View Poll Results: What Do You Think The Jury Will Do?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Murder in the 2nd Degree

    4 30.77%
  • Manslaughter

    4 30.77%
  • Not Guilty

    1 7.69%
  • Hung Jury

    1 7.69%
  • Murder in the 3rd Degree

    3 23.08%
Page 1 of 79 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 788

Thread: George Floyd murderer's trial

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,546
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,287
    Rep Power
    78

    George Floyd murderer's trial

    I apologize for continually rewriting the op. I've decided it is best to provide at least one link for each day. Maybe an excerpt/quote but not comprehensive. So here goes...

    Day 1
    The Minnesota prosecutor Jerry Blackwell began, saying Chauvin betrayed his police principles. He also played the entire bystander video that showed Floyd begging for his life and then passing out as he is pinned to the street by officers, including Chauvin who presses on his neck for more than nine minutes.

    Then Chauvin’s lead defense lawyer, Eric Nelson, set out his case, focusing on Floyd’s use of illicit drugs and his underlying health conditions. He argued that Chauvin followed his police training and should be found not guilty.
    Day 2
    More witnesses took the stand Tuesday in the murder trial of former Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin. Witnesses testifying described Chauvin was unmoved by their pleas as he kept his knee on George Floyd's neck.
    ...
    Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd while fellow Officer Tou Thao held the crowd of about 15 back, even when one of the onlookers identified herself as a firefighter and pleaded repeatedly to check Floyd's pulse, according to witnesses and bystander video.

    The firefighter, Genevieve Hansen, wept on the witness stand as she recalled how she was not allowed to give any medical assistance or tell the police what to do, such as administering chest compressions.

    "There was a man being killed," said Hansen, who testified in her dress uniform and detailed her emergency medical technician training. "I would have been able to provide medical attention to the best of my abilities. And this human was denied that right."
    Day 3:
    The third day of testimony at Derek Chauvin’s murder trial revealed more details about the events that led up to George Floyd’s fatal encounter with the then-Minneapolis police officer.

    The jury on Wednesday heard from witnesses who interacted with Floyd before he died under Chauvin’s knee on May 25, 2020, including testimony from a cashier at Cup Foods, the convenience store where Floyd purchased cigarettes before his arrest. Prosecutors also showed body camera footage that provided a closer look at the attempts by Chauvin and his fellow officers to restrain Floyd.
    Day 4
    Two Hennepin County paramedics who treated Floyd last May said he was unresponsive, not breathing and had no pulse when they arrived on the scene.

    "In layman terms, I thought he was dead," paramedic Derek Smith said.

    Smith and his partner Seth Bravinder were first called to the scene as a non-emergency Code 2 for a mouth injury, but about a minute and half later, the call was upgraded to a Code 3 -- meaning the ambulance uses lights and sirens.

    When they arrived at the scene, Floyd did not appear to be breathing or moving, they testified. Smith checked Floyd's pulse and pupils -- with Chauvin still kneeling on him -- and believed his heart had stopped. They then moved to get him onto a stretcher, and Bravinder bent down and motioned for Chauvin to lift his knee off Floyd.
    More on Day 4:
    Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin should not have knelt on George Floyd’s neck after he stopped resisting, a former supervisor told jurors on the fourth day of testimony in Chauvin’s murder trial, as more details emerged about the aftermath of Floyd’s arrest.

    The supervisor, now-retired sergeant David Pleoger, said Thursday that Chauvin never mentioned holding his knee to Floyd’s neck in their first call after the incident. Body camera footage captured Chauvin telling Pleoger that officers “had” to hold Floyd down and that “he was going crazy.”
    Last edited by Don2 (Don1 Revised); 04-02-2021 at 08:41 AM.

  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    19,977
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    35,663
    Rep Power
    89
    Nothing like declaring the verdict before the trial.


  3. Top | #3
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,313
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,353
    Rep Power
    95
    Thanks for these recaps, Don. It is useful to have the separate days described. There is so much evidence being presented, it helps to have it is the same sequence as the jury is hearing it.

    Several people on this forum, in several places, have declared that Floyd’s death was clearly not at Chauvin’s hands, and turn around and sneer, “oh look you’re saying that Chauvin caused it before the trial is done?” Completely unaware that they have already declared their conclusion before the trial is done. One can see why they would want to change the topic away from the clear evidence and start pointing fingers at the messengers as a way of absolving Chauvin by distraction.

    As we see the defense show what they think is their very best support for the non-responsibility of the man who knelt for five minutes on the neck of a man begging for air and then knelt for four more minutes on his limp corpse, their defense does not bring much strength to absolving him of the accusation.

  4. Top | #4
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,728
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,639
    Rep Power
    49
    I reiterate that there is nothing wrong with making observations that when you drop something, it will accelerate to the deepest gravity well at a predictable rate.

    Recognizing that the conclusion is foregone is not a problem. The problem would be in not holding a trial at all, or conducting it any differently than any other trial.

    If you want a trial you can win, don't murder someone on camera.

  5. Top | #5
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    24,065
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    27,099
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Nothing like declaring the verdict before the trial.
    So presenting the evidence is declaring the verdict before the trial.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  6. Top | #6
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    11,313
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    20,353
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    If you want a trial you can win, don't murder someone on camera.
    Meanwhile, I continue to acknowledge that many MANY trials against cops that I thought had overwhelming evidence were nevertheless ended in acquittal. Not becuase good evidence overcame the culpatory evidence, but for reasons of technicalities and unexplained juror reticence. Perhaps they are “scared of the potential backlash” by police.

    So it remains fully possible that what the evidence shows overwhelmingly to be a deliberate application of unecessary force that led to a death, may still result in an acquittal.

  7. Top | #7
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,728
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,639
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    If you want a trial you can win, don't murder someone on camera.
    Meanwhile, I continue to acknowledge that many MANY trials against cops that I thought had overwhelming evidence were nevertheless ended in acquittal. Not becuase good evidence overcame the culpatory evidence, but for reasons of technicalities and unexplained juror reticence. Perhaps they are “scared of the potential backlash” by police.

    So it remains fully possible that what the evidence shows overwhelmingly to be a deliberate application of unecessary force that led to a death, may still result in an acquittal.
    I will accept this as an unfortunate reality of the situation: that someone will nullify a jury because the defendant is a cop (a statement by the juror that equal protection of the law is a bad law), rather than because of an actual bad law.

  8. Top | #8
    Liberal Rastafarian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    895
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,033
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Nothing like declaring the verdict before the trial.

    Police officers are not known for being held accountable so you don't have much to be concerned about.

  9. Top | #9
    Liberal Rastafarian Gospel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    895
    Archived
    138
    Total Posts
    1,033
    Rep Power
    51
    I've been watching the trial when I can (I have a job and am not an old angry at blacks white man with a lot of free time). Has anyone heard mention of the counterfeit 20 yet? I have this feeling there was no counterfeit 20.

  10. Top | #10
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,546
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    28,287
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Gospel View Post
    I've been watching the trial when I can (I have a job and am not an old angry at blacks white man with a lot of free time). Has anyone heard mention of the counterfeit 20 yet? I have this feeling there was no counterfeit 20.
    Yes. I read about it. The counterfeit was thought to be counterfeit by the cashier in the store. He also presumed Floyd was out of it and didn't realize it was counterfeit. So, he was letting it slide. The boss, though, got mad about it and wanted to call the police. The cashier said, he'd give up his own $20 to make it right, but the boss insisted and called the police. That doesn't mean 100% that it was counterfeit but it seems like it.

    From the Day 3 link in the op:
    Christopher Martin, a 19-year-old former Cup Foods employee who sold Floyd cigarettes before police were called, told prosecutors Wednesday that Floyd used a counterfeit bill to purchase the item. But under questioning from Chauvin’s attorney, Eric Nelson, Martin said he believed that Floyd didn’t know the bill was fake.

    “You made the decision after Floyd handed you this counterfeit $20 bill that you weren’t going to call him out on it?” Nelson asked. “Was that in part because you felt maybe he’s under the influence?”

    “Partially,” Martin said. “I thought that George really didn’t know it was a fake, so I thought I’d be doing him a favor.”

    Martin testified that Floyd appeared to be under the influence of something when he spoke to him as well, because he was speaking very slowly.

    The ninth witness to testify at the trial, Martin was asked by prosecutors to provide a narrative description for footage taken by the store’s security camera that showed Floyd interacting with staff and other customers.

    “He seemed very friendly, approachable. He was talkative, just having an average Memorial Day, living his life,” Martin said. “But he did seem high.”

    Martin testified that the manager at Cup Foods called the police about the counterfeit bill, adding that he had offered to use his own money to cover the debt and felt guilt over the incident that followed after police arrived.

    “If I would have just not [taken] the bill,” he said, “this could have been avoided.”
    I don't know if irony would be the appropriate word to describe it if the bill wasn't counterfeit after all. Kafkaesque doesn't seem to quite cover it either.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •