Cop acquitted, how bad will it get?

TurtleDude said:

you sometimes miss obvious points for reasons that are perplexing.

Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:

The independent autopsy said asphyxiation. That is also not relevant. What is relevant is that the cop kept pressure on Floyd's neck for a prolonged period of time during obvious distress and that his ambivalence towards a person suffering lead to that person's death.

Turtle ... you should be ashamed that you agreed with this stupid ****ing post.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

Let me guess-you have tried cases involving alleged law enforcement brutality or excessive use of force.

Click to expand...

I may not be a trial attorney but am very versed on choke holds. Almost every state in the US has disallowed choke holds by law enforcement. A knee placed on the neck and arteries is essentially the same thing. Anyone practicing MMA or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu knows of the effectiveness of restricting blood to the brain chokes. I’v seen dozens of people go lights out from these chokes and have experienced it myself, once the pressure is lifted they will revive but if the pressure is continued the outcome is what we see in this case.

My thinking about how this case will go won’t be if he’s innocent or guilty, he killed that man, and will probably come down to premeditation. At what point did this officer know that this submission technique would become deadly, 2 minutes in , 4 minutes in? 8 minutes in? This knee on neck technique is typically only used for compliance with handcuffing not after. That said, LE agencies stopped training with this submission years ago knowing the danger.

trouble13 said:

I predict that the verdict wont be determined befire 2021

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's almost certain, cases like these take awhile. With Philando Castile it was 11 months from incident to verdict. Trayvon Martin it was 17 months. With Michael Brown, the officer didn't even go to trial and it took 7 months to clear both the grand jury and the DoJ investigations. I'd be pretty shocked if there's any kind of decision about this before next year.

swing_voter said:

If police officer Derek Chauvin, the man who kneeled on Floyd George's neck is acquitted, how bad do you think it will get?

Click to expand...

If Trump is re-elected the violence will be so bad that it may result in civil war because the Democrats will be fully fomenting insurrection.

Probably at current levels if a Democrat is President just because some rioting will be out of control of the handlers

OldFatGuy said:

The law usually states that when participating or not stopping a crime by those you are with, you are complicit. Driving a pal around, not even aware he's carrying a gun, you wait outside in the car as he enters a bank to do some banking. He pulls the gun inside, robs the bank, kills the teller, comes out to your waiting car and you drive off not know his actions inside the bank. You are complicit to the robbery and murder. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Stupid, absurd, but guilty in the eyes of the law.

In your living room, two uninvited guests drop by. One rapes the other. You did not stop the rapist, you sat and watched in shock. You are guilty of rape in the eyes of the court.

Click to expand...

You are totally wrong. If someone robs a bank and you have no knowledge of it you are guilty of nothing. Nor has anyone ever been found guilty of a crime for not stopping a crime.

But it is well understood that very few progressive Democrats do not have the position that anyone the state/government accuses of any crime should be denied a lawyer, denied bond, locked in solitary confinement and summarily found guilty. Whether they are guilty of anything is irrelevant. Not pleading guilty is defiance of the government and that is the greatest crime of all.

I doubt anyone but fascists and communists believe being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a crime.

So you are claiming that everyone who videotaped the death of that guy are guilty because they not only did nothing to stop the murder there even were videotaping it hoping to benefit in YouTube viewership. Everyone who made the videos is guilty of murder because they were at the wrong place and the wrong time and did not stop the crime. Please link to your message calling for them to be prosecuted for murder. Bet you can't.

EMNofSeattle said:

If Trump is re-elected the violence will be so bad that it may result in civil war because the Democrats will be fully fomenting insurrection.

Probably at current levels if a Democrat is President just because some rioting will be out of control of the handlers

Click to expand...

The Democratic MSM and politicians incite riots every election season. With the people increasingly refusing to go along with their 24/7 bio-terrorism campaign to destroy the economy and declare that and deaths on Trump - deaths caused by Democratic officials - it was close enough to the election to divert to race baiting and calling for nationwide riots - declaring covid-19 is irrelevant to mass gatherings as a constitutional right to violate any and all governor's and mayor's orders against large gatherings.

As long as the Democratic Party exists they will cause race riots every 2 years as they always do.

OldFatGuy said:

The law usually states that when participating or not stopping a crime by those you are with, you are complicit. Driving a pal around, not even aware he's carrying a gun, you wait outside in the car as he enters a bank to do some banking. He pulls the gun inside, robs the bank, kills the teller, comes out to your waiting car and you drive off not know his actions inside the bank. You are complicit to the robbery and murder. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Stupid, absurd, but guilty in the eyes of the law.

In your living room, two uninvited guests drop by. One rapes the other. You did not stop the rapist, you sat and watched in shock. You are guilty of rape in the eyes of the court.

Click to expand...

Your two examples differ on an important point - only the latter example indicated that the "bystander" was aware that a crime was committed. You can't expect someone to react to (much less be held responsible criminally for) a situation which they were totally unaware of.

trouble13 said:

The police also have a responsibility to stop a crime in progress.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The federal courts up to the Supreme Court have ruled that the police have no criminal liability if they do not stop a crime. However, few progressives don't oppose all due process rights and oppose rule of law. Most want mob justice and mob rule. Criminal cases are, at best, a popularity contest.

trouble13 said:

The police also have a responsibility to stop a crime in progress.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Nope, but they can (and should) be held responsible when (if?) they commit a crime.

trouble13 said:

But this wasnt a split decision. It went on for 9 min. Thats an eternity in this situtation. That cop deliberately did what he did and I see nothing that indicates the cop was reacting out of duress

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I already said several times that this incident wasn't and that the cop should be found guilty. I'm just saying that cops have to have a different threshold in certain circumstances.

TurtleDude said:

no one is defending the cop who is responsible for the death of Floyd. But lots of you are using his death to justify everything from anti gun nonsense, to Trump bashing to actively supporting rioters and looters

Click to expand...

I don't know that anyone is responsible for the death of Floyd. The man had a bad heart. Was drunk. He died of a heart attack. The officer had no way to know he had a heart issue.

There are piles of cases where someone dies of a heart attack brought on some criminal activity of another person - and NEVER can the person be prosecuted. The most common examples are an older store owner chases a shoplifter and dies from the stress. There is no prosecution for murder. People die of heart attacks when terrified by robbery or being assaulted. But if the cause of death is a heart attack it is not murder.

People being arrested oft shout they are being hurt - but that does not constitute murder if the person dies of a heart attack. The only reason that one officer is being prosecuted for murder is political - no other reason. The prosecution of the other 3 is so absurd it is hard to describe as it would require they knew that one officer was "murdering" Floyd - and there is nothing to indicate that.

The only possible legitimate charge is against the one officer - and then for reckless endangerment, conscious indifference or some denial of civil rights charge. There is no legitimate murder case against any of the 3 from what I've seen.

When are police in Democratic run cities going to figure out that what they should do is nothing. Their union can protect them against any actions against their officers for doing nothing. They have to show up to work. They have to eventually get to any scene they are ordered to get to - being very careful driving slowly to get there so not injury anyone. Then they should only interview people, write reports and turn the reports in. They should never notice if their computer shows a car to be stolen and basically never arrest anyone. They should never chase anyone. If anyone resists they should just let the person go.

In Democratic run urban areas, the Democratic government poises more danger to police than criminals.

OldFatGuy said:

Circular reasoning and supposition. Will not fly in court. When a method is generally accepted and taught as non-lethal, predicting it will be lethal after the fact is not acceptable simply because you have an agenda.

It is acceptable to throw an intoxicated individual into a cell until sober. The crime, public intoxication. The arresting officer was overwhelmed by the aroma of alcohol on the erratically behaving prisoner. However the prisoner had spilled one beer on himself, suffered a minor stroke, was behaving erratically with slurred speech, shortly before being detained. He vomited in the police vehicle once detained, understood he was being arrested and why well enough to nod his head. 30 minutes or so after incarceration he suffers another, more severe stroke and dies. Is the arresting officer guilty of homicide?

Click to expand...

You're making an apples to oranges comparison, imo. Locking someone up who later dies from an underlining condition is completely different than actually doing something that directly caused their death.

To your first point about circular reasoning and suposition not standing up in court... of course it does. If it didn't we wouldnt allow circumstantial evidence to be used at trials.
The question boils down to if the jury finds the prosecutions conclusion reasonable or if the defense can raise reasonsble doubt. I dont see reasonsble doubt in this case.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

joko104 said:

The federal courts up to the Supreme Court have ruled that the police have no criminal liability if they do not stop a crime. However, few progressives don't oppose all due process rights and oppose rule of law. Most want mob justice and mob rule. Criminal cases are, at best, a popularity contest.

Click to expand...

Im not sure where the line is drawn about what the responsibility of the cops are. I will concede that. I think its important that what you're saying may not be as clear as you are considering the man was in custody at the time, but your point is taken.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Moderate Right said:

I already said several times that this incident wasn't and that the cop should be found guilty. I'm just saying that cops have to have a different threshold in certain circumstances.

Click to expand...

My bad,
I did not realize you were making a general statement. As a general statment I agree.
I was under the impression that you talking specifically about this homocide.
I leave the door open for the possibility that there is some evidence that isnt out yet that could exonerate the cop but based on what I have seen so far; he looks guilty of murder.
I am still on the fence about what the other 3 are guilty of and if whatever it is would be considered criminal. I lean toward they are but my reaction may be more emotional than logical in their case.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Paradoxical said:

Unless he is in solitary confinement and with no black people ever around him, he will be killed before any trial.

Click to expand...

He's obviously isolated.

trouble13 said:

I agree that its gonna be difficult to find a dispassionate jury but they will get the fairest trial as possible under the circumstances.

Click to expand...

If my life and future were hanging in the balance I don't think I'd find much consolation in that -- you?

CV19 20 per 1 million deaths since December, how bad will it get? So scared

joko104 said:

You are totally wrong. If someone robs a bank and you have no knowledge of it you are guilty of nothing. Nor has anyone ever been found guilty of a crime for not stopping a crime.

But it is well understood that very few progressive Democrats do not have the position that anyone the state/government accuses of any crime should be denied a lawyer, denied bond, locked in solitary confinement and summarily found guilty. Whether they are guilty of anything is irrelevant. Not pleading guilty is defiance of the government and that is the greatest crime of all.

I doubt anyone but fascists and communists believe being in the wrong place at the wrong time is a crime.

So you are claiming that everyone who videotaped the death of that guy are guilty because they not only did nothing to stop the murder there even were videotaping it hoping to benefit in YouTube viewership. Everyone who made the videos is guilty of murder because they were at the wrong place and the wrong time and did not stop the crime. Please link to your message calling for them to be prosecuted for murder. Bet you can't.

Click to expand...

Check the laws. I didn't write them. It isn't political. It is not what I am claiming, it is what can be done, has been done. The fellow who recorded the death of one of the recent victims of a biased murder not involving police but a "citizen's arrest" was later charged with that murder. The grounds, he recorded and did not call 911.

John Gotti always plead not guilty. Eventually, long after Rudi Giuliani failed to convict Gotti, a democrat prosecuting attorney had Gotti held in solitary with no visiting privileges, got a conviction because John couldn't organize a jury purchase. The headlines screamed the Mob was finished in NY. Your ultimate defier, a street thug of no real consequence took the heat. Meanwhile those who succeeded those who succeeded the mustache Petes, were now thoroughly entrenched where real high income crime paid off, the financial industry, and incognito with new names. In other words, the mob heirs joined the great establishment of true economic criminals. Only they has access to rich union pensions funds, high end real estate mortgage profits made by previous generation fortunes, and respectability at the country clubs.

Sadly, we observe the government of and for the people has become disconnected from the people and is now the boogeyman. Watch ya gonna do?

ttwtt78640 said:

Your two examples differ on an important point - only the latter example indicated that the "bystander" was aware that a crime was committed. You can't expect someone to react to (much less be held responsible criminally for) a situation which they were totally unaware of.

Click to expand...

I don't expect anything. I didn't author those laws, I do not prosecute on the basis of those laws. Yet there are incarcerated individuals, incarcerated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can feel free to tell them what was not expected of them and they will agree with you. Meanwhile their liberty is lost.

ChezC3 said:

If my life and future were hanging in the balance I don't think I'd find much consolation in that -- you?

Click to expand...

It would terrify me. Think about what this guy is facing,
40 years in prison convicted of murdering a suspect while putting him into custody. He might as well hang himself before he gets prison justice.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

You're making an apples to oranges comparison, imo. Locking someone up who later dies from an underlining condition is completely different than actually doing something that directly caused their death.

To your first point about circular reasoning and suposition not standing up in court... of course it does. If it didn't we wouldnt allow circumstantial evidence to be used at trials.
The question boils down to if the jury finds the prosecutions conclusion reasonable or if the defense can raise reasonsble doubt. I dont see reasonsble doubt in this case

Click to expand...

What you or I see is unimportant. Not recognized underlying physical conditions leading to deaths of the arrested have resulted in prosecutions of police not trained to recognize those physical conditions. Some successfully, some not.

What you do not see is the politics of this entire mess. There will be no fair, untainted trial(s). Feel free to blame my invisible drunk six foot tall rabbit pal standing next to me. He is also known as "Chaos." Reasonable doubt is a subjective romance, not a fact. There are no facts.

The Left is HOPING the cop that killed George Floyd gets acquitted so they have an accuse to have their "revolution", which details killing not only white people but ANYONE who disagrees with them. They get a thrill with killing babies (which they call abortion), why would it be unusual for them to get excited about killing people with opposing views, regardless of their skin color? By the way, I have $10 saying the cop who killed George Floyd is a Leftist.

trouble13 said:

If you were prosecuting this case what would you charge and why?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

without additional information-I'd charge intentional and reckless homicide counts

OldFatGuy said:

Check the laws. I didn't write them. It isn't political. It is not what I am claiming, it is what can be done, has been done. The fellow who recorded the death of one of the recent victims of a biased murder not involving police but a "citizen's arrest" was later charged with that murder. The grounds, he recorded and did not call 911.

John Gotti always plead not guilty. Eventually, long after Rudi Giuliani failed to convict Gotti, a democrat prosecuting attorney had Gotti held in solitary with no visiting privileges, got a conviction because John couldn't organize a jury purchase. The headlines screamed the Mob was finished in NY. Your ultimate defier, a street thug of no real consequence took the heat. Meanwhile those who succeeded those who succeeded the mustache Petes, were now thoroughly entrenched where real high income crime paid off, the financial industry, and incognito with new names. In other words, the mob heirs joined the great establishment of true economic criminals. Only they has access to rich union pensions funds, high end real estate mortgage profits made by previous generation fortunes, and respectability at the country clubs.

Sadly, we observe the government of and for the people has become disconnected from the people and is now the boogeyman. Watch ya gonna do?

Click to expand...

Again you are completely wrong that a person having no knowledge of a crime can be convicted by association or presence. That is as wrong as it gets. If you are correct, everyone present at any looting or arson are all guilty of looting and arson - even if just driving by. Obviously, in your analysis everyone who made a video of what happened to Floyd also is guilty of murder because they were there.

I am absolutely certain that I could sit on a bar stool drinking a beer and eating a hot dog while 1 guy beat another guy into the ground - even though I could easily have stopped it. A common presentation in law schools used to be this example (as I was told).

You are standing on a sloped hill near a tall cliff. You see a baby carriage rolling down the hill, hear a baby crying in the carriage, and a woman frantically trying to catch it - but she's on crutches and can't keep up. Some punk as a mindless vicious prank has pushed the carriage. All you have to do to stop that carriage is move you foot a few inches to stop the carriage.

Here's the law. If you do nothing, you have no liability - civil or criminal. However, if you try to stop the carriage and for how it unfolds after that it can be claimed it went worse because you did, you ARE civilly liable. No criminal liability.

However, I will acknowledge that the criminal justice system has become so corrupt and so political that laws and even constitution often is irrelevant and it rather only about power. Most constitutionally protected rights of defendants has been thrown out the window in many jurisdictions.

Gotti was not convicted of the crime of "not being about to buy a jury."

It can be argued that anyone who is victimized in the riots is to blame for living in a Democratic run city when they could have moved. The history of riots in Democratic run cities is no secret.

If you decide to live in and have a business in LA and you are hurt or suffer loses in a riot it was your decision to be there, when you could have moved to a jurisdiction run by Republicans and be basically immune from riots. Republican local government doesn't allow riots. Democratic local government allows and promotes riots.

If the killer cop gets acquited it will only be because they didn't go with the 3rd degree murder charge. The people whining about it, insisting he be charged with 1st degree murder, are simply uninformed idiots who do not have a firm grasp on the laws and how they are written.

A 3rd degree murder charge, I believe, could have been easily proven. This murder does not meet the criteria required for 1st and 2nd degree charges. So if he walks, they only have themselves to blame.