Guilty or Not Guilty? The George Floyd trial...

[Jon]

Even video can be deceiving. For instance video shot at 30 frames per second as opposed to 15 frames per second may show different things.
For instance you fire a gun 6 times in rapid succesion. One video may show you fired 3 times while the other shows 6 times.

The defence used one image where the bystander thought Chauvin had his knee of Floyd's neck. But in fact his knee was on the ground behind his neck. The defence called it "camera bias".

I thought Chauvin looked arrogant, with his knee on his neck and hands in his pockets, trying to look cool. But in fact I later found out he was wearing black gloves and he was resting them against his black trousers! A bystander also thought he had his hand in his pocket. Don't let the videos deceive you!

 

[moke123]

 

[AccessBlaster]

Once handcuffed the officer should have forced him on his butt or on his side.

 

[moke123]

The pulmonoligist on the stand right now is pretty compelling.

 

[Jon]

The pulmonoligist on the stand right now is pretty compelling.

What I find compelling is when what looks like an open and shut case faces cross-examination from the defence. I will watch some of todays testimony, after going to the dump. My lavish lifestyle.

 

[Jon]

Once handcuffed the officer should have forced him on his butt or on his side.

If Chauvin is guilty, aren't the other officers guilty too? Are they not aiding and abetting?

 

[AccessBlaster]

If Chauvin is guilty, aren't the other officers guilty too? Are they not aiding and abetting?

That's a good point. Police officers are held to a higher code of conduct. I would say yes they have to prevent a death when ever possible.

 

[Jon]

That's a good point. Police officers are held to a higher code of conduct. I would say yes they have to prevent a death when ever possible.

Does this mean that the other two officers who were also holding down Mr Floyd did not think Chauvin was doing anything life threatening? Surely they would have stopped him had they thought that was the case?

And since none of them seemed to think so, is this not supporting the case against negligence, and more towards the difficulties of policing tense situations?

 

[Isaac]

If Chauvin is guilty, aren't the other officers guilty too? Are they not aiding and abetting?

I strongly disagree with that. Particularly the new guy who was a rookie on the force, just doing what he was told. What was he expected to do - start a shooting match with Chauvin? He asked, he was answered, he obeyed. He shouldn't even have been arrested.

 

[Jon]

What about the other two officers?

 

[Isaac]

I haven't seen enough evidence to feel justified in making a conclusion on them. I would think they might be culpable for negligence, but will wait to see what the evidence and arguments are.

 

[Jon]

My argument is that one of the experienced officers is assisting Chauvin in holding him down, and can see everything that is happening. I. E. 3 officers attending to restraint, while one was fending off the growing crowd.

Also, if you see an officer endangering a citizen, should the rookie protect that citizen or not?

 

[moke123]

The other officers, including two rookies who had aided Mr. Chauvin in pinning Mr. Floyd to the pavement in front of a convenience store, are charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder. The former officer Tou Thao, who knelt to the side and kept at bay bystanders who were yelling that Mr. Floyd was having difficulty breathing, is also charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder. All four former officers, who were fired after the incident, have been released on bail.

If Chauvin's convicted I'm sure the rest will plead.

 

[Jon]

By plead, do you mean guilty, or they will just have their own trial?

 

[Isaac]

Also, if you see an officer endangering a citizen, should the rookie protect that citizen or not?

It seems like, morally, they should do "something". The big question (to me) seems like it would be, what must that something be, what is the minimum to avoid their own culpability?

 

[AccessBlaster]

They probably should have pushed Chauvin off Mr Floyd and dealt with the consequences later.

 

[Isaac]

Possibly, I'm open to that. I'm not that familiar with police officer interactions (with each other), and not really sure what typically happens when one police officer begins assaulting another. Does somebody usually get shot or accused of a crime themselves? These are valid questions - and , most importantly for the purpose of culpability - questions that may have been swirling around the rookie's mind. "What happens if I actually shove Chauvin out of the way? Am I supposed to do that?" "He must know something I don't know", would all be very reasonably expected questions IMHO. I'm very cautious on what should happen to the rookie. The others I'm not sympathetic toward, but again, feel that all evidence and angles should be heard out.

Unfortunately, moke may be right. Plea deals may mean we never really know anything about much else beyond Chauvin, other than knowing that people are afraid and pleas are the answer to that fear.

 

[Steve R.]

An allegorical story that I expect was created to make people think a bit deeper.

A man was on trial for murder by utilizing a gun. The official corner's report listed the cause of death as "blood loss". The jury found the man innocent.

The organization, sequencing, and exposure/suppression of facts can have an effect on the findings of the jury. Unfortunately, in the case of this trial, there is also a political overlay that will have an effect on the jury.

 

[Jon]

I have sympathy with the rookie. Then again, I do not know what training they have had. But the control authority has over another is significant, as born out by many psychological experiments. I saw a good movie called "The Stanford Prison Experiment." Worth a watch.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

With the way "cancel culture" is going, do you think that the jury could be at risk?