[Agent Steel]

So, when Derek Chauvin's case first emerged, the video was pretty hard to watch. It looked like a clear cut case of murder.

But 2 independent autopsies revealed that Floyd's cause of death was a drug overdose, not asphyxiation.

The jury in the case was threatened by BLM to submit a guilty verdict. Chauvin was doomed from the get go. He stood no chance.

Initially I think everyone's emotions clouded their judgment. Now that several years have passed, I look back on this case from a different perspective.

We have to first admit that George Floyd was a dangerous criminal who was clearly resisting arrest. From what I have heard from other police officers, kneeling on the back of a suspect's head is a common tactic and is not meant to cause harm. If Chauvin is guilty, does it mean that kneeling should be totally banned from the police force? It would seem so. And yet, that would be stupid and illogical.

What do you think? Did Chauvin get a fair trial?

[Saeko]

Chauvin got a much fairer trial than Floyd did.

[XogGyux]

I can understand being butthurt about this if you were butthurt that a man was killed by the police. But since this is not the reason that you are butthurt, I am in disbelief.
First, bullshit that the autopsies conclude that he died from drug overdose. Also, drug overdose kill via asphyxiation. You telling me that this guy was going to die anyway and that the police putting their knees to this guy's back neck just happen to be a unfortunate event for the police? Fuck off.
Second, we have video evidence from multiple angles of how this murder was committed. While a medical examiner/autopsy might be helpful, we have the evidence of the actual crime in video recording. If you have multiple angle video from a vehicle collision in which the red car's driver is speeding and runs a redlight and collides on the side of the blue car. I don't care if you bring 2 mechanics that examined the totaled cars that claim that the accident was caused by the blue's car lack of blinkers.
This case is as straightforward as it can possibly be. Yes, the VICTIM had a criminal background and might have been attempting to commit a crime shortly prior to his arrest. The proper thing would have been to put him on the patrol and take him to the police station, not to murder him on the street.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, when Derek Chauvin's case first emerged, the video was pretty hard to watch. It looked like a clear cut case of murder.

But 2 independent autopsies revealed that Floyd's cause of death was a drug overdose, not asphyxiation.

Which autopsies were these?

[Agent Steel]

Which autopsies were these?

First was the one given by the state, the second was an independent autopsy given by a coroner that Floyd's OWN family hired.

[Pants-of-dog]

First was the one given by the state,

Do you mean one done by the police, i.e. the very people who killed Mr. Floyd?

the second was an independent autopsy given by a coroner that Floyd's OWN family hired.

I think I read that one and I do not remember it saying anything that would let his killer off the hook.

What part do you think exonerates the murderer?

[Drlee]

From what I have heard from other police officers, kneeling on the back of a suspect's head is a common tactic and is not meant to cause harm.

Ok Steel. Serious business. Do you really believe this or are you just taking a break from Special Ed class and making shit up?

You cannot be so stupid as to believe that law enforcement officers are taught to kneel on someone's head as a reasonable means of restraint. I don't know where you got this, but on the outside chance that there IS somewhere that is teaching this to police officers, we need to find out where and fire the entire leadership of the department.

Chauvin is a murderous asshole. I am sure he is, to this day, surprised that he is where he is, doing time for murder. But rest assured. He is right where he ought to be. He is scheduled for release, if he survives, in 2038. He stands as a clear warning to the very few law enforcement people who might presume to believe that they are above the law. He reminds them that they had best be aware that they too are subject to the same justice they want to dish out.

I do feel sorry for the two new police officers who fell under this piece of human excrement's control. But as it says in Matthew, "The axe lies ready at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

[Puffer Fish]

I expressed my thoughts about this in this thread:
Chauvin's Innocence
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=180345

As for whether the trial was fair, I would say both yes and no.

I strongly believe the outcome was unfair, and that the jury and judge did not apply proper logic to the case.
I also think the jury may have misinterpreted expert testimony given by the coroner, without giving consideration to exactly how that expert came to his conclusions, and not recognising that what they were being told was actually more of an opinion than a fact.

Another factor is that neither the judge nor jury were familiar with police restraint techniques or procedure for these sort of situations. They made the assumption that if someone died, the police officers must have knowingly done something that they knew was very wrong.

The procedures and presentation of evidence during the trial were fair. Although the officers in the department were too afraid to testify (about restraint procedures) on behalf of the defendants, due to the intense media coverage, fearing either for their safety or the future of their careers. (The mainstream media was manipulatively and deceptively shaping public perceptions of the story for a social-political agenda)

The defense was put in a difficult situation. I think a better job of the defense could have been made, but they were probably afraid it would have been too long and too complicated for the jury to listen to, and some of the arguments in defense would have required admitting some level of guilt.

One issue is that in trials typically the focus is on presentation of evidence and highlighting facts rather than discussing logic. So in that sense, I do think these trials can be unfair in some types of situations, like this one. The issue wasn't with the evidence or facts but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

[ingliz]

2 independent autopsies revealed that Floyd's cause of death was a drug overdose, not asphyxiation.

Wrong!

