George Floyd/ Derek Chauvin Thread

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If only those judges opinions mattered even one iota.

 

[RangerRay]

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

In Chauvin's case, the prosecution is going to have to prove that Chauvin's knee was what caused his death before we can even get into whether his knee was applied correctly for the situation. Hard to prove it was Chauvin's knee if the guy was in the midst of a heart attack before Chauvin even got there, and eventually died of a heart attack.

I don't know U.S./Minnesota law and how it differs from Canadian law, but in Canada, the prosecution would not have to prove that the knee caused the death, they would only have to show that it "contributed" to his death to an extent beyond the "de minimus" range. To give an idea of how this is applied here's a quote from Smith and Hogan, in Criminal Law, (6th ed., 1988), p.316:

It is sometimes said that the act must be a "substantial" cause but this seems to mean only that D's contribution must not be so minute that it will be ignored under the "de minimis" principle. It may therefore be misleading to direct a jury that D is not liable unless his conduct was a "substantial" cause. Killing is merely an acceleration of death and factors which produce a very trivial acceleration will be ignored....

The Supreme Court of Canada in Nette (2001), 158 C.C.C.(3d) 486, 46 C.R.(5th) 197 recommended that a trial judge should avoid the Latin phrase “de minimis” in describing the test for the jury and said:

In order to explain the standard as clearly as possible to the jury, it may be preferable to phrase the standard of causation in positive terms using a phrase such as “significant contributing cause” rather than using expressions phrased in the negative such as “not a trivial cause” or “not insignificant”. Latin terms such as “de minimis” are rarely helpful.

Again, I don't know how or if this applies in the law Officer Chauvin will be tried under. But assuming they have similar law, the outcome of this case will be very heavily dependent on the medical evidence and whether Chauvin's actions played any "significant" contributing factor in causing or hastening the victim's death. From what I am hearing/seeing it is certainly conceivable that a jury might have a reasonable doubt on that point and acquit.

 

[Donald H]

I don't know U.S./Minnesota law and how it differs from Canadian law, but in Canada, the prosecution would not have to prove that the knee caused the death, they would only have to show that it "contributed" to his death to an extent beyond the "de minimus" range. To give an idea of how this is applied here's a quote from Smith and Hogan, in Criminal Law, (6th ed., 1988), p.316:

Again, I don't know how or if this applies in the law Officer Chauvin will be tried under. But assuming they have similar law, the outcome of this case will be very heavily dependent on the medical evidence and whether Chauvin's actions played any "significant" contributing factor in causing or hastening the victim's death. From what I am hearing/seeing it is certainly conceivable that a jury might have a reasonable doubt on that point and acquit.

A pretty thorough and somewhat unbiased analysis! But here's a very significant answer to the question:

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/george-floyd-heart-attack-fentanyl/

The ME gave the manner of death as Homicide, saying Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).

Significant in the fact that it came from the ME.

The fair assumption would be that George Floyd would still be alive with his medical condition if not for Chauvin's knee.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then it's always fair to add my unvarnished personal opinion that the direction of US politics after the election will determine Chauvin's fate.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A pretty thorough and somewhat unbiased analysis! But here's a very significant answer to the question:

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/george-floyd-heart-attack-fentanyl/

Significant in the fact that it came from the ME.

The fair assumption would be that George Floyd would still be alive with his medical condition if not for Chauvin's knee and if he didn't commit some kind of criminal act that warranted the attention of the police, and then resist arrest, in the first place.

There, FTFY

 

[Donald H]

There, FTFY

Yes, I agree with what you've added to what I've said. And then my point will be that the punishment didn't fit the crime. That's a point that I would suggest could already be assumed by the court.  I don't know what FTFY means yet but I'll try to find it in a search.

