Derek Chauvin

[x2boys]

Derek Chauvin found guilty of all charges ,this is the right verdict imo,having watched the trial

Do you believe that in any other circumstances you could put a 90lb weight on someone's windpipe, leave it there for 9 minutes, then they'd be able to walk away?

It amazes me to see how many people will go to such lengths to defend the indefensible. So many apologists for murder.

@Whereisthewarmth

Hoping but the police do have guns to deal with - its impossible, how can they simply get rid of the guns,...its such a blight on them

A certain section of the American population cling to the second amendment. There would be civil war if there was an attempt to remove it.

I can’t believe that 35+ people think the OP was unreasonable. I despair.

@Alsohuman

Someone could come on to AIBU and say they'd just witnessed someone in a hideous accident outside their house, ATBU to be upset? A % of votes would still come back as being unreasonable. There are people who vote against the majority, or give a ridiculous response for the sake of argument.

I'd say at least 50% of those votes are likely because the post isn't an AIBU, or because there was already a thread running at the time this one was started.

2) I think Chauvin should have been convicted of just manslaughter rather than murder . He was definitely foolish and reckless in how he held Floyd down which resulted in his death but surely he didnt intend to kill Floyd? Why would someone intentionally kill somebody in such a public and recorded way that would ruin his

He lost any manslaughter defence when he ignored his victim saying he couldn't breathe, pleading for his life and calling for his mother. Whether he set out to or not this man wilfully murdered another human being.

Why would he do it in such a public way? Who knows, but there is no way he didn't know what he was doing during those 9 minutes.

[quote Sendsystemsucks]@timeforanewnameagain 99% they wouldn't. Bystander effect.[/quote]
I don't know. I think of this was London for example, with our unarmed officers someone would have broken ranks and been a 'have a go' hero. Looks how often it happens in other awful violent situations where someone is being attacked - some run, some freeze and some turn around and fight back and try to help.

It's much easier to be brave (not that in suggesting for a moment here that the actual bystanders were not brave, it is entirely different in that culture and with armed trigger happy officers) when you're not in fear of being shot for your troubles.

Why would he do it in such a public way? Who knows, but there is no way he didn't know what he was doing during those 9 minutes.

I presume that he thought he would get away with it. That he thought that, as a policeman, he would be above the law. He was mistaken.

@Lougle @EdgeOfACoin In case no one responded to you - legal murder definitions vary by state and in this particular case they overlap. So eg manslaughter for accidentally killing someone vs second degree murder for committing a felony whilst killing someone. This is recognised by the judge in that he will be serving his sentences concurrently rather cumulatively.

Thanks Juno!

@Lougle, each charge carries a different definition.

I'm relieved at the verdict but I do really fear for America as a whole. The levels of violence both from the police and civilians is shocking. I can completely see that as a police officer working in the states you would have a heightened fear of being attacked. I don't understand the need for civilians to have the right to bear arms. And I do think incidents of violence clashes with police would probably be lower if guns were not as accessible as they currently are.

That said there are just no excuses for the way George Floyd was treated. It is indefensible to kneel on someone's neck like that. There is no way that DC didn't at some point make the decision to continue knowing that the risk of GF dying was probable. As an officer of 22 years he would also have known the GF was high and also that those drugs had the potential to compromise his breathing. He had a duty of care to GF to get him medical attention.
I also don't understand how an officer with 18 complaints against them is still in the job!

@LeeMiller

*British Police are no angels, and death in custody do occur and are not prosecuted, which is shameful.

But it seems to me that for the most part, police in Britain are facing the same situations but managing to apprehend civilians and detain them without murdering them. In America, it’s becoming an alimony daily occurrence that a civilian does having had the misfortune to cross paths with the police.

What is it that makes the US police default to excessive and too often lethal force as a first option? In the UK most police do not carry firearms, so they HAVE to find other solutions to manage situations.

Perhaps if British police all carried firearms we would be seeing similar stats to the US. I for one am grateful that they don’t.*

It's standard for most police officers to carry guns in many (possibly most) European countries, yet civilians aren't killed by police at anywhere near the rate they are in the US - or indeed, at higher rates than in the UK. Obviously the level of gun ownership and violence in the US population is a big factor but there also appears to be a totally different approach to training, deescalation vs confrontation, what justifies deadly force, community policing and engagement etc.

@LeeMiller Google: Sheku Bayoh Kingsley Burrell Sean Rigg Christopher Alder

I wouldn't be an American police officer for love nor money due to the general (if you believe the press) hatred towards the police and also the prevalence of guns. They are going, no matter how well trained police are, to make you approach any situation differently.

That aside, there is still a standard that all police have to abide by and regardless of Floyd's background etc, he shouldn't have died like that and the officer was completely out of order on this occasion and was convicted accordingly.

Are there times where police need to restrain someone and use a certain level of force? Yes and this does need to be recognised. But we can but hope that the police see this as a reminder that they are not above the law.

Sadly, the hype and screaming from the rooftops that the officer HAS to be convicted (yes he should have been but that's a matter for the Court not the mob) is going to give his legal team a very sound basis for appeal on grounds of inability to get a fair trial. (As far as I'm aware, Biden only commented post sequestering thank God).

But there have been protests before for this sort of thing. Why is this one different? There has been plenty of screaming from the rooftops before and then they have been acquitted.

Why didn't he get a fair trial, I watched it all. Let's hope

I do think what happened to George Floyd was particularly gruesome and the footage taken against all odds showed that to the world.

Just as an aside... interesting that Chauvin's wife filed for divorce the day before he was arrested. The divorce went through in Feb. And they were both seperately charged on multiple counts of felony tax evasion last July.
And Chauvin knelt on a 14yr old boy's neck until he lost consciousness back in 2017. That was not admissable in court and I think it's only come to light now.

Posted too soon, @Lougle

www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/us/chauvin-guilty-verdict-sentencing.html

The three charges are briefly outlined here:
1) causing the death of a human being, without intent, while committing or attempting to commit an assault (second-degree murder);

2) unintentionally causing a death by committing an act that is eminently dangerous to other persons while exhibiting a depraved mind, with reckless disregard for human life (third-degree murder);

3) and creating an unreasonable risk, by consciously taking the chance of causing death or great bodily harm to someone else (manslaughter).

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-charges-chauvin-floyd-death-77169778
Good article here explaining the three charges.
Second degree intentional murder:
It's also called felony murder. To prove this count, prosecutors had to show that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault. They didn't have to prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd, only that he intended to apply unlawful force that caused bodily harm.

Third degree murder:
For this count, jurors must find Chauvin caused Floyd's death through an action that was “eminently dangerous” and carried out with a reckless disregard for and conscious indifference to the loss of life.

Manslaughter:
Prosecutors had to show that Chauvin caused Floyd's death through culpable negligence that created an unreasonable risk, and that he consciously took the chance of causing severe injury or death.

My guess is the jury disposed of manslaughter in about five minutes.

www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/third-degree-murder-overview.html
Only Minnesota, Florida, and Pennsylvania have third degree murder charges.
The definition of the charge is different in each of the three. In MN, the charge is:
Definition: The unintentional killing of another through an eminently dangerous act committed with a depraved mind and without regard for human life. Also includes causing another's drug-related death by selling, delivering, or administering a Schedule I or II controlled substance.
Penalty: Up to 25 years in prison and a fine of up to $40,000

...The difference between third-degree murder and manslaughter often depends on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the killing. In Minnesota, for example, someone can be convicted of manslaughter in the second degree if they knew they were unreasonably risking someone else's life and took that chance. This is different from third-degree murder, where the person must act with a depraved mind and malice (wanton disregard for human life).

Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd's neck even while paramedics were trying to treat him on the scene. I would hazard a guess that this satisfies the 'depraved mind' and also the 'malice' elements.
Plus, the off duty fire department officer who pleaded with him to get off Floyd's neck was ignored. He chose to ignore competent advice.

THE RIGHT VERDICT WAS REACHED
*
skirk64

My takeaway from the recent police killings in America is simple - always comply with police instructions.

George Floyd would still be alive if he hadn't resisted.

He wasn't a threat to the police or others.

Rayshard Brooks would still be alive if he hadn't resisted grabbed an officer's taser and run off.

He wasn't a threat to the police or others. He was running away.

Daunte Wright would still be alive if he hadn't resisted, got back into his car and driven away.

Again...He wasn't a threat to the police or others.

Adam Toledo would still be alive if he had not run away in an attempt to hide his firearm before surrendering.

As above.

This is victim blaming to the highest degree. A gun shouldn't be drawn at an unarmed person, who isn't a threat.

Police Officers are trained to deal with people resisting arrest. This isn't a job where you get compliance and it shouldn't result in loss of life.
The punishment to non compliance, is not to kill the subject.

None of these cases were self defence. These people didn't pose a risk to anyone.

Police Officers are meant to de-escalate situations not escalate and use excessive force as all of those cases and more did.

GF said he was claustrophobic and that's why he didn't want to get in the back of the squad car. He said he would go in the front. Officers are trained to understand, non compliance vs inability to comply.

• GF said he couldn't breath over 20 times
• He said his back was hurting
• He said his stomach was hurting
• He said everything was hurting
•Chauvin remained on his neck even after GF passed out and he knew this
• He remained on his neck when he was told GF no longer had a pulse.

This was a blatant disregard for the life of GF and for him as a human being. For someone who should uphold and enforce the law, GF acted like a power hungry thug, abusing him position.

He murdered him and will now serve time. I hope he gets the maximum time as well, since he has all 5 of the aggravating factors.

Attempts to justify Police using excessive force and killing people....black people are utterly ridiculous and offensive tbh.

Accountability won't bring GF back, but hopefully Police will see that they will not automatically get away with it. Without video evidence, he probably wouldn't have even lost his job, as there would have been a cover up.

Enough is enough.

(CNN)The Justice Department has launched a federal civil probe into policing practices in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd and the murder convictions for ex-cop Derek Chauvin, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Wednesday

amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/04/21/politics/minneapolis-police-department-doj-investigation/index.html

@Veterinari I'm well aware of those cases, thanks.
I was quoting and replying to a PP's specific point about armed vs. non-amed policing, having lived in several EU countries where police are routinely armed - and where there is plenty of racism and police definitely aren't all cuddly - yet there are very few police killings. The culture of US policing specifically seems extremely militarized in a way that it isn't in the UK (and Europe), and that goes beyond cops simply having weapons, it's about their readiness to use them. Of course that isn't to say there aren't very real issues with UK policing, as highlighted in the cases you cite.

Yes, there would have been a cover up. It was on it's way there with the initial police statement I'm showing here.

www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-floyd-medical-incident/

'Man dies after medical incident during Police Interaction'

The murder was filmed, of course he is guilty.

It needs repeating

Remember: none of Chauvin’s colleagues turned him in. He murdered a man in broad daylight and we are here today because a brave Black girl named Darnella Frazier kept taping despite threats from the cops on the scene.

Sadly, the hype and screaming from the rooftops that the officer HAS to be convicted (yes he should have been but that's a matter for the Court not the mob) is going to give his legal team a very sound basis for appeal on grounds of inability to get a fair trial.

Yes and no.

If notoriety is the basis for throwing out a judgement, then all you have to do to walk is make sure your crime is so horrendous for various reasons that it gets splashed all over the news.

www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-judge-refuses-to-delay-chauvin-trial-or-change-venue/
The incident has been in the news since it happened last year, along with the protests it generated. It was still possible to pick twelve jurors and three alternates, after an extremely lengthy, fair, and above-board process. The jurors were re-interviewed by the judge after news emerged of the City of Minneapolis settlement with the Floyd family in their wrongful death suit against the city, and two were dismissed. They were sequestered (meaning no contact allowed with the outside world) for their deliberations.
www.courthousenews.com/jury-seated-in-first-trial-over-death-of-george-floyd/

The defence was denied a change of venue for the trial and also a delay of trial. These were denied on the basis that moving the trial or delaying it would not mitigate the effects of the publicity associated with the case. To me, this indicates that everyone knew that the case had generated publicity and accepted it. Again, do you get away with a crime because it was so notorious?

Are they police that stood by and watched getting charged with anything?

@FireflyRainbow

Are they police that stood by and watched getting charged with anything?

Yes they will

Three other officers were involved with Mr Floyd's arrest. Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane are all facing trial, charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.

The men, who were all fired, are currently free on bail. Their trial is scheduled for 23 August this year.

If found guilty, they could be facing as long as 40 years behind bars.

(BBC)

What is the reason for them having a separate trial - was it to avoid distracting from GC's crime? I wonder if they will plead guilty now the verdict from the first trial is in. I feel really sorry for the witnesses who would be called to testify again, reliving the experience in court was clearly very traumatic for them.

They were initially to be tried together, but this arrangement was changed because of covid, and also because establishing guilt or innocence of Chauvin first would perhaps have a bearing on the charges they are facing.

The trial of the other three officers is set to go ahead in August. Not sure how three officers plus press plus defence and prosecution teams, court reporters, bailiffs, judge, etc. present in the court would be all that different from four officers as far as covid goes, but the progress of the state vaccination programme may have a bearing on the scheduling.

Maybe the court is indeed hoping for guilty pleas. August is usually a slow time for US courts as it's bang in the middle of getting out of town season. I would say their lawyers are giving them advice along those lines.