The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

They started Jury Selection.

Things that will be interesting.

- The defense is going to claim that George Floyd would have died anyway even if the police were not involved, as he had drugs in his system.  
- The released Body Camera footage convinced many people that Derek Chauvin was justified in his actions.

- I wonder if the Prosecution will call Chauvin to the stand.  Can they legally do this?  If they could, it will be very interesting to see how Chauvin responds to questions about why he stayed on George Floyd's neck for so long, even after he lost consciousness   .

No the prosecution cannot legally call Chauvin to the stand.  The  defendant in any criminal trial is never required to take the stand.  Once they do, they are subject to any and all lines of questioning although they can always invoke their 5th amendment rights. 

The official coroner's report is pretty clear cut, he had lethal doses of fentanyl in his system along with other drugs. They even found fentanyl and meth pills with Floyd's saliva in the backseat that the state's investigators somehow missed. The report also shows no neck trauma. Really, if this case wasn't so politically charged, the officer wouldn't have even been fired.

I personally think he waited way too long to do anything about Floyd being non-responsive but I don't see any evidence that he is responsible for his death.

Both of the first two autopsies concluded that it was a homicide.  There must have been a third one that was done later. 

I normally lean towards law enforcement officers in these cases, but what I can't fathom is, the point of the neck restraint was because he was resisting, but if that was the case why did he stay on even AFTER he became unresponsive?  An unresponsive person poses no threat.

I don't know which one you are referring to but the one that the defense produced for the trial is from the state and shows a drug overdose and no neck trauma. Maybe some independent ones were done but the prosecution themselves don't appear to be introducing those. I'm far from a lawyer, unlike 98% of the internet, so it's possible things change or I got something wrong but as of right now I only see the one.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwE74ruXMAAcGRa?format=jpg&name=900x900)

EDIT: The estimated lethal dose for fentanyl is 2mg and Floyd had 11. Now, I don't know if it is a typo or I'm not understanding things but the toxicology shows 2ng, not mg. I don't know if there is a difference so take it for what it is worth.

He had 11 ng/ml or Nanograms per milliliter.  

Nanograms per milliliter, abbreviated ng/mL, is the unit of measure most commonly used to express drug testing cut-off levels and quantitative test results in urine and oral fluid.  A nanogram is 10-9 grams.

https://www.labcorp.com/content/q-what-does-ngml-refer (https://www.labcorp.com/content/q-what-does-ngml-refer)

A quick google search shows you there are 1000 milligrams per gram.
So quick math, he had 1100mg of fentanyl in his system.  Correct me if I'm wrong guys.

EDIT:  I could be wrong, I'm seeing conflicting information.  Labcorp says a nanogram is 10-9 grams, but google says there is 1000000000 so I don't know.

^^^^

Isn't it insane in 2021 that we can't even get basic facts from the internet? No wonder half the country hates the other half, no one knows anything.

I don't believe Chauvin's actions were justified, however it will be very hard to convict him of murder with the drug reports.  It's possible that his actions contributed to this, but a conviction requires definite proof.

a nanogram is 1/1000 of a mg.

if 2mg is fatal and he had .0011 mg or an amount so insignificantly small that the only reason to mention it is to muddy the waters. 

I think it's actually 0.011

It was other drugs as well in his system that contributed to his death. The coroner or the person who did the autopsy, maybe the same person I am not sure, said that if he were found dead in his apartment they wouldn't think twice about ruling it an OD. Combined with no physical trauma and in theory it is open and shut.

In theory. This will probably not be that simple.

offhand, I'd guess about 74 million people

Chauvin definitely wasn't justified in his actions.  That's an indefensible position.  If you're trying to argue that Floyd's death wasn't directly due to asphyxiation, then whatever -- I've leave that to the medical examiner.  But you can't kneel on someone's neck for 9 minutes that's cuffed on the ground....c'mon.

I don't really comment much on these trial threads, because we don't have the evidence in the courtroom and we have a system for all that.  But there's no way you can say that Chauvin's actions were correct.  Once a suspect is subdued, that's gotta be the end of it.

I just want to say that if you jump off of the empire state building and are falling to your inevitable death. And someone on the 30th floor fires a gun where the bullet hits you in the head 10 seconds before you go splat, that person is still guilty of murder. It doesn't matter that you were going to die anyways.

What if the bullet misses? You can't be guilty of murder if the guy doesn't die from your actions. That's the point that is being discussed.

My analogy, of which I am still researching the validity, was this:

If somebody is on drugs that makes their blood thin, and you shoot them in a place that would normally not be fatal, but the drugs makes them bleed out, you would still be legally responsible for it.

That's actually a pretty apt analogy.

You absolutely would be.

There is two aspects for murder. You need causation and mens rea.

Causation just you just need to be part of the cause so the fact that the victim was more vulnerable  would be irrelevant to causation.

Second you need mens rea - intend to kill, intend to do great bodily harm or reckless disregard.  Shooting someone in the leg rather than the chest is still intent to do great bodily harm.

The other contributing causes of death in this case should not negate either the causation nor the police’s reckless disregard.

