George Floyd Murder Trial

Yall are giving TJ everything he wants.

 

It's truly amazing to watch people respond seriously to the most un-serious person on this BBS for the better part of 20 years.

I rarely respond to people like that, but when I do it's usually directed at the audience and not the troll.

 

Also demonstrably false. What percentage of criminal cases result in hung juries? How about felonies? How about cases with multiple counts? Murder charges?

@Trader_Jorge - rarely right, but never lacking in conviction. But do come back if you’d like to learn something.

 

much of this is for personal entertainment, and to make sure the audience knows what the facts are,

 

Why the hell do keep saying Neck hold?

Since when can you "hold" something with a knee?

 

Yeah I was wondering about the reason for the restraint in the 1st place, It seems they had no reason to apply that restraint in the 1st place, let alone doing it for 9 minutes.

 

The fallacy in your thinking is attempting to compare a highly polarizing case, such as this one, to other more run-of-the-mill cases. It's simply comparing apples to pears, my friend.

You've had a bad run these last couple of days. Take a break, compose yourself, and prepare for better days ahead!


GOOD DAY

 

Neck hold, neck restraint... it is how the maneuver is described. The Minneapolis police were trained in administering neck restraints to unruly, combative perpetrators, of which George Floyd was one. Floyd fought for 20 minutes and was a physically large man, therefore the highest level restraint was unfortunately necessary.

The neck hold uses multiple parts of the body and positioning of the officer's body, it's not simply the knee.

I want you to make it a GOOD DAY, my friend.

 

He was black. Thats why we know about this. If he was white, nobody would’ve ever cared at all and there would be no trial. The cop would’ve never been charged with anything. If he was charged, we still wouldn’t know anything about it.

George Floyd was a scumbag. Im glad he’s not around to stab pregnant women anymore.

 

*** George Floyd.

 

Turley's column today:

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/...n-trial-coverage-follows-a-dangerous-pattern/

The Media and The Mayhem: The Chauvin Trial Coverage Follows A Dangerous Pattern
by jonathanturley

Below is my column in the Hill on the Derek Chauvin trial in Minneapolis. Last week, at least one juror was excused after he expressed fear that he or his family could be attacked after a verdict. (Conversely, another juror called the rioting necessary to advance the Black Lives Matter movement). The man explained that his neighbors had to flee the area after the riots following the death of George Floyd. That fear was shared by various jurors. It is not surprising when the courthouse is ringed in fencing and barbed wire and even police stations in the city are bunkered down. There are already protesters outside of the courthouse and a new “autonomous zone” in the city that is being criticized by police groups. Once again, the news coverage is highly siloed and divergent in such coverage with vastly different images emerging from the city as it prepares for possible rioting. However, it is the divergent coverage of the case itself that is my greatest concern.

The voir dire responses highlight the concern over venue in the case and the decision not to shift the trial to a different city. There is clearly a fear among jurors that there might be rioting if there is an acquittal for Chauvin. The voir dire selection also magnifies the concern over how the case has been covered in the media with the omission of critical defense arguments and evidence. I believe that there was a legitimate basis for a trial, but this is a stronger manslaughter than a murder case. The trial will give us a better view of the evidence but the coverage thus far has been dangerously incomplete in my view, as discussed below.

Here is the column:

Criminal trials have become such a predictable flashpoint for violence that cities create virtual fortresses around courthouses before juries are even seated. That is the case with the Minneapolis trial of Derek Chauvin, the first police officer to be tried for the death of George Floyd last spring.

The rioting that can follow a trial’s verdict is driven by deep-seated, long-standing racial problems. However, commentary by politicians and reporters can worsen those tensions, creating misconceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of cases. For example, before any investigation had been completed, Vice President Kamala Harris, then a United States senator, said Chauvin clearly “murdered” Floyd, while others insisted the crime was open and shut.

Trials, however, are based on the evidence and elements of crimes. They are designed to separate the material from the mythological. A good example is the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in 2014, which provoked days of rioting. The shooting was widely called murder by national figures and commentators. To this day, because of wildly inaccurate media coverage, pundits and protesters still refer to Brown holding up his hands and pleading, “Don’t shoot!” However, the officers involved were never charged despite long, repeated federal and state investigations that found no criminal culpability. Indeed, the Obama Justice Department and other investigations refuted the hands up, don’t shoot claim.

Chauvin’s trial has some of the same problematic elements of incomplete or distorted coverage and commentary. It clearly is much stronger than the Michael Brown case — and one can not overestimate the impact of the videotape of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck for almost 10 minutes as Floyd pleads “I can’t breathe.” The video is seared into the minds of many, provoking anger and disgust. Admittedly, I view cases from the perspective of a longtime defense attorney, but this one has defense points that are rarely reported but could prove decisive in this trial.

The four officers charged — Chauvin, Thomas Lane, Alexander Kueng, Tou Thao — responded to a call alleging that Floyd passed counterfeit money. The first major defense point was captured on body-camera video as Lane spoke to Floyd, sitting in a parked SUV. When Floyd refused to show his hands, Lane pulled his gun and yelled at Floyd to show his hands. After Floyd replied, “Please don’t shoot me, man,” Lane put away his gun and said, “I’m not shooting you, man.”

