At the risk of rehashing the Eric Garner debate the LEO there I don't think was malicious in that he wanted to kill Garner but his actions were reckless in that he used a banned technique on a non-violent suspect. The situation here I would say Chauvin is malicious given that he acted over a much longer period of time and has been repeatedly stated acted against not just policy but against the reasonable judgement of fellow officers.
'Callous' or 'dangerous' certainly does not equate to murder. And it's not even close. It's just not the legal standard -- falling short on many requirements for murder.
My mother also passed in 2018. Almost 3 years later I think about her everyday multiple times a day. Her death has shattered the lives of my sister and father as well. So I can absolutely empathize and understand how such an event can lead you to dark, dark places that you try to address in some desperate, irrational way thru addictive behaviors like drugs, alcohol or sex. The man may have had some issues but they are likely issues a broad spectrum of people deal with daily and sufffer long term. George Floyd did not deserve his fate. He may not have been an angel but he was harmless with another man’s knee on his neck.
I would be shocked if the defense doesn't present an expert that says his opinion is that Floyd died of something related to his drugs/health and not Chauvin's actions. Absolutely shocked. I think his attorney would probably be disbarred if that happened. I think you are confused. I am not making an argument that the knee was not on the neck. I am using a thought experiment to get people to look at the rest of the evidence independently. When I say to assume for the sake of arguement that it was not the knee that killed him and then ask a question based on that assumption, it isn't to have a gotcha moment where now I win because you assumed the knee didn't kill him. I am asking to see what other evidence supports only the conclusion that Chauvin killed him. I have a white car and I drove it to work today. I got to my parking spot at work about two miles away in about 6 minutes. I took my car keys with me when I left the house, but there are house keys and a work fob on the same key ring. I put my keys on my desk when I arrived for work. If I asked you to assume I walked, and then asked given that, is there any other evidence you would expect to look different based on that assumption, you could say all the stuff with the keys would be the same, but surely I would not have walked to a parking space two miles away in about 6 minutes. That is a walking speed of 20 mph on average, and why would I walk to a parking space. It is a rhetorical device to get people to consider what fits under both the scenario I am asking you to assume is true and the opposite scenario and what evidence would not fit under the scenario I am asking you to assume is true. So it is not a "flaw in the argument being presented". The officers here are saying Floyd is alright and he may need the ambulance afterward. This is less than four minutes before they put him on the gurney? At 19:02 there is a call updating the location of the ambulance and that they are en route. 19:35, you can see the lights from the ambulance arrive. 19:50 the paramedic can be seen checking him with a flashlight, doesn't move Chauvin. 20:54, Chauvin stands and they immediately move him onto the stretcher to lift him onto the gurney. It certainly seems like a lot is happening that is an effort to protect his life if the officers don't care about it. None of them seem to be expressing any frustrations with Floyd after they move him onto the ground beyond the comment that he is talking a lot for someone that claims he can't breath. No. I am presenting the arguments that I believe will be introduced at trial and that I believe should lead to his acquittal, and I expect will lead to either acquittal or conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Wrong. My arguments are about why I believe, given what I have seen of the available evidence, I do not believe the state can prove Chauvin guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument relies on no assumptions or logical fallacies, but does rely on the presumption of innocence and the burden and standard of proof facing the prosecutor. I am presenting an alternate theory I believe reasonably possible, not a positive argument. I do this with the understanding that the defense has no burden and their only goal is to point out where and how the prosecutions case does not foreclose all other possibilities beyond a reasonable doubt. I have pointed to all of the evidence which I believe makes that a reasonable possibility. At no point did I argue the technique was not dangerous, nor did I question your expertise. Reasonable, so far as the law is concerned, is an objective standard. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, it is the inability of the juror to have an abiding conviction that every element of the charges is true. With regard to circumstantial evidence in particular, a reasonable doubt MUST be found if the evidence used to come to a conclusion could also reasonably lead to another conclusion. I assume neither of those things. Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude Chauvin killed Floyd. I just don't think the evidence supports that being the only reasonable conclusion. I have, it is, and the judge and/or jury still choses to side against the expert, even in cases where there is no defense expert to counter the testimony of the People's expert. In this, it is critical to delve into the reason for the expert's opinion, look at all the facts he is relying on, and determine if there is perhaps a reasonable alternative conclusion that could be reached. There is no need to speculate as to the amount of fentanyl in his system, nor to speculate as to what constitutes a lethal amount, both are in the autopsy report. You have to remember that in addition to fentanyl, Floyd was high on methamphetamines, which as an upper would counteract the lethargic or sedative effect of the fentanyl, but be no less dangerous to his organs.
I'm going to apologize that I don't have time to go through this post and there is a lot to unpack but wanted to address one thing. You ask several times "to assume" even in the post above you say a few times "to assume". The whole defense you've presented requires an assumption to ignore what we all saw and make an assumption versus the most likely and reasonable conclusion based on empirical evidence. You yourself state in the post above that is what you're doing.
LOL, I am asking you to temporarily assume something for the sake of examining other evidence. The defense would not be assume he didn't do it, okay now that you have assumed he didn't do it, you must vote not guilty. That would be asinine and childish. I have even provided a simplified example to illustrate the point. You are hung up on the rhetorical device. The assumption is part of an intellectual exercise. In the end, you would circle back around and show the assumption is unnecessary, but you have stopped at step one, so you never get that far.
I think of this like this: If I shoot at a guy - Trying to scare him or make him stop but . . because he has a heart condition - he dies of fright - heart attack Am I a Murderer? If a cop does this. . . he gets off If a regular white citizen does this. . .he going to jail for man slaughter/murder/something If a regular minority citizen does this . . .he will go for jail longer. We cannot have a multi-tiered justice system Rocket River
"Should Derek Chauvin be convicted by video?": https://theweek.com/articles/974933/should-derek-chauvin-convicted-by-video
As a lawyer you probably understand the relationship between language /rhetoric and logic. What you're calling a "rhetorical device" is fundamental to your argument because requires overlooking what is the most obvious empirical evidence. You basically say above that the assumption is necessary for the argument. This is necessary because if we stay with the argument that the knee was on Floyd and that was causing enough harm to kill Floyd then there is no defense, which we see and which is the most likely logical outcome. That's why as you state " I am using a thought experiment to get people to look at the rest of the evidence independently. When I say to assume for the sake of arguement that it was not the knee that killed him and then ask a question based on that assumption," that is more than just a rhetorical device because you acknowledge that you can't get around the empirical evidence of the knee.
I would venture to say thousands of non-cops are in prison because of video Hell . . .. . more are in prison based on nothing but the "word of the cops" with little to no evidence at all . .. Rocket River
Also the evidence against Chauvin isn't just video. Some of the strongest evidence is the testimony of other LEO that Chauvin didn't act according to procedure and was excessive.
WTF was that? Why did this author feel the need to respond to Chelsey Handler? Got to find something for these think piece articles.
The article has a point that partial or selected video only tell part of or select parts of the case. However video is certainly valid evidence to be used. As in the case mentioned about the elderly Asian woman attacked the rest of the story was able to be entered into evidence just as it would in a trial.
The assumption is not necessary for the argument, it is a way of highlighting the fact that all of the evidence supports multiple conclusions. No, it is just a rhetorical device. You can come at it without making assumptions, but it is clunkier and less elegant. As I said, you start with making the assumption, but by the end you throw the assumption out and show that the assumption is not necessary to the argument. People who were arguing in good faith would follow the argument and then counter it at the end. As I have said repeatedly, nothing in my argument requires ignoring that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck during any period in the multiple videos that it can be seen there. If it did, it would be a terribly pointless argument, because the simple counter would be to point to the video. If that were the case, I may as well argue an invisible alien killed him or that he was shot with a potassium dart from an angle that couldn't be seen on any of the cameras and that triggered a heart attack.
There is really no consequence to anyone posting here being wrong. If I am wrong, I am wrong, and that's that.
I’m going to hold off going into a discussion of Linguistic Determinism but the fact remains that you’ve framed the argument through the use of assumption. As a lawyer you understand that words have meaning so if it’s not necessary why do you insist on asking us to assume and say you’re making an assumption? I understand why you do so but this is the reason of why I don’t think it is as strong as what you argue it to be. If we use the simply logic of Occam’s Razor then the most likely explanation is that Floyd died because of Chauvin’s actions. The argument that he died because of OD is possible but as we both agree this is what is reasonable and “most likely” would certainly contribute to “most reasonable.” It requires that we assume that even though Floyd was being put under a technique that was harmful and for an inordinate amount of time that it really was an OD that just happened to coincidentally occur at the same time.
True while we might think we’re self important here but none of us are in that courtroom and I doubt Clutchfans D&D will be admitted as evidence. I will say this if I’m wrong and I’m willing say there is that possibility Minneapolis and a lot of other cities will burn. Not because I specifically am wrong but because Yes there is a chance Chauvin could be acquitted. Given then societal pressures in this case this will be very rough and as a resident of Minneapolis one that I’m acutely aware of. I will say that shouldn’t be a consideration for this case and as much as possible the trial should be conducted with no concern about what might happen out in the streets. Chauvin deserves his day in court and he deserves a defense and one at least as good and persistent as the one we’re seeing here. My opinion is that the evidence against him is very strong and in some ways I’m already betting that he will be found guilty. If not I wouldn’t be staying in town and going about my regular business.
"Omar Says Minneapolis ‘On Edge’ Over Chauvin Trial": https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/omar-says-minneapolis-on-edge-over-chauvin-trial/ Omar Says Minneapolis ‘On Edge’ Over Chauvin Trial Elected officials should not comment on ongoing legal proceedings. JAMES JOYNER · SUNDAY, APRIL 4, 2021 · The Guardian (“Minneapolis ‘on edge’ over outcome of Derek Chauvin trial, Ilhan Omar says“): As the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd headed into its second week, the Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar said residents remain “on edge” about the outcome. On Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, Omar was reminded that few trials involving police officers result in conviction, and asked: “Are you and your city prepared for the possibility of a hung jury or a not-guilty verdict?” “The community is on edge about that,” Omar said. “We have seen justice not delivered in our community for many years. I think that there is a lot of confidence in [state] attorney general Keith Ellison and the prosecutors in this case, but we are all eagerly awaiting to see how this trial shakes out. “It’s been really horrendous to watch the defense put George Floyd on trial instead of the former police officer who’s charged with his murder.” This is a highly problematic stance for a powerful public servant to take. While Omar is doubtless right that the community is nervous about the outcome and that it will be a bitter pill for many to swallow if Chauvin is not found guilty, it’s simply outrageous for her to declare that a jury that ruled that way is somehow failing to deliver justice. Or, for that matter, to declare that lines of inquiry allowed by the judge are somehow improper. It poisons the well and potentially intimidates the jury pool, intimating that rioting will ensue if they don’t vote the “right” way. The video evidence here is rather powerful and the testimony that I’ve read from police leadership is rather damning for Chauvin. But he’s entitled to a fair trial without elected officials grandstanding from the sidelines.
