Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Common Soldier]

Even if Floyd just happen to naturally have a heart attack af the time of his arrest, and the choke hold had nothing to do with his death, it would still be criminally negligent to wait around for 9 minutes before attempting to get Floyd medical help. Maybe Chauvin did not intend to kill Floyd, but he is liable.


And whether the neck hold actually choked Floyd or not does not really matter, Floyd said was having trouble breathing and the cops ignored him. They would be almost as guilty if Floyd was.just lying on the ground untouched and said the same thing and the cops did nothing while Floyd died on them. But whether neck hold technically strangled Floyd or not, we can all agree, I think, that the neck hold played a role in Floyd's death.


And even though the mainstream media and others are guilty of race baiting, and deliberately promoting racial tensions to promote racial tension, that still does not take away the fact that there are problems that need to be addressed. David Wood gives an interesting perspective as an ex-con on why people hate the police https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TnD5lS-rHJY

[Cope]

You're presenting your petty nitpicking as something meaningful when the whole world knows what happened is murder.

In no way have i suggested, though, that Chauvin is not entitled to legal defense at court. I have no idea what you're talking about. This is an insulting attempt at making me look like i'm part of the mob you're supposedly so worried about. The outrage about the crime is perfectly justified, except for the riots and the plundering of course.

Please stop derailing the thread with pointing at this practically meaningless detail. As if nobody is allowed to discuss an obvious crime, because there isn't a verdict yet. Ridiculous. You are consistently off topic with that crap and childishly repetitive in your disingenuous bean counting and you cannot debate without personal attacks, of course. Rest assured that none of this fazes me in the slightest.

I am of course aware of basic legal procedures and the in dubio pro reo principle. This contributes nothing to the understanding of the events. Unlike you, i'm even aware that Chauvin was actually accused of aggravated assault and 3rd degree murder, which exists only in Minnesota and one or to other states. So much to the claim that i'd be ignorant of the legal circumstances

All you do is repeatedly pointing to indubio pro reo, as though every thought one can have about this crime is invalid until the verdict is in. This is simply a waste of space. You might as well talk about the weather at the day the crime happened.

As is clearly evidenced by the ambiguity and disagreement surrounding the cause(s) of Floyd's death, Chauvin's criminal guilt is far from a foregone conclusion. That's why we are (or at least were) discussing the details of the case. Claiming that the incident amounts to an "obvious crime" "which the whole world knows" does not address any of the evidence or argumentation; its an emotional assertion which can be dismissed without further comment. Secondly, the suggestion that I'm somehow preventing the discussion of a case that I'm actively promoting the discussion of, is both bizarre and contradictory.

[Sir Adrian]

@vanoi&cope: strangulation is the act, the medical term for the result is asphyxiation, i am fully aware of that.



The second report (Cope called it "secondary") made it clear that the cause is asphyxiation by means of exertion of physical force.

Anyone else who wants to use this sad incident as a stage for some high quality nitpickery and embarrassment?

Cheezes kitty-rubbing Christ...

And the first one didn't.

[Infidel144]

The conclusions - regarding policing policy - to be drawn if Floyd's death is regarded as homicide caused by Chauvin instead of murder in the second degree (actually i think it's murder in the first degree)

First degree murder...
Hmmm...
Here is the relevant statute:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:


(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;


(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting the person or another;


(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting, tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the unlawful sale of a controlled substance;


(4) causes the death of a peace officer, prosecuting attorney, judge, or a guard employed at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent to effect the death of that person or another, while the person is engaged in the performance of official duties;


(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of child abuse upon a child and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;


(6) causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or


(7) causes the death of a human being while committing, conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.185
Which section would you be charging Chauvin under?

edit: fixed quote box

[swabian]

First degree murder...
Hmmm...
Here is the relevant statute:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:


(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;


(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence, either upon or affecting the person or another;


(3) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of the person or another, while committing or attempting to commit burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, arson in the first or second degree, a drive-by shooting, tampering with a witness in the first degree, escape from custody, or any felony violation of chapter 152 involving the unlawful sale of a controlled substance;


(4) causes the death of a peace officer, prosecuting attorney, judge, or a guard employed at a Minnesota state or local correctional facility, with intent to effect the death of that person or another, while the person is engaged in the performance of official duties;


(5) causes the death of a minor while committing child abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of child abuse upon a child and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life;


(6) causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; or


(7) causes the death of a human being while committing, conspiring to commit, or attempting to commit a felony crime to further terrorism and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.185
Which section would you be charging Chauvin under?