Cheers, Donald.

edit: yup, got the FTFY.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Well, here's a judge that seems to agree with me!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-george-floyd-chauvin-murder-case

If you want more then Google is your friend. There are thousands who agree with me, and in all fairness, thousands who agree with you.
So how about you stop piling on with telling me I know nothinig about police use of force until all the charges are dropped?

I think it's fair game to cite a judge's opinion, although I don't actually know Judge Napolitano's professional/judicial background I'll assume he knows a fair bit about use of force, and what's required to prove murder in the U.S.A.

Based on the evidence available through the media, I could see the case going either way -- there are arguments to be made both in favour of a conviction and an acquittal. I suspect that, as usual, it will be evidence that we don't see in the media -- and how it is presented in an actual trial -- that rules the day. Trial by media disclosure is just too uncertain for me to say that I have any idea how this actually plays out in court.

I do think that the article you cited makes another good point that it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to have a fair trial with all the media attention this matter has received.

 

[Donald H]

I think it's fair game to cite a judge's opinion, although I don't actually know Judge Napolitano's professional/judicial background I'll assume he knows a fair bit about use of force, and what's required to prove murder in the U.S.A.

Based on the evidence available through the media, I could see the case going either way -- there are arguments to be made both in favour of a conviction and an acquittal. I suspect that, as usual, it will be evidence that we don't see in the media -- and how it is presented in an actual trial -- that rules the day. Trial by media disclosure is just too uncertain for me to say that I have any idea how this actually plays out in court.

So I would only disagree in that the media is vocal enough to get all the possibilities out there eventually. Is there any new theory or opinion that hasn't already been aired? The task is to just pick the correct one.

I do think that the article you cited makes another good point that it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to have a fair trial with all the media attention this matter has received.

That's definitely a point but it's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that I'm suggesting that politics will either win or lose the day for Chauvin. Or in other words, if Barr continues to be their A-G, my opinion is that Chauvin will walk. And if Biden's new A-G then Chauvin will serve some time.

But I appreciate your comments because you make it clear that it's not about 'what we want to be true' but about deciphering what 'will' be true.

Cheers, Donald.

 

[Haggis]

That's definitely a point but it's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that I'm suggesting that politics will either win or lose the day for Chauvin. Or in other words, if Barr continues to be their A-G, my Opinion is that Chauvin will walk. And if Biden's new A-G then Chauvin will serve some time.

Your frequent assertions that there will be political interference in the judicial process makes me believe that you think this trial will occur in Canada.  ;D

 

[quadrapiper]

There, FTFY

Point noted, though isn't the expectation that the police be able to arrest medically fragile criminals without killing them?

Going out on a limb, but VPD (either one, but mostly mainland) presumably deal with any number of fentanyl'd restrainees, and apparently without killing large numbers of same.

 

[QV]

Point noted, though isn't the expectation that the police be able to arrest medically fragile criminals without killing them?

Going out on a limb, but VPD (either one, but mostly mainland) presumably deal with any number of fentanyl'd restrainees, and apparently without killing large numbers of same.

When I consider the very high number of police/violator interactions every day across North America, I'm comfortable in the belief police are not killing large numbers of anyone. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I can assure you they bring lots into my work area still breathing and healthy...

 

[OldSolduer]

I can assure you they bring lots into my work area still breathing and healthy...

Over 600 in my place. None dead.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

So I would only disagree in that the media is vocal enough to get all the possibilities out there eventually. Is there any new theory or opinion that hasn't already been aired? The task is to just pick the correct one.

Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to find multiple possibilities SOMEWHERE but the mainstream will have a main narrative that they will push as they have been.

That's definitely a point but it's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that I'm suggesting that politics will either win or lose the day for Chauvin. Or in other words, if Barr continues to be their A-G, my opinion is that Chauvin will walk. And if Biden's new A-G then Chauvin will serve some time.

I would question whether the Attorney General actually has that much influence over a trial in Minneapolis, especially a GOP A-G.

I also doubt that who the A-G is will influence the jury that much and I am assuming this will go the distance to a jury trial. I think the jury will be the jury regardless of who is Attorney General and I doubt they will be much influenced by who holds that position, they will be much more influenced by their own beliefs/biases, preconceived notions, and (hopefully) the evidence led in court.

 

[Donald H]

Oh, I'm sure you'll be able to find multiple possibilities SOMEWHERE but the mainstream will have a main narrative that they will push as they have been.

I would question whether the Attorney General actually has that much influence over a trial in Minneapolis, especially a GOP A-G.

I also doubt that who the A-G is will influence the jury that much and I am assuming this will go the distance to a jury trial. I think the jury will be the jury regardless of who is Attorney General and I doubt they will be much influenced by who holds that position, they will be much more influenced by their own beliefs/biases, preconceived notions, and (hopefully) the evidence led in court.

But I appreciate your comments because you make it clear that it's not about 'what we want to be true' but about deciphering what 'will' be true.

Cheers, Donald.

I'm envisioninig very bad things happening in the US soon and this is just a bit part of it. Trump has created a situation in which hate and corruption are rampant and I can't imagine any way to defuse it

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm envisioninig very bad things happening in the US soon and this is just a bit part of it. Trump has created a situation in which hate and corruption are rampant and I can't imagine any way to defuse it

Amazing how one man apparently made the entire country bad in mere 4 years.....

 

[Donald H]

Amazing how one man apparently made the entire country bad in mere 4 years.....

He took a festering sore and picked at it to make it bleed. Racism was always alive and well in the American south and was moldering away in their closets, along with the bedsheets and pointy hats.

I'm just wondering about your use of the word, 'apparently'. Does that indicate sarcasm? If not then you've raised a very good talking point.

And so how does this tie in with the topic here? Trump has emboldened police officers to act out with violence against black people to make the point that 'you black people 'WILL' behave.

:cheers:

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

And so how does this tie in with the topic here? Trump has emboldened police officers to act out with violence against black people to make the point that 'you black people 'WILL' behave.

I doubt that officers on the ground in the moment think like that, or that the POTUS' views impact them much.

They're likely more concerned about what their own superiors will do say, and it would fall much more on the chief and other senior people in a given police department.

At least in the past few months, the very opposite of "you black people will behave". It's more like "defend yourself against an armed black man and you're going down for murder". So I just can't see police officers getting into their cruisers at the beginning of their shifts saying to their partners "let's go hunt us some black guys because the Donald says we can" but rather are saying "Man, I really hope we don't encounter any black guys who are armed and violent because then we either have to let ourselves die or go to jail and ruin our families".

 

[Donald H]

I doubt that officers on the ground in the moment think like that, or that the POTUS' views impact them much.

They're likely more concerned about what their own superiors will do say, and it would fall much more on the chief and other senior people in a given police department.

At least in the past few months, the very opposite of "you black people will behave". It's more like "defend yourself against an armed black man and you're going down for murder". So I just can't see police officers getting into their cruisers at the beginning of their shifts saying to their partners "let's go hunt us some black guys because the Donald says we can" but rather are saying "Man, I really hope we don't encounter any black guys who are armed and violent because then we either have to let ourselves die or go to jail and ruin our families".

I would agree that faction of police officers exists, and likely even the large majority. So you make a good point. But it only takes a few and so wouldn't you agree that there are bad apples in the barrel. Now an entire country is enraged and on fire because Of Chauvin's demonstration of deliberate murder on camera. (not literally on fire as in Cal)

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

I would agree that faction of police officers exists, and likely even the large majority. So you make a good point. But it only takes a few and so wouldn't you agree that there are bad apples in the barrel. Now an entire country is enraged and on fire because Of Chauvin's demonstration of deliberate murder on camera. (not literally on fire as in Cal)

I agree that there are good and bad in every profession. Law enforcement is certainly no exception and there are definitely "bad apples" out there.