,” prosecutors wrote. They added that the mother asked Chauvin to take his knee off her son four times because her son couldn’t breathe, but that Chauvin maintained his position and replied that her son, who Chauvin described as 6 feet, 2 inches tall and at least 240 pounds, was “a big guy.” 


Prosecutors say the body camera footage showed Chauvin was kneeling on the 14-year-old boy’s back for a total of 17 minutes despite repeated requests by the teenager to turn him on his back because he couldn't breathe.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> You left out the part where he resisted arrest and had to be forcibly restrained.


Exactly. The situation was made more dangerous for the suspect...by the the suspect.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

doozie said:


> Prosecutors say the body camera footage showed Chauvin was kneeling on the 14-year-old boy’s back for a total of 17 minutes despite repeated requests by the teenager to turn him on his back because he couldn't breathe.


17 minutes? That's longer than Floyd isn't it? And the kid survived?


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> 17 minutes? That's longer than Floyd isn't it? And the kid survived?


Seems excessive...no?

Also, Why would a cop need to continue to restrain a dead man as in Floyd?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

doozie said:


> Seems excessive...no?


Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. I wasn't there.



doozie said:


> Also, Why would a cop need to continue to restrain a dead man as in Floyd?


Again, I don't know. I wasn't there.
Maybe he didn't know/think he was dead.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

It doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. There will be a political conviction in an attempt to head off more rioting.

Courts are supposed to decide, not the mob.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. I wasn't there.
> 
> 
> Again, I don't know. I wasn't there.
> Maybe he didn't know/think he was dead.


Another officer told him he couldn't find a pulse 2 plus minutes before paramedics arrived...I'd say there was no resistance even before that point.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I don't think it matters if he is convicted or not, and if convicted which of the charges he is convicted of, they will riot, they will burn the city, they will loot. I mean nothing says I want change like stealing a new cell phone and Nike tennis shoes.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

doc- said:


> Right....If only the system would work the way it was intended to.
> 
> The wife has been glued to the TV as if she were a jury member...I couldn't help but watch some---
> 
> ...


Dayam. I gotta admit; that was an interesting read. 

I’ve got my own view on what happened and what should happen, but, thankfully, I’m aware of my own militant-libertarian bias, and check it where I can. I haven’t been following the actual trial at all, so that was an interesting fact-based perspective to read. Thanks for it.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Police brutality is a given when you live in a police state. When the social justice warriors dismantle the police as we know them, Chauvin will look like Barney Fife. I think that is the real push here. We have sheriffs saying they won't enforce laws that include second amendment violations, we have police that are elected by localities, and that is a threat to socialism. This is all part of a push for a more centralized and powerful system of policing. 

Look at our former state (now a third rate banana republic). The last governor used his power over police to orchestrate the deadly Charlottesville riot. He created that entire situation, out of thin air, and used the police to corral the warring factions ( that he practically invited) together with each other, until people died and he got the headlines he wanted. No different than the capitol police and that whole mess, Charlottesville was the blueprint for that. Now our blackface wearing governor, "Superwokeman" is making marijuana legal, but only for white liberals. Everybody else with marijuana will be a felon. Can't get stopped for a bad tail light, or the smell of marijuana, no no-knock warrants, but wait, if they think they saw a cell phone in your hand they can pull you over. And if you are a conservative, or a poor minority that lives in a bad neighborhood, and they think you might have a gun and marijuana, they can gun you down regardless.. But stupid liberal people are believing that he is actually legalizing marijuana, so they think the man is great. And stupid conservative people still support police, who are basically the brown shirts at this point.

If anybody is stupid enough to enter a career in law enforcement now, they deserve what they have coming to them. There was a time when I would have passed by a police officer having trouble of some sort, and I would have tried to render assistance, but that time is not now. Napoleonic little siccing dogs for Bolshevik wannabes with too many laws on the books can hoe their own row as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

He will be convicted of something. The mob is just waiting for a verdict to get out into the streets and destroy the town. 

The jury is between a rock and a hard place. Don't convict the policeman - and their town will be vandalized. The jury has to convict him to try to save their town.

The real question is if which verdict is really going to matter to the mob. I don't think it really matters to the mob. They could say the policeman is guilty of murder and will be killed by lethal injection - the mob is still going out to destroy the town.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

HDRider said:


> At the risk of compounding the confusion of the Minneapolis situation; Would Chauvin be on trial if the same event transpired 30 year ago?


30 years ago they could have beat the snot out of him probably without repercussions. Resisting arrest used to justify a beating no matter what color you are.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

HDRider said:


> Just think if he got in the car with no protest and went to booking. He'd be walking around today.


At least we agree on that. But it also proves that you agree that he didn't due of heart disease, he didn't die of an overdose, he died because of the actions of the cop. 

You'll get no disagreement from me that in 99% of cases of police shooting people, if the person just complied, they would not have been shot or killed. That doesn't change the fact that, at some point, if you are subdued, the police have no reason to continue "restraining" you. I would say that point comes sometime after you resisted, and sometime before you are face down, handcuffed, knelt on by one cop, with a half dozen others standing around you, unconscious, and without a pulse.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

MoonRiver said:


> You left out the part where he resisted arrest and had to be forcibly restrained.


So? Once he was restrained, handcuffed, and held down, surrounded by officers, so you need to keep kneeling on his neck, or is the situation under control?


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

HDRider said:


> When was the last time one person burned down a city on purpose?


Think a cow did !


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Your under arrest, put your hands behind your back.
I've heard that before and complied.
Still here today.🤔😳


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Heck yea those cuffs suck!😜🤛☹


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I told one cop tell me
You dont have to cuff me
He said dont matter if you spit on the sidewalk or killed grandma
Your getting cuffed😜😳😊


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

todd_xxxx said:


> ....he didn't due of heart disease, he didn't die of an overdose, he died because of the actions of the cop.


Illogical conclusions-- The prosecution has to (theoretically) prove what he *definitely* died from....The defense only has to show that that isn't 100% clear (reasonable doubt).

In fact, he had high grade CAD AND had measurable levels of amphetamines, known to increase BP and cause cardiac dysrhythmia (sudden death) in his blood....also note that it has been determined by testimony & hard evidence that he took some of the drugs AFTER he was placed in the squad car, just before he started to claim problems with claustrophobia and became extremely agitated, leading to the police restraint in question here.....*We don't know *if he would be alive today had the restraint not occurred. If amphetamine induced dysrhythmia were the cause of death, he may have died suddenly even if he had sat quietly (?with amphetamines' in his system?) in the car.

BTW- I'm not defending the cop (I have my own views on police). I'm defending The Constitution. We want to protect our freedom. We don't want to make it easy to convict anyone on trumped (no pun intended) up charges....Did OJ murder Nicole? Probably. But I'm glad he wasn't convicted based on the evidence, possibly planted, that they produced.

Remember--that could be you or me in the dock when the political SS takes over openly.

BTW- they've determined that the cop did NOT kneel on his neck, only the upper back.

Did he die due to the action of the cop?...Only if we consider the cop in my earlier analogy responsible for the perp jumping off the cliff. My cop didn't push him off on purpose.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

He died of all the forces at work at that point in time. Cop may not have done it alone. Drugs may have not done it alone. Poor health may not have done it alone. Add it all up, and he simply popped. His time on earth came to an end that day, that way. 



barnbilder said:


> When the social justice warriors dismantle the police as we know them, Chauvin will look like Barney Fife.


Your entire post was spot on. I have said the above myself. We are inching toward a new rule, and heavy policing, in manners we can't imagine, are coming with the new boss.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

HDRider said:


> He died of all the forces at work at that point in time. Cop may not have done it alone. Drugs may have not done it alone. Poor health may not have done it alone. Add it all up, and he simply popped. His time on earth came to an end that day, that way.
> 
> 
> Your entire post was spot on. I have said the above myself. We are inching toward a new rule, and heavy policing, in manners we can't imagine, are coming with the new boss.


I agree completely with the second pat of your post, but you're just not catching on in regards the first part--

CAD + amphetamines = sudden death in many cases. Just because that happens while the victim is being restrained does not mean the restraint contributed. It may have happened anyway. Reasonable doubt. Just because the world looks flat doesn't mean it is.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doc- said:


> I agree completely with the second pat of your post, but you're just not catching on in regards the first part--
> 
> CAD + amphetamines = sudden death in many cases. Just because that happens while the victim is being restrained does not mean the restraint contributed. It may have happened anyway. Reasonable doubt. Just because the world looks flat doesn't mean it is.


I will defer to your expertise.

One of the doctors for the prosecution made the statement that Floyd had built up such a high tolerance that his system was not that effected by the level of drugs in his system at the time of his death. Obviously he said what he was paid to say.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

doc- said:


> ...Only if we consider the cop in my earlier analogy responsible for the perp jumping off the cliff. My cop didn't push him off on purpose.


The reason I don't agree with that analogy is simply based on your last sentence. The cop didn't have to kill Floyd on purpose under Minnesota law. Minnesota law differentiates between intentional and unintentional 2nd degree murder. For 3rd degree murder, they only have to prove his death was caused by a dangerous act on the part of the police. Manslaughter only has to show his death was caused by negligence. None of those have to prove intent. Manslaughter is the charge I believe he will be convicted on.



doc- said:


> Remember--that could be you or me in the dock when the political SS takes over openly.
> 
> BTW- they've determined that the cop did NOT kneel on his neck, only the upper back.


My concern is very much that it could be you or I that this affects directly, but I'm looking at it from the other side of things. I'll never be a cop, but I have been arrested. I didn't resist, I got arrested, I went to jail, but regardless, I don't think resisting alone should get you killed.

As far as the kneeling on the neck, I honestly don't care what "they've determined". I watched it myself several times, and I have no doubt whatsoever that I saw him at various times kneeling with his weight directly on the guy's neck.

The cause of death is a point of great contention, and the defense's only hope at this point in my mind.

I'm not doubting that heart disease and drugs can lead to sudden death. I am convinced that had Floyd just been walking down the street, he would not have dropped dead at that moment.

Thanks for being able to have a civil conversation about this. We may not agree in this case, but at least we can have the discussion like adults.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

In the words of the philosopher Bertrand Russell, “fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> So? Once he was restrained, handcuffed, and held down, surrounded by officers, so you need to keep kneeling on his neck, or is the situation under control?


I don't know. Do you?


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't know. Do you?


Yes, I do know. At that point he is under control and doesn't need further restraint. Either that, or you have a half dozen really poorly trained officers. Was that the best contribution you had to the discussion?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> Yes, I do know. At that point he is under control and doesn't need further restraint. Either that, or you have a half dozen really poorly trained officers. Was that the best contribution you had to the discussion?


So you would then do what? Manhandle him into the backseat of the squad car? 

I said I thought Chauvin was guilty of 2nd-degree manslaughter (results from an offender's negligence) which appears to be exactly what this is.

I'm just pointing out your OP seemed to leave out the most important part. Floyd committed a crime and then resisted arrest. Everything seemed to be by the book until Floyd died. The question now is why did he die and what was the role that Chauvin had in the death. So far, to me, it appears to be negligence. 

Did he die because Chauvin had his knee on his throat? Did Chauvin not have his knee on his throat? We know Floyd had enough fentanyl in him to cause death, so did fentanyl kill him? Was it some combination of Floyd's health, fentanyl, and Chauvin's actions?

I personally always start with a not guilty verdict in mind. Based on that, all I have seen so far is convincing evidence that Chauvin was negligent in not providing assistance when one of the other officers couldn't find a pulse. I don't think we know at this point if there was no pulse or if the other was just unable to find it. Chauvin squeezed the fingers at that point and I haven't seen any report on whether he felt a response or not. The evidence seems to point to neglect, but the defense might be able to provide additional evidence to prove otherwise.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Is the purpose of the trial simply retribution?


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

I have not been following ...but I think. No. Why well if our elected officials are trying to do away with police then no charges will do it. Riots will follow. Police will stand down. The military will be sent in...and guns are taken....


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

A couple points here for educational purposes--

Tolerance to a drug is exhibited when increasing doses are needed to attain the desired effect. Repeated use of narcotics are famous for this. Users will continually increase doses to get the desired "buzz" but the drug's effects on the respiratory control centers of the brain don't get tolerant-- so eventually a dose large enough to cause fatal respiratory failure is achieved...In fact, many, if not most cases of OD occur in users have tried to quit, got clean, but then went back to using-- picking up with the large dose they had left off with-- a dose now too large for their newly intolerant system.

Amphetamines don't show that same propensity. Amphetamines are essentially synthetic adrenalin. we all know the effects of adrenalin on a heart-- potentially fatal rapid heat rate/irregular rhythm/ potential for fatal v.fib.

BTW- the defendant weighs only *145* lb--Barney Fife size. ...and today's expert witness (for the defense) stated that studies have been done showing kneeling on a back transfers less than 25% of the weight to the subject-- ~ 35lb we're talkin' about here.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

doc- said:


> A couple points here for educational purposes--
> 
> Tolerance to a drug is exhibited when increasing doses are needed to attain the desired effect. Repeated use of narcotics are famous for this. Users will continually increase doses to get the desired "buzz" but the drug's effects on the respiratory control centers of the brain don't get tolerant-- so eventually a dose large enough to cause fatal respiratory failure is achieved...In fact, many, if not most cases of OD occur in users have tried to quit, got clean, but then went back to using-- picking up with the large dose they had left off with-- a dose now too large for their newly intolerant system.
> 
> ...


Plus the 40 lbs of gear. And I can easily prove that I can put at least 3/4 of my weight on your back or neck if I kneel on it, and again, I personally saw him kneeling with his weight on the guy's neck, so I don't really care what either lawyer argues about that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

todd_xxxx said:


> Plus the 40 lbs of gear. And I can easily prove that I can put at least 3/4 of my weight on your back or neck if I kneel on it, and again, I personally saw him kneeling with his weight on the guy's neck, so I don't really care what either lawyer argues about that.


You appear to have your mind up, and the defense is in their 2nd day.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

HDRider said:


> You appear to have you mind up, and the defense is in their 2nd day.


Nope, just relaying my thoughts on the matter. If the defense proves the cop's actions didn't cause his death, I'm fine with that. But I find it insulting when a lawyer on either side says something didn't happen that I saw with my own eyes. There are lots of grey areas in this whole matter. Whether the cop was kneeling directly on his neck is not one of them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

todd_xxxx said:


> Nope, just relaying my thoughts on the matter. If the defense proves the cop's actions didn't cause his death, I'm fine with that. But I find it insulting when a lawyer on either side says something didn't happen that I saw with my own eyes. There are lots of grey areas in this whole matter. Whether the cop was kneeling directly on his neck is not one of them.


It sounds like all they had to do was play the video, and the jury could decide based solely on that.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> Plus the 40 lbs of gear. And I can easily prove that I can put at least 3/4 of my weight on your back or neck if I kneel on it, and again, I personally saw him kneeling with his weight on the guy's neck, so I don't really care what either lawyer argues about that.


You were there? Tell us more.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

HDRider said:


> It sounds like all they had to do was play the video, and the jury could decide based solely on that.


Is that really what you got from my post? Whether he knelt on his neck is far from the only thing being decided in this trial. 

You've already given your thoughts above, so accordingly, there was no reason for a trial at all. It was just his time to go.

It sounds like you either a) didn't watch the video, or b) watched it and disagree that the cop ever knelt on his neck.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

MoonRiver said:


> You were there? Tell us more.


You seem incapable of simple logic. What did I say that I have have needed to be there to know? That his gear weighed 40 lbs? It was in the trial. That I can put 3/4 of my weigh on you if I kneel on you? Easily proven. That he knelt on the guy's neck? The video has been spread all over forever, and you are perfectly able to watch it yourself.

Your posts are like mainstream liberal media. They don't ever really say anything, they are just annoying little sound bites with no substance and do nothing but detract from real conversation.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

todd_xxxx said:


> Is that really what you got from my post? Whether he knelt on his neck is far from the only thing being decided in this trial.


You seem to indicate that is what killed him, so that is the only evidence you needed. Yes, that is what I got from your post. Do you think the kneeling on his neck killed him or not?



todd_xxxx said:


> You've already given your thoughts above, so accordingly, there was no reason for a trial at all. It was just his time to go.


What I said was all the events combined caused him to expire. I think if he simply got in the car and went to the station he would have lived beyond the day he died. There is no way to know that. Nothing the prosecution has said proves he was killed by the officer. Sure, it may have contributed to it, but again, taken in total, all the things combined (stress, health, drugs) in the 10 minutes of him being down is what killed him. Not one singe thing. Simply my opinion.



todd_xxxx said:


> It sounds like you either a) didn't watch the video, or b) watched it and disagree that the cop ever knelt on his neck.


I watched it more times than I can count. I do not have your level of certainty that the weight on his neck killed him.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

I didn't say that killed him, I said he knelt on his neck. People have repeated over and over that he didn't, he knelt on his back. That is bull****. Anyone that says he didn't kneel on his neck is being disingenuous at best.

I think, as you said, a combination of things killed him. But what I believe is that putting your weight on the back or especially the neck of a handcuffed, prone, unconscious person for 3 minutes after he lost consciousness absolutely shows callous disregard for that person. That, coupled with the fact that he didn't get off him and offer medical aid or allow anyone else to do so, including the EMT that was pleading with him to do just that, caused his death. And ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. The jury will decide and I'd like to think they will decide based on the evidence presented, not on fear of rioting or any other reason. If they decide he isn't guilty, I have no issue with that. If they find he is guilty, I have no issue with that either.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

todd_xxxx said:


> If they decide he isn't guilty, I have no issue with that. If they find he is guilty, I have no issue with that either.


Agree 100%


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

todd_xxxx said:


> You seem incapable of simple logic. What did I say that I have have needed to be there to know? That his gear weighed 40 lbs? It was in the trial. That I can put 3/4 of my weigh on you if I kneel on you? Easily proven. That he knelt on the guy's neck? The video has been spread all over forever, and you are perfectly able to watch it yourself.
> 
> Your posts are like mainstream liberal media. They don't ever really say anything, they are just annoying little sound bites with no substance and do nothing but detract from real conversation.


I personally saw him kneeling ...

If you saw it personally, doesn't that imply you saw it in person?


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

todd_xxxx said:


> Plus the 40 lbs of gear. And I can easily prove that I can put at least 3/4 of my weight on your back or neck if I kneel on it, and again, I personally saw him kneeling with his weight on the guy's neck, so I don't really care what either lawyer argues about that.


a) 40 lb of gear? Where was his full field pack?

2] The defense witness quoted 2 dz actual studies that showed kneeling with one knee puts less than 23% of the weight on the victim and these studies also measured pulse oximetry with hands cuffed behind the back-- no fall in O levels.

c) You saw him put his knee on the neck? Funny, but the prosecution has conceded that the knee was only on the scapular area of the back....There's probably 2 million people who claim they were there when Babe Ruth pointed to center field-- Wrigley Field had an official attendance of 40,000 that day...We won't bother mentioning that you can't strangle someone by squeezing the only the back of the neck.

Reasonable doubt about the cause of death which has been determined to be "Unknown" by the Medical Examiners.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Will Derek Chavin be convicted?
It used to be that morbid curiosity was the reason we followed events such as this.
Today, there are a lot of entities that want you to root for one or the other; not because it sells magazines or clicks, but because it forms tribes and is a more effective tool for a purpose than traditional activism.
Please don't replay the justice and police brutality are important issues record. Consider how many relationships have been damaged due to the likes of facebook and twitter when normally good decent people now hate each other over something they cannot control and have no responsibility for. 
What happened the day Mr. Floyd died is real. Much of the rest following behind is constructed.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

doc- said:


> a) 40 lb of gear? Where was his full field pack?
> 
> 2] The defense witness quoted 2 dz actual studies that showed kneeling with one knee puts less than 23% of the weight on the victim and these studies also measured pulse oximetry with hands cuffed behind the back-- no fall in O levels.
> 
> ...


40 lbs of gear was what I read, I didn't weight him myself. 

Doc, do you need an actual study to tell you whether you can kneel on someone's back with more than 23% of your weight? I think we, and everyone else, knows it's very possible, and very easy. In fact, it's easy to kneel on someone with more than your bodyweight. Swing by any Brazilian Jiu jitsu school and ask someone to demonstrate the "knee on belly" position. You can do the same thing on someone's back. A trained person can pin you like a bug. I'm not saying that's what the cop did, but to say you can only kneel on someone with 23% of your weight is simply false. All this discussion about the amount of weight that can be applied could be done away with by a two minute demonstration. 

As far as kneeling on his neck, anyone can watch the video and see it themselves. When I said I saw it personally, I can see how my awkward wording made it sound like meant I was there. I was not. I mean I watched the video myself, rather than listening to people tell me what was on it. My apologies for that confusion, if indeed people didn't know what I meant. 

Also, if you kneel on a person's neck when their head is turned to the side, you aren't kneeling on the back of their neck. 

Either way, going over the same things over and over is exhausting. He will be convicted or he won't. My life won't change either way.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I always figured the cop recognized what was happening and knew the guy was going to die anyway and just decided to set up his family with the Obama money. After seeing people get killed by the governor in New York, and seeing people get killed by our governor in Charlottesville, I realize that that is where we are at now. There is probably cash available, through various nefarious channels, to make things happen that push the right narrative.


----------



## bamabear44 (Jan 30, 2018)

He should be convicted.... Oh and I got a question, does a taser look and feel like a big police gun??


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bamabear44 said:


> He should be convicted.... Oh and I got a question, does a taser look and feel like a big police gun??


We need more infallible cops


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

bamabear44 said:


> He should be convicted.... Oh and I got a question, does a taser look and feel like a big police gun??


A whole different thread, but I can tell you in the midst of a violent, chaotic, adrenaline-fueled incident, it's very likely that you wouldn't "feel" anything in your hand.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

todd_xxxx said:


> A whole different thread, but I can tell you in the midst of a violent, chaotic, adrenaline-fueled incident, it's very likely that you wouldn't "feel" anything in your hand.


The perfesser assigned to our group for my psychiatry rotation as a student was a published researcher in the field of "uniformed groups." After extensive research, his conclusion was that anyone who wanted to be a cop shouldn't be allowed to be a cop. .....

...these emergency situations that the police find themselves are perfect examples where the saying-- don't judge anyone until you've walked a mile in their shoes-- applies. The courts want to hold everyone to a standard as if 100% perfection is attainable....It never is and we have to make allowances for that reality.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

doc- said:


> The perfesser assigned to our group for my psychiatry rotation as a student was a published researcher in the field of "uniformed groups." After extensive research, his conclusion was that anyone who wanted to be a cop shouldn't be allowed to be a cop. .....
> 
> ...these emergency situations that the police find themselves are perfect examples where the saying-- don't judge anyone until you've walked a mile in their shoes-- applies. The courts want to hold everyone to a standard as if 100% perfection is attainable....It never is and we have to make allowances for that reality.


I agree with that 100%. I've never been a cop, but I was in a position where violence was commonplace. Those situations are so chaotic that no one that hasnt been there had any idea. In one of those situations I was stabbed twice and never felt it, had no idea. Adrenaline dump does interesting things.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The trial isn't going well for the defense. Unique to this trial, there seems to be no "blue wall" supporting the defendant. I can't recall ever seeing that before.

Yesterday was strange. The defense was trying to establish that Floyd might have died from carbon monoxide poisoning, or at least it was a contributing factor in his death. Aside from there being no foundation for that claim, I'm unsure how that might help the defense. After all, Floyd didn't put his head near the tailpipe voluntarily, it was forced there by the defendant.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

The thing that makes this case different, and more interesting to me, is that relatively speaking, this _isn't _one of those chaotic, split second, "holy ****" moments where the cop has almost no time to make an assessment that can cost lives if it is made incorrectly. This was a long, drawn out situation where there was lots of time to reassess, make adjustments, ramp up or down the level of force. It's entirely different than than episode of the cop shooting the person rather than using the taser.


----------



## sharkerbaby (Jan 15, 2016)

todd_xxxx said:


> Doc, do you need an actual study to tell you whether you can kneel on someone's back with more than 23% of your weight? I think we, and everyone else, knows it's very possible, and very easy. In fact, it's easy to kneel on someone with more than your bodyweight. Swing by any Brazilian Jiu jitsu school and ask someone to demonstrate the "knee on belly" position. You can do the same thing on someone's back. A trained person can pin you like a bug. I'm not saying that's what the cop did, but to say you can only kneel on someone with 23% of your weight is simply false. All this discussion about the amount of weight that can be applied could be done away with by a two minute demonstration.


I don't have enough knowledge to make an assessment or state an opinion on this aspect of the discussion one way or the other but I'm curious why "science and data" doesn't apply here? We have been preached at for the last year+ that science and data is the "be all, end all" and that once the studies have been done and a conclusion reached then the matter is put in the category of known facts never to be questioned again. So why then is that not the standard here?



todd_xxxx said:


> As far as kneeling on his neck, anyone can watch the video and see it themselves. When I said I saw it personally, I can see how my awkward wording made it sound like meant I was there. I was not. I mean I watched the video myself, rather than listening to people tell me what was on it. My apologies for that confusion, if indeed people didn't know what I meant.


I'm sorry to question you again but prosecutors don't concede such an important aspect of a case just to move things along. This particular aspect seems to be rather pivotal to some (i.e. you) and might very well sway a juror two because yes, to the layman, neck vs back sounds quite a bit more reckless and prone to cause greater harm. Yet here, the prosecutor took that particular anvil off the table. If you are correct, all the prosecutor would need to do is show the video, better yet, stop it and zoom in on the neck area and eureka, ALL would see it was his neck, since according to you, it is so obviously apparent.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

sharkerbaby said:


> I don't have enough knowledge to make an assessment or state an opinion on this aspect of the discussion one way or the other but I'm curious why "science and data" doesn't apply here? We have been preached at for the last year+ that science and data is the "be all, end all" and that once the studies have been done and a conclusion reached then the matter is put in the category of known facts never to be questioned again. So why then is that not the standard here?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to question you again but prosecutors don't concede such an important aspect of a case just to move things along. This particular aspect seems to be rather pivotal to some (i.e. you) and might very well sway a juror two because yes, to the layman, neck vs back sounds quite a bit more reckless and prone to cause greater harm. Yet here, the prosecutor took that particular anvil off the table. If you are correct, all the prosecutor would need to do is show the video, better yet, stop it and zoom in on the neck area and eureka, ALL would see it was his neck, since according to you, it is so obviously apparent.


No one ever insinuated than science and data doesn't matter. Until I read the actual studies mentioned, I don't know what they measured, how they did it or anything else. I can tell you that anyone that says they can't kneel on something and shift more or less weight off of that limb is lying. Here is a very easy experiment. Go get a bathroom scale and kneel on it. Put most of the weight on the kneeling leg, and read the scale. See if it is 23% of your weight. Now lean your body a little and shift your weight to the leg you aren't kneeling on. Let me guess, it's still exactly 23% of your weight. Now kneel on the scale with both legs. I'm positive that the scale now reads 46% of your weight.

I never heard the prosecution concede that. I didn't hear the whole trial, but short of reading it here, I haven't heard that they conceded it.








Here is a picture, that I'm sure the whole world has seen of the cop kneeling on him. Can anyone look at that and say "Nope, he isn't kneeling on his neck"? 

Here is another one when he is looking around.









You may choose to think that area directly under the cop's knee is the man's back. I disagree.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

The one video I saw it appeared the cop was kneeling on Floyd’s back nearly all the time, and lifted and readjusted his knee frequently to move it back to the back area when it would slip forward. But I am not in the case so I know very little.

it doesn’t appear there is 40lbs of gear on the cop in that pic, but I don’t know I didn’t weigh anything.

it appears in your pics and from what I remember of the video that the cop was generally on his other knee and rocked backwards some, only applied more weight as Floyd struggled and less weight when he didn’t.

frequently there was air space between the street and Floyd’s neck, as less pressure was applied or either man moved.

In all, there is some doubt in my mind that Floyd was ever choked by any of this. There was an ongoing struggle and at moments in time the weight and knee shifted, but it was off his neck most of the time, the cops weight appeared relatively low on the knee most of the time, Floyd appeared to have room around his neck most of the time save very brief seconds as both men shifted and struggled.

but, I wasn’t there, I’m not in the court, and I’m not able to judge any of this in any meaningful way.

at this time in my opinion Floyd was possible to breathe 95% of the time that I saw on one video of the incident. That may not let the cop off the hook entirely in my mind, but it seems an important part and would lessen the charges greatly in my opinion at this time.

how it looked to me from the little I have seen. I appreciate the fairly calm discussion on this, and that there are different points of view I understand.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

rambler said:


> The one video I saw it appeared the cop was kneeling on Floyd’s back nearly all the time, and lifted and readjusted his knee frequently to move it back to the back area when it would slip forward. But I am not in the case so I know very little.
> 
> it doesn’t appear there is 40lbs of gear on the cop in that pic, but I don’t know I didn’t weigh anything.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't disagree with anything you said. I'm just tired of people denying that he ever knelt on his neck when it's pretty plain to me that he did. Beyond that, it's in the jury's hands. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

bamabear44 said:


> Oh and I got a question, does a taser look and feel like a big police gun??


Actually, the type that police carry in a holster on a duty belt, feel exactly like a gun. That is why when I was a Deputy I refused to carry one. This same mistake has happened before and will happen again. Under stress, in the middle of a fight, your fine motor skills disappear, you get tunnel vision, and your actions revert to muscle memory. If your muscle memory draws a gun when it should of drawn a taser, you may be shooting before you realize your mistake. I have been in gun fights, and there were times I didn't remember drawing my gun or pulling the trigger. I remembered seeing the front sight, and seeing the other guy fall. We are talking about tenths of a second here. They used to teach officers not to draw unless there was no choice but to shoot, to stop a threat. Now they have put taser on a cops gunbelt, and when muscle memory take over bad things are going to happen.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The jury will see and hear testimony and vidoes that have not been released to the public. Without seeing or hearing that additional testimony I have no idea how it will all play out.

Anyone who does not believe there was a knee/leg directly on Floyd's neck should watch the close-ups in this video;


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I don't know if this cop will be convicted or not. I do know that there are a lot of people who don't care how it turns out. Those Nikes and flat screen tv's aren't going to steal themselves.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

sharkerbaby said:


> I don't have enough knowledge to make an assessment or state an opinion on this aspect of the discussion one way or the other but I'm curious why "science and data" doesn't apply here? We have been preached at for the last year+ that science and data is the "be all, end all" ....


Only when "the science" fits "The Narrative." Cf- the data behind GW or The Official recommendations on CoViD vs the data.



todd_xxxx said:


> * Go get a bathroom scale and kneel on it.* Put most of the weight on the kneeling leg, and read the scale. See if it is 23% of your weight. Now lean your body a little and shift your weight to the leg you aren't kneeling on. Let me guess, it's still exactly 23% of your weight. Now kneel on the scale with both legs. I'm positive that the scale now reads 46% of your weight.


Have you tried it?

In regards the photo== Note that the cop has weight on one knee on the victim, one on the ground and two feet on the ground. Weight born on 4 points.

If we look at a picture of a basketball player in mid-air, how do we know if he's on the way up or the way down? Your picture may represent a point where the cop was shifting weight and no weight at all was on the guy, maybe not even touching him a that point. ...They went over this frame by frame and there was little support for "weight on neck" interpretation.

In regards the effect of weight on the back vs breathing-- Ever play "African American pile" as a kid? 12 guys piled on you and you can still breathe.

As I said earlier-- the prosecution has to PROVE that the cop's actions killed the guy before the defendant is sent to prison for 40 yrs... . The defense only has to show that MAYBE it was something else.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

doc- said:


> The defense only has to show that MAYBE it was something else.


Like carbon monoxide, which is causing the judge to threaten a mistrial


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doc- said:


> The defense only has to show that MAYBE it was something else.


The defense has to convince at least 1 juror that maybe it was something else and then get them to vote not guilty.

Of course, we were taught it was the other way around. Chauvin is supposed to be innocent until proved guilty, but he is already guilty and the defense is trying to prove him innocent.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

My sole input on this matter is when someone states verbally and audibly "I can't breathe." they are proving that they can, indeed, breathe.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> My sole input on this matter is when someone states verbally and audibly "I can't breathe." they are proving that they can, indeed, breathe.


They used that a lot


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> They used that a lot


I have not watched/heard one second of the trial. I believe that I would rather learn to juggle steak knives.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> I have not watched/heard one second of the trial. I believe that I would rather learn to juggle steak knives.


I cut myself so, I had to sit and watch a pretty good chunk of it. I am a sick puppy, I actually like to watch attorneys work.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> Actually, the type that police carry in a holster on a duty belt, feel exactly like a gun. That is why when I was a Deputy I refused to carry one. This same mistake has happened before and will happen again. Under stress, in the middle of a fight, your fine motor skills disappear, you get tunnel vision, and your actions revert to muscle memory. If your muscle memory draws a gun when it should of drawn a taser, you may be shooting before you realize your mistake. I have been in gun fights, and there were times I didn't remember drawing my gun or pulling the trigger. I remembered seeing the front sight, and seeing the other guy fall. We are talking about tenths of a second here. They used to teach officers not to draw unless there was no choice but to shoot, to stop a threat. Now they have put taser on a cops gunbelt, and when muscle memory take over bad things are going to happen.


I still expect better from law enforcement.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

But this all didn't have to happen.

If George would have just got into the police car peacefully - he would have been taken to the police station and booked. Probably would have been out the next day. George can't be let completely off the hook on this - as his actions created consequences. (Consequences that shouldn't have happened to the point that they did, but consequences.)

Much like Daunte Wright. He was in the process of being arrested - when he decided to jump into his car and drive off. He would also be alive today if he just would have let the police arrest him - instead of trying to drive off. Again - his action created a consequence. (Again - a messed up consequence where the police pulled their gun instead of a taser which resulted in a death.) But Daunte did play a part in this.

It's ironic how the media play up all of these police shootings and such. But if you listen to the police, do what they say, and don't resist arrest or try to get away - there would be no media story.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

doc- said:


> Only when "the science" fits "The Narrative." Cf- the data behind GW or The Official recommendations on CoViD vs the data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You haven't really answered the question, so let me ask clearly. Do you believe that you cannot put more than 23% of your weight on someone by kneeling on them? If you do believe that, I'm happy to show you that I can put a bathroom scale on something roughly human shaped and put far more than that. In fact, if I'm allowed to hold onto the "person", I can put more than my bodyweight on them. Easily. It's done in judo and jui jitsu classes every day. 

As far as the kneeling, you keep, moving the goal post. You said he didn't kneel on Floyd's neck. After I post a picture of him doing just that, you say he has one knee on the victim (good word choice btw) but you still won't admit it's on his neck. Now the question isn't whether he knelt on his neck, it's how hard. 

Either way, I guess we'll both find out soon enough. Closing arguments start Monday.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Hiro said:


> My sole input on this matter is when someone states verbally and audibly "I can't breathe." they are proving that they can, indeed, breathe.


in the one video I watched, Floyd became agitated and started saying I can’t breathe while he was in the back of the police car and no one was near his head, neck, chest. He said he was claustrophobic and didn’t want to be in the back of the car. The whole I can’t breathe thing appears to have nothing at all to do with him being kneeled on or in any way choked. It was a nearly delirious type of outbursts of someone very agitated about getting locked up.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I'll let the jury decide how this all turns out. I will opine that what I see following is that:
1. More nuts will continue to challenge the police by doing stupid things.
2. Police will become more cautious and fearful by nuts doing No.1.
3. No sane person will have any desire to become a police officer.
4. Less qualified people will be accepted as police officers .
The problem will worsen until other, more pertinent/underlying issues are concentrated on.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Like carbon monoxide, which is causing the judge to threaten a mistrial


As I understand it-- the prosecution withheld the blood monoxide levels from the defense and only tried to enter them into evidence for their cross-examination after the point was brought up by the defense. That's when the judge threatened to declare a miss-trial.....That's also why I'm in favor of the death penalty in principle but not in practice-- prosecutors are notoriously devious and unscrupulous as they seek to advance their own careers. In IL the death penalty was put on hold when half (!!) the cases of guys on death row were found to be innocent after DNA evidence became available.



todd_xxxx said:


> You haven't really answered the question, so let me ask clearly. Do you believe that you cannot put more than 23% of your weight on someone by kneeling on them? If you do believe that, I'm happy to show you that I can put a bathroom scale on something roughly human shaped and put far more than that. In fact, if I'm allowed to hold onto the "person", I can put more than my bodyweight on them. Easily. It's done in judo and jui jitsu classes every day.


I answered you above-- you can only put your full weight on one knee if you balance on one knee. If you can do that on a struggling adversary, you belong in the circus. If you have four points of contact with the ground, then theoretically you have roughly 25% of weight on each contact point. The studies the cited showed that was also true by "lab" experiments.

The picture you posted shows the victims neck behind the cop's knee obscuring it. From that angle and distance, we can't tell if the knee is on the neck, or hovering over it or in front of it. As I said earlier, they went over the films frame by frame and from several different angles and concluded there was no significant time when the neck was involved_..._.Argue with the lawyers about it. They've conceded the point already.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

In case anybody has never seen Chris Rock's educational video on what not to do when arrested, this 4 minute vid is well worth a watch. WARNING-- this vid is politically incorrect. Liberals may need to take an extra session with their therapists this week if they view it.
Chris Rock Be Polite to Police & Respect Law - Bing video


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I had to watch a video with Chris Rock! He is hillarious!
Can you imagine the outrage if a white person said that? He has some very valid points. I wish more people would listen to him.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gilberte said:


> 1. More nuts will continue to challenge the police by doing stupid things.
> 2. Police will become more cautious and fearful by nuts doing No.1.
> 3. No sane person will have any desire to become a police officer.
> 4. Less qualified people will be accepted as police officers .


1. An ever increasing number, yepper - Certain cultures seem to promote it, excuse it, make heroes and martyrs out of the most egregious 
2. I am wondering if police aren't freaked out now. They can't win, are on edge and making mistakes, second guessing their every move
3. Without question
4. By necessity, see number 3


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Michael W. Smith said:


> George can't be let completely off the hook on this


But George Floyd wasn't let completely off the hook, he paid the ultimate price. What more do you want to do to him?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> But George Floyd wasn't let completely off the hook, he paid the ultimate price. What more do you want to do to him?


He could be used as an example of what NOT TO DO, but instead your people use him as a martyr and a weapon against law and order


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Chauvin has been charged with three crimes: second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
> 
> 
> *Second-Degree Murder. *This can arise in four different ways: (1) intentionally killing someone, but without premeditation (and without any aggravating factors that might make it first-degree murder), (2) killing someone unintentionally, but while committing a drive-by shooting, (3) killing someone unintentionally, but while using violence to commit a felony, (4) killing someone unintentionally, but while trying to injure that person, if that person has a restraining order against the offender. Second-degree murder can carry a maximum sentence of 40 years.
> ...


After reviewing MN law, I think third-degree murder is the best fit. Chauvin acted with complete indifference to whether George Floyd might die.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> He could be used as an example of what NOT TO DO, but instead your people use him as a martyr and a weapon against law and order


.That statement is getting too close to blaming the victim. It will be remembered as a cautionary tale of what the police must not do. Even Chauvin's fellow police officers have turned their backs in him.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> .That statement is getting too close to blaming the victim. It will be remembered as a cautionary tale of what the police must not do. Even Chauvin's fellow police officers have turned their backs in him.


You perverted the message

He is culpable. He is a victim of his own life choices.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> .That statement is getting too close to blaming the victim. It will be remembered as a cautionary tale of what the police must not do. Even Chauvin's fellow police officers have turned their backs in him.


George Floyd is a victim of his own actions, long before he died.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Great minds, etc. etc.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Nevada said:


> .That statement is getting too close to blaming the victim. It will be remembered as a cautionary tale of what the police must not do. Even Chauvin's fellow police officers have turned their backs in him.


you see Floyd as a victim? Then you already have the case tried and done in your mind.

that’s fair enough, many of us likely have at least a strong opinion.

was he a victim of himself that day?

I hear a lot about him consuming extra drugs to conceal them from the cops when they came up to his car. Is that something from the court records, or is that speculation from past actions when he did so in previous confrontations?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambler said:


> Then you already have the case tried and done in your mind.


Well, the case has already been tried. All that's left is the verdict and sentencing.

I didn't see much in the way of an alternative theory for George Floyd's death. The several medical experts who took the stand saw things in various ways but they all agreed that George Floyd died at the hands of Chauvin, and that Floyd would not have died that day if it weren't for being restrained in the manner that he was.

Since there was no plausible alternative theory offered by the defense I can't help but wonder why Chauvin's lawyer went through with the trial. Without a solid defense his lawyer should have been looking for a deal. I didn't see anything in that trial to suggest that Chauvin shouldn't be held criminally negligent in George Floyd's death.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I still expect better from law enforcement.


Of course you do. At the end of the day officers are just people, like the rest of us. So, expect in one hand and crap in the other. Let me know which one fills up first.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> At the end of the day officers are just people, like the rest of us.


Cops are all just people, but people who have a lot of power. They can use deadly force for reasons that would land an ordinary citizen in prison. They have the power to lawfully restrain and arrest,. They can take property from virtually anyone for any reason if they call it evidence. They're not required to obey traffic laws in certain situations. In some states they can even commit people to mental institutions.

We expect a lot from cops because they are entrusted with a lot.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> They can use deadly force for reasons that would land an ordinary citizen in prison.


No they can't. They must be able to show a reason for their actions just like anybody else. Any private citizen has just as much authority to make an arrest as a peace officer. The only difference is that those in authority don't want people to know this.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> In some states they can even commit people to mental institutions.


No they can't. They can detain them, and take them before a judge. The judge makes the decision. I know this because I have done it.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> They have the power to lawfully restrain and arrest,.


Yes, just like any private citizen who observes a crime.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> for any reason if they call it evidence.


Not even close. They must be able to show probable cause, and then be able to articulate that reason in court.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I didn't see anything in that trial to suggest that Chauvin shouldn't be held criminally negligent in George Floyd's death.


You are right, and he will be. The officer made a lawful arrest, he used as much force as necessary to effect the arrest. And then he exercised very poor judgment, by not putting his prisoner in a patrol car as soon as he was cuffed.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

rambler said:


> I hear a lot about him consuming extra drugs to conceal them from the cops when they came up to his car. Is that something from the court records, or is that speculation from past actions when he did so in previous confrontations?


Apparently pills that were not intact were found in the back seat of the squad car. They looked like they had been bitten and Floyd's DNA was found on them (ie- he had bitten them.) They think that he may have actually tried to hide them by inserting them rectally (I missed the evidence for that)--- rectal application would have made absorption into his blood much more rapid, so his new agitation after being placed in the car may be attributed to that...and lend support to the hypothesis that his death was due to amphetamine induced dysrhythmia &/or heat failure.



Nevada said:


> Since there was no plausible alternative theory offered by the defense...


Plausible alternatives were offered but poorly argued. I felt sorry for the defense lawyer on his cross-exam of prosecution witnesses-- He beat around the bush, being on the right tract to tear down their opinions, but obviously had a lack of medical knowledge to adequately do the job...It has already been suggested that Chauvin may qualify for re-trial based on the incompetency of his lawyer.

Based on the evidence I've heard in watching the trial, here's my take (remember, any good opinion has to account for ALL the evidence.

Post mortem exam revealed (1) NO evidence of trauma-- no bruising; no damage to skeleton
2) No evidence of strangulation-- no foreign bodies in airway; no damage to pharynx/larynx/trachea = no way strangulation was involved.

3) no infarct of brain or heart --does not prove there was no physiological pathology caused by, say hypoxia leading to seizure & or cardiac dysrhythmia.

4) high grade CAD-- increases likelihood of fatal cardiac dysrhythmia when stressed with increased cardiac demand from exercise or the influence of increased adrenergic tone (anxiety/effort/amphetamines)

5) hypertensive cardiomyopathy-- cardiac hypertrophy (thickened heart muscle) caused by chronic hi BP-- This also leads to increased oxygen demand and decreased cardiac output when stressed by exercise/increased adrenergic tone-- more likely to go into failure or dysrhythmia.

6) (...and this is VERY significant and ignored by the defense)-- pulmonary edema (!) ie- he was in heart failure. That means his heart was not able to keep up with the demands the body was making for more blood flow (oxygen). His thickened heart made the oxygen demand higher than a normal subject would have experienced under similar conditions. Amphetamine use would increase that oxygen demand even further His is clogged arteries made it harder to supply that demand....

Note that normal subjects don't go into heat failure under the duress of exercise or anxiety.

The only part I don't get is why did Chauvin continue to subdue him after he had finished resisting for so long, and why didn't the other goofy cops take charge and change things. Chauvin has the excuse that from his position above/behind the victim, he couldn't tell he wasn't breathing anymore.

From my favorite movie PeeWee's Great Adventure-- "First we stab him. Then we shoot him. Then we hang him, and then we kill him!"


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Doc> The only part I don't get is why did Chauvin continue to subdue him after he had finished resisting for so long, and why didn't the other goofy cops take charge and change things. Chauvin has the excuse that from his position above/behind the victim, he couldn't tell he wasn't breathing anymore.

And in my limited following of this deal that is where he is liable for some sort of neglect.

Living 90 miles away from that deal, I am jaded by a very poor governor, very poor mayor, and a state procicutor that was removed from his previous job because of allegations of abusing women - now he is head of law in Minnesota of course! There was a concerted effort by these people to mislead this case from the beginning.

I just no longer trust any of these people.

and so it becomes difficult to have any kind of neutral view of the circus.

it becomes more of a vote for or against law and order, rather than about one cop or one drug user.

im sure we all have biases that surface.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I also live in the Peoples Democratic Republic of MN. Even the slanted local news reported that the defense called witnesses that contradicted the prosecution witnesses. Only the jury will decide if there is enough reasonable doubt to prevent them from finding Chauvin guilty of murder. Speculation by us is just a waste of oxygen. That said, let me speculate that, at the least, Chauvin is guilty of not providing first aid when Floyd stopped breathing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> No they can't. They must be able to show a reason for their actions just like anybody else. Any private citizen has just as much authority to make an arrest as a peace officer. The only difference is that those in authority don't want people to know this.


Police can shoot at a felony suspect trying to escape capture, but a private citizen can only shoot in self defense. A las Vegas man learned that the hard way.

A man heard some noise coming from his driveway. Upon checking, he found two men in the process of stealing his pickup truck. The man ran into his house to retrieve his gun. As he returned to the driveway he saw the two men driving away in his truck. He fired his gun, wounding at least one of the truck thieves. When the police arrived they arrested the thieves, and also arrested the truck owner for assault with a deadly weapon.

The idea was that the truck thieves didn't pose a threat to the truck owner, since they were driving away. However, the police are authorized to use deadly force to prevent a felony suspect from evading arrest.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nimrod said:


> Chauvin is guilty of not providing first aid when Floyd stopped breathing.


That's an understatement. Chauvin didn't even get off of Floyd right away after paramedics arrived.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

All I know for a fact is that I would have to leave the state and change my name after serving on that jury. Just think about it, no police officer will want to respond to your calls if you vote guilty. BLM will be crying for your blood if you vote not-guilty. Those jurors have my admiration no matter which way they vote.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Cops are all just people, but people who have a lot of power. They can use deadly force for reasons that would land an ordinary citizen in prison. They have the power to lawfully restrain and arrest,. They can take property from virtually anyone for any reason if they call it evidence. They're not required to obey traffic laws in certain situations. In some states they can even commit people to mental institutions.
> 
> We expect a lot from cops because they are entrusted with a lot.


Nevada's post is shorter so I quoted it instead of all the arguments otherwise.

Cops have lawyers on retainer, if they shoot someone they go through an internal affairs review which decides if the case should go to normal court. If you shoot someone, even if you have reasonable fear for your life, you are the one on trial. You need to lawyer up, preferably before making your first statement.

There are many stories about people, who were held by normal citizens, later suing the citizens who held them and winning an unbelievable amount of money.

Cops can take your stuff without going through legal channels, even if you have done nothing wrong. It's called "civil forfeiture". If your stuff is taken by the police it can cost more than the stuff is worth to go through the courts and get it back. If you are arrested with cash on you, in most cases you will never see that cash again.

Traffic laws, cops don't have to obey traffic laws. If you hit a cop that is violating a traffic law and does not have lights or siren running, you are at fault and have to pay to have their car repaired. Even if a police car hits your legally parked car, you are at fault. Might not be the law in every state, but that is the law in Ohio.

Police can put anyone in a mental institution for a 72 hour or longer hold, without going through the courts. It's called a "pink slip". Once you have been committed for the 72 hour hold, even if it is later found to be unwarranted, you can never own a gun. I know someone, actually a couple people, to whom this has happened. But again, your state may he different.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

^^^ A lawyer once said to me "We're nit talking about justice here. We're talking about The Law."

....Those who should have known and told him are not on trial because that would be harder to prove and not sensational enough.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

doozie said:


> Another officer told him he couldn't find a pulse 2 plus minutes before paramedics arrived...I'd say there was no resistance even before that point.


I believe it was that officer's first day on the job. I can't find a pulse is not the same as there is no pulse, especially from a brand new officer in the heat of what was happening.

The key information we may never know is at that point, Chauvin squeezed Floyd's fingers. If he got a response, then Floyd was still alive.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> After reviewing MN law, I think third-degree murder is the best fit. Chauvin acted with complete indifference to whether George Floyd might die.


So did George Floyd.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Police can shoot at a felony suspect trying to escape capture, but a private citizen can only shoot in self defense. A las Vegas man learned that the hard way.
> 
> A man heard some noise coming from his driveway. Upon checking, he found two men in the process of stealing his pickup truck. The man ran into his house to retrieve his gun. As he returned to the driveway he saw the two men driving away in his truck. He fired his gun, wounding at least one of the truck thieves. When the police arrived they arrested the thieves, and also arrested the truck owner for assault with a deadly weapon.
> 
> The idea was that the truck thieves didn't pose a threat to the truck owner, since they were driving away. However, the police are authorized to use deadly force to prevent a felony suspect from evading arrest.


I have been a peace officer in three different states, in none of those jurisdictions is a peace officer justified in shooting unless he or someone else is in imminent danger of death or serious injury. He is not allowed to shoot to prevent a felon from escape.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> . It's called "civil forfeiture"


If they take your stuff through Civil Forfeiture, that is legal channels.


Danaus29 said:


> Cops have lawyers on retainer, if they shoot someone they go through an internal affairs review which decides if the case should go to normal cour


If an officer is involved in a fatal shooting, they become a suspect in a homicide investigation. If they are found to be at fault in that investigation, then their case will be turned over to internal affairs. 



Danaus29 said:


> There are many stories about people, who were held by normal citizens, later suing the citizens who held them and winning an unbelievable amount of money


Loosing a case in civil court has nothing to do with legal or illegal. Even if they had broken no laws, a civil jury can hold them responsible. In civil court you are not found guilty, or not guilty. They determine if you may be held responsible or not responsible. Often when the police make a lawful arrest. they are later sued in civil court and loose. Then their agency is ordered to may an unbelievable amount of money for some imagined injustice. A criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, while a civil case need only be proved by a preponderance of evidence. Or, whatever they can talk the judge or jury into.

Citizens may make an arrest, and use however much force as necessary to effect that arrest, if they witness a felony. One of the differences between a citizen and an officer making a arrest, is that the citizen is not required to act, but the officer is required to act. 

I would never recommend that a citizen make an arrest no matter what they may witness, because of the danger of civil action. One of the other differences between a citizen and an officer making an arrest, is that the agency the officer works for carries insurance to pay civil cases that may occur. It is not uncommon for an agency to have fifteen to twenty civil cases pending at any one time. 



Danaus29 said:


> Traffic laws, cops don't have to obey traffic laws. If you hit a cop that is violating a traffic law and does not have lights or siren running, you are at fault and have to pay to have their car repaired. Even if a police car hits your legally parked car, you are at fault. Might not be the law in every state, but that is the law in Ohio.


My advice would be to not live in Ohio. Every place I have ever worked, if you broke any traffic laws, and were not responding to an emergency call with your lights and siren running you could expect days off without pay or termination. And the department was responsible for all damage. This is the reason that most agency's no longer allow officers to engage in a hot pursuit. Because the agency that began the pursuit is responsible for any damages or injuries that may occur during the pursuit. Even if it is legal to pursue the suspect, the agency will be held liable for any damages in civil court. 



Danaus29 said:


> Police can put anyone in a mental institution for a 72 hour or longer hold, without going through the courts.


Perhaps this is allowed in Ohio, but not in the United States.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> If you are arrested with cash on you, in most cases you will never see that cash again.


Again, this may be allowed in Ohio, but in the United States we have laws. I have made arrests where the suspect had thousands in cash. I counted it, my Sgt. counted it, and the Lt. counted it. And when they were released they got every penny back.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> Again, this may be allowed in Ohio, but in the United States we have laws. I have made arrests where the suspect had thousands in cash. I counted it, my Sgt. counted it, and the Lt. counted it. And when they were released they got every penny back.


I generally agree with you Mule on your whole list.

I do believe there are some avenues for the law to confiscate large sums of cast in the assumption it is drug money, and not give it back. I seem to recall some discussion of that backwards, prove yourself innocent, situation a few years ago?

Paul


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

rambler said:


> I generally agree with you Mule on your whole list.
> 
> I do believe there are some avenues for the law to confiscate large sums of cast in the assumption it is drug money, and not give it back. I seem to recall some discussion of that backwards, prove yourself innocent, situation a few years ago?
> 
> Paul


There has to be something more than just a large sum of cash. The case goes before a judge, so it would depend on the judge and maybe what part of the country you are in.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

muleskinner2 said:


> There has to be something more than just a large sum of cash. The case goes before a judge, so it would depend on the judge and maybe what part of the country you are in.


Cash, houses and other items have been seized through civil forfeiture. Just google it, there have been hundreds of cases.

In civil forfeiture there is no legal process. Stuff and cash have no rights. Therefore your stuff never gets a day in court.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

muleskinner2 said:


> If they take your stuff through Civil Forfeiture, that is legal channels.
> 
> 
> If an officer is involved in a fatal shooting, they become a suspect in a homicide investigation. If they are found to be at fault in that investigation, then their case will be turned over to internal affairs.
> ...


This is the law, in Ohio certain entities are immune from civil liability.





__





Section 2950.12 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws







codes.ohio.gov





Ohio is not the only state with similar laws.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Pink slip laws in Ohio;





__





Disability Rights Ohio - Civil Commitment: Understanding Your Rights (April 2016)







www.disabilityrightsohio.org


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> Cash, houses and other items have been seized through civil forfeiture. Just google it, there have been hundreds of cases.
> 
> In civil forfeiture there is no legal process. Stuff and cash have no rights. Therefore your stuff never gets a day in court.


The term civil forfeiture implies a civil action in civil court. Perhaps you should consider moving from Ohio, to the United States.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> This is the law, in Ohio certain entities are immune from civil liability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, thank god I don't live in Ohio.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

New Mexico banned civil immunity just this year, civil forfeiture only 5 years ago.

In New Mexico a person in mental crisis can be held for 7 days before getting a chance at a hearing. At least in Ohio a person has a chance to speak to a psychiatrist about getting out instead of having to hire a lawyer and going to court.









New Mexico Statutes Chapter 43. Commitment Procedures § 43-1-11 | FindLaw


New Mexico Chapter 43. Commitment Procedures Section 43-1-11. Read the code on FindLaw




codes.findlaw.com


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> But George Floyd wasn't let completely off the hook, he paid the ultimate price. What more do you want to do to him?


Forget him is what we can do for him and for the rest of us.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> .That statement is getting too close to blaming the victim. It will be remembered as a cautionary tale of what the police must not do. Even Chauvin's fellow police officers have turned their backs in him.


The officer may or may not have made some mistakes. But without a doubt Floyd made some serious mistakes, repeatedly, and now some people want to blame others for the result. Wow.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Redlands Okie said:


> The officer may or may not have made some mistakes. But without a doubt Floyd made some serious mistakes, repeatedly, and now some people want to blame others for the result. Wow.


Another point this case brings up-- the civil settlement--- wasn't it $27 Million? What makes this guy's life worth $27 million? ...Sure, sure-- "a life is priceless." In that case, give 'em $1 as a token of "priceless." 

Juries are prone to give excessive settlements because the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty are all thinking" That could be me someday expecting money. Let's run it up for the precedent." (If you doubt me, check out the jury make-up when a high reward is issued vs more reasonable awards. It's obvious. Lawyers compete to enter pleas in Cook Co rather than a collar county in Chicagoland, for example)....

The new American Dream is The Big Settlement.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

America's favorite indoor sport. 

File suits against everybody, someone might pay!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

For much of the working class, the American Dream has evolved from opportunity, creativity and determination into lottery, lawsuit or look at me.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> .That statement is getting too close to blaming the victim. It will be remembered as a cautionary tale of what the police must not do. Even Chauvin's fellow police officers have turned their backs in him.


When you choose to be a career criminal, death at the hands of police or other criminals is an occupational hazard that you accept.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> When you choose to be a career criminal, death at the hands of police or other criminals is an occupational hazard that you accept.


Wait a minute, aren't you part of the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd, or does that only apply to republican politicians? After all, George Floyd didn't have the benefit of trial.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute, aren't you part of the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd, or does that only apply to republican politicians? After all, George Floyd didn't have the benefit of trial.


He was speaking of George Floyds criminal record that contributed to the circumstances of his death.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute, aren't you part of the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd, or does that only apply to republican politicians? After all, George Floyd didn't have the benefit of trial.


What was Floyd charged with?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute, aren't you part of the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd, or does that only apply to republican politicians? After all, George Floyd didn't have the benefit of trial.


This may assist you when responding to comments.

George Floyd’s criminal record includes 5 convictions related to theft, possession, and trade of coke. 
Armed Robbery
Trespassing 
Assault and Armed Robbery (of an old woman)

I just posted the ones from the recent memory. I can fly over a few links for a more extensive background history of convictions if will help.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

po boy said:


> He was speaking of George Floyds criminal record that contributed to the circumstances of his death.


Oh, sure. If he has a criminal record then execution in the street by police is the logical course of action.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute,* aren't you part of the "innocent until proven guilty"* crowd, or does that only apply to republican politicians?


Of course I am. Which is why I'm surprised at you. You generally support big, totalitarian government coming down on people like a ton of Waco's.



Nevada said:


> After all, George Floyd didn't have the benefit of trial.


My point is he chose a life of crime. This is a demonstrable fact. Such a lifestyle increases the likelihood of encountering other criminals and LEO and the inherent risks associated with those encounters. His choices led him to his end. Had he been cooperative, he would have had the benefit of a trial. There should be no reasonable expectation for things to end well for those resisting arrest.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Oh, sure. If he has a criminal record then execution in the street by police is the logical course of action.


No. If he has a criminal record, he should have known the routine and been a bit more cooperative. It wasn't his first rodeo.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Oh, sure. If he has a criminal record then execution in the street by police is the logical course of action.


I don't like what appears to have happened to him and the court has not decided he was executed!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> My point is he chose a life of crime. This is a demonstrable fact. Such a lifestyle increases the likelihood of encountering other criminals and LEO and the inherent risks associated with those encounters. His choices led him to his end. Had he been cooperative, he would have had the benefit of a trial. There should be no reasonable expectation for things to end well for those resisting arrest.


I don't believe that's your point at all. I think your point is that Derek Chauvin acted reasonably by killing a guy with a record like George Floyd's, and that society is better off without him


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that's your point at all. I think your point is that Derek Chauvin acted reasonably by killing a guy with a record like George Floyd's, and that society is better off without him


So, u r our mind reader?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

po boy said:


> So, u r our mind reader?


How do you know that wasn't what he was thinking. Are YOU a mind reader?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> How do you know that wasn't what he was thinking. Are YOU a mind reader?


Thanks for the LOL. Unlike some, I don't claim to read minds or imply what someone thinks. 
Continue on..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

po boy said:


> Thanks for the LOL. Unlike some, I don't claim to read minds or imply what someone thinks.
> Continue on..


We're discussing George Floyd's record, but it's curions, and telling, that we aren't discussing Derek Chauvin's complaint record. Why is that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nevada said:


> We're discussing George Floyd's record, but it's curious, and telling, that we aren't discussing Derek Chauvin's complaint record. Why is that?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that's your point at all. I think your point is that Derek Chauvin acted reasonably by killing a guy with a record like George Floyd's, and that society is better off without him


You don't believe that.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> We're discussing George Floyd's record, but it's curions, and telling, that we aren't discussing Derek Chauvin's complaint record. Why is that?


I someone stopping you from discussing Chauvin's record? I'm curions!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> How do you know that wasn't what he was thinking. Are YOU a mind reader?


Well, I am a mind reader and that isn't what he meant at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

po boy said:


> I someone stopping you from discussing Chauvin's record? I'm curions!


I'm just wondering why this thread finds George Floyd's record so much more interesting than Derek Chauvin's record.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I'm just wondering why this thread finds George Floyd's record so much more interesting than Derek Chauvin's record.


After reading you mind I find that is not what you are really thinking.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute, aren't you part of the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd, or does that only apply to republican politicians? After all, George Floyd didn't have the benefit of trial.


It’s obvious by Floyd’s resisting arrest that he was not interested in getting a trial.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that's your point at all. I think your point is that Derek Chauvin acted reasonably by killing a guy with a record like George Floyd's, and that society is better off without him


“society is better off without him” 

You got that part correct.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> I'm just wondering why this thread finds George Floyd's record so much more interesting than Derek Chauvin's record.


Because Floyd’s record led to the whole problem to start with.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Because Floyd’s record led to the whole problem to start with.


No. An allegedly fake $20 bill led to the whole problem. I'm not aware that they had access to Floyd's criminal record record when he was arrested.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No. An allegedly fake $20 bill led to the whole problem. I'm not aware that they had access to Floyd's criminal record record when he was arrested.


Well, they did.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Oh, sure. If he has a criminal record then execution in the street by police is the logical course of action.


He wasn't executed in the street. The arrest was lawful, the officer did not intend to kill him, his death was an accident. Poor judgment contributed to his death, but it was still an accident.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> No. An allegedly fake $20 bill led to the whole problem. I'm not aware that they had access to Floyd's criminal record record when he was arrested.


It doesn't matter what led to the arrest, it was a lawful arrest, and he resisted arrest. Passing a fake $20.00 dollar bill, is a felony. Resisting a felony arrest is a felony. A career criminal who was prone to violence, had a bad day. The officer will spend years in prison for his bad judgment.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> He wasn't executed in the street. The arrest was lawful, the officer did not intend to kill him, his death was an accident. Poor judgment contributed to his death, but it was still an accident.


I find that very difficult to believe. Sometime during that 9 1/2 minutes it had to dawn on Chauvin that it was killing him.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute, aren't you part of the "innocent until proven guilty" crowd, or does that only apply to republican politicians? After all, George Floyd didn't have the benefit of trial.


JFC, Wolf. 
10 pages and the adults have managed to keep this thread in the kitchen. What’s wrong with you?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I find that very difficult to believe. Sometime during that 9 1/2 minutes it had to dawn on Chauvin that it was killing him.


I believe that there are a great many things that you do not understand.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that's your point at all. I think your point is that Derek Chauvin acted reasonably by killing a guy with a record like George Floyd's, and that society is better off without him


A classic response...Ever notice how consistently liberals draw false conclusions, ignoring the facts? They apparently think they are born with all the right answer before the questions are even asked....Some would call that prejudice. Freud would call it an over-developed super-ego. The psychological defense mechanism called projection is certainly part of it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

doc- said:


> A classic response...Ever notice how consistently liberals draw false conclusions, ignoring the facts? They apparently think they are born with all the right answer before the questions are even asked....Some would call that prejudice. Freud would call it an over-developed super-ego. The psychological defense mechanism called projection is certainly part of it.


Admittedly, I was being a bit heavy-handed in that post.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Admittedly, I was being a bit heavy-handed in that post.


Thank you for the apology. ...and I apologize for calling you a liberal. I have no excuse for using such uncivilized language.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

doc- said:


> Thank you for the apology. ...and I apologize for calling you a liberal. I have no excuse for using such uncivilized language.


I don't mind being called a liberal. I've always been an unapologetic liberal.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I don't mind being called a liberal. I've always been an unapologetic liberal.


Admitting that you have a problem is always the first step.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

doc- said:


> A classic response...Ever notice how consistently liberals draw false conclusions, ignoring the facts? They apparently think they are born with all the right answer before the questions are even asked....Some would call that prejudice. Freud would call it an over-developed super-ego. The psychological defense mechanism called projection is certainly part of it.


I'll admit, I find it kind of fascinating how you can say one thing and someone will hear something completely different. Not sure if it's a lack of reasoning or comprehension? I don't know. There was really no reason for him to come to the conclusions he did. Nothing I said was that difficult to understand.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

I'm not sure the cop was right
But I wasn't there
There again it wasn't his first rodeo 
Resisting arrest always goes bad
Yea being in the back seat of a cop car in handcuffs is not pleasant
But your in that position for a reason


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I don't mind being called a liberal. I've always been an unapologetic liberal.


I am too. I am currently getting torn up one side and down the other on another board for stating that I believe that the shooting of Adam Toledo, the 13-year-old gang member in Chicago, was not unjustified.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

thesedays said:


> I am too. I am currently getting torn up one side and down the other on another board for stating that I believe that the shooting of Adam Toledo, the 13-year-old gang member in Chicago, was not unjustified.


Hence my comment about liberals & prejudice....They made up their minds first based on the liberal POV....I applaud your use of gathering facts & analyzing them critically before forming an opinion.

In fact, logically, we'll never know if that particular shooting was really justified or not--- The kid did brandish a gun...The cop has a split second to recognize it and to make the "him or me?" decision to fire. Had the cop not fired, he himself could be dead now....We'll just never know. There's no "do-overs" in real life.

Ever hear the Universal Maxim "Don't pull your weapon unless you intend to use it?" The cop has to assume that the kid (or anybody) pulling out a weapon is going to shoot. It's Survival of the Fastest in the Asphalt Jungle.

Are you a Liberal, or a Libertarian? Libertarians are liberals when it comes to social matters and conservative on matters of natl defense and fiscal responsibilities. Our goal is small govt-- keep them out of our lives as much as possible.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Elevenpoint said:


> I'm not sure the cop was right
> But I wasn't there
> There again it wasn't his first rodeo
> Resisting arrest always goes bad
> ...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

It's interesting that George Floyd's criminal record has been mentioned several times in this thread, but we haven't discussed Derek Chauvin's record of complaints. Why is that?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Interestingly, George Floyd's criminal record has been mentioned several times in this thread, but we haven't discussed Derek Chauvin's record of complaints. Why is that?


It's interesting that you have asked that question twice but have not started a discussion or thread to do so. Why is that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

po boy said:


> It's interesting that you have asked that question twice but have not started a discussion or thread to do so. Why is that?


Why do you want a new thread started to discuss Chauvin's record? Does it contradict your narrative to discuss it here?


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Not turn this political, but how can a person get a fair trial when we have reps from OTHER STATES pulling this kind of garbage. My guess he is toast. Even if he gets out free they are going to hunt him down and make him an example. Sad..





__





Zerohedge


ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero




www.zerohedge.com





"California Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) flew to Minnesota this weekend, where she *joined protesters in Brooklyn Center past curfew and urged them to 'get more confrontational' *just one day after peaceful demonstrations devolved into violence. ..

"I am not happy that we have talked about police reform for so long," she continued, adding "*We're looking for a guilty verdict*" in regards to former police officer Derek Chauvin, who is on trial for the death of George Floyd, a black man who died while in police custody last year. "And we’re looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd, *if nothing does not happen, then we know that we’ve got to not only stay in the street, but we’ve got to fight for justice*."
"If we don't," Waters added, "*we cannot go away."*
"We gotta *stay on the street*" Waters was recorded saying, according to the _Daily Mail_."


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Why do you want a new thread started to discuss Chauvin's record? Does it contradict your narrative to discuss it here?


@Nevada You misunderstood, I just want u to b happy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

po boy said:


> @Nevada You misunderstood, I just want u to b happy.


Good grief!


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's interesting that George Floyd's criminal record has been mentioned several times in this thread, but we haven't discussed Derek Chauvin's record of complaints. Why is that?


Why is that? Simple. It wasn't a complaint against Derek Chauvin that led to the death of George Floyd. The call to police was placed due to a complaint against George Floyd.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> No. An allegedly fake $20 bill led to the whole problem. I'm not aware that they had access to Floyd's criminal record record when he was arrested.


Why not blame the whole mess on the shop owner for not accepting the fake money? 

The main problem was that even though floyd was VERY familiar with the process of being arrested and then turned loose, he decided to be even more stupid and resist arrest. Sad part is that now others are having their life’s ruined as a result.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> I find that very difficult to believe. Sometime during that 9 1/2 minutes it had to dawn on Chauvin that it was killing him.


This shows your ignorance of stressful situations.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Nevada said:


> It's interesting that George Floyd's criminal record has been mentioned several times in this thread, but we haven't discussed Derek Chauvin's record of complaints. Why is that?


That's a very good question.

It's one thing for us in a wider discussion to use Floyd's past history (He knew the system/shoulda known better/ lifestyle asking for trouble) and Chauvin's prior complaints (is he regularly the "bully-type cop" abusing his authority-- unfortunately way too common among the ranks--review the psych literature if you doubt me) in digging for an explanation of this event, but should not be entered into the court case-- Just because either has had prior trouble doesn't mean that either must be at fault in this specific event.

I alluded to Chauvin's prior behavior in a earlier post, mentioning my psych instructor....But them I'm Italian and have an inborne prejudice.-- FBI = Forever Bothering Italians... I had an uncle who got The Chair. I think I was his favorite nephew because he not only wanted me present at the execution, but he wanted me to sit on his lap.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Ziptie said:


> Not turn this political, but how can a person get a fair trial when we have reps from OTHER STATES pulling this kind of garbage. My guess he is toast. Even if he gets out free they are going to hunt him down and make him an example. Sad..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Waters is a criminal, and she is showing her true colors. This kind of thing will gain her votes from the criminals who vote for her.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> Why is that? Simple. It wasn't a complaint against Derek Chauvin that led to the death of George Floyd. The call to police was placed due to a complaint against George Floyd.


I've read that he's had 18 formal complaints, 2 of which resulted in disciplinary action. The other 16 complaints are confidential, so we'll probably never find out what they were about. Not surprisingly, Chauvin has a reputation of being heavy handed with the public.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Good grief!


If it makes you feel any better, I don't care if you are happy or not.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've read that he's had 18 formal complaints, 2 of which resulted in disciplinary action. The other 16 complaints are confidential, so we'll probably never find out what they were about. Not surprisingly, Chauvin has a reputation of being heavy handed with the public.


Well, whoopty-doo.
What complaint made against Chauvin resulted in him attempting to arrest Floyd?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> Why not blame the whole mess on the shop owner for not accepting the fake money?


In this day and time with everything upside down, that is an excellent question.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I've read that he's had 18 formal complaints, 2 of which resulted in disciplinary action. The other 16 complaints are confidential, so we'll probably never find out what they were about. Not surprisingly, Chauvin has a reputation of being heavy handed with the public.


I see what you are saying. Chauvin was not the one at fault.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

In twenty years in law enforcement, I had eleven complaints filed against me. All of them from criminals who I put in jail. Three of them were from the same person, she claimed I was targeting her because I caught her driving drunk three times. 

Two different Sheriff's that I have worked for told me that if they didn't hear at least one complaint on me in a year, I wasn't doing my job.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I see what you are saying. Chauvin was not the one at fault.


How do you figure that? One police witness after another testified that Chauvin's actions were contrary to training and policy. Sounds like fault to me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> How do you figure that? One police witness after another testified that Chauvin's actions were contrary to training and policy. Sounds like fault to me.


You said the force kept him on after the complaints.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I see what you are saying. Chauvin was not the one at fault.


There was fault on all sides of this incident. Floyd was at fault for resisting arrest. Chauvin was at fault for restraining Floyd in a position that could restrict breathing. The other officers for not speaking up at the time when they saw Chauvin behaving in a manner that was contrary to training and procedure.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> How do you figure that? One police witness after another testified that Chauvin's actions were contrary to training and policy. Sounds like fault to me.


Apparently they were mostly invalid complaints or he would have been fired. If not then the people at fault are his superiors. Hard to fault him for what he was allowed to do.

Would seem to apply to floyd also. He was allowed to remain free and continually broke the law for years. Now we need to get the judges and the lawyers into court that let him roam free and hold them accountable for floyds actions.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Apparently they were mostly invalid complaints or he would have been fired. If not then the people at fault are his superiors. Hard to fault him for what he was allowed to do.


That's the idea behind the "defund" movement. Some police departments have operated without accountability for a long time. When public officials are allowed to operate in the dark, it never ends well.

I can't say for sure what Chauvin was or wasn't allowed to get away with, since 16 out of 18 complaints are being kept confidential -- even after being fired. Freedom of Information Act requests simply don't apply to police departments.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> *...When public officials are allowed to operate in the dark, it never ends well.*


We agree on that point. Most legislation put forth by the left is put together in secret.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> When public officials are allowed to operate in the dark, it never ends well.


Your entire army operates in the dark.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> We agree on that point. Most legislation put forth by the left is put together in secret.





HDRider said:


> Your entire army operates in the dark.


Attempts at thread drift.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Attempts at thread drift.


It was a direct reply to your statement. You dodged it like you always do


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Attempts at thread drift.


Attempt at deflection.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Attempts at thread drift.


Also, this demonstrates that you do, of course, have a certain amount of tolerance to public officials working in the dark.

Pssst....your bias is showing!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Watching the defense closing arguments. I've read that the defense counsel is experienced and has a good reputation for winning cases. but I'm not seeing anything to support that. The closing argument is a long-winded review of the evidence. No surprises, no zingers. Just a long rambling review of what the jury has already seen. Honestly, the more times the jury sees the evidence the worse it gets for Chauvin.

The defense has done an especially bad job of handling the possibility of George Floyd dying from carbon monoxide. I don't see how that helps the defense. It's not like Floyd put his head near the tailpipe himself, the cop put him there. So whether Floyd died from being strangled or died from CO2 poisoning, Chauvin still killed him. I think it's a mistake for the defense to bring it up.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Watching the defense closing arguments. I've read that the defense counsel is experienced and has a good reputation for winning cases. but I'm not seeing anything to support that. The closing argument is a long-winded review of the evidence. No surprises, no zingers. Just a long rambling review of what the jury has already seen.
> 
> The defense has done an especially bad job of handling the possibility of George Floyd dying from carbon monoxide. I don't see how that helps the defense. It's not like Floyd put his head near the tailpipe himself, the cop put him there. So whether Floyd dies from being strangled or died from CO2 poisoning, Chauvin still killed him. I think it's a mistake for the defense to bring it up.


This should limit your screams and horror if Chauvin gets off.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Watching the defense closing arguments. I've read that the defense counsel is experienced and has a good reputation for winning cases. but I'm not seeing anything to support that. The closing argument is a long-winded review of the evidence. No surprises, no zingers. Just a long rambling review of what the jury has already seen. Honestly, the more times the jury sees the evidence the worse it gets for Chauvin.
> 
> The defense has done an especially bad job of handling the possibility of George Floyd dying from carbon monoxide. I don't see how that helps the defense. It's not like Floyd put his head near the tailpipe himself, the cop put him there. So whether Floyd died from being strangled or died from CO2 poisoning, Chauvin still killed him. I think it's a mistake for the defense to bring it up.


I'm not watching closing argument, but I think defence counsel is trying to make the best of the situation. There is too much video and too many experts to really contest the fact that Chauvin's actions caused this. I think the defence strategy is to rely on a jury's traditional reluctance to convict cops, and to leave some question as to whether Chauvin formed the necessary intent to commit the most serious charges. In that sense, not having him testify was definitely in his best interest. I can't see Chauvin walking away from this, but what exactly he gets convicted of, is a more complicated question.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wow


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The Paw said:


> I'm not watching closing argument, but I think defence counsel is trying to make the best of the situation. There is too much video and too many experts to really contest the fact that Chauvin's actions caused this. I think the defence strategy is to rely on a jury's traditional reluctance to convict cops, and to leave some question as to whether Chauvin formed the necessary intent to commit the most serious charges. In that sense, not having him testify was definitely in his best interest. I can't see Chauvin walking away from this, but what exactly he gets convicted of, is a more complicated question.


Testifying probably wouldn't have done Chauvin any good, but the defense doesn't have much else. On the off chance that Chauvin would have given careful testimony, it might have helped. We'll never know. As it stands it's an almost certainty that he'll be convicted.

The defense flip-flopped on Chauvin being an expert. For restraining suspects, he was an expert. When it came to not recognizing respiratory arrest, he's just a dumb cop who doesn't know any better. That overlooks the fact that all of those cops had to carry current cpr certifications. It's difficult to believe that 4 cops all failed to recognize respiratory arrest. Perhaps they didn't care so they didn't bother checking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> This should limit your screams and horror if Chauvin gets off.


I really don't think that will happen. This is really bad for Chauvin. His department fired him. His fellow officers testified that his actions weren't part of training or department policy. Video evidence shows, second by second, exactly what happened from several different angles. There is no question that Chauvin choked George Floyd to death. There's no viable defense theory for this case. For a juror to vote to acquit in this case, he has to conclude that Chauvin was justified in choking George Floyd to death. That's simply not reasonable.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> ...There is no question that Chauvin choked George Floyd to death. There's no viable defense theory for this case. For a juror to vote to acquit in this case, he has to conclude that Chauvin was justified in choking George Floyd to death. That's simply not reasonable.


If you can talk, you're not choking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> If you can talk, you're not choking.


You think George Floyd is faking being dead?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You think George Floyd is faking being dead?


That's a stupid question. Here's another. Think that the LEO was throwing his voice. Making sound like Floyd was speaking? 
Hold your breath and talk at the same time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> That's a stupid question. Here's another. Think that the LEO was throwing his voice. Making sound like Floyd was speaking?
> Hold your breath and talk at the same time.


Evidently he was having difficulty moving enough air, since he died from asphyxia. I understand that you don't believe him, but being dead is pretty convincing evidence.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently he was having difficulty moving enough air, since he died from asphyxia. I understand that you don't believe him, but being dead is pretty convincing evidence.


And I know you'll believe anything CNN tells you. He was moving enough air to speak. Rules out choking or strangulation. Difficulty breathing....maybe. In the end, still his own damn fault.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> And I know you'll believe anything CNN tells you. He was moving enough air to speak. Rules out choking or strangulation. Difficulty breathing....maybe. In the end, still his own damn fault.


But the fact is that Chauvin stayed on top of Floyd for two minutes after he stopped moving. The defense says that a cop never knows if someone will start fighting again, but I don't see the jury buying that argument.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But the fact is that Chauvin stayed on top of Floyd for two minutes after he stopped moving. *The defense says that a cop never knows if someone will start fighting again,* but I don't see the jury buying that argument.


So being cautious with an uncooperative suspect is unreasonable just because they stop moving?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> So being cautious with an uncooperative suspect is unreasonable just because they stop moving?


If you kill him, then yes.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If you kill him, then yes.


Lack of movement in and of itself isn't proof of death. And, LEO will always errr on the side of safety...particularly their own and that of the public. An uncooperative suspect's is a distant second.

Keep in mind, you have the advantage of hindsight. The LEO didn't.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> Lack of movement in and of itself isn't proof of death. And, LEO will always ere on the side of safety...particularly their own and that of the public. An uncooperative suspect's is a distant second.
> 
> Keep in mind, you have the advantage of hindsight. The LEO didn't.


You're not a big fan of personal responsibility, are you.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're not a big fan of personal responsibility, are you.


That's been my main point.
Huge fan. You're not. You've completely let Floyd off the hook here.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

dbl.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> Huge fan. You're not. You've completely let Floyd off the hook here.


How should we punish George Floyd? Maybe lock up his remains for 10 years?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How should we punish George Floyd?


Sentence him to time served.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Watching the defense closing arguments. I've read that the defense counsel is experienced and has a good reputation for winning cases. but I'm not seeing anything to support that. The closing argument is a long-winded review of the evidence. No surprises, no zingers. Just a long rambling review of what the jury has already seen. Honestly, the more times the jury sees the evidence the worse it gets for Chauvin.
> 
> The defense has done an especially bad job of handling the possibility of George Floyd dying from carbon monoxide. I don't see how that helps the defense. It's not like Floyd put his head near the tailpipe himself, the cop put him there. So whether Floyd died from being strangled or died from CO2 poisoning, Chauvin still killed him. I think it's a mistake for the defense to bring it up.


But that isn't what Chauvin was charged with.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I really don't think that will happen. This is really bad for Chauvin. His department fired him. His fellow officers testified that his actions weren't part of training or department policy. Video evidence shows, second by second, exactly what happened from several different angles. There is no question that Chauvin choked George Floyd to death. There's no viable defense theory for this case. For a juror to vote to acquit in this case, he has to conclude that Chauvin was justified in choking George Floyd to death. That's simply not reasonable.


They fired the city manager that said the lady cop would enjoy due process. Don't act dumb. It is an act, right?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Evidently he was having difficulty moving enough air, since he died from asphyxia. I understand that you don't believe him, but being dead is pretty convincing evidence.


He claimed he could not breath from the first few minutes way before Chauvin choked him out.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You're not a big fan of personal responsibility, are you.


Did you fall and bump your head?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Did you fall and bump your head?


It's worth taking notice of the fact that I worked closely with cops when I was a firefighter. Do you know where this comes from?

Thirteen-Zebra-Five-John-Frank-William-Eight-Nine-Nine


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

kinderfeld said:


> Lack of movement in and of itself isn't proof of death. And, LEO will always errr on the side of safety...particularly their own and that of the public. An uncooperative suspect's is a distant second.
> 
> Keep in mind, you have the advantage of hindsight. The LEO didn't.


When restraining someone, rule number 1 is do not restrain in a way that could restrict breathing. There are ways to restrain someone that keeps the safety of all parties in mind.

There is plenty of blame to go around in this incident but you seem to only want to heap blame on Floyd. @Nevada only seems to want to heap blame on Chauvin. You are both wrong, IMO. 

Floyd bears the blame for resisting arrest. 

Chauvin bears the blame for restraining Floyd in a manner that was not consistent with department training and policy. 

The other officers bear the blame for not speaking up when they witnessed Chauvin restraining Floyd in a manner that did not follow procedure. 

None of these people should get a pass. They all bear some responsibility.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It's worth taking notice of the fact that I worked closely with cops when I was a firefighter. Do you know where this comes from?
> 
> Thirteen-Zebra-Five-John-Frank-William-Eight-Nine-Nine


You are a regular Columbo


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It's worth taking notice of the fact that I worked closely with cops when I was a firefighter. Do you know where this comes from?
> 
> Thirteen-Zebra-Five-John-Frank-William-Eight-Nine-Nine


I spent 7 years volunteering. 

What the hell is your point with that jibberish?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You're not a big fan of personal responsibility, are you.


I am. When they say you are going to jail it's a done deal... Been there done that!!! That was in my youth...


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's worth taking notice of the fact that I worked closely with cops when I was a firefighter.


Not really. I did as well. Firefighter and EMT.



Nevada said:


> Do you know where this comes from?
> Thirteen-Zebra-Five-John-Frank-William-Eight-Nine-Nine


Not a clue. I don't listen to hip-hop.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> Not really. I did as well. Firefight and EMT.
> 
> 
> Not a clue. I don't listen to hip-hop.