The first one of course. The malice aforethought is given by his demonstrated intent to inflict serious bodily injury and his reckless disregard for human life. The killing was intentional and therefore premeditated. We saw Chauvin kneeling with full weight on Floyd's neck even after he has lost consciousness and after the ambulance had arrived. Even as he was approached by one of the rescue personnel he hesitated to lift his knee. This clearly shows he was doing his utmost to ensure Floyd's death and enjoying it to the very last second. In all likelihood he knew he would be fired, sued and incarcerated but simply didn't care.

As is clearly evidenced by the ambiguity and disagreement surrounding the cause(s) of Floyd's death, Chauvin's criminal guilt is far from a foregone conclusion.

I guess you would say the same if the video would show Chauvin strangulating Floyd with both of his hands... or if he took him apart with a chainsaw.

Secondly, the suggestion that I'm somehow preventing the discussion of a case that I'm actively promoting the discussion of, is both bizarre and contradictory.

"Actively promoting"... well you are a participant like everyone else and as such you basically reduce all commentary based on Chauvins guilt to the trivial point of in dubio pro reo, which, together with your rude and condescending approach, is needless and derailing spam.

To state that you as a participant - or "promotor" - of a discussion, cannot possibly hinder and undermine a discussion by gracing it with the destructive style of your participation - even calling it "contradictory" - is in fact bizarre and adds a further layer of funny to the freakshow. The level of projection you're continuously displaying here even suggests that you are self-aware somewhere in the back of your head.

[swabian]

And whether the neck hold actually choked Floyd or not does not really matter, Floyd said was having trouble breathing and the cops ignored him. They would be almost as guilty if Floyd was.just lying on the ground untouched and said the same thing and the cops did nothing while Floyd died on them. But whether neck hold technically strangled Floyd or not, we can all agree, I think, that the neck hold played a role in Floyd's death.

I guess you mean it doesn't matter with regard to a broader discussion about police brutality in the US. I have to disagree, because the specifics of Floyd's death do determine the gravity of the incident. If it was just a consequence of the way policemen are trained it would be bad enough, but this shows a sadistic murderer being in full control of his underlings who wouldn't intervene as they should have and who, in fact, support Chauvin by screening him off as he slowly chokes the life out of Floyd's body and are therefore perpetrators. They also would have undoubtedly helped to cover this case up and bury it deep on the ground of one of the 10000 lakes of Minnesota, if the incident wouldn't have been filmed. If the foulness of the US policing system goes even so far that police personnel are ganging up to conspiracies to commit murder, then we have definitely reached another level than had it only been a consequence of faulty training and education of police personnel.

And btw, unless you claim Floyd would have died regardless of the filmed strangulation, then the act we all saw on video was the solely decisive factor and therefore renders this a homicide and murder (in the first degree in my opinion).

[antaeus]

"Actively promoting"... well you are a participant like everyone else and as such you basically reduce all commentary based on Chauvins guilt to the trivial point of in dubio pro reo, which, together with your rude and condescending approach, is needless and derailing spam.

To state that you as a participant, or "promotor" of a discussion, cannot possibly hinder and undermine a discussion by gracing it with the destructive style of your participation - even calling it "contradictory" - is in fact bizarre and adds a further layer of funny to the freakshow. The level of projection you're continuously displaying here even suggests that you are self-aware somewhere in the back of your head.

I agree with most of your assessment of the case. But I think you're getting too concerned with how Cope is delivering their (he/she dunno) argument, and not paying enough attention to what that argument is. Forgive me for paraphrasing, but from what I can see, Cope is suggesting that there appears to be grounds for charges to be laid, but is not going to be drawn into speculating about guilt, when that is the purpose of charges. It's reasonable to suggest in this case, in a highly politicised environment where there will be protests on the streets no matter whether Chauvin is found innocent or proven guilty (..of what ever degree of murder or assault or what ever), that particular care should be exercised in choosing what charges to lay, and how that case is made. It really does need to be beyond reproach.

So I might differ from Cope in that I see as a bigger picture problem of systemic abuse, where Cope sees advantage being taken by various left leaning groups - I do agree with Cope in that it's not particularly helpful to assume Chauvin is guilty of anything until a court process has established that fact. With that in mind, I think we should be able to discuss the intricacies of the event in minutia. It is a lens through which we can examine the case without passing judgement until it is deserved.

I think it is important to not blindly dismiss arguments simply because you don't like the approach. If you look hard enough, there are always points of commonality.

[wanderwