What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Derek Chauvin trial. Murder of George Floyd. Convictions now appealed. (2 Viewers)

Da Guru said:
I have never celebrated nor wanted to riot about any verdict.  OJ?  Well jury went on the evidence.  Did OJ kill his wife?  Yes but he was aquitted.

Do I think Chauvin should get convicted?  Yes..of what that is up to the jury.  If he gets aquitted will there be riots?  Yes..if he gets manslaughter will there be riots?  Yes..if he get convicted of second degree murder there still might be some type of riots who knows.
Click to expand...
Yes. 

3000 national guard deployed. All off time for police cancelled. Largest operation in city history. I hope they are ready to arrest anyone who riots. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich said:
100%.

I was thinking to myself a week or so ago "do I want Chauvin convicted".  I can't say yes.  I want justice.  I want the judge and jury to decide that.  When they do, justice is done, I won't celebrate a conviction because it was a terrible event including for Chauvin (thats not sympathy...thats just not celebrating in someone elses demise).

I'm not going to let my fear of hoodlums destroying property and harming/killing other citizens bully me into celebrating something like this or praying for anything other than justice.
Click to expand...
I guess I just don't see how you watched that video and think that Chauvin getting off is, in any way, justice.

At the very least, Chauvin was negligent.  With no other evidence, the video tells me that, at the very least.....

 
Guido Merkins said:
I guess I just don't see how you watched that video and think that Chauvin getting off is, in any way, justice.

At the very least, Chauvin was negligent.  With no other evidence, the video tells me that, at the very least.....
Click to expand...
I can't speak for @djmich, but I will simply say that the law can be a complicated tool.

We have set up a system that places a high burden on the government to prove someone's guilt, and we have entrusted a jury system to weight that burden.

In a lot of cases, I think that maybe its a flawed system.  But, in this case, I think the government was fairly represented, and the defendant was fairly represented.  If a jury decides that the government did not prove its case - then I trust the jury.

Thats not to say he is innocent, if he is found not guilty.  It is to say the government did not meet its burden - and that is what the system requires.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I can't speak for @djmich, but I will simply say that the law can be a complicated tool.

We have set up a system that places a high burden on the government to prove someone's guilt, and we have entrusted a jury system to weight that burden.

In a lot of cases, I think that maybe its a flawed system.  But, in this case, I think the government was fairly represented, and the defendant was fairly represented.  If a jury decides that the government did not prove its case - then I trust the jury.

Thats not to say he is innocent, if he is found not guilty.  It is to say the government did not meet its burden - and that is what the system requires.
Click to expand...
I get that.  Yeah, it's a high burden to meet.  In this case, however, I just don't see how he wasn't negligent. If he gets off without, at least, that I don't see how it can be argued that the burden wasn't met.  You can't lean on somebody until they die.  If Floyd started to become unresponsive and they immediately flipped him over and started doing CPR or helping him, then I agree, it may go either way.

I just think this is cut and dry and if this guy gets off, there is something really wrong with the system....

 
Sinn Fein said:
I can't speak for @djmich, but I will simply say that the law can be a complicated tool.

We have set up a system that places a high burden on the government to prove someone's guilt, and we have entrusted a jury system to weight that burden.

In a lot of cases, I think that maybe its a flawed system.  But, in this case, I think the government was fairly represented, and the defendant was fairly represented.  If a jury decides that the government did not prove its case - then I trust the jury.

Thats not to say he is innocent, if he is found not guilty.  It is to say the government did not meet its burden - and that is what the system requires.
Click to expand...
I appreciate and share this POV for most criminal cases.  In this case, though, there's clear video evidence that shows Chauvin killing Floyd.  I will feel pretty comfortable saying that the jury made an error if he's acquitted of all charges.  I can definitely see a good argument for why he should be acquitted on the murder charges but convicted of manslaughter, and I would be reluctantly okay with that outcome, but not a full acquital.  

 
Sinn Fein said:
I can't speak for @djmich, but I will simply say that the law can be a complicated tool.

We have set up a system that places a high burden on the government to prove someone's guilt, and we have entrusted a jury system to weight that burden.

In a lot of cases, I think that maybe its a flawed system.  But, in this case, I think the government was fairly represented, and the defendant was fairly represented.  If a jury decides that the government did not prove its case - then I trust the jury.

Thats not to say he is innocent, if he is found not guilty.  It is to say the government did not meet its burden - and that is what the system requires.
Click to expand...
I agree our system is well designed. It is certainly possible for justice not to be served by a fair judicial process. A differently designed system which required justice in every outcome would be worse for the country overall.

I can understand a narrative where Chauvin stressed by the onlookers and intimidated by the larger man he knew to be high made a mistake and is regretful. I don't feel the defense argued that side well at all and fell back on not his fault.

 
Guido Merkins said:
I guess I just don't see how you watched that video and think that Chauvin getting off is, in any way, justice.

At the very least, Chauvin was negligent.  With no other evidence, the video tells me that, at the very least.....
Click to expand...
Can I agree with everything you just said and also acknowledge that I haven't participated in receiving and deliberating over a few hundred hours of additional information.  My personal view is that he also was negligent, but I'm smart enough to also know that I'm not smart enough to make a decision with regard to the law and policing procedures based on a video.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I appreciate and share this POV for most criminal cases.  In this case, though, there's clear video evidence that shows Chauvin killing Floyd.  I will feel pretty comfortable saying that the jury made an error if he's acquitted of all charges.  I can definitely see a good argument for why he should be acquitted on the murder charges but convicted of manslaughter, and I would be reluctantly okay with that outcome, but not a full acquital.  
Click to expand...
My take, based on my limited knowledge of the case (which is essentially the video and reading the really good updates in here) is that he's guilty of manslaughter and not murder. I hope such a result doesn't still spark riots because I think it would be the best result pursuant to Minnesota law and the facts of the case.

Of course, I have not had the time or the inclination to watch every moment of the trial though so I'm not trying to say a different verdict would be errant. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
My take, based on my limited knowledge of the case (which is essentially the video and reading the really good updates in here) is that he's guilty of manslaughter and not murder. I hope such a result doesn't still spark riots because I think it would be the best result pursuant to Minnesota law and the facts of the case.

Of course, I have not had the time or the inclination to watch every moment of the trial though so I'm not trying to say a different verdict would be errant. 
Click to expand...
I’m sure you forgot more about the law than I’ll ever know. But I also think manslaughter seems like the correct verdict.

Unfortunately, I believe a manslaughter verdict will result in RIOTS

 
Zow said:
My take, based on my limited knowledge of the case (which is essentially the video and reading the really good updates in here) is that he's guilty of manslaughter and not murder. I hope such a result doesn't still spark riots because I think it would be the best result pursuant to Minnesota law and the facts of the case.

Of course, I have not had the time or the inclination to watch every moment of the trial though so I'm not trying to say a different verdict would be errant. 
Click to expand...
Manslaughter was my thought as well, then I heard the prosecution say during closing statements that Chauvin was informed Floyd had no pulse by another officer and Chauvin continued to kneel on his neck for another 4+ minutes. If he's told there's no pulse, shouldn't they have performed CPR or other medical assistance at that point?

That seems like more than "manslaughter" to my uniformed self.

 
rockaction said:
You know, I've been guilty of letting hoodlums determine how I feel about the trial. He's presumed innocent until proven otherwise by a reasonable doubt. I think the problem is that we know that a particular subset of people aren't willing to accept the jury's verdict and that it will only reinforce, in their minds, that the system is corrupt and racist.

That's where the problem with the ideological underpinnings of this new wave of civil rights protests has been. It's purely results-oriented, and there is no room for doubt about amorphous or nuanced things like this trial.
Click to expand...
Sure, this is mostly true. But sometimes jury’s just flat get it wrong. That happens too. 

 
Amused to Death said:
Manslaughter was my thought as well, then I heard the prosecution say during closing statements that Chauvin was informed Floyd had no pulse by another officer and Chauvin continued to kneel on his neck for another 4+ minutes. If he's told there's no pulse, shouldn't they have performed CPR or other medical assistance at that point?

That seems like more than "manslaughter" to my uniformed self.
Click to expand...
wow if thats true

 
Amused to Death said:
Manslaughter was my thought as well, then I heard the prosecution say during closing statements that Chauvin was informed Floyd had no pulse by another officer and Chauvin continued to kneel on his neck for another 4+ minutes. If he's told there's no pulse, shouldn't they have performed CPR or other medical assistance at that point?

That seems like more than "manslaughter" to my uniformed self.
Click to expand...
Technically, what is said in opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence. An opening statement is a lawyer's opportunity to explain the law and explain what facts he or she anticipates will be presented (without making an argument). A closing argument is where a lawyer has the opportunity to actually argue why the jury should do what he or she wants and will do so using the applicable law (which is explained to the jury by the judge's instructions) and applying the law to the evidence heard during the trial. A lawyer cannot use facts in his or her closing argument that were not presented by testimony or through the admitted exhibits (a lawyer may proffer reasonably deduced or implied facts from the evidence presented). 

Given the prosecutor said what you quoted in his closing argument, I'm going to assume such evidence was presented at trial (again I haven't watched the trial so please take everything I say with that grain of salt). I absolutely concede that such evidence could circumstantially lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd even though his intention wasn't premedidated. 

I'd note that I'm not actively licensed in MN, but my understanding is that Minnesota defines the difference between second degree murder* and manslaughter as whether the defendant actually intends to kill to the victim (2nd degree) versus simply engaging in reckless behavior, i.e. a wanton disregard for the victim's safety, and the defendant knew or should have known that death could result. To me, kneeling on a guy's neck for nine minutes - especially with the testimony that his doing so was outside proper policy and procedure - clearly amounts to manslaughter. I could see the argument based Chauvin being informed that Floyd wasn't breathing that, in that moment, Chauvin intended death. Whether I'd then be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of such would likely then turn on the evidence presented and the credibility of those testifying (I understand Chauvin didn't testify so as a trier of fact I shouldn't guess at what he would have said and his credibility in saying it). Since I haven't watched the trial I cannot say and, therefore, am still in the position where I'd likely lean to giving the benefit of the doubt that Chauvin didn't actually intend death. I would instead conclude that Chauvin was drunk on his power and authority as a law enforcement officer who clearly didn't care about the victim's safety and whether he lived or died, and that he displayed his wanton disregard for the same by engaging in an act he knew or should have known could lead to death. 

* I believe there are other ways to get 2nd degree murder in MN such as felony murder, intending injury but causing death of somebody who has an order of protection against you, etc. but that they don't apply to this matter. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
Amused to Death said:
Apparently he was informed twice by another officer that there was no pulse. Chauvin still didn't let him up.
Click to expand...
Eesh. As we say, "that's a bad fact." 
Click to expand...
I can't find the text in the transcript about the 4 minutes so maybe I misheard. I found this part:

 "I think he’s paying, passing out,” Officer Lane says. Officer Kueng can’t find a pulse. Now, the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? No pulse, continued the restraint, continued grinding and twisting and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. It wasn’t too late. He could have rolled him over, performed CPR. No. He continued. Past the point of fighting a pulse, past the point where the ambulance arrives, past the point where the EMTs get out of the ambulance.

 
Amused to Death said:
I can't find the text in the transcript about the 4 minutes so maybe I misheard. I found this part:

 "I think he’s paying, passing out,” Officer Lane says. Officer Kueng can’t find a pulse. Now, the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? No pulse, continued the restraint, continued grinding and twisting and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. It wasn’t too late. He could have rolled him over, performed CPR. No. He continued. Past the point of fighting a pulse, past the point where the ambulance arrives, past the point where the EMTs get out of the ambulance.
Click to expand...
That's well argued. The "past the point" theme is well used there. 

 
Amused to Death said:
I can't find the text in the transcript about the 4 minutes so maybe I misheard. I found this part:

 "I think he’s paying, passing out,” Officer Lane says. Officer Kueng can’t find a pulse. Now, the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? No pulse, continued the restraint, continued grinding and twisting and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. It wasn’t too late. He could have rolled him over, performed CPR. No. He continued. Past the point of fighting a pulse, past the point where the ambulance arrives, past the point where the EMTs get out of the ambulance.
Click to expand...
In the video it's around 3 minutes.  Kueng checks pulse at 18 minute mark, EMTs get Chauvin off Floyd around 21 minute mark.  

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video/4659904-raw-video-ex-officer-j-alexander-kuengs-body-cam-footage-in-george-floyd-arrest/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death said:
I can't find the text in the transcript about the 4 minutes so maybe I misheard. I found this part:

 "I think he’s paying, passing out,” Officer Lane says. Officer Kueng can’t find a pulse. Now, the greatest skeptic of this case among you, how can you justify the continued force on this man when he has no pulse? No pulse, continued the restraint, continued grinding and twisting and pushing him down and crushing the very life out of him. It wasn’t too late. He could have rolled him over, performed CPR. No. He continued. Past the point of fighting a pulse, past the point where the ambulance arrives, past the point where the EMTs get out of the ambulance.
Click to expand...
Yes he could have if he had any concern for Floyd. 

Is Chauvin's defense that he felt threatened by a handcuffed dead man?

 
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.

 
whoknew said:
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this was really dumb.  What's worse is I immediately thought of this place and the usuals when it was said :bag:  

 
whoknew said:
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.
Click to expand...
Terrible

 
whoknew said:
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.
Click to expand...
I guess innocent until proven guilty it’s just a saying in Joe Biden‘s America.

i’m sure he’s watching gavel to gavel coverage

 
whoknew said:
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.
Click to expand...
This is the type of gaffe that I've grown to expect from Biden over the course of his career.  He shouldn't have said this.

 
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?  It appears that the information was gathered from leaked juror questionnaires.  CBS is also treading the line here on giving enough information to ID the jury pool.

We've already had a defense witness get a pig's head dumped on his front porch.  Why is the fourth estate trying to contaminate/intimidate this jury in a highly charged case?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?  It appears that the information was gathered from leaked juror questionnaires.  CBS is also treading the line here on giving enough information to ID the jury pool.

We've already had a defense witness get a pig's head dumped on his front porch.  Why is the fourth estate trying to contaminate/intimidate this jury in a highly charged case?
Click to expand...
Because we have an irresponsible media that was permanently broken during the Trump administration?

 
whoknew said:
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.
Click to expand...
oooooooooooof

 
Sand said:
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?  It appears that the information was gathered from leaked juror questionnaires.  CBS is also treading the line here on giving enough information to ID the jury pool.

We've already had a defense witness get a pig's head dumped on his front porch.  Why is the fourth estate trying to contaminate/intimidate this jury in a highly charged case?
Click to expand...
This should be frightening to all of us. 

 
whoknew said:
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.
Click to expand...
This is definitely something Trump would have said and Trump would have gotten ridiculed for.  And rightfully so.  Everyone knows Biden didn't watch 10 minutes of the trial and thus can't comment on the particulars.  He just doesn't want riots.  And that's understandable too.  

But there are some things a president doesn't say, and this is one of them.

 
Sand said:
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?  It appears that the information was gathered from leaked juror questionnaires.  CBS is also treading the line here on giving enough information to ID the jury pool.

We've already had a defense witness get a pig's head dumped on his front porch.  Why is the fourth estate trying to contaminate/intimidate this jury in a highly charged case?
Click to expand...
Because the media in the United States is an absolute joke and has been for a long time.  

 
Sand said:
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?
Click to expand...
I am trying to decide if the info in that article is personally identifying to the jurors. After reading through it twice, I'm still not sure. I guess if one of the jurors is someone you know or have a single degree of separation from ... and you realize that person has been out of pocket a few weeks ... I guess you can put two and two together. Not sure if this news article is a Bat-signal for ill-intent strangers across the country, though.

The paper probably figured that without names and addresses, the jurors' anonymity was still intact. I guess? :shrug:  They could've been vaguer describing the occupations.

 
Sand said:
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?  It appears that the information was gathered from leaked juror questionnaires.  CBS is also treading the line here on giving enough information to ID the jury pool.

We've already had a defense witness get a pig's head dumped on his front porch.  Why is the fourth estate trying to contaminate/intimidate this jury in a highly charged case?
Click to expand...
Lawyer-folk can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe most juror info is public record.

 
Sand said:
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?  It appears that the information was gathered from leaked juror questionnaires.  CBS is also treading the line here on giving enough information to ID the jury pool.

We've already had a defense witness get a pig's head dumped on his front porch.  Why is the fourth estate trying to contaminate/intimidate this jury in a highly charged case?
Click to expand...
disgusting

 
Sand said:
Why is the news media doxxing the jurors?  It appears that the information was gathered from leaked juror questionnaires.  CBS is also treading the line here on giving enough information to ID the jury pool.

We've already had a defense witness get a pig's head dumped on his front porch.  Why is the fourth estate trying to contaminate/intimidate this jury in a highly charged case?
Click to expand...
Why do you refer to them as news media? 

 
shader said:
This is definitely something Trump would have said and Trump would have gotten ridiculed for.  And rightfully so.  Everyone knows Biden didn't watch 10 minutes of the trial and thus can't comment on the particulars.  He just doesn't want riots.  And that's understandable too.  

But there are some things a president doesn't say, and this is one of them.
Click to expand...
nah....I'd actually be pleased if he restrained himself to say something like this.

 
That we await one local trial in Minnesota so that there aren't nationwide riots about a killing is surely a sign of sickness within our own country. It is not about the impetus or urge to reform, it is simple hope against wanton destruction.

Things fall apart; The centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

 
whoknew said:
Apparently the President just said - 

“I'm praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view,” President Biden just now in the Oval.

---

Very irresponsible of him. He should not have said that. He was not in the courtroom for the trial.
Click to expand...
Lol... As I was reading this I was like oh jesus of course Trump would weigh in and try and argue the evidence of innocence is clear or something, then read the italicized and was like oh yeah Biden not trump, wait what!!???

Funny how used to trump chirping in at dumb times you get.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
2K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
Joe Bryant
Happy 4th Of July From Footballguys
Replies
37
Views
727
FairWarning
FairWarning
Joe Bryant
Why I believe in America
Replies
15
Views
911
tymarsas
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top