Police Story (TV Series 1973–1987) - IMDb


Police Story: Created by E. Jack Neuman, Joseph Wambaugh. With Scott Brady, Mel Scott, Don Meredith, Joe Santos. Classic anthology series, which details the personal lives of the men and women of the Los Angeles Police Department. The stories ranged from highly dramatic to extremely funny. Even...




www.imdb.com


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> There is plenty of blame to go around in this incident but you seem to only want to heap blame on Floyd.


Not at all. Just the majority. He is ultimately the reason why he's dead. Yes, the officer could have done things differently. In hindsight, he wishes he had, I'm sure. But for others to say that he was "obviously" in the wrong, I'm not so sure. Easy to look back and judge the situation _after_ all the facts are in and information not known then presents itself. It's a different story when you live the situation and have to rely on your senses, the information you have at the time, and your training. At the time, neither the LEO nor any of his back up seemed to think he was doing anything wrong. It's always a different picture in hindsight.




SLFarmMI said:


> None of these people should get a pass. They all bear some responsibility.


Agreed.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> When restraining someone, rule number 1 is do not restrain in a way that could restrict breathing. There are ways to restrain someone that keeps the safety of all parties in mind.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around in this incident but you seem to only want to heap blame on Floyd. @Nevada only seems to want to heap blame on Chauvin. You are both wrong, IMO.
> 
> ...


First day on the job for one officer and another had been there only a very short time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I spent 7 years volunteering.
> 
> What the hell is your point with that jibberish?


I was a big fan of the 70s TV series Police Story. Near the end of the show just before the credits the LAPD dispatcher voice would broadcast that "gibberish."

Thirteen-Zebra-Five-John-Frank-William-Eight-Nine-Nine

LAPD patrol cars are identified by Precinct-Unit type-Number. So the call starts by calling car 13Z5, for precinct 13 (Newton, in south-central LA), type Z (attached to a special detail), car 5. The rest of the dispatch refers to the license plate JFW899. To this day the personalized plate JFW899 is one of the first to go in every state.

As an additional piece of worthless trivia, I pride myself as an authority on the LA Central Receiving Hospital history, where LAPD's Rampart station sits today.

As an example of the gibberish, fast forward to the 18:55 mark to hear the dispatch.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

HDRider said:


> He claimed he could not breath from the first few minutes way before Chauvin choked him out.


Floyd claimed he couldn't breathe before they took him out of the police car.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> First day on the job for one officer and another had been there only a very short time.


Pretty sure they would have covered restraint procedures in the academy.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I was a big fan of the 70s TV series Police Story. Near the end of the show just before the credits the LAPD dispatcher voice would broadcast that "gibberish."
> 
> Thirteen-Zebra-Five-John-Frank-William-Eight-Nine-Nine
> 
> ...


So you added something completely irrelevant to your post about you working with law enforcement that implied you were intimate with their "lingo"?

But left yourself an out with your question mark.

Wait, was it "wow"?

No! "Good grief"!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> So you added something completely irrelevant to your post about you working with law enforcement that implied you were intimate with their "lingo"?
> 
> But left yourself an out with your question mark.
> 
> ...


My point was that I don't hate cops. I've worked with them, socialized with them, and even take care to not let their history be forgotten, like central receiving hospital.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

SLFarmMI said:


> When restraining someone, rule number 1 is do not restrain in a way that could restrict breathing. There are ways to restrain someone that keeps the safety of all parties in mind.
> 
> There is plenty of blame to go around in this incident but you seem to only want to heap blame on Floyd. @Nevada only seems to want to heap blame on Chauvin. You are both wrong, IMO.
> 
> ...


Makes sense. So Chauvin should be punished for failure to follow policy. 

Murder or manslaughter ? Bit of a stretch but they did it any way.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> Makes sense. So Chauvin should be punished for failure to follow policy.
> 
> Murder or manslaughter ? Bit of a stretch but they did it any way.


Murder may have been a stretch but not manslaughter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Makes sense. So Chauvin should be punished for failure to follow policy.
> 
> Murder or manslaughter ? Bit of a stretch but they did it any way.


Chauvin was fired for not following policy. He's being prosecuted for his disregard for human life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> If you kill him, then yes.


The defense should have claimed he hung himself.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> It's worth taking notice of the fact that I worked closely with cops when I was a firefighter. Do you know where this comes from?
> 
> Thirteen-Zebra-Five-John-Frank-William-Eight-Nine-Nine


You are *CTD* with your dated analogy. 

You have anything in real life? Not something from _*Police Story*_?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> You have anything in real life? Not something from _*Police Story*_?


Like what, for instance? I worked with cops while doing ambulance work in the L.A. area.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Sometimes it's the little things that loom large. I don't think the bit of video showing the officer picking a small pebble out of the cruiser tire during the midst of the incident did anything to support the 'concern about the crowd' defense. We'll soon know...


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> Chauvin was fired for not following policy. He's being prosecuted for his disregard for human life.


If he really had disregard then floyd would have never made it to the point of being handcuffed. 

Seems floyd was the one disregarding his own life, as shown by his own actions.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> Pretty sure they would have covered restraint procedures in the academy.


How much would you speak out on your first day on a new job? How sure would you be you were right and the senior person was wrong? Would you be willing to risk losing your new job?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The local talk show host formerly lived in the Twin Cities and gave an example of 2nd Degree Murder. If a drug dealer cut his drugs with something like synthetic fentanyl which he knew might kill someone, and then sold that cut drug to someone who died from it, that would be grounds for 2nd-Degree Murder.

That's why there was such a big deal made out of Chauvin putting his knee on Floyd's shoulder or neck. Is it an approved technique or not? Both cases were argued in court, so it will likely come down to which side the jury believed.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Chauvin will be convicted. The jury is not strong enough to acquit. Fear is driving this trial more than any quest for justice.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Attorney Alan Dershowitz was on with Newsmax’s Gran Stinchfield where he shared that he believes the judge should have already called a mistrial in the Chauvin case after the threats from Maxine Waters over the weekend. Dershowitz said:


> Well, first of all the judge should have granted a motion for mistrial based on the efforts of Congresswoman Waters to influence the jury. Her message was clearly intended to get to the jury. If you acquit or you find the charge less than murder we will burn down your building, we will burn down your businesses. We will attack you. We will do what happened to a witness, blood on their door.
> This was an attempt to intimidate the jury. It’s borrowed precisely from the Ku Klux Klan of the 1930’s…











'Mad' Maxine Waters "Borrowed Precisely From the Ku Klux Klan" - "Judge Should Have Granted a Motion for Mistrial" - Attorney Alan Dershowitz (VIDEO)


Rep. Maxine Waters may have provided the defense reason for a mistrial in the Derek Chauvin case. Attorney Alan Dershowitz believes it should have been thrown out already. Today the judge in the Derek Chauvin case noted that Maxine Waters may have provided the defense reason for the whole case...




www.thegatewaypundit.com


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Attorney Alan Dershowitz was on with Newsmax’s Gran Stinchfield where he shared that he believes the judge should have already called a mistrial in the Chauvin case after the threats from Maxine Waters over the weekend. Dershowitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What this really did was to give them two shots at “burning it down”. 

Chauvin will be convicted, one charge or another, and cities around the country will burn. And, then, just in case not enough damage is incited, we get to sit through another trial. They’re just trying to get every last squirt out of the udder.

I wouldn’t doubt that she was hoping for the mistrial.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Chauvin will be convicted. The jury is not strong enough to acquit. Fear is driving this trial more than any quest for justice.


It very well might be a hung jury.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> It very well might be a hung jury.


It could if some brave soul holds out


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> It could if some brave soul holds out


I'm thinking the opposite. Somebody will vote for murder 2 and not be willing to change to murder 3 or manslaughter.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> It could if some brave soul holds out


You don't believe he has some culpability in Floyds death?

I think it does rise to manslaughter but that's it


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Slam dunk appeal, thanks to Maxine. Classic jury manipulation.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I'm thinking the opposite. Somebody will vote for murder 2 and not be willing to change to murder 3 or manslaughter.


Interesting. You have taken acquittal off the table.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

kinderfeld said:


> That's been my main point.
> Huge fan. You're not. You've completely let Floyd off the hook here.


Yes that damn Floyd. Why did he have to go and die?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> You don't believe he has some culpability in Floyds death?
> 
> I think it does rise to manslaughter but that's it


We have put humans in an untenable, no win situation. Sure he made a mistake. He has already paid a high price, and will continue pay a high price. He is a dead man walking in prison. 

I do not even think this should have went to court. He should have been fired, never allowed in another LEO position, and written off to the dust bin of history.

If he is truly contrite, and remorseful he should be forgiven.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

keenataz said:


> Yes that damn Floyd. Why did he have to go and die?


He played a unwinnable game.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Attorney Alan Dershowitz was on with Newsmax’s Gran Stinchfield where he shared that he believes the judge should have already called a mistrial in the Chauvin case after the threats from Maxine Waters over the weekend. Dershowitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


His future appeal is getting stronger.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Interesting. You have taken acquittal off the table.


To be fair, you might not have had time to watch much of the trial. The defense had very little to work with. That forced the defense lawyer to suggest absurd theories, one of which (the CO2 theory) still implicated Chauvin as the culprit. The defense lawyer went so far as to ask the jury to disregard the testimony of 5 medical doctors and take his work for the cause of death. Knowing that, I agree that acquittal is off the table. It's not a verdict that a reasonable jury could arrive at.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Yes that damn Floyd. Why did he have to go and die?


A victim of his own stupidity.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> To be fair, you might not have had time to watch much of the trial. The defense had very little to work with. That forced the defense lawyer to suggest absurd theories, one of which (the CO2 theory) still implicated Chauvin as the culprit. The defense lawyer went so far as to ask the jury to disregard the testimony of 5 medical doctors and take his work for the cause of death. Knowing that, I agree that acquittal is off the table. It's not a verdict that a reasonable jury could arrive at.


It's called reasonable doubt.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> His future appeal is getting stronger.


Having grounds for appeal and winning an appeal are two different things.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Anyone want to start a betting pool on the verdict?


Nevada said:


> Having grounds for appeal and winning an appeal are two different things.


He already has grounds.
Just saying his case is getting stronger.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

barnbilder said:


> Slam dunk appeal, thanks to Maxine. Classic jury manipulation.


Why the hell do people elect someone like this? If the democrats had any guts they would strip.n all responsibilities from her.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> It's called reasonable doubt.


But you're asking the jury to believe that George Floyd died from something other than asphyxiation. That's not reasonable.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kinderfeld said:


> He already has grounds.


He's going to have to convince a court of appeals that Maxine Waters' statements got to the jury. The judge doesn't believe that they had, since the jury was admonished to not watch the news. It seems like an uphill battle.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

keenataz said:


> Why the hell do people elect someone like this?


I think it's high time that Maxine Waters is put out to pasture.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Interesting. You have taken acquittal off the table.


No, I was playing off the brave person idea. I think it is more likely there are 1 or 2 people who had already decided he was guilty before the trial even started than 1 or 2 brave people that will hold out for not guilty. The compromise position is either murder 2 or manslaughter. We still don't know for sure why Floyd died, so it makes it hard to predict what the jury will do. 

My personal view, not necessarily based on the evidence, is that Chauvin contributed to Floyd's death, but was not the primary cause. If Floyd wasn't on fentanyl and meth he probably would still be alive and if he hadn't been held down for so long, he might still be alive.

Was it ever explained why he was held on the ground for so long? Were they waiting for the paramedics?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Was it ever explained why he was held on the ground for so long? Were they waiting for the paramedics?


He was held in the ground for a full minute after paramedics arrived.

A better question might be why none of the cops started CPR at some point. All cops carry a current CPR certification. It's not like they didn't know better.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> To be fair, you might not have had time to watch much of the trial. The defense had very little to work with. That forced the defense lawyer to suggest absurd theories, one of which (the CO2 theory) still implicated Chauvin as the culprit. The defense lawyer went so far as to ask the jury to disregard the testimony of 5 medical doctors and take his work for the cause of death. Knowing that, I agree that acquittal is off the table. It's not a verdict that a reasonable jury could arrive at.


I probably watched more of it than you.

You are wrong.

You see and live in a different world than me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kinderfeld said:


> Anyone want to start a betting pool on the verdict?


I would need good odds to bet on acquittal.




keenataz said:


> Why the hell do people elect someone like this? If the democrats had any guts they would strip.n all responsibilities from her.


That, my friend, is a question I ask myself many times per day


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I probably watched more of it than you.
> 
> You are wrong.
> 
> You see and live in a different world than me.


In that case, what defense theory do you think proves Chauvin's innocence?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think it's high time that Maxine Waters is put out to pasture.


This is nothing new for her. That's why democrats looked stupid basing another impeachment hearing on inciting a riot. Nothing Trump said is anything like what this nut job has been saying since he was elected. To make matters worse, a cop that died from natural causes was said to have been beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.

By the way, what about the unarmed woman, a veteran, shot by police? If you're really interested in police accountability.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> He was held in the ground for a full minute after paramedics arrived.
> 
> A better question might be why none of the cops started CPR at some point. All cops carry a current CPR certification. It's not like they didn't know better.


They would have to know he wasn't breathing and I don't think it was proven that the officers knew that. I can't find a pulse is different from there is no pulse.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

kinderfeld said:


> This is nothing new for her. That's why democrats looked stupid basing another impeachment hearing on inciting a riot. Nothing Trump said is anything like what this nut job has been saying since he was elected. To make matters worse, a cop that died from natural causes was said to have been beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.
> 
> By the way, what about the unarmed woman, a veteran, shot by police? If you're really interested in police accountability.


His family should sue Maxine Waters in civil court.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> In that case, what defense theory do you think proves Chauvin's innocence?


Multiple contributing factors led to his death. Very clear reasonable doubt as to if Chauvin alone caused the death. Like I said, in hindsight, sitting in my arm chair, one could argue that Chauvin exercised poor judgment. Also, as I have said, we have put people like Chauvin in a lose/lose situation. I am not going to judge a man who does a job that I would not do. I would never be a cop.

We pay these guys a pittance to face life and death situations on a daily basis and to face society's worst, and then we want them to be Solomon. That is hypercritical at best


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> In that case, what defense theory do you think proves Chauvin's innocence?


You have the premise of proving something in the courtroom backwards.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> You have the premise of proving something in the courtroom backwards.


He’s a stenographer for the court of CNN. In that courtroom, procedural rules change according to who the accused is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> My personal view, not necessarily based on the evidence, is that Chauvin contributed to Floyd's death, but was not the primary cause.


The defense argument centers around that claim. The problem with that theory is that all 5 of the doctors who testified contradict that idea, including the ER doctor who pronounced him dead and the pathologist who did the autopsy. I really doubt that the jury will ignore those doctors.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> You have the premise of proving something in the courtroom backwards.


Dress it up any way you like, but if you're accused of a serious crime and you can't prove that you didn't do it, you're in a lot of trouble. That's the reality.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

If you are accused of the crime, I'll ask you- did you do it? 
No?
Then you don't have to take the stand nor do you have to prove anything.
The justice system is flawed but it is the best system with the least flaws.
I believe it would be wise to trust in that system first, one that makes a different initial presumption that you do, rather than someone's idea of reality.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> If you are accused of the crime, I'll ask you- did you do it?
> No?
> Then you don't have to take the stand nor do you have to prove anything.
> The justice system is flawed but it is the best system with the least flaws.
> I believe it would be wise to trust in that system first, one that makes a different initial presumption that you do, rather than someone's idea of reality.


If the jury thinks you probably did it, you'd better have something that will change their minds.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> If you are accused of the crime, I'll ask you- did you do it?
> No?
> Then you don't have to take the stand nor do you have to prove anything.
> The justice system is flawed but it is the best system with the least flaws.
> I believe it would be wise to trust in that system first, one that makes a different initial presumption that you do, rather than someone's idea of reality.


The defense has the responsibility of proving reasonable doubt.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Proof vs Reasonable Doubt are not equal burdens regardless of whether it is OJ or Glen Chapman. The spirit of a law, incompetent attornies, hanging judges, BILs in the jury box, the media, Barcalounger experts, etc all matter but don't supersede the system in place.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

GTX63 said:


> Proof vs Reasonable Doubt are not equal burdens regardless of whether it is OJ or Glen Chapman. The spirit of a law, incompetent attornies, hanging judges, BILs in the jury box, the media, Barcalounger experts, etc all matter but don't supersede the system in place.



You are correct. The responsibility of the defense counsel to establish reasonable doubt is not the same as "burden of proof". Having said that, there are legal situations where some criminal offenses can have a "reverse onus", and the use of an affirmative defense also has a similar onus.

Reverse onus is where the legislation presumes, once the underlying facts are established, that a certain fact can be assumed if not disproven. In a hit-and-run case, if it is established the driver was driving the vehicle, hit someone, and then left, it can be assumed that the driver is fleeing to avoid responsibility (unless the defense proves otherwise).

Affirmative defenses, like self-defense or insanity, place a burden of proof on the defense, and if proven, negate the original charge. 

In the current case, Nevada would have been better to ask "what defense theory establishes reasonable doubt?" Still a tough row to hoe....


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I was in law enforcement for over twenty years, and I have no faith at all in our justice system. I have seen cold blooded killers go free, and a seventeen year old kid get ten years for a fifteen minute joy ride. Jury's are made up of people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. And they bring all of their personal ideas and preconceptions with them. At the end of the day, people will go with their gut feelings. And our system in America is one of the better ones. 

Jury's are made up of nine or ten sheep, and two or three bullies. Peer pressure, the media, and the desire to get it over with and get back home, so they can watch the next episode of Dancing With The Stars, has more to do with the verdict than evidence.

My opinion is based on personal experience, your opinions may differ.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Verdict imminent.

Is this quicker than you thought?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Something I hadn't realized is that Chauvin can be found guilty of multiple charges.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I think it's high time that Maxine Waters is put out to pasture.


I really can't believe we are on the same page! Several others need to go home or to a elderly care facility!!!


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Guilty on all 3 counts.
I'm sure there will be an appeal.
He's got help from Maxine Waters right out the gate.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Elevenpoint said:


> Guilty on all 3 counts.
> I'm sure there will be an appeal.
> He's got help from Maxine Waters right out the gate.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I hate this phone!


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> How much would you speak out on your first day on a new job? How sure would you be you were right and the senior person was wrong? Would you be willing to risk losing your new job?


Been there, done that. First week on the job as a matter of fact.

Jobs are like busses -- there's always another one coming along. Integrity, not so much.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Something I hadn't realized is that Chauvin can be found guilty of multiple charges.


That's news to me also. But the verdict came in a lot faster than I imagined. Evidently all of the jurors were on the same page.

I expect an appeal, but I don't expect the appeals court to vacate the verdicts. Chauvin has been handcuffed and is in the system now.

I don't take pleasure in seeing anyone punished. It would have been better for both Chauvin and the public if the police department had weeded him out of the police ranks long before this happened. Evidently there were signs of trouble going way back.

Let's face it, Chauvin isn't going to have an easy time in prison. They'll probably start him off is solitary confinement at first to keep him safe, but they can't keep him there for a decade or more. Sooner or later he'll find himself in the general prison population. He may not survive. State prisons don't have "Club Fed" prisons like the federal government has.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

But.... but.... but.... I was promised a free shopping spree and bonfires!


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> But.... but.... but.... I was promised a free shopping spree and bonfires!


You don't need a new tv and boots! I never met you or talked but I know!!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> The defense has the responsibility of proving reasonable doubt.


Evidently Chauvin's lawyer couldn't demonstrate reasonable doubt.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Evidently Chauvin's lawyer couldn't demonstrate reasonable doubt.


The deck was stacked against Chauvin. I still don't understand how the jury found him guilty of Murder-2. I'd love to hear someone from the jury explain on what grounds they found him guilty of murder-2. The only thing I can guess is they are mind readers.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> The deck was stacked against Chauvin. I still don't understand how the jury found him guilty of Murder-2. I'd love to hear someone from the jury explain on what grounds they found him guilty of murder-2. The only thing I can guess is they are mind readers.


The second degree murder conviction doesn't require Chauvin to have intended to kill Floyd. If the jury finds that he intended to assault him, and it results in death, that meets the criteria. Clearly, the jury concluded that Chauvins unnecessary kneeling for a prolonged period constituted a deliberate assault.

It isn't really much of a logical leap to infer that intent from Chauvins actions during the event.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The Paw said:


> The second degree murder conviction doesn't require Chauvin to have intended to kill Floyd. If the jury finds that he intended to assault him, and it results in death, that meets the criteria. Clearly, the jury concluded that Chauvins unnecessary kneeling for a prolonged period constituted a deliberate assault.
> 
> It isn't really much of a logical leap to infer that intent from Chauvins actions during the event.


You left out the rest of the section. It doesn't apply.

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.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

TripleD said:


> You don't need a new tv and boots! I never met you or talked but I know!!!


You been peeking!! Lol


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

muleskinner2 said:


> Jury's are made up of people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.


I'm guessing you were in that number?

Hubby served on jury duty twice. He said it was better than going to work. One of my neighbors served on a jury. She felt it was part of her duty as an American citizen.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> You left out the rest of the section. It doesn't apply.
> 
> 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.


You are referring to the wrong portion, subsection (2). If you refer to the preceding paragraph, subsection (1) it has broader scope than what you have quoted.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I'm guessing you were in that number?
> 
> Hubby served on jury duty twice. He said it was better than going to work. One of my neighbors served on a jury. She felt it was part of her duty as an American citizen.


I’ve served on several juries. Found it to be interesting experience each time. Lots better than being in front of a jury for sure!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I was summoned for jury duty once. At the time I had 2 children under the age of 5, no transportation and no baby sitter. Hubby was working 60+ hours a week to pay off hospital bills and credit cards and could not afford to take the time off. When I called to explain why I couldn't serve the woman on the phone got quite nasty and said that I did not have a good enough excuse and they would send a police car for me if I didn't show up for the first day. I said they better make sure the police car had 2 car seats in it. They never did send a car for me.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The Paw said:


> You are referring to the wrong portion, subsection (2). If you refer to the preceding paragraph, subsection (1) it has broader scope than what you have quoted.


1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

How do they know what his intent was? That's why I said the jury must be made up of mind readers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The murder conviction of a police officer is an exceedingly rare event.​

There have been only seven murder convictions of officers for fatal police shootings since 2005, according to Philip Stinson of Bowling Green State University. That suggests the chances of a killing by the police leading to a murder conviction are about one in 2,000.​


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The jury members didn't want their homes to burn. Defense could have produced a film production crew admitting to filming the whole incident as a hoax, and could have called a still living George Floyd as a witness, and it wouldn't have made any difference in the verdict.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> The jury members didn't want their homes to burn. Defense could have produced a film production crew admitting to filming the whole incident as a hoax, and could have called a still living George Floyd as a witness, and it wouldn't have made any difference in the verdict.


I told this thread that the trial wasn't going well for Chauvin, but of course you didn't believe me.

Chauvin was fired, which demonstrates disapproval of the police department. Then Chauvin's superior officers testified that his actions were not consistent with department raining or policy. If that wasn't enough, police experts from around the country testified that no police department trains officers to do what Chauvin did. All of those factors were evidence, which the jury took an oath to consider.

The evidence painted a picture of a police officer who was 'badge heavy.' The jury made the right call.

I feel very badly for Chauvin as a person. He not only faces a long prison sentence, but also knows that he may not survive prison regardless of the sentence length. Prison will be bad enough just because he was a cop, but what he was convicted of is not going to go over well with a lot of his fellow inmates. They just might kill him, and that's not an exaggeration.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I don't have a problem with the verdict.
I have a problem with race baiting Democrat politicians politicizing this whole thing for their own purposes.
Maxine Waters and Pelosi (among others) should be removed from office for inciting violence and should be held responsible for their actions and words.
They tried to impeach Trump on a lot less, but of course, the Democrats won't hold themselves to the standards they expect everyone else to follow.
They do what they can to divide us and keep racism alive.
Our Congress is a joke.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I have a problem with race baiting Democrat politicians politicizing this whole thing for their own purposes.


Race played a significant role in the George Floyd incident. I doubt that Chauvin would have treated a white man the same way.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I told this thread that the trial wasn't going well for Chauvin, but of course you didn't believe me.
> 
> Chauvin was fired, which demonstrates disapproval of the police department. Then Chauvin's superior officers testified that his actions were not consistent with department raining or policy. If that wasn't enough, police experts from around the country testified that no police department trains officers to do what Chauvin did. All of those factors were evidence, which the jury took an oath to consider.
> 
> ...


Badge heavy? Based on what?

_According to Communities Against Police Brutality, a Minnesota nonprofit that created a database of complaints against officers in the state, Chauvin received oral reprimands for using a "demeaning tone," "derogatory language" and other language that merited discipline._​​_https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/derek-chauvin-what-we-know-trnd/index.html_​


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Race played a significant role in the George Floyd incident. I doubt that Chauvin would have treated a white man the same way.


That's a good example of how you guys turn it into a race thing.
How do you know he was kneeling on him because he was black?
Maybe he was tired of struggling with an incoherent drug addict regardless of his color?
CNN and the Democrats have you convinced race was the reason.


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> 1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or
> 
> How do they know what his intent was? That's why I said the jury must be made up of mind readers.



This is the operative part of the legislation:



> 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


The jury does not have to find he had intent. They only have to find that Chauvin caused Floyd's death, and he did it while committing a felony offense (i.e. an assault). If they found he had intent, they would have charged first degree murder.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Race played a significant role in the George Floyd incident. I doubt that Chauvin would have treated a white man the same way.


Or he was dealing with a felon in the commission of a crime, who was also full of meth and fentanyl. The cop didn't follow proper restraint procedures and is going to pay the price. But the attempt now by the media and other mental midgets to paint Floyd as some kinda of hero martyr is ridiculous.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Race played a significant role in the George Floyd incident. I doubt that Chauvin would have treated a white man the same way.


Some of the complaints against Chauvin were white


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Then there is the question of whether the police department engaged in a coverup. The initial press release said that George Floyd died from a medical incident.



https://news.yahoo.com/man-dies-after-medical-incident-during-police-interaction-how-police-originally-described-george-floyds-death-003930462.html



Did Chauvin falsify the arrest report, or was the department in on it? I suppose we have to leave open the possibility that the department took Chauvin's account at face value. But this demonstrates how an incident like this can happen without recourse. If it weren't for the bystanders on the sidewalk calling 911 and capturing video, the George Floyd incident would have been lost to a bogus arrest report.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Yet the radical left is convincing you only black people are shot by police.
Looks like whites are shot at almost twice the rate or more than any other race.
• People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

no really said:


> Or he was dealing with a felon in the commission of a crime, who was also full of meth and fentanyl. The cop didn't follow proper restraint procedures and is going to pay the price. But the attempt now by the media and other mental midgets to paint Floyd as some kinda of hero martyr is ridiculous.


They admire "men" who threaten pregnant women in home invasions
I can't think of one person the left admires who is\was a decent person


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Then there is the question of whether the police department engaged in a coverup. The initial press release said that George Floyd died from a medical incident.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hero status must be achieved..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Maybe he was tired of struggling with an incoherent drug addict regardless of his color?


Maybe. But if Chauvin was tired of dealing with drug addicts the proper course of action would be to resign, not kill suspects.

Why was George Floyd not afforded innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Maybe. But if Chauvin was tired of dealing with drug addicts the proper course of action would be to resign, not kill suspects.
> 
> Why was George Floyd not afforded innocent until proven guilty?


Bad choices!


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet the radical left is convincing you only black people are shot by police.
> Looks like whites are shot at almost twice the rate or more than any other race.
> • People shot to death by U.S. police, by race 2021 | Statista


Umm there are a great deal more white people in the US than black, so it kind of makes sense.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Maybe. But if Chauvin was tired of dealing with drug addicts the proper course of action would be to resign, not kill suspects.
> 
> Why was George Floyd not afforded innocent until proven guilty?


I didn't say he's not guilty, I'm saying I doubt it was racially motivated.
"Racist" fits the narrative.
They depend on you to buy the lie, racism is a cash cow for the left.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

keenataz said:


> Umm there are a great deal more white people in the US than black, so it kind of makes sense.


Yes, but where are the riots, looting, arson and massive crime sprees in response?
Where are the Democrats and their grand "caring" speeches?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

keenataz said:


> Umm there are a great deal more white people in the US than black, so it kind of makes sense.


Violent crime rates matter.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The Paw said:


> This is the operative part of the legislation:
> 
> The jury does not have to find he had intent. They only have to find that Chauvin caused Floyd's death, and he did it while committing a felony offense (i.e. an assault). If they found he had intent, they would have charged first degree murder.


It would help if they wrote plain English. 

(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*​​The way I read the sentence, and I believe correctly while committing or attempting refers to the person who causes the death and Chauvin was not involved in a felony*. *This refers to someone who is committing a felony and during that process causes the death of someone.

So we are back to intent and I don't know how the jury would know Chauvin's intent. That didn't seem to be an issue in the trial.

ETA: When did Floyd have the heart attack?


----------



## The Paw (May 19, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> It would help if they wrote plain English.
> 
> (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*​​The way I read the sentence, and I believe correctly while committing or attempting refers to the person who causes the death and Chauvin was not involved in a felony*. *This refers to someone who is committing a felony and during that process causes the death of someone.
> 
> ...



I guess I didn't communicate the point clearly in the earlier post. *Chauvin was committing an assault on Floyd* by kneeling on his neck, long after he was restrained and subdued. You might feel differently, but the jury concluded that Chauvin's actions constituted an assault, and therefore he met the criteria for the offence, even without intent.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> ETA: When did Floyd have the heart attack?


Floyd didn't have a heart attack.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Maybe. But if Chauvin was tired of dealing with drug addicts the proper course of action would be to resign, not kill suspects.
> 
> Why was George Floyd not afforded innocent until proven guilty?


"Ifs" are everywhere. Let me give one. If Chauvin were black you wouldn't have heard about it!!!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Floyd didn't have a heart attack.


That's what was reported. I guess more accurately it was cardiac arrest.

Following CDC guidelines, he died of Covid-19. That's what the defense should have argued.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

keenataz said:


> Umm there are a great deal more white people in the US than black, so it kind of makes sense.


So what do you think a short term solution is?
Only arrest people in numbers directly proportionate to their demographic numbers?
so if blacks make up 16 percent of the population (or whatever it is) and that percentage has been arrested,stopped, etc. just stop arresting blacks committing crimes till other races catch up?
and should the same be applied to affirmative action, Hollywood casting, etc?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> That's what was reported. I guess more accurately it was cardiac arrest.


Yes, I just about fell out of my chair when the defense lawyer suggested to the ER doctor that cardiac arrest meant he had a heart attack. No, George Floyd did not have a heart attack. Floyd's arteries were in pretty bad shape, so a heart attack could have been in his future, But he didn't have a heart attack the day he died.

Cardiac arrest simply means that the heart has stopped. A heart attack refers to a myocardial infarction (myocardial means heart muscle, infarction refers to dead tissue), or MI for short. So a heart attack is dead heart muscle tissue, usually caused by clogged arteries. A bad heart attack can lead to cardiac arrest, but cardiac arrest doesn't necessarily mean there was a heart attack. Cardiac arrest occurs when people die from any cause.

This isn't splitting hairs to use precise language. Cardiac arrest is not just another name for heart attack.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> So what do you think a short term solution is?
> Only arrest people in numbers directly proportionate to their demographic numbers?
> so if blacks make up 16 percent of the population (or whatever it is) and that percentage has been arrested,stopped, etc. just stop arresting blacks committing crimes till other races catch up?
> and should the same be applied to affirmative action, Hollywood casting, etc?


That's good!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> So what do you think a short term solution is?
> Only arrest people in numbers directly proportionate to their demographic numbers?
> so if blacks make up 16 percent of the population (or whatever it is) and that percentage has been arrested,stopped, etc. just stop arresting blacks committing crimes till other races catch up?
> and should the same be applied to affirmative action, Hollywood casting, etc?


The short term answer was thought to be cameras on all cops, but the original press release for the George Floyd incident contradicts that idea. With three other cops there at the time, all with cameras rolling, and a supervisor called to the scene, the initial press release indicated that a man died from a medical episode and no cops were injured. Evidently, Chauvin falsified the arrest report and it was taken at face value. Without bystanders to capture video and tell the real story the George Floyd incident would have gone unnoticed. What that means is that if cops see that nobody is watching, they can still do whatever they want.

This case will give cops pause, since the usual pattern of the "blue wall of silence" didn't exist to protect Chauvin. That's a stark warning that there's a limit to what the department and fellow officers are willing to put up with.

I don't know where we go from here. We'll all have to wait and see.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Lisa in WA said:


> So what do you think a short term solution is?
> Only arrest people in numbers directly proportionate to their demographic numbers?
> so if blacks make up 16 percent of the population (or whatever it is) and that percentage has been arrested,stopped, etc. just stop arresting blacks committing crimes till other races catch up?
> and should the same be applied to affirmative action, Hollywood casting, etc?


One thing is to have better hiring practices and avoid bullies and such.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> The short term answer was thought to be cameras on all cops, but the original press release for the George Floyd incident contradicts that idea. With three other cops there at the time, all with cameras rolling, and a supervisor called to the scene, the initial press release indicated that a man died from a medical episode and no cops were injured. Evidently, Chauvin falsified the arrest report and it was taken at face value. Without bystanders to capture video and tell the real story the George Floyd incident would have gone unnoticed. What that means is that if cops see that nobody is watching, they can do whatever they want.
> 
> This case will give cops pause, since the usual pattern of the "blue wall of silence" didn't exist to protect Chauvin. That's a stark warning that there's a limit to what the department and fellow officers are willing to put up with.
> 
> I don't know where we go from here. We'll all have to wait and see.


