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

[Jon]

Edit: I stand corrected, he was wearing black gloves.

Indeed. I also thought he was kneeling there, looking arrogant with his hands in his pockets. I too was mistaken. And so did one of the bystanders. It shifted my initial perspective slightly, with a bit of Bayesian type thinking.

 

[moke123]

George Floyd was not wearing a corset.

My point is his ability to expand his lungs were restricted by being prone on ground, knee on back and side, etc.

 

[moke123]

I agree entirely with you on this one! Whatever the law says, I believe there are probably "independent" jurors on this trial that have decided on their verdict before hearing any evidence at all, as have most of the media. I prefer the defence attourny, as I find him much more interesting to listen to. There are a couple of grey haired attorneys on the prosecution side that I find dull as dishwater. For me, my favourite and most convincing attorney for the prosecution is the black guy. He has a nice manner about him, and is more believable,

The defense team watches the jurors carefully for this and would probably note your interest. They would hone in on you and try to convince you of their postion. Many jurors make up their mind very early in a trial. Then they focus on the defense or prosecution to change their mind.

 

[Jon]

My point is his ability to expand his lungs were restricted by being prone on ground, knee on back and side, etc.

Yes, I know. The prosecution are arguing this point. The defence is saying that the prone position is part of training, and that in a Canadian study with about 3,000 people put in a prone position during arrests none died. And so they argue the position is not inherently dangerous.

 

[Jon]

The defense team watches the jurors carefully for this and would probably note your interest. They would hone in on you and try to convince you of their postion. Many jurors make up their mind very early in a trial. Then they focus on the defense or prosecution to change their mind.

I find these court cases quite fascinating. The Oscar Pistorius trial had brutal cross-examination, while in the US it is much more subtle and controlled. The only problem is they suck up so much of my time that I should spend doing useful things like my big list of chores!

Ultimately, if you have a good lawyer, your odds improve, regardless of the "truth".

 

[moke123]

You have to factor in the reasonable police officers own perspective and bear in mind they are making spilt second decisions with imperfect information under dynamic evolving conditions.

This wasn't a split second situation such as firing a gun. It was 9 minutes.

 

[Jon]

Floyd was restrained on the ground for the nine minutes, but you don't stop thinking. Split second judgements need to be made, such as what call in code for medical services, stay restraining or let up, how much pressure to use and so on. The nature of the situation is dynamic and evolving, where you constantly have to reassess what to do. I cannot remember the precise terminology used in the court case, but the essence of it was that you cannot use 20:20 vision to assess a situation, but need the reasonable officers perspective and the changing nature of things.

Crowd dynamics come into play, Floyds condition was different at different stages, calling emergency services changed, with them escalating the severity of the initial call, and so on.

 

[moke123]

Yes, I know. The prosecution are arguing this point. The defence is saying that the prone position is part of training, and that in a Canadian study with about 3,000 people put in a prone position during arrests none died. And so they argue the position is not inherently dangerous.

Prone positon is not the only factor. how many of the 3000 were prone position with 3 cops on top of them?
I haven't found the actual study yet so cant really say if the canadian study is relevant. It surely would be malpractice for the defense not to raise it to try to establish reasonable doubt. I'm sure if the defense raises it during their case in chief there will be rebutal/impeachment witnesses.

Dont forget that chauvin is the high profile defendant due to the initial viral video but he didn't act alone

 

[Jon]

how many of the 3000 were prone position with 3 cops on top of them?

I have no information on that. How many were dealing with a muscular 6'5" bouncer on meth, with a 140lb police officer as one of the restrainers? What you are talking about is a compound situation, where prone position + knee on neck > prone position. The defence argues that fentanyl + heart issue + adrenaline issue + physical exertion > none of these issues. Compound arguments argued from opposite sides.

Edit: Less than 1 in 200 men are 6'5".

he didn't act alone

Agreed. That is why I have argued earlier in this thread that the others could be considered aiding and abetting, and I believe they are. My view is that none of them wanted a death on their hands while their suspect was in custody, and so they believed the actions they took were not life-threatening. The fact that none of the experienced officers told Chauvin to stop suggests to me that they did not think he was killing Floyd.

The whole camera footage and bodycams is pretty horrible to watch, and I believe it could well just be a very unfortunate series of events without a guilty party. The defence will argue that Floyd killed himself through his own actions, by resisting arrest, taking high levels of fentanyl to avoid detection, all while having a critical heart condition.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I wish the prosecutor had included lesser charges. The problem with the charges as I understand them is that I agree with Jon. I don't think the evidence proves that Chavan materially contributed to Floyd's death. I also completely disagree with the implication of racism. However, keeping him pinned for 9 minutes can be viewed as excessive force and should be prosecuted. If you give the jury only charges of murder in varying degrees and they agree that the evidence does not support murder at all, then they have no option but to find him not guilty of all charges. But they would almost certainly find him guilty of excessive force due to the length of time Floyd was on the ground and not struggling..

 

[moke123]

I wish the prosecutor had included lesser charges. The problem with the charges as I understand them is that I agree with Jon. I don't think the evidence proves that Chavan materially contributed to Floyd's death. I also completely disagree with the implication of racism. However, keeping him pinned for 9 minutes can be viewed as excessive force and should be prosecuted. If you give the jury only charges of murder in varying degrees and they agree that the evidence does not support murder at all, then they have no option but to find him not guilty of all charges. But they would almost certainly find him guilty of excessive force due to the length of time Floyd was on the ground and not struggling..

there are lesser includeds. He's also charged with Manslaughter 2.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Chauvin's charges

Chauvin is facing three charges: second degree unintentional felony murder, third degree “depraved mind” murder, and second degree manslaughter.

Depraved mind

State, said a depraved mind involves "a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not." It was also described as "a state of mind just as blameworthy, just as anti-social… just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill..."

 

[Jon]

I also completely disagree with the implication of racism.

I agree with you Pat. There is no evidence of racism at all, and the prosecution has not brought up any either. The whole BLM movement was founded on a lie. But that is ok for the founder, who now lives in a $1.4M home in a 97% white neighbourhood paid for through company funds.

However, keeping him pinned for 9 minutes can be viewed as excessive force and should be prosecuted.

We haven't heard the defence teams argument yet, so I think it is too early to say. I'm sure you will agree that making conclusions without hearing from the defence is what happens in a banana republic. Justice requires two sides arguments to be heard.

But they would almost certainly find him guilty of excessive force due to the length of time Floyd was on the ground and not struggling..

What about if he was already dead for most of the period when he was not struggling? Can you use excessive force on a dead person? The prosecution has argued he was still being restrained despite having no pulse. If that is the case, is the knee on the neck during that period actually doing anything negative at all? I'm just throwing questions out there as I do not know the answers.

I do find it interesting that most here find Chauvin already guilty, despite no defence argument yet. Do those who think he is guilty think he should go straight to prison and bypass due process? Have you already made up your minds? If so, you would not make good jurors. A good juror needs to keep an open mind until all the arguments are in. I say, wait. See what the defence says.

My belief is currently, it is a hard case for the prosecution to win. They have had their arguments presented this week and they have failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, in my view. However, it is possible that the defence has a bad week when they present their own arguments, based on cross-examination. But in the balance of probabilities, you would expect the defence to do well when calling their own witnesses. I understand that they have something like 10 lawyers on the prosecutions side and 1 lawyer on the defence teams side, or if not accurate, a highly lopsided state of affairs. It is possible that the defence team lawyer gets exhausted and makes many mistakes.

When the jurors decide, I think the pressure on them to convict will be intense, and some will think of the consequences in the second wave of riots that will come if Chauvin is not convicted of the highest charges. Welcome to BLM v2 street riots this summer. Death and destruction everywhere. Defund the police! Systemic racism within the legal system!

Edit: Are you comfortable with sending a person to prison for many years if there is a reasonable chance that he is innocent? We focus on George Floyd and his death, but what if Floyd died of an overdose? If that is reasonably possible, finding Chauvin guilty is morally wrong and a travesty of justice. Someone doing a difficult, dangerous job, acts according to what they think is right in the moment, and then gets set to prison for years, while trying to protect others. Due process does its best to protect against this type of injustice, and so we should follow its path.

 

[Jon]

I discovered another factor that tilts my opinion towards a drug overdose being a reasonable explanation for the cause of death. His girlfriend testified that a few months prior to his death, George Floyd suffered a drug overdose and had to go to ER. I completely missed that, but picked it up from Ben Shapiro's discussion on the case.

 

[moke123]

Have you already made up your minds? If so, you would not make good jurors. A good juror needs to keep an open mind until all the arguments are in. I say, wait. See what the defence says.

In a perfect world maybe. We already know what the defense is going to say. Now they need to present credible evidence to counter the prosecutions case.

 

[moke123]

I discovered another factor that tilts my opinion towards a drug overdose being a reasonable explanation for the cause of death. His girlfriend testified that a few months prior to his death, George Floyd suffered a drug overdose and had to go to ER. I completely missed that, but picked it up from Ben Shapiro's discussion on the case.

I think the death rate for unintentional drug overdoses hovers somewhere around 20%. I've known addicts that have OD'd 2 or 3 times in a week with no ill effects.

 

[Jon]

In a perfect world maybe.

So in an imperfect world, the one we actually live in, do you therefore believe that a juror shouldn't keep an open mind until all the arguments are in? It doesn't matter if the world is perfect or not, jurors should still hear both sides.

We already know what the defense is going to say.

That is an assumption that you do not know the answer to. We know they will make the case for drug overdose. I am interested to hear if they cover anything about why so long with the restraint, did he know Floyd beforehand, why did they not take his pulse, was he taught to put the knee on the neck/shoulder during his police training, what was he thinking regarding the crowd etc. Lots of unanswered. I think the defence, despite being grossly outnumbered, is doing a good job in casting doubt.

What I find interesting is the political slant to all this. If you are a Conservative, you tend to lean towards Chauvin's innocence, while if you are a LIberal, you lean towards his guilt.

 

[Jon]

I think the death rate for unintentional drug overdoses hovers somewhere around 20%.

Do you mean that if someone has an overdose, they have a 1 in 5 chance of dying? What about intentional overdoses? Would that be a higher rate? I imagine so, because I guess they would be taking a larger amount. If Floyd partially ingested fentanyl to avoid detection from police, perhaps he was putting more into his body than he normally does, thus leading to a level of drugs that is more towards the "intentional" side of the risk continuum, than the "unintentional side".

Over 70% of overdose deaths involved an opioid like prescription opioids, heroin, or synthetic opioids (like fentanyl).

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/prescription-drug-overdose/index.html

I'm trying to find some data on risk of death from intentional overdose. It would be even better if I found some data on risk of death based on the level of fentanyl in Floyd's system at the time of death.

 

[moke123]

So in an imperfect world, the one we actually live in, do you therefore believe that a juror shouldn't keep an open mind until all the arguments are in? It doesn't matter if the world is perfect or not, jurors should still hear both sides.

Those that stay awake hear both sides. You can only hope that most jurors keep an open mind.

Do you mean that if someone has an overdose, they have a 1 in 5 chance of dying?

4 out of 5 wont die. And thats only reported Od's.

I just haven't been convinced he Od'd.

 

[moke123]

perhaps he was putting more into his body than he normally does

Have you heard evidence of that?