Floyd is then seen staggering as he is moved to a police cruiser. He admitted he had been “hooping,” or taking drugs. He then resisted getting into the cruiser, saying he was claustrophobic and couldn’t breathe. Lane is heard offering to sit with him, roll down the windows and turn on the air conditioning. Floyd continued to insist “I cannot breathe.” A struggle then led to Floyd on the ground, with Chauvin kneeling on his neck. As shocking as the video image is, Chauvin is likely to cite Minneapolis police training material that describes such restraint for an uncooperative suspect.

The biggest defense point will come from official autopsy and toxicology reports. The autopsy did not cite restraint as the cause of the death, instead citing “cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s).” (The family’s autopsy disagrees, citing death by asphyxiation). The preliminary finding of the autopsy “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation. Mr. Floyd had underlying health conditions including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.”

The autopsy states that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system. The level of fentanyl was extremely high, and documents from the autopsy attribute the following statement to Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s chief medical examiner: “Fentanyl at 11 ng/ml — this is higher than (a) chronic pain patient. If he were found dead at home alone & no other apparent cause, this could be acceptable to call an OD [overdose]. Deaths have been certified w/levels of 3.”

The toxicology report on Floyd’s blood amplifies that point, stating: “In fatalities from fentanyl, blood concentrations are variable and have been reported as low as 3 ng/ml.” Floyd’s blood showed almost four times that level. There is palpable fear that even discussing such countervailing defense issues will lead to accusations of being a racist or an apologist for police brutality. As a result, most of these details are routinely omitted from coverage, or only obliquely referenced.

There is both a legal and a political reason Chauvin is going to trial first: The “aiding and abetting” charges of the other officers are derivative on the Chauvin’s alleged crime of murder or manslaughter. The case against Chauvin is also the strongest and there is ample basis for criminal charges due to his failure to respond to Floyd’s medical crisis. Lane, a new officer, is heard at one point suggesting they move Floyd because he might be experiencing “excited delirium. Chauvin replies: “Just leave him.” Conversely, Lane has a stronger case for acquittal, which likely would inflame passions without a prior conviction of Chauvin.

Past cases also show the danger of pushing for higher-range murder charges, which may satisfy public demands but magnify the impact of acquittals. Such overcharging in the George Zimmerman case, focusing on second-degree murder, reduced the stronger case for manslaughter. Instead of significant time on a lesser charge, Zimmerman’s prosecutors got nothing.

Chauvin’s prosecutors pushed for a second-degree murder charge in addition to manslaughter. But, clearly concerned about the sharp-cliff impact of acquittal, they are urging the trial judge to add a lesser third-degree murder charge. That still requires proving Chauvin was guilty of “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind.”

If Chauvin is acquitted of murder, many are likely to be unsatisfied by a second-degree manslaughter conviction carrying a presumptive sentence of 41 months to 57 months, rather than a sentence of up to 15 years. The anger is likely to be greater if they were never told of the defense arguments and evidence. Chauvin’s trial shows the same profile as past cases with a mix of heightened charges and heightened expectations in what is a difficult prosecution case. Chauvin could very well be convicted of murder but, if not, the incomplete commentary and coverage will only add to the ensuing unrest.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.
​

 

Ms. Armstrong needs to stay the hell away. The jury does not need "black elders" anymore than it needs white elders. The jury needs to be a fair representative of the county of the trial and nothing more. As an attorney she should know better. She hasn't put that U of I education to good use.

I am not sure why she is even relevant to quote, she is clearly extremely biased..... are they going to interview the head of the police union next and get his input?

FWIW the last I saw half or more of the jury is black.

I say this and someone that supported the protests and support the charges against the officers.

 

All it does is serve to purposely inflame.

The case heard, and the standards of law the jurors are going to be asked to use are VASTLY different than what people on the streets (on both sides) that have an agenda are going to follow.

I remember explaining to my wife that any reasonable juror would have acquitted OJ Simpson based on the law at the time, the burden of proof and the quality of case the prosecution put on.

I think we may see a similar situation here... regardless of the outcome people are going to claim undue bias resulting in the case not going their way.

I will say though, that I was a prosecutor for many years and had some big cases... and I am floored that venue hasn't been changed. Likewise I find the pro acquittal position that the medical examiner report shows that the officer is innocent to be odd. The medical examiner is an employee of the government, and has interactions with the police force. Further, there is another medical examiner that has been retained that does not attribute death due to drug use. Experts are typically more effective witnesses, because you get to hand pick them and choose people that are very highly qualified and that are very effective at testifying.

Last the idea that the amount of narcotics in his body killed him really is short sighted. All a good prosecutor has to do is ask the jury if he was deal before he was put into a hold for 9 minutes..... No? Well was he dead after he was put into a choke hold?

The wording of the law is on the side of the defense in this case.... and there is evidence that a jury can grab hold of if they choose to do so...... but there is a lot of evidence for a conviction as well.

Law professors often do not make great defense attorney's or prosecutors because they over think and fail to realize that what the jury feels in their gut, and what is simply "right or wrong" prevails. The defense is going to have a hard time overcoming that this large and active man was alive, and then he wasn't and the only thing that changed was an officer putting him into a hold for 9 minutes while tax payers and another officer asked him to stop.

 

That guy is better on ignore, for me at least.

 

long on words, short on substance and evidence, full of bravado.

I mean it’s a schtick, perhaps it entertains yourself. I welcome conservative viewpoints to the discussion. But why always check substance at the door? Are there no intelligent or educated Trumpers here?