I believe the initial report said he died of a heart attack while being transported to a hospital.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I believe the initial report said he died of a heart attack while being transported to a hospital.


It just said "medical distress."

_*"Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress. Officers called for an ambulance. He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance where he died a short time later. No officers were injured in the incident"*_



https://news.yahoo.com/man-dies-after-medical-incident-during-police-interaction-how-police-originally-described-george-floyds-death-003930462.html


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

keenataz said:


> One thing is to have better hiring practices and avoid bullies and such.


That’s pretty nebulous And more of a long term solution, though I agree.
If a higher proportion of people in one group commit more crimes, should they not be arrested or confronted by police because it’s appears racist to arrest more?
Id like to see a lot more blacks on the police force, especially in areas with higher demographic representation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

keenataz said:


> One thing is to have better hiring practices and avoid bullies and such.


Yes, for sure. A guy like Chauvin should have been weeded out a long time ago.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The short term answer was thought to be cameras on all cops, but the original press release for the George Floyd incident contradicts that idea. With three other cops there at the time, all with cameras rolling, and a supervisor called to the scene, the initial press release indicated that a man died from a medical episode and no cops were injured. Evidently, Chauvin falsified the arrest report and it was taken at face value. Without bystanders to capture video and tell the real story the George Floyd incident would have gone unnoticed. What that means is that if cops see that nobody is watching, they can still do whatever they want.
> 
> This case will give cops pause, since the usual pattern of the "blue wall of silence" didn't exist to protect Chauvin. That's a stark warning that there's a limit to what the department and fellow officers are willing to put up with.
> 
> I don't know where we go from here. We'll all have to wait and see.


Let's just put cameras everywhere. It's all in the name of safety and such. The next thing will be monitoring the internet, phone and what you see anywhere you go... Anybody have your life monitored all day??? 1984 rings a bell 🔔...


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> So what do you think a short term solution is?
> Only arrest people in numbers directly proportionate to their demographic numbers?
> so if blacks make up 16 percent of the population (or whatever it is) and that percentage has been arrested, stopped, etc. just stop arresting blacks committing crimes till other races catch up?
> and should the same be applied to affirmative action, Hollywood casting, etc?


Are you running for office?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> Let's just put cameras everywhere. It's all in the name of safety and such. The next thing will be monitoring the internet, phone and what you see anywhere you go... Anybody have your life monitored all day??? 1984 rings a bell 🔔...


That is in place in larger metro areas. You don't get out enough


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Are you running for office?


huh?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> huh?


Your proposal on black crime sounds like a good platform for political office. It is a perfect government solution (that means it will not work, but sounds good)


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TripleD said:


> Let's just put cameras everywhere. It's all in the name of safety and such. The next thing will be monitoring the internet, phone and what you see anywhere you go... Anybody have your life monitored all day??? 1984 rings a bell 🔔...


My point is that cops with cameras won't do any good if nobody is checking video against police reports. That seems to be what happened here.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=825803914731643


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Please, please, please watch that video, all the way to the end 

You will be shocked


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> View attachment 95828


Chauvin's arrest was done with a lot more dignity than George Floyd's arrest.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

HDRider said:


> That is in place in larger metro areas. You don't get out enough


I get out everyday. I don't video it all ... Fixing to play on the tractor 😁...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Yes, for sure. A guy like Chauvin should have been weeded out a long time ago.


Why? I saw nothing in his available record that would require firing him. You are making him out to be a rogue cop for 18 years.

If he was determined to kill a black man, why did he wait 18 years? It appears to me he overreacted and made a very bad judgment call. Grounds for firing? Yes. Grounds for Murder-2? I still don't see it and doubt if it will be upheld upon appeal.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I'd be curious as to the definition of "better hiring practices" as posted earlier.
Are police departments having to fight off hoards of qualified applicants?
The Somali police officer who fired his weapon from the passenger seat across his partner, shattering his window and killing the blonde white woman who called the police in the first place, and was guilty of nothing more than walking across the street in her pjs.
What hiring practice did the Minneapolis police department use for this fine bright specimen?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I don't know where we go from here. We'll all have to wait and see.


Wait and see what script your overlords write next?
Whatever it is, I'm sure it will be imaginative and unbelievable (except to the true believers)


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Your proposal on black crime sounds like a good platform for political office. It is a perfect government solution (that means it will not work, but sounds good)


Which proposal? Hire more black LEOs or stop arresting POC after they’ve hit a certain percentage compared to whites?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> I'd be curious as to the definition of "better hiring practices" as posted earlier.
> Are police departments having to fight off hoards of qualified applicants?
> The Somali police officer who fired his weapon from the passenger seat across his partner, shattering his window and killing the blonde white woman who called the police in the first place, and was guilty of nothing more than walking across the street in her pjs.
> What hiring practice did the Minneapolis police department use for this fine bright specimen?


It's ok if a cop of color shoots an unarmed white woman, no liberal will care, protest or even give it much mention on the "news"


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Chauvin's arrest was done with a lot more dignity than George Floyd's arrest.


Did Chauvin resist arrest?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Did Chauvin resist arrest?


Entirely different situation. To begin with, they didn't start by point a gun at Chauvin.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Entirely different situation. To begin with, they didn't start by point a gun at Chauvin.


Neither did the officers arresting Floyd. He was asked several times to show his hands and refused. THEN a gun was drawn. And when Floyd finally complied, the weapon was holstered.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> stop arresting POC after they’ve hit a certain percentage compared to whites?


That


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> That


You are aware that was tongue in cheek?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> You are aware that was tongue in cheek?


I was, but I guess you were not


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Entirely different situation. To begin with, they didn't start by point a gun at Chauvin.


But you made the initial comparison.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I was, but I guess you were not


This is why we have emojis!


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

keenataz said:


> Yes that damn Floyd. Why did he have to go and die?


Because he was not thinking correctly due to the drugs in his system and health issues ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> This is why we have emojis!


I just never was an emoji guy, and I think a guy should lose his guy card if he says LOL


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> Race played a significant role in the George Floyd incident. I doubt that Chauvin would have treated a white man the same way.


wow


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> I just never was an emoji guy, and I think a guy should lose his guy card if he says LOL


Now that's funny.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I just never was an emoji guy, and I think a guy should lose his guy card if he says LOL


At the risk of sounding sexist, I have to agree. Also, “ummm........” but I hate when women say that too. It’s just worse when a guy says it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> At the risk of sounding sexist


Another favorite idiom and it could be racists, or sexist or thisathataphobic

I need a ruling on the field, is "idiom" the right word?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> I'm guessing you were in that number?
> 
> Hubby served on jury duty twice. He said it was better than going to work. One of my neighbors served on a jury. She felt it was part of her duty as an American citizen.


It was my job to catch them, not judge them.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Another favorite idiom and it could be racists, or sexist or thisathataphobic
> 
> I need a ruling on the field, is "idiom" the right word?


Yes.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> I'm guessing you were in that number?
> 
> Hubby served on jury duty twice. He said it was better than going to work. One of my neighbors served on a jury. She felt it was part of her duty as an American citizen.


It might be if you are easily entertained. It's nobody's duty to sit and watch two lawyers play, who can tell the biggest lies.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> It might be if you are easily entertained. It's nobody's duty to sit and watch two lawyers play, who can tell the biggest lies.


They have a tendancey to flag me off. Maybe I just don't fit their profile ? I did get into the jury deliberation room once. It was an awesome experience...


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

muleskinner2 said:


> It might be if you are easily entertained. It's nobody's duty to sit and watch two lawyers play, who can tell the biggest lies.


In Ohio your employer is required to give you paid time off work to serve on a jury. Hubby considered it a paid vacation.

It's not who can tell the biggest lies, it's which lawyer tells the most believable lies. Hubby's last case involved a child molester. All I am going to say about it is, if your religion tells you to not report a man who rapes your child to the police, you need to find a different religion!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> In Ohio your employer is required to give you paid time off work to serve on a jury. Hubby considered it a paid vacation.
> 
> It's not who can tell the biggest lies, it's which lawyer tells the most believable lies. Hubby's last case involved a child molester. All I am going to say about it is, if your religion tells you to not report a man who rapes your child to the police, you need to find a different religion!


So, you’re saying I should tell the cops what I did with the body?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> So, you’re saying I should tell the cops what I did with the body?


Nope, never. What you did with that one is between you and God. Some things should never be admitted. I hope you didn't bury it in my garden. I just planted potatoes and onions there.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> That’s pretty nebulous And more of a long term solution, though I agree.
> If a higher proportion of people in one group commit more crimes, should they not be arrested or confronted by police because it’s appears racist to arrest more?
> Id like to see a lot more blacks on the police force, especially in areas with higher demographic representation.


Perhaps we should give them an extra 50 points and move them to the front of the line just for being black? Maybe in addition to looking at police training and practices we should look at a few other things such as family values, good basic education, honesty and integrity in news reporting......


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

gilberte said:


> Perhaps we should give them an extra 50 points and move them to the front of the line just for being black?


Didn't we already do that? Isn't that what "affirmative action" was all about?

But it's like any job. You can make the opportunity available but you can't make people put down the crack pipe, get up in the morning and actually show up to work.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Careful now, that sounds a lot like racism. You're not suggesting that black folk are more prone to the crack pipe than anyone else, are you?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

It's not a black problem. Lots of people of all colors are addicted to that crack pipe, weed, heroin, booze or other drugs. Drug and alcohol problems are more predominant in certain communities but that's a community problem, not a color problem.

It shows up more when TPTB try to push affirmative action. There are thousands of people who are quite capable of performing the job, but very few who want to do what it takes to get and keep that job.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

Why it is hard for people to believe Floyd and Chauvin were both pieces of ****? It doesn't have to be one or the other.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

gilberte said:


> Careful now, that sounds a lot like racism. You're not suggesting that black folk are more prone to the crack pipe than anyone else, are you?


There is a very well known son of an even greater well known leader who was paid a king's ransom to do a job he had no knowledge or experience or skill at, and may not even have shown up, who could not put down a crack pipe, lied on a federal form in order to purchase a firearm and involved his girlfriend who happened to be the wife of his dead brother.
Now if I said the name of a prominent minority, would that be a racist statement?
I if said who it was a pasty elitist with soft hands, and an entitled personality, would that be racist?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> There is a very well known son of an even greater well known leader who was paid a king's ransom to do a job he had no knowledge or experience or skill at, and may not even have shown up, who could not put down a crack pipe, lied on a federal form in order to purchase a firearm and involved his girlfriend who happened to be the wife of his dead brother.
> Now if I said the name of a prominent minority, would that be a racist statement?
> I if said who it was a pasty elitist with soft hands, and an entitled personality, would that be racist?


He has a bastard kid and a sealed settlement statement in Arkansas too - You left that out


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I was just reading about Chauvin's tax problems. The state of MN has filed felony charges against Chauvin for tax evasion. Evidently he and his former wife under reported nearly $500K of income over the past 5 years, including nearly $100K in off-duty security pay. Those numbers are large enough that the IRS may pile on.

The MN tax evasion investigation was underway before his arrest in the George Floyd case.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I was just reading about Chauvin's tax problems. The state of MN has filed felony charges against Chauvin for tax evasion. Evidently he and his former wife under reported nearly $500K of income over the past 5 years, including nearly $100K in off-duty security pay. Those numbers are large enough that the IRS may pile on.
> 
> The MN tax evasion investigation was underway before his arrest in the George Floyd case.


How about a link?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

no really said:


> How about a link?











Killer cop Chauvin & beauty queen ex-wife face charges over $500k tax evasion


CONVICTED ex-cop Derek Chauvin and his beauty queen wife Kellie face charges for tax evasion after allegedly underreporting their joint income by almost $500,000 between 2014 and 2019. &…




www.the-sun.com


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Danaus29 said:


> Killer cop Chauvin & beauty queen ex-wife face charges over $500k tax evasion
> 
> 
> CONVICTED ex-cop Derek Chauvin and his beauty queen wife Kellie face charges for tax evasion after allegedly underreporting their joint income by almost $500,000 between 2014 and 2019. &…
> ...


Thanks!! Busy people..


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gilberte said:


> Perhaps we should give them an extra 50 points and move them to the front of the line just for being black? Maybe in addition to looking at police training and practices we should look at a few other things such as family values, good basic education, honesty and integrity in news reporting......


Why would you screen potential LEOs for honesty and integrity in news reporting?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> I was just reading about Chauvin's tax problems. The state of MN has filed felony charges against Chauvin for tax evasion. Evidently he and his former wife under reported nearly $500K of income over the past 5 years, including nearly $100K in off-duty security pay. Those numbers are large enough that the IRS may pile on.
> 
> The MN tax evasion investigation was underway before his arrest in the George Floyd case.


Now that’s funny. A win for chauvin. What are they going to do ? Fine him, throw him in jail ? Oh no.........


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Why would you screen potential LEOs for honesty and integrity in news reporting?


Oh give me a break! You know what I meant


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I was just reading about Chauvin's tax problems. The state of MN has filed felony charges against Chauvin for tax evasion. Evidently he and his former wife under reported nearly $500K of income over the past 5 years, including nearly $100K in off-duty security pay. Those numbers are large enough that the IRS may pile on.
> 
> The MN tax evasion investigation was underway before his arrest in the George Floyd case.


So, it's ok to bring up his past history? But we can't talk about the other guy, beating and robbing a pregnant woman at gunpoint? Let me see, possible tax evasion or a history of violent felony assaults, and drug dealing.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> So, it's ok to bring up his past history? But we can't talk about the other guy, beating and robbing a pregnant woman at gunpoint? Let me see, possible tax evasion or a history of violent felony assaults, and drug dealing.


You don't know our Mr. @Nevada very well. As well as I know him, and as well as I know you, his perspective is about different than yours as two people can be. I don't know either of you really, but I'd put money on this bet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> So, it's ok to bring up his past history? But we can't talk about the other guy, beating and robbing a pregnant woman at gunpoint? Let me see, possible tax evasion or a history of violent felony assaults, and drug dealing.


We've heard plenty about George Floyd's criminal record. But Chauvin's tax problems aren't past history. Those problems are ongoing.


----------



## todd_xxxx (Apr 19, 2018)

You guys know the trial is over right?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

todd_xxxx said:


> You guys know the trial is over right?


Who won?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Nevada said:


> We've heard plenty about George Floyd's criminal record. But Chauvin's tax problems aren't past history. Those problems are ongoing.


Accused of Tax fraud (so far) vs robbing, drugs, endangering the unborn while doing so........ really? You want to compare?

Wonder what chauvin’ s tax record is ? Not to mention what the thug did to his community. Can we get the money to make it right out of the multimillion dollar settlement from the family that profited from this thugs death ?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Redlands Okie said:


> Accused of Tax fraud (so far) vs robbing, drugs, endangering the unborn while doing so........ really? You want to compare?
> 
> Wonder what chauvin’ s tax record is ? Not to mention what the thug did to his community. Can we get the money to make it right out of the multimillion dollar settlement from the family that profited from this thugs death ?


Do you really want to defend a convicted murderer?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Do you really want to defend a convicted murderer?


How about let the guilt of each be portrayed?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> How about let the guilt of each be portrayed?


Seems obvious to me. So much so that he'll need to change his name when he gets out to land even the most menial of jobs.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

He'll probably write a couple of books and make a few million.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

todd_xxxx said:


> You guys know the trial is over right?


Nope. It doesn't end with the verdict. Not when liberals find tax issues, imagined or otherwise, to latch on to. Taxes. It's a really sick obsession of theirs.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Seems obvious to me. So much so that he'll need to change his name when he gets out to land even the most menial of jobs.


He hasnt been sentenced yet but I dont think he is coming out.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

I was seeing a few articles today (I did not verify) that the DOJ was planning on arresting him if he was found not guilty. Has anyone else see this? Even if it is not true,could they really do that?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Ziptie said:


> I was seeing a few articles today (I did not verify) that the DOJ was planning on arresting him if he was found not guilty. Has anyone else see this? Even if it is not true,could they really do that?


This is the origin of it.

Leading up to Derek Chauvin's murder trial, Justice Department officials had spent months gathering evidence to indict the ex-Minneapolis police officer on federal police brutality charges, but they feared the publicity frenzy could disrupt the state's case.

So they came up with a contingency plan: If Chauvin were found not guilty on all counts or the case ended in a mistrial, they would arrest him at the courthouse, according to sources familiar with the planning discussions.









Feds plan to indict Chauvin, other three ex-officers on civil rights charges


Justice Department officials discussed arresting Chauvin in the courthouse if he were found not guilty, according to sources.




www.startribune.com


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Thanks for the info...Can the Feds legally do that if he was found not guilty?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Yes, the feds could arrest him for other charges but not murder charges.


----------