The Hennepin County medical examiner's office ruled Floyd's death was a homicide caused by "cardiopulmonary arrest" complicated by "restraint, and neck compression". The Medical Examiner testified that the way officers held Floyd down - compressing his neck while restraining him - was more than Mr. Floyd could take, given the condition of his heart.

Similarly, an independent autopsy commissioned by Floyd's family ruled that "asphyxiation from sustained pressure was the cause" of Floyd's death.

[MadMonk]

I don't actually believe that Chauvin was given a fair trial because the causes of Floyd's death are systemic, not down to a single individual. Claiming that they are excuses keeping the status quo in society and an acceptence that police brutality is necessary in many cases.

The police are not equipped nor trained to handle societal developments in the US. They often see violence as their first resort, many struggle with de-escalation strategies. When they are really needed, such as the Uvalde school shooting, they cover outside while children are getting murdered.

But it is not on them, really. They have been given an impossible task, set out by politicians who respond to civilian bloodthirst for revenge with no comprehension of complex issues.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Agent Steel

Since @ingliz has shown that your claims about autopsies is incorrect, should we move on to the next one?

Now you need to show that BLM threatened jury members, and that this got the killer convicted.

[Agent Steel]

Ok Steel. Serious business. Do you really believe this or are you just taking a break from Special Ed class and making shit up?

You cannot be so stupid as to believe that law enforcement officers are taught to kneel on someone's head as a reasonable means of restraint. I don't know where you got this, but on the outside chance that there IS somewhere that is teaching this to police officers, we need to find out where and fire the entire leadership of the department.

Chauvin is a murderous asshole. I am sure he is, to this day, surprised that he is where he is, doing time for murder. But rest assured. He is right where he ought to be. He is scheduled for release, if he survives, in 2038. He stands as a clear warning to the very few law enforcement people who might presume to believe that they are above the law. He reminds them that they had best be aware that they too are subject to the same justice they want to dish out.

I do feel sorry for the two new police officers who fell under this piece of human excrement's control. But as it says in Matthew, "The axe lies ready at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

Ok, well there are videos out there of other police officers kneeling on people where no harm was done. Why is it that Floyd died but these other people didn't? For the reason I already told you, a drug overdose.

[XogGyux]

Ok, well there are videos out there of other police officers kneeling on people where no harm was done. Why is it that Floyd died but these other people didn't? For the reason I already told you, a drug overdose.

There are videos of people petting lions or juggling knives, does not mean that is for you to do.
They do it? Maybe they getting away with it, they shouldn't, but more importantly for them, people already went to jail for this issue, so if they want to murder someone and go to jail, they can keep kneeling on people's head.
Dude, this whole obsession with foking murders is sickening. Do what other psychophans do, interchange letters with these murders for 10 years, then apply to marry him so you can have conjugate visits.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Agent Steel

Mr. Floyd's murderer used the neck restraint for eight or nine minutes.

Do any of these other videos show cops using the same neck restraint for the same amount of time?

Also, do they show the cop continuing to use said restraint even after the target has stopped resisting, as this murderer did?

[Drlee]

I don't actually believe that Chauvin was given a fair trial because the causes of Floyd's death are systemic, not down to a single individual. Claiming that they are excuses keeping the status quo in society and an acceptence that police brutality is necessary in many cases.

Here is a well established legal precedent in the US described by an attorney:

Did You Know That You Take Your Victim As You Find Him or Her?

What this means is that you are responsible for all of the harm that you cause someone, even if they suffered a greater harm due to underlying issues, pre-existing conditions or being extra fragile.

If you harm someone, but it’s really not too bad because they are strong with a high pain tolerance, then they are not harmed too badly and their damages may not be too high.

On the other hand, if you harm someone, and it’s worse than it would be for others because your victim is extra fragile or has a low pain tolerance, then their damages may be higher, even though part of their disability and pain may be attributed to their pre-existing conditions, frailties and low pain tolerance.

So what this means is that if you hit me in the shoulder and I have a heart attack because of the fright, you can still be charged with my death. My previous heart condition is not a defense. Nor an item of mitigation.

The police are not equipped nor trained to handle societal developments in the US. They often see violence as their first resort, many struggle with de-escalation strategies. When they are really needed, such as the Uvalde school shooting, they cover outside while children are getting murdered.

I am not compelled by this argument. As a retired soldier I knew without a doubt what the laws of warfare were and that I would be held accountable if I violated them.

Oddly your reference to Uvalde proves my point. The officers did not intervene because of their training and leadership. There is such a thing as too much reliance on procedures. One can train initiative out of a police officer. The departments can rely too much on perfect scenarios and expect them.

If the people outside had been soldiers the noncommissioned officer (sergeant) in charge would simply have called to his men to follow and they would have assaulted the building and killed the shooter. Not captured. Not negotiated. Not waited for a colonel or a tank or body armor or the right zodiac sign. It is the soldierly aspect of a police officer's job that calls for the military rank and command structure.

Police officers must learn to behave within the law or they must go be dog food merchants. It really is as simple as that. We have a situation where a guy is in cuffs and being held by three police officers with more on the way. This one is a no-brianer. The killing of Floyd was a brazen act of violence perpetrated by a dangerously violent bully under the cover of authority. There just is no excuse for it at all. It is an insult to all of the great police officers out there to imagine that they are not smart enough to behave in a reasonable manner consistent with their training, and before even that, good common sense.

[MadMonk]

Oddly your reference to Uvalde proves my point. The officers did not intervene because of their training and leadership. There is such a thing as too much reliance on procedures. One can train initiative out of a police officer. The departments can rely too much on perfect scenarios and expect them.

The reason why I mentioned Uvalde is because American law enforcement has become increasingly 'militarized' over the past two decades or more. This is to increase its violent capacity and intimidation capability, and Uvalde was one instance where it was needed but failed anyway.

wbur.org

Militarization Of Police 'Ramped Up' After 9/11, 'Rise Of The Warrior Cop' Author Says

Balko says it’s not unusual for a suburban law enforcement agency to have M-16s. Militarization of the police goes back to the Reagan-era war on drugs when one program informally began giving surplus military equipment from the Pentagon to police departments across the U.S. The initiative, known as ​​the 1033 program, was formally implemented when Congress passed a law in the 1990s.

Post 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security enabled anti-terror grants that police departments across the U.S. could tap into to purchase new military-grade equipment such as armored trucks, ballistics gear and armored personnel carriers. These grants provide even more than the Pentagon surplus program did, thus fueling the birth of companies that make military-style equipment in order to cash in on the DHS checks, he explains.

There are substantial costs to utilizing these police tactics, Balko says. Trust between officers and the communities they serve often splinters, he says, or police shootings occur that could have been prevented. And when people fear the police more than they fear criminals, he says solving crimes becomes an enormous feat.

“When you see yourself as a soldier and you see the people you're supposed to be serving and protecting not as citizens with rights — but as a potential threat — that's going to lead to more violence or you're going to be more wary,” he says.

Police brutality and corruption is not solely an American problem, it's a global one. In poor countries across the world, the police use their authority for personal gain and administer violence without any consequences.

Transparency International

Comparing the American police to other developed countries should be more similar. But American law enforcement is far worse in almost every metric compared to other police forces in other rich countries. I still don't believe it is their fault. I think they have been set up to fail before they ever started.

CNN

American police shoot, kill and imprison more people than other developed countries. Here’s the data

[Agent Steel]

I expressed my thoughts about this in this thread:
Chauvin's Innocence
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=180345

As for whether the trial was fair, I would say both yes and no.

I strongly believe the outcome was unfair, and that the jury and judge did not apply proper logic to the case.
I also think the jury may have misinterpreted expert testimony given by the coroner, without giving consideration to exactly how that expert came to his conclusions, and not recognising that what they were being told was actually more of an opinion than a fact.

Another factor is that neither the judge nor jury were familiar with police restraint techniques or procedure for these sort of situations. They made the assumption that if someone died, the police officers must have knowingly done something that they knew was very wrong.

The procedures and presentation of evidence during the trial were fair. Although the officers in the department were too afraid to testify (about restraint procedures) on behalf of the defendants, due to the intense media coverage, fearing either for their safety or the future of their careers. (The mainstream media was manipulatively and deceptively shaping public perceptions of the story for a social-political agenda)

The defense was put in a difficult situation. I think a better job of the defense could have been made, but they were probably afraid it would have been too long and too complicated for the jury to listen to, and some of the arguments in defense would have required admitting some level of guilt.

One issue is that in trials typically the focus is on presentation of evidence and highlighting facts rather than discussing logic. So in that sense, I do think these trials can be unfair in some types of situations, like this one. The issue wasn't with the evidence or facts but rather the interpretation of the evidence.

Thank you for being a voice of reason on this board.

You're right. Murder is a grey topic, as is rape.

People like Godstud get really emotional and simply scream 'RAPE IS RAPE!' even when you refute this claim with logical argumentation.

This board is very biased to the left, where feelings take precedent over facts. Sometimes it's like arguing with children.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your claim that the jury members felt threatened is difficult to believe since they are kept anonymous.

[Drlee]

The reason why I mentioned Uvalde is because American law enforcement has become increasingly 'militarized' over the past two decades or more. This is to increase its violent capacity and intimidation capability, and Uvalde was one instance where it was needed but failed anyway.

I totally agree with this. The militarization of our police is a disgrace and flies in the face of everything the founders believed. And this militarization demands a fight response from people who believe (sometimes correctly) that they are about to be harmed.

[Puffer Fish]

I totally agree with this. The militarization of our police is a disgrace and flies in the face of everything the founders believed.

I totally agree with "militarization of police" being a big problem, but I am not sure this specific case is really such a clear example of that.

The fact of the matter is, the suspect was high on drugs, acting irrationally and hysterically, and due to his strength and body size the officers were having difficulty controlling him, even though he was in handcuffs at that time.

You can agree or disagree with what officer Chauvin did, but I think that what he did is not an uncommon sort of thing for an officer to do in those circumstances.

Had they not been able to get the suspect under control, the suspect might have possibly ran into traffic on the busy road and got himself killed, possibly also officers if they had chased after him. So this is a consideration as well.