Touché sir, 100% correct. You win the internet on 3/12/21. If the medical report says that he had no life threatening injuries identified and the cause of death was from an OD. Then it's not like shooting (knee on neck) someone falling out of a window. It's the fall (drugs) that killed them. In this case, the fall (drugs) did actually kill them, not the bullet (knee on neck). Dead is dead.

I think that the cop wasn't justified on his neck while restrained. However, with the other officers going along with it on camera. You have to ask the question if it was a training or policy issue. If the facts presented in this thread are accurate. Then the officer(s) involved should be demoted and retrained in proper protocol. If he was following protocol then the protocol needs to be examined.

Derek Chauvin is arguing that he following his police training.

Do police academies really train their officers to kneel on somebody's neck long after they've lost consciousness?  I wonder how long he would have stayed on if the paramedics had not shown up.

The key though is proof.  Because of the drugs in Floyd's system, it was be very hard to prove that Chauvin's actions killed Floyd.  It is very likely that they did, given that Floyd lost consciousness as he was being kneeled on, but a court case requires a much higher standard of proof.

My wife went through the police academy and she said they teach the knee/neck restraint.  But yeah, I think the issue is the amount of time he did that for. 

I expect that training will be changed.

One of the other issues Chauvin faces is that because of the drugs in Floyd's system, he looked like he was being choked to death from the knee but he had the same look on his face well before he was ever on the ground. I admit that even I thought he was being choked to death by the cop the first time I saw the video until I saw months later the earlier footage.

The autopsy basically shows no trauma so the knee to the neck could've been very light. Not only was he trained in what to do, he actually trained other cops this technique which was approved by the Minneapolis PD. His big problem is not acting earlier from when Floyd was non-responsive. I don't know what that means legally but it's bad in the court of public opinion.

Even if they do train it that way, the defense is should be rejected just as quickly as the “just following orders” defense was rejected at Nuremberg and the police trainers should be charged with aiding and abetting murder.   

Since George Floyd had three times the level of fentanyl known to be fatal in his system, it will be almost impossible to prove that he was murdered.

I personally think he was.  He was fully conscious, and then slowly lost consciousness as he was being kneeled on.

However, in court, proof is required. 

Doesn't mean they can't find him guilty of a lesser charge, like manslaughter, aggravated assault, or even kick this case up to federal court and charge him with violating Floyd's civil rights kinda like Rodney King. 

And even if he walks free without charges, good luck making a living.  He's lost his job, his police pension, and with him being so visible to the public eye, no one is going to hire him. 

They've already settled with Floyd's family

I'd have to find a link, but I read somewhere that he still gets his pension, convicted or not

That's the City of Minneapolis in a civil suit.  We're talking about a criminal trial here.

If he is found not guilty, he is going to sue the city and the Minneapolis PD for wrongful termination and get millions because the trial proves he was fired without cause and no one would argue that it ruined his chances at making a living. If he is found guilty then obviously that is out the window.

If he’s acquitted Minneapolis is going to burn. Think LA after Rodney King.

I want to say, were there any options for the officers available?  

George Floyd was resisting and not cooperating.  The knee to the neck restraint seems justified to me.  Like I have said, though, I think he went to far in staying on him.

Could he have subdued him, and then lifted his knee off his neck and told him to stay still?

Yeah.  That's the idea.  You don't kneel on any part of someone for 8 minutes, much less their neck.  Once cops have a suspect in custody, that needs to be the end of the man-handling.

Once he was in handcuffs he wasn’t going anywhere.

Here's another question:

George Floyd paid for his cigarettes, apparently with a fake $20.  (I still have not found confirmation whether it was or was not)

The cashier called the police.  Surely he must have had the $20 dollar bill on hand.  Did the police look at the bill to confirm whether or not it was fake before they arrested him?

Edit, so he did in fact use a fake $20. 

He wasn't arrested for trying to pass a counterfeit $20.  He was arrested for disorderly conduct after he got defiant when confronted with the issue of the counterfeit $20

It doesn't matter why he was arrested.

We should not be questioning the police officer's actions about confirming whether the bill was fake before detained or if he should have been detained at all.  It doesn't matter if he did nothing and it was a misunderstanding or if he burned down an orphanage full of children.  None of those things are on trial.

It simply comes down to once someone is detained and handcuffed, you can't kneel on their neck for 8 minutes.  It is reasonable to expect that 8 minutes of kneeling can either cause or contribute to someone's death.

I agree with everything you said Dave except that's not exactly what the trial is about. The trial is not actually to determine if you can or can't kneel on someone's neck for 8 mins, it's about determining whether the police officer should have known that kneeling on someone for 8 mins could cause or contribute to their death. That's really what is being determined, whether this one officer should have known this and did it anyway. The defense is going to argue that his training led him to believe that what he was doing was acceptable. The jury will decide if they agree or not.

I got a feeling that it's very possible that the jury will find this officer not guilty and yet the police force will change their training policy and honestly I think that may be a fair outcome.

Anything less than murder and 20 years with an earliest parole date of 15 years is NOT a fair outcome.  I am not expecting a fair outcome.

Except that he died of an overdose according to the information known. If that information changes, I'll be more than happy to reevaluate my opinion based on the evidence. 

How can you murder someone when the autopsy says that there were no life threating injuries and that he died of an overdose from an assortment of drugs in his system? 

Is that a common defense in murder cases?  That is to say, "I shot this woman and she died, but actually she died from a heart attack because she was high on drugs, so my shooting her had very little to do with it."  We all see the video of him kneeling on the neck of a handcuffed man for 8 minutes, past the point of unconsciousness.  And we're supposed to believe that this had nothing to do with it?  That the autopsy "showed" that this person died due to a heart attack that was Totally Unrelated to his transparently obvious restricted airway?  Give me a break.  If I (unjustifiably) shoot someone, and they die from a "heart attack" before medical care can be provided, I'm going to catch a murder charge.

While we're on the subject of autopsies, let's clear something up right now: the autopsy did not "show" that Floyd died due to an overdose.  The document you are repeatedly referring to is a charging document (https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6975-derek-chauvin-complaint/cd9e96e708a9b0c8ba58/optimized/full.pdf) which provides an interpretation (from the DA's office, of course) of the information in the preliminary autopsy and the cause of Floyd's death.  The ACTUAL summary of the autopsy (https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf?referringSource=articleShare), from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office, clearly stated that Floyd's manner of death was "homicide": death at the hands of another.

So let's stop these pages of gaslighting about how the "autopsy showed" Floyd died of a "drug overdose."  It showed no such thing, because that's obviously stupid to anyone with a set of eyes in their head.

That's not how it works.  For an easy reference, see OJ, who was found Not Guilty in a criminal court but liable in a civil case.

If a jury finds that Chauvin was not guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, that does not somehow mean that Chauvin was proven innocent and has grounds to contest his termination.

Just spitballing here but:

How is the police can manage to arrest an active shooter that is armed and has killed 10 people including a police officer, but are unable to apprehend an unarmed man accused of passing a counterfeit $10 bill w/o killing him? Could it be they treat white and black suspects differently?

(https://i.imgflip.com/4pvgm2.jpg)

I don't think that THE POLICE are out to get black people. There are obviously some bad apple individual cops that will target or treat a suspect differently based on how they look. I had an acquaintance in my neighborhood. White guy. Couldn't understand why these asshole town cops were always hassling him, looking at him sideways, looking for him when something went down around town. They're picking on me. Nah buddy, you're just a fuck up and deserve the extra attention.

Considering he is a gay bashing brown Muslim it kind of ruins you and Hood's narrative although I'm sure it won't change your agenda of wanting to take guns out the hands of law abiding citizens. Hard to deal with real issues like him kneeling on his back for so long when you make it about things that really aren't relative ... like race.

Maybe you should re-read this about 20 more times and really let it sink in how much of an ass you look right now.

Maybe one complied with the officers while the other one resisted while tripping on an assortment of drugs until finally overdosing. Maybe, just maybe if he wasn't high on multiple drugs, he might have just gotten in the patrol unit, and not overdosed.

A lot of these type situations the person starts off fighting and resisting law enforcement. Let's be honest, fighting, resisting, and not complying with law enforcement isn't a game most people are going to win. Mr. Floyd should have gotten in the back of the car.

Reread 21 times.  Still stand by it.  Guy had an AR 15 and was wearing body armor, yet the police were able to take him alive.

If you are referring to him being muslim.  Irrelevant, totally irrelevant.  The cops didn’t know that at the time they decided this suspect is worth taking alive rather than shoot to kill.  They did know he was white.

I have seen the photo they guy is caucasian.   Just like the Boston Marathon bomber who was taken alive.

One was in handcuffs, the other was armed and firing an AR15. 

Both were in handcuffs. The difference is that one complied and one resisted. Just watched the video of the shooter walking under his own power to be taken to the police station. In other words, he didn't resist.

Meanwhile, On video you can see Mr. Floyd resist from very start. They couldn't even get him and keep him in the police SUV. You people are silly if you can't see the difference. So I'm supposed to believe that they killed Mr. Floyd just because he was black, but they let the shooter that just killed a cop live just because he was white? GTFOH with that shit.

Neither is being a dick to them either.  I've been pulled over for speeding quite a few times.  I've always been polite and respectful, plus I've always kept my hands where the officer could see them and addressed them with "yes sir/no ma'am".  I'd say about 60% of time time, I got off with a warning.


I'm surprised by this too.  Generally, cop killers never see the inside of a jail cell or a courtroom.

Unless they are white.  Sicknicks killers weren’t even arrested at the scene. 

Amazing how that works isn't it? The times I've been a smart ass to them, ALWAYS gotten a ticket. And the times I've been nice and kissed their ass and only got a ticket about half the time.

No, they want you to believe the liberal narrative that cops hate "innocent" black people more than they do cop killers LMFAO

Your bullshit statements amaze me sometimes.  I've known about plenty of cop killers both black and white that ended up having some mysterious accident on the way to jail. 

Come on Hoodie. You’re a local guy. The only reason the terrorist that was hiding on that guy’s boat in Watertown survived was because he was more than half dead and he received excellent health care. He had bullets in him from every cop in Watertown, Cambridge  and the Staties. You think they stopped shooting him because he was a white guy? They stopped shooting him because they thaought that he was dead, or at least no longer a threat.

I don't find it helpful to compare two situations with all different people in a different scenario, as a 1:1.

I do find it helpful to look at overall statistics.  But one black person getting shot that did something vs. a white person not getting shot for doing something worse -- I just don't think that tells you anything.

As a rule, I think it's pretty clear that black people have it worse when it comes to treatment from police, as well as society at large.  That's been the case for hundreds of years and we still have work to do.  But you can't reduce it to a sample size of two incidents and draw any conclusion from that.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/us/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-trial-day-5/index.html

Nice to see a cop cross the blue line of deception, lies, cover ups,  and protecting fellow cops no matter the atrocity.

I am setting the over/under for number of days before Lt. Zimmerman begins to get death threats from members of his own department at 2.

It wouldn't surprise me if he resigned from the force and got a job with another precinct somewhere far away.   I mean, who wants to live in Minneapolis anyway?  Eight month winters are not my idea of a good time.

Trial is nothing but a circus. Girlfriend on the stand answering questions about the death of Floyd's mother. Totally irrelevant. Maybe they can also ask about his puppy that got ran over when he was a kid.

You just acknowledged that the police force is broken and beyond repair.  It needs to be disbanded and rebuilt with officers that don’t support murderers, just because they wear blue.

Jump the gun much? No one has been convicted of murder. What you talking bout Willis?

He isn't a police officer currently. Probably why he felt comfortable doing this.

Hahaha, it's a fucking circus with clowns and everything 🤡🤡🤡

Anytime someone is literally caught on video murdering someone the trial should be over by lunch of day one.  The fact that this trial isn’t a guaranteed conviction is what makes it a tucking circus.

MN's laws are a little different from many other states.  I could see him getting convicted of the Second Degree Unintentional Murder charge and/or the Second Degree Manslaughter charge.   I'm not an expert by any means when it comes to how the pertinent laws in MN work, but I'd be a little surprised if he is found guilty of the Third Degree Murder charge because if I'm correct (and again I may not be because the MN laws are a little weird) that charge would involve some element of intent to kill which was clearly absent in Chauvin's actions.  I do hope that at least one of the charges sticks though because it looked like at least a negligent homicide to me.  Caveat:  I've honestly not dug very deeply into this whole case and I don't know a ton about it and like I said earlier I'm not familiar with the details of MN homicide laws since they are pretty different from a lot of states.

I just read the relevant statutes.  You have it backwards.  Murder in the second either requires intent to kill OR the commission of another felony (which arguably was committed by kneeling on his neck). Murder in the third doesn’t require intent to kill just depraved heart (which basically means he didn’t give a shit about the victims well being one way or the other) a level of intent he absolutely met.

Other way around. 2nd degree means he wanted him dead in the heat of the moment. 1st degree is waking up that day and planning his murder. 3rd degree is causing his death but not meaning too, whether it be from just a punch he threw or running a stop sign and hitting someone.

2nd degree is nonsense in this case and was only charged for political reasons. 3rd degree can only happen if the autopsy says he caused his death by kneeling. That doesn't seem likely either but a better charge would've been Reckless Endangerment. It could be argued that he did not do anything to help Floyd once he seemed to lose consciousness. If we weren't all members of a Blue or Red Cult these days, we could've found common ground on that but instead everything is ACAB or Blue Lives Matter so we're doomed.

The autopsy from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner said the cause of Floyd's death was homicide.
But we can't even "find common ground" around that.

Not even close. Read the actual statues.  

You merged 2nd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter.

And the autopsy report is evidence not depository.  Nor does this particular one state a cause of death.  It is up to the jury, based on all of the evidence, including the autopsy report, the witness testimony and expert testimony regarding the lethality of kneeling on someones neck, to determine if the defendant caused the death of the victim.

I just read the report.  No where in the report does it draw a conclusion as to cause of death and the word homicide does not appear anywhere in the report.

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MNHENNE/2020/06/01/file_attachments/1464238/2020-3700%20Floyd,%20George%20Perry%20Update%206.1.2020.pdf?referringSource=articleShare

Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression
Manner of death: Homicide

That is NOT the autopsy report.

 This is: https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

The document you linked does not specifically identify any cause of death or manner of death at all.
The document I linked is from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office, and lists the cause of death as "cardiopulmonary arrest" and the manner of death as "homicide."

Now, I'm not sure as to whether the point of dispute here is the name of the documents we are linking; I don't think that's a particularly relevant detail.  Whether it's from the "autopsy" or the "autopsy report" or the "post-autopsy press release report," it is clear that the Hennepin County Medical Examiner determined that Floyd's death was a homicide.

If you dispute that the medical examiner determined that his death was a homicide, then we can discuss that... but if you don't dispute that, I'm not super interested in arguing about the name of the document where they said it.

Spider, your own document states, and I quote,  "The autopsy revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."  Doesn't this mean that it was an overdose?  This is reinforced by evidence that George Floyd was saying he could not breathe before the restraint was applied.  The other document says homicide but does not go into details.   Also, what ARE police trained to do when dealing with somebody the way Floyd was acting, fighting and refusing to cooperate or obey?       

No, it means he had a heart attack that was brought on by compression of his neck.

It did, in fact, go into details.  The details were, "Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression".

If they are already handcuffed and prone, there's nothing (legal) left to do.

We don't live in a society where "He wasn't listening to me, so I was forced to kill him" is a self-justifying explanation.  The suspect needs to present a legitimate threat, which is not the same thing as insufficiently compliant.  But police in this country believe that the most serious offense one can commit is Disrespecting a Police Officer, which immediately justifies anything up to and including lethal force.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.  I'm glad that I said that MN's laws are a little different from what I am accustomed to.  That way I didn't look like a total dumbass by having it wrong.  LOL    Although I think it is obvious there was no intent to kill, I would say he definitely met the criteria you stated of not giving a shit about the victim's well being one way or another.  I hope he at least gets convicted of one of the charges.  George Floyd's record and past history show that he was kind of a scumbag.  And resisting the way he did contributed to what happened to him.  But he did not deserve to die that day and Chauvin should be convicted of at least one of the crimes he has been charged with. 

On Thursday, another doctor testified (https://www.startribune.com/medical-expert-in-a-vise-george-floyd-did-everything-he-could-as-he-struggled-to-breathe/600043818/) as to the manner of George Floyd's homicide:

Even after George Floyd took his final breath and went motionless under Derek Chauvin's knee, the since-fired Minneapolis police officer kept the pressure on for another three minutes and 27 seconds, a Chicago-based lung and critical care expert testified Thursday.

Dr. Martin Tobin, a Chicago physician who has written textbooks and specialized in respiratory and critical care medicine for decades, showed through graphics and video how Floyd pressed the fingers of his cuffed right hand to the ground and his knuckles against a police squad-car tire as he fought in vain to open up his side to pull air into his right lung.

"Mr. Floyd died from a low level of oxygen," Tobin said. "This caused damage to his brain that we see, and it also caused a [pulseless electrical activity] arrhythmia that caused his heart to stop."

---

The idea that Chauvin was merely restraining a non-compliant suspect is absolutely ridiculous.  George Floyd had stopped speaking... stopped moving... stopped breathing.  And STILL, for THREE MORE MINUTES, Chauvin kept his knee on his neck.

Even when handcuffed, prone, and not breathing, Floyd represented too much of a threat for the police to take their knee off of his neck.  There is no justification, no rationalization for this.

I have renamed the thread, George Floyd is NOT on trial. 

I think a better rename is "The George Floyd Murder Trial," for the same reason that "The John Lennon Murder Trial" conveys more information than "The Mark David Chapman Trial."

  Agreed 100 percent.  You forgot unconscious, too. 

Not even close to comparable.  John Lennon was a famous person independent before he was murdered and his name is recognizable for much more than his connection with Chapman.  OTOH, the *ONLY* reason I know who Floyd is is because he was murdered by Chauvin. 

Plenty of people know who John Lennon was but would not recognize the name Chapman.  If you know who Floyd is than you know who Chauvin is.

This is not even close to true.  There were protests all over the world with George Floyd's name.  Even if you limited the question to those who already know of George Floyd, I doubt even a majority could tell you the first name of the officer that killed him.

I disagree.  Because every time you look up George Floyd online, you'll see Derrick Chauvin's name. 

This reply just reinforces my point.

You look up "George Floyd" online because his name is well-known to everyone.
When you are looking up the name "George Floyd," you might see an article about where he was killed, or who killed him, or the protests that followed.  But there's no question as to which name is more well-known, and this isn't even disputable.

There are plenty of contexts in which you can see George Floyd's name without Derek Chauvin, but you will virtually never see Derek Chauvin's name outside the context of George Floyd.

If you were protesting without knowing very basic facts such as the name of the police officer than you weren't fighting an injustice you were just protesting for the sake of protesting. 

The name of the police officer - or the name of the police chief, or the mayor, or even the city - are not particularly relevant to the nature of the injustice that occurred.  One can protest an act of extreme police brutality without knowing the name of the particular officer that did it, because it's not about one bad apple who needs to be named and shamed.  The protests were about systemic police brutality, not "Derek Chauvin is a bad guy."

For example, not once - in the history of this message board - has anyone ever mentioned the names of the two officers that held Floyd down as Chauvin killed him, nor the name of the officer that stood by and watched it happen.  The names are not as important as the actions and the system that perpetuates them.

Wait a minute, this says he may have died from Covid.

After watching some of this trial and witnesses. At this point we can conclude that Floyd had an enlarged heart, underlying heart disease, and Covid. He also had Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, THC, and morphine in his system.

Also, on a side note but related. What's the big deal with the other guy that was shot. He was being arrested and decided to fight the police instead of going to jail. Then got back in his car. At that point you don't know what he's doing and he's a threat to everyone and deserved to be shot. All the taser talk is non sense. 

But lets talk about why the vast majority of these cases involve criminals that want to fight with police. That's the real issue here. Most of these people would be alive today if they would comply with law enforcement.

This right here.  Be cool with the police and do what they say, and they will be cool with you. 

So not complying with a police order is a capital offense that gets the death penalty.. do you guys even think before you type?

This is blatantly false.  I'm a white dude living in a nice neighborhood and I had a maniac cop in an unmarked car pull a gun and point it at me, while screaming, because he thought I stole my own car.  It was some weird circumstances.  He thought we were tattooed gang members and was talking to me about life on the street.  I was 130 pounds and 18 years old.  When he saw my license, he said "Oh....we get to take YOU to the BIG JAIL!"

I mean...I can't even believe you'd make that statement.  There are 100 years of cops doing fucked up shit off-camera.  Remember how many black dudes died because they were high on PCP and needed 6 cops to beat them into restraint?

You shouldn't fight or evade police...obviously.  But this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.  There's a century of distrust, lying, and covering for each other to avoid accountability.  Now that we have this stuff on camera, for all to see, we're left with blaming the victim.

It's not that simple and you know it. If a criminal chooses to resist arrest with 3 armed police officers there. And then jumps in the drivers seat. What is he doing in there? Is he getting a cigarette? Calling Domino's to order a pizza? Going for a gun or knife? As a officer the only thing they knew was that you have a violent criminal resisting arrest, fighting, and going into his car.

Now put yourself in the cop's shoes. Once this scumbag jumps into his car are you concerned for your life or the life of your co-workers? Even if she pulled the taser instead her service weapon, if that scumbag pulled out a gun you would have a dead cop. So no it's not a death penalty.  At the point he starts fighting with the police I consider it a self defense situation. There's a reason they tell you to put your hands on the steering wheel and not make any sudden movements when you get pulled over.

I will agree that there are some issues with law enforcement that need to be addressed. However, and this goes for anyone including me, once you start resisting arrest and fighting with law enforcement there's a substantially increased chance that it will end in your death. If I ever do what Daunte Wright did, I give my 100% permission for you to shoot me, because at that point I already know how it's going to turn out, jail or dead. Likewise, If I was the cop, I would have 100% shot Daunte Wright. One thing these idiot criminals don't seem to understand is that once it's been decided that you're going to be arrested. You are going to be arrested on way or the other. 


Are you alive? Did you comply?

How is Daunte Wright a victim? He was a criminal that choose to resist arrest, assault law enforcement, and jump into his car.

He's a victim of his own stupidity and ignorance. Like the song says, "I fought the law and the law won". You can't have it both ways, either you want the violent criminals off the street, which sometimes means violent interactions and/or death. Or you want to leave them roaming around like packs of wild animals. And in that case, you anti gun liberals don't stand a chance. These officers tried to peacefully take him into custody and he escalated the situation to his own determent. Good for him, he won the dummy of the day award and paid for it with his life.

Not to mention his idiot Aunt on national media coverage saying that "she murdered my nephew", "Every pistol has a safety on it", "she saw that she had to release the safety".

First of all, this is in NO way murder. Second of all, after reviewing the video, the officer was carrying a Glock which doesn't have an active safety to release. And third, she in no way even acknowledged that her nephew was a criminal or in the process of committing a crime when he was killed. Why won't she address why he was too stupid and/or too violent to just deal with it in court? She has no credibility whatsoever, just a sympathy play. Her kneejerk media circus is no different than Daunte Wright’s kneejerk reaction to being arrested.

Daunte Wright is a different situation than George Floyd.

Chauvin did not take the stand.

Closing arguments will be Monday.  Thing is, if he is acquitted, he can retire on his pension

Yes, but it's the same old leftist propaganda. White cop kills innocent black person just because they were black. But the circumstances and fact are swept under the rug and twisted by the liberals.

So even though the situations are different. They all involve criminals resisting arrest and assaulting law enforcement. Remember Michael Brown and "Hands up, don't shoot". It was proven to be a lie. Michael Brown, George Floyd, and Daunte Wright all have one thing in common. Their own actions and choices directly let to their own death. It's not rocket science. Do as instructed, let them cuff you, put you in the car, and go to jail. Or stupidly fight with police and lose your life. All three of those idiots would probably be alive today if they didn't make the choices they made.

So I guess that the asshole cop you ran across didn't kill you because you made the correct choice. I mean there are only two choices. How stupid does a person have to be to get it wrong?

We just approach these things differently.

Floyd was murdered in custody, in my opinion.
Wright was accidentally killed by a police officer.

I don't know every single detail, but from what I understand, Floyd's killer should be put in jail.  Wright's killer shouldn't even be charged.

It doesn't matter what you did prior to your capture.  Once you're in custody, your safety is the responsibility of the State.  Floyd didn't pose a threat, so kneeling on him while he's yelling "I can't breathe" for 9 minutes is excessive force.
Wright's killing is unfortuate, and a situation that he escalated.

There is a larger question of whether or not we should even have armed police pulling people over for traffic citations and air freshers.  You can make a case that that's more of a meter maid's job.  But either way, I don't think that's what this woman should be on trial for -- that entire broken system.

I mean...he's literally a victim.

A police officer unintentionally shot him dead.  She was not authorized to use deadly force.  He had not been convicted of any crime or sentenced to death by anyone with authority.

You can be a criminal and a victim both.  If I rob a store, the cops don't just get to kill me for it.  They also don't get to kill me for resisting arrest.

It wasn't a death sentence, it was self defense. It was a criminal that resisted arrest and fights with law enforcement and then jumps into his car.

If Dave is that officer what does he do? Who's to say he wasn't going for a weapon. Taser shouldn't even be in the conversation. Once he got back into the car all 3 officers should have drawn and discharged their weapons. At that point he was a threat to everyone involved.

I would love to see some of you go through a law enforcement simulation. Split second decisions in stressful situations aren't as easy as you people make it out to be. So Dave, what would you have done in that situation? Risk you or your coworkers life or blow the scumbag away?

She fired her gun by accident.  She didn't mean to shoot him.

Those words are equal parts psychotically evil and criminally stupid* things I have ever read on this board.

(* and I used to read all of D4L's posts.)

Don't get the reference here.  You seem to be implying that my posts are stupid.  The problem with that claim is that they are not. 

If she didn't have a taser, would a firearm have been a justifiable option?  Him driving off hastily in the car IS a threat to the public.   

What do you think of the Chicago guy, who complied with the police and got shot anyway?

Or that person in Texas who was shot in killed for the crime of living in an apartment?

I understand that. However, in my opinion once he got into the car she was perfectly justified to shoot him. The same reason they draw their weapons when they can't see your hands and start fumbling around in the car.

Criminally? You're overly dramatic like a 12 girl in puberty. Is it objectively reasonable to assume that an officer in her situation could feel the criminal in question was an immanent threat to her or someone else's life?

Just him getting in the car after resisting arrest was a threat to the officers on scene.

Are you talking about Adam Toledo? According to the short clip I saw, they say he had a gun? I'm sure more info will be forthcoming.

I think that the officer in the Botham case made a mistake and she was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years. It really doesn't compare to the Floyd or Wright.

Sure, how about this. Take all the guns away from patrol officers. Then when they want to take someone into custody they just send 8 officers to the scene with pepper spray and tasers to hog tie the criminal and transport him to jail. However, if in the process of being arrested the criminal pulls a weapon and shoots at and/or kills someone he either turns himself in or is shot on sight by the SWAT team. Is that a better solution? Or we should we just let the criminals roam the streets like Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, and Jackson?

It is really bizarre to see the same people who think the government shouldn't be forcing you to wear a mask during a pandemic then turn around and say that of course a police officer should be able to execute you for backtalking them.

When, exactly, are commands from the government to be immediately obeyed without question?  And when is it OK to summarily execute people for any delay in hasty compliance?

When the morons invaded the capital on Jan 6th I wonder if pondwater also thinks that the cops had full right to shoot everyone that passed a barricade when told not to since they were posing imminent threats to police.

Here's an equally good question:

If a police officer shouts "PUT ON YOUR FUCKING MASK RIGHT NOW!" while they have you at gunpoint and you don't swiftly comply, can they execute you on the spot because you're possibly trying to infect them with a deadly disease?

Hahaha, nice but predictable liberal spin. You guys are so damn silly. I'm not talking about masks or trespassing. I'm talking about Daunte Wright, a violent criminal with an active warrant who was resisting arrest and assaulting law enforcement officers. Who then jumped into his car.

At that point it is a self defense issue. There is no way to know if the scumbag was going for a weapon or not. The fact that she shot him instead of using her taser really doesn't matter. Are you guys actually arguing that law enforcement aren't allowed to protect or defend themselves? See, that's what's wrong with the country. There are too many extremists on both sides that common sense has gone out the window and both of you fit into that category.

The legal standards governing deadly force:

Just to clarify, here: are you saying that in the absence of a verified criminal identity and confirmed outstanding warrant, you do not support the use of lethal force in response to resisting arrest?

Now, let's talk about those standards you just listed.

A cop ordering a person to wear a legally-mandated mask to prevent the transmission of a deadly disease sounds like "protecting their life or the life of another innocent party" to me.  And if that person tries to walk away, that also sounds like the escaping suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.  So according to the legal standard you just cited, it sounds like a refusal to wear a mask is, indeed, grounds for a cop to empty his clip magazine into the offender's back.

Go back and read what I posted. I support those two circumstances.

That's the stupidest thing I've read this year? When you post silly shit like this you can't blame anyone but yourself for not being taken serious.

I have no idea what this non-response means, so I'll be more direct this time:

Don't bother throwing out this "He's a violent criminal with an outstanding warrant" drivel when you don't actually care about those things.  If you happily cheer on non-felons with no warrants being gunned down by police because they didn't comply fast enough, this "He was no angel" stuff is just an excuse for something you already support anyway.

You claim that attempting to escape in a car is obviously a deadly threat necessitating lethal force in response... and you think that I'M the one who shouldn't be taken seriously?  Sure.

Because if he wasn't a violent criminal with an outstanding warrant he would have just gotten a ticket and still be alive. Or, since he had a warrant, if he accepted the fact that that he was going to jail one way or the other. And acted like a grown ass man, he would have bailed out of jail and still been alive. His own choices directly led to his death. I bet if he had a "do over", he would have just let them him to jail.

So are you saying that you don't support law enforcement protecting themselves or someone else's life if a person is a threat?


No, I claim that ANYONE resisting arrest, assaulting law enforcement, and then ENTERING their car should be met with lethal force. No one knew before hand why he entered the car. Mind readers don't exist. Was he going to drive away and kill someone in a high speed chase? Was he going for a weapon? Did he just want his bag of Cheetos to bring to jail with him? 

Since you know so much Spider, tell us why he was entering his car?

i thought his warrant was for a non-violent offense .. pot i believe i read

2019 - Wright pleaded guilty to marijuana charges and disorderly conduct.
2019 - Wright was charged with aggravated robbery at gunpoint.
2020 - Wright was charged with of carrying a weapon without a permit and fleeing from the police.

I would consider anyone committing armed robbery a violent criminal. Not to mention, battery or assault of law enforcement is a felony in itself in many jurisdictions. He had 2 firearm related charges. This isn't rocket science.

I find it funny that the liberals that want more common sense gun laws don't want to enforce the laws on the books already. This guy was a criminal with firearm related charges. He belonged off the streets. Do you guys propose that law enforcement just run away and let violent criminals go when they put up a struggle during an arrest? Do you guys propose that law enforcement shouldn't protect themselves when a criminal with a history of firearms related charges jumps into his car after resisting arrest. Maybe once Wright jumped in his car, the cops should have put their hands in the air and said, "Hands up, don't shoot".

Since all you social justice warriors want to make a difference in the world and have all the answer, why don't you go apply to be a law enforcement officer. It's easy to play Monday morning QB after the fact.

Philando Castile would disagree if he were still alive to do so.

And when non-felon citizens like Philando Castile and John Crawford are gunned down, what is your response?  It's... to blame other black people somewhere else:

So spare me this hand-wringing about how Wright was a Dangerous Violent Criminal.  Even when it's a person with a spotless record, you still won't hold the police accountable.  A police officer walked into a man's apartment and shot him dead for no reason, and all you could do was make excuses for her.  The lives of these victims hold no value to you, regardless of any crime they may or may not have committed.

I reject the premise; they were not a threat.

Entering your car is not a deadly action requiring lethal force in response.  And neither is driving away!

Every act of disobedience of the directions of an officer is not immediately escalated to a deadly act requiring lethal force in response just because you can IMAGINE something more dangerous they might do later.  Walking back into my house in contradiction to an officer's instructions does not itself justify an officer immediately shooting me multiple times in the back just because they think I might have a knife in my house.

It's clear that you understand this concept quite clearly when it comes to people disobeying orders to put on a mask, or disobeying orders to not invade the seat of our federal legislature.  Those things are conveniently "not dangerous" in your eyes.  But suddenly, when it comes to a black man getting in his car, Well Maybe He Has A Bomb In His Car And He's Going To Set It Off!  Better kill him anyway, just in case!

Unlike you, I believe that the punishment for crimes - including being "taken off the streets" - should come after a trial and conviction.  The fact that Wright previously served time for earlier convictions does not entitle police to summarily execute him.

Spider, this is for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g&t=239s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g&t=239s)  This is why I normay side with aw enforcement in these situations.                                 
            George Floyd is different because he was handcuffed and posed no threat.                                                                                          It is impossibe, however, to ignore the double standard in terms of these situations and the no shootings in the capita riots

Again, I'm talking about the specific case with Daunte Wright. That's your problem, most of you extremist liberals try to lump every case together when they all have different circumstances. For the record and to be clear, in my opinion the officer in the Castile case should have been guilty. I am not familiar with the Crawford case you referenced.

And she was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years. The issue at hand is that you think that she was out hunting a black man just because he was black and I think that she made a very grave mistake. In the end she was held accountable for her actions. The interesting part is that if Botham Jean was a white man, we wouldn't even be discussing it right now because you wouldn't care. It wouldn't fit your fake liberal storyline that "white people are hunting down and killing black people". So don't say you value the victims lives. You only value them if they're black. And you think I'm a racist, LMFAO....

Who is "they"? Again we're talking about Daunte Wright. If he wasn't a threat, what was he doing in his car?

Your opinion doesn't matter. it's skewed by the leftist propaganda you've been indoctrinated with. The Dante Wright case meets both legal standards governing deadly force. I posted it again below and highlighted it just to make sure you know the LEGAL standard. Again, your opinion doesn't matter, this is a country of laws.

Spider, if you can't see the difference between an old lady at the mall not putting on a mask and a criminal felon assaulting law enforcement while resisting arrest and then jumping in his car. Then I really don't know what to tell you.

However, if 3 officers confront that lady with no mask. Run her ID and see that she's wanted for a violent felony involving firearms. And she resists arrest, assaults law enforcement, and starts digging in her purse in close quarters. I think lethal force would be justified if the officers feel that she's a threat.

He wasn't punished for a crime, nor was he executed. He was a threat to law enforcement and/or the public and they neutralized the threat. The officers involved tried to take him into custody for trial. But unfortunately Mr. Wright wasn't smart enough and/or had bad parents who didn't care enough to teach him how to make the correct decisions when dealing with a serious situation.

I think this thread ran its course. We have two parties going back and forth with no chance of compromise and we are not on the original topic.