Do you believe Chauvin killed George Floyd?

Yes, I do.

But if proven otherwise and the courts rule in his favor, which I doubt, its the summer of 2020 all over again, or worse. Rioting, looting, anarchy, and burning. No National Guard available and, like last summer, none will be called.

@Yellowdog The alternative is convicting a cop who may have done nothing more than follow police training.

Yes. I watched Chauvin (and the other police) murder him.

”...unconscious neck restraint puts enough pressure on a subject to make them lose consciousness without killing them, according to the manual. It can only be justified if a suspect if acting aggressively or resisting arrest. Even so, when a suspect has been handcuffed and subdued, the hold must be released immediately, according to experts.”

Yeah, he killed him.

@Yellowdog One correction to your answer – the Minnesota National Guard has been mobilized. I am worried about a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’. I am glad that the DA has restored the charge of Third Degree Murder. Here is a link to the National Guard story:
https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-national-guard-ready-to-keep-peace-for-derek-chauvin-trial/600032112/

@smudges I think people like you, who have already prejudged the case, are the problem. You believe that a well-trained police officer deliberately killed a suspect on video. If he did, he should be tried for stupidity.

And murder.

The famous “I cannot breathe” can be heard from Floyd’s mouth long before the knee goes on his neck.

Cite, please.

I think people like you, who apparently believe that police can do no wrong, are the problem. And there’s no such thing as being tried for stupidity.

I believe he did unless it is proven otherwise by the government or Biden himself.

Of course he killed him. Let us concede this citizen was more vulnerable to being killed by sustained neck pressure given his health and intoxication. Huh. I imagine my mom would also be vulnerable to being killed by sustained neck pressure, but perhaps the reasons are more obvious, so the cop wouldn’t apply sustained neck pressure on her?

What I mean is that if you give a person a pass for killing because they didn’t consider that some victims are more or less vulnerable to being killed by the assault they made on them, then we’ve crossed over to madness. The intent was assault, the result was assault causing death. That police officer killed that citizen.

@idktimmyturner The government or Biden will not be proving or disproving anything. It is really up to the Prosecution and Defense Attorneys.

The problem is that the vast majority of people have already prejudged the case. Of course, that happens in many well-publicized cases. However, we hope that the Jury will let the evidence lead them to the right decision, whether it is popular or not.

Floyd was MURDERED. The other cops there were accomplices.

He did not resist. He was calm. He stated he could not breathe. The cops and the public were in ZERO danger even if Floyd had run away. There was no need to use force. There was no need for Floyd to be kept on the ground for more than 10 seconds if at all.

MURDER.

Yes, I do.
I will let this toxicologist explain why the “george floyd died from drugs” claim holds no water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRoqSyIi-98

@Smashley thanks for a good answer. You say: “The intent was assault”. I think if the Jury accepts that, a finding of at least Third Degree Murder will be a no brainer.

If you watch the footage from body cam, and keep in mind that George Floyd had been arrested many times in his life, you may develop some doubts.

@smudges The link I provided includes the body cam video in which you can clearly hear “Can’t breathe” or words to that effect long before the knee.

As far as your comment about people like me being the problem, I think the real problem is people who make up their minds without any facts.

There is absolutely nothing else to talk about here. He was murdered. Period. There are zero extenuating circumstances that could make this anything less than murder.

What are you doing?

@JLeslie If that were true, why are we going through the time and expense of a trial? There is obviously evidence on both sides, and that needs to be evaluated before a decision can be reached. Of course, the hard part may well be assembling an impartial jury.

Because this is America.

@rebbel That is already happening.

@crazyguy Sorry, I went to the link, but just can’t watch 3 minutes of Floyd dying again, so I’ll have to take your word that “I cannot breathe” can be heard from Floyd before the knee goes on his neck.

It’s irrelevant, anyway, because ”...it’s keeping suspects in the prone position, meaning they lie face-down with their hands cuffed behind their backs, for an extended period of time. It’s a dangerous position, because it’s known to cause what’s called positional asphyxia.

Someone in that position can draw enough breath to gasp or speak in spurts, but they can’t breathe fully, so they gradually lose oxygen and fall unconscious.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-knee-to-neck-move-used-to-restrain-george-floyd-isnt-encouraged-by-most-police-heres-why-some-law-enforcement-experts-say-its-a-dangerous-maneuver/ar-BB14JtVI

@smudges From your link:

The knee-to-neck move is banned by several major metropolitan police departments, but Minneapolis police allow police to restrain suspects’ necks if they’re aggressive or resisting arrest.

George Floyd does not appear to be aggressive or resisting arrest in the videos that have played on mainstream media. However, the full story will emerge in court, hopefully. In the meantime, we do have to hold our noses and watch the body cam videos in order to be prepared for what may emerge in court.

In any event, if the position of a knee on the neck is dangerous it should not be taught to any police officers. However, after you teach it, you cannot retroactively claim that it should never be applied.

Yes he did. No question in my mind.

From what I have read, there is absolutely no question that Chauvin caused the death.

The only issue is whether it was justifiable police work (i.e. he is immune from prosecution), or whether it was malicious and therefore to be considered murder.

If I were Chauvin, I would be considering how I want to spend my next 25 years in the hoosegow.

He knelt on the man’s neck for more than 8 minutes, all casual-like, hands in his pockets, almost smirking. If that is not murder then it is at least depraved indifference. Yeah, he killed Floyd.

@crazyguy “In any event, if the position of a knee on the neck is dangerous it should not be taught to any police officers. However, after you teach it, you cannot retroactively claim that it should never be applied.”

- Why not?

It seems to me:

1) You can train someone a method, and then later tell them it’s too dangerous and not to use it. And if it is too dangerous, that is exactly what you should do. If it’s so dangerous it may kill people, you should also tell them not to use it or else they will be prosecuted for unlawful killing.

2) Some police techniques may be dangerous but still appropriate to use in certain circumstances. It seems to me that this is definitely not a case where it was appropriate at all.

He may have been responsible for his death, but I don’t think his death was intended.

@crazyguy In any event, if the position of a knee on the neck is dangerous it should not be taught to any police officers.

Apparently you didn’t read the whole article:

” “You use the force necessary to have someone comply and take them into custody,” Pruitt, who is chairwoman of the National Black Police Association, said. “This man was already in handcuffs and already on the ground. (Restraining him) was total excessive force.”

Pruitt said a few years ago she started asking members of other police departments whether they’d been taught the knee-to-neck method of restraint because she’d seen it being repeatedly used, particularly with black suspects.

She said almost everyone she talked with denied that they were trained in the maneuver because of the high risk of injury.”

However, after you teach it, you cannot retroactively claim that it should never be applied.

Of course you can! That’s a ridiculous statement. Companies do it all the time except they call it “recalls”. It says, ooops we made a mistake. Don’t use this product.

Yes.

Even though it’s been gone over last summer many times (here and everywhere), it’s still not clear for what reason Chauvin took Floyd out of the car and put his knee on his neck. For what reason would a cop do that to someone who was in handcuffs? He’s cuffed. What can he do? He’s not running away. He’s not kicking the windows out of the back of the cop car. So for what?

@jca2 It could be, at least in part, due to the fact that they had worked together at a club and had had a number of negative interactions. (Not saying this is Chauvin, but…) I can just see a racist, power-hungry officer thinking, “Ha! Got you now you son-of-a-bitch! What you gonna do ‘bout it?”

You’re absolutely right, @smudges, but when at work, the professional is supposed to keep things on a professional level. Fortunately he will have to account for his actions and justify what he was intending for every single move he made. Saying “I worked with him at a club and I have bad memories of him” won’t cut it.

@KNOWITALL Just like the Jury (I hope), I am planning to sit on the fence and study as much of the evidence as I can get my hands on. I wish people here would do the same. Of course, since these people were in favor of the BLM protests, I can understand their reluctance to be open-minded.

@elbanditoroso Until you personally watch the gut-wrenching body cam video. I say that you only know what has been fed two you by mainstream media. After you watch it (and you know that the Jury will have to watch it many times over), you can render an opinion on whether there was any need for restraint or not, and whether Floyd was in some kind of distress even before the knee.

Of course, I woulds be totally stumped if the prosecutor asked me: “Knowing that Floyd is in distress, why did you think it was necessary to restrain him with your knee on his neck?”

@Darth_Algar If he had any inkling of what the consequences might be, his behavior would undoubtedly be different. That leaves us to two possible conclusions:

1. He had no inkling.
2. As you say.

I think we should wait to draw a conclusion until all the evidence has been presented.

@Zaku That is a great answer.

1. If Chauvin had been told that before the incident, he is guilty of violating his training and should pay the price.

2. If Chauvin failed to exercise proper judgment, then he and his fellow officers should never be hired back, because they have cost the City $27 million.

@kritiper I would sure hope that the death was not intended. If it was intended, the charge should be changed to First Degree murder. The question is: “Was there any justification for what certainly appears to be excessive use of force?”

@smudges You are absolutely correct – I stand corrected. What I meant to say was that if the police department has not corrected itself, then the officer may use the procedure. If the procedure is to be used under certain circumstances, then the police may have to clarify its instructions.

@jca2 Those were precisely my questions. The body cam video provides some answers. I strongly recommend watching it, no matter how distasteful that may be.

@crazyguy: Even if the knee on the neck was allowed by the PD to take the perpetrator into custody, that wasn’t necessary in George Floyd’s case since he was already in custody.

@smudges That is a baseless assertion, made because you refuse to look at the evidence.

I was just googling what the policy of the Department was when George Floyd died, and I read here that it was allowed for “intent to control.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-police-department-chokehold-ban-push-police-reform/

I would argue that in the case of George Floyd, since he was already in handcuffs, he was already being controlled.

@crazyguy That is a baseless assertion, made because you refuse to look at the evidence.

If you read my statement, you’ll see that I specifically wasn’t making it about Chauvin (although I’m only guessing you’re referring to the answer I made to @jca2 since you didn’t tell me to what you are referring). As far as the evidence, I’ve studied this case since it happened, so your statement doesn’t hold water.

And with that, I’m not going to respond any more. I know what I believe and why, and am tired of this back and forth silliness with you. You would argue that the sky isn’t blue on a beautiful cloudless day and analyze why with a stump.

Yes I believe Chauvin killed Floyd.

And also @crazyguy what a heartless thing to say….Chauvin “who may have done nothing more than follow police training.” Really? And to try Chauvin for stupidity if he deliberately killed Floyd? What the?

You may want to come across as not prejudging this case but your posts reek of something truly foul. And people are shocked when white people who make ignorant statements like this are branded racists. Not saying you are white. I don’t know.

@crazyguy The charge could never be 1st degree murder since the officer had no knowledge beforehand that he was going to, or planned to, kill that one specific individual.

@crazyguy – I believe that guilty of third degree murder is the most likely result and the most appropriate.

@jca2 The videos I have seen have a long gap between Floyd being restrained on the side walk and ending up on the pavement with Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck. The body cam video in the link I attached, fills in some but not all of the gap.

@Smashley I may even agree with that verdict. However, I think that verdict will lead to more rioting and violence.

@kritiper I agree.

@hello321 “What are you doing?”
He’s being a troll.

@crazyguy – On rereading the Minnesota statutes, I think there might be an interesting argument for a 2nd degree murder charge. You need to prove Chauvin caused Floyd’s death, and that he intended to commit a felony with force or violence.

There’s also an argument that the rules governing police constitute an “order of protection” to the citizens, which would lower the bar for 2nd. You would only need to prove that he intended to inflict bodily harm. I don’t know if this argument would pass, I’m no lawyer, but the language seemed flexible enough.

But again. 3rd fits, and is more likely to end in conviction.

@Smashley Good points. Since a second degree murder conviction carries a max sentence of 40 years versus 25 for a 3rd degree, the real decision will be made at the sentencing. A 2nd agree murder conviction should theoretically, but not necessarily, carry a longer sentence.

However, I expect that, if Chauvin is found Not Guilty on the 2nd Degree Murder charge, we’ll have rioting, looting and arson.

@crazyguy: He’s likely charged with other felony charges so his sentence will be longer.

Derek Chauvin charges: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/derek-chauvin-charges.html

For those that can’t read the article, this is copied from the NY Times article linked above:

Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer, is charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd. If convicted of the most severe charge, he could face a maximum of 40 years in prison.

It’s not yet clear whether he will also face third-degree murder, which carries a lesser maximum penalty. An appellate court ruled on Friday that the judge overseeing Mr. Chauvin’s trial must reconsider whether to add the charge.

Mr. Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric J. Nelson, said in court on Monday that he planned to appeal that ruling, but he and the judge agreed that jury selection could continue while he appealed. Prosecutors, on the other hand, asked the judge to delay the start of the trial until after it was clear whether the jury would be able to consider the third-degree murder charge. Matthew Frank, the assistant attorney general prosecuting the case, filed an appeal to halt the trial until that decision was made, and the judge sent all of the potential jurors home on Monday as he and the lawyers figured out how to proceed.

Mr. Chauvin is charged under the doctrine known as felony murder, which allows a suspect to be charged with murder when committing an underlying felony. The charge is sometimes referred to as “unintentional murder” because the prosecutor does not need to prove malice or an intent to kill.

To convict Mr. Chauvin of second-degree murder, the prosecution needs to prove that he “was committing or attempting to commit” another felony, in this case third-degree assault, at the time of Mr. Floyd’s death.

Refer someone to The Times.
They’ll enjoy our special rate of $1 a week.
Prosecutors will argue that when Mr. Chauvin kept his knee pressed on Mr. Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes, causing Mr. Floyd to repeatedly say he could not breathe, he was committing third-degree assault. That felony requires the “intentional infliction” of bodily harm, or in this case an act done with the intent to cause Mr. Floyd to fear bodily harm or death.

Richard Frase, a professor of criminal law at the University of Minnesota who has published a primer on the legal issues in the case, wrote: “Third-degree assault is defined as any assault causing substantial bodily harm. At some point while being held down Mr. Floyd lost consciousness; prior cases have held that constitutes substantial bodily harm and poses sufficient danger to permit felony murder liability.”

As Mr. Chauvin prepares to face trial in state court, the federal government has recently stepped up its investigation. There is a new federal grand jury in Minneapolis that has been hearing from witnesses, an investigation that could lead to federal criminal charges that Mr. Chauvin violated Mr. Floyd’s constitutional rights.

@jca2 Thanks for the copy-paste job, because I am one of those few people who cannot access The NY Times website.

The article is thorough, in my non-legal opinion. The way I understand it, the prosecution does not need to prove intent to kill in order to get a conviction on second degree murder if they can prove that he was committing the felony of third-degree assault.

I looked through the detailed Minnesota second degree murder statutes – see
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-second-degree-murder.html

The highest bar that I can see is proving that Chauvin was committing a third-degree assault. I cannot see in the statute a requirement to prove intent, so it may not be as hard.

@crazyguy: Would you like to see Chauvin do a maximum amount of jail time, or do you think he should get off?

@jca2 I really have no druthers each way. I do believe he should get a fair trial, with all the evidence presented and dissected by the jury. That is the least we owe any American citizen.

@crazyguy: “I do believe he should get a fair trial, with all the evidence presented and dissected by the jury. That is the least we owe any American citizen.”

A fair trial? Like George Floyd received?

Also, Chauvin is not “any American citizen”. He’s a cop. If he were anyone else kneeling on Floyd’s neck, Chauvin would have (correctly) been beaten until unrecognisable and Floyd would be alive. Cops aren’t just citizens and should be held to standards appropriate with their power.

I say yes. Nine minutes was way too long of a time to be on someone’s neck. The guy was handcuffed. If they had handcuffed him and sat him up, and he passed away, then that would be different. He at the very least recklessly disregarded his pleas and suppressed his breathing. So I think manslaughter should be the very least he is charged with.

@Pandora The actual charge is Second Degree Murder. However, the Jury has been thrown a lifeline of a lesser charge: 3rd degree murder. Manslaughter is not in the picture.

@crazyguy: According to the NY Times article that I linked and also cut and pasted (above), second degree manslaughter is one of the charges.

@jca2 You are absolutely correct – I had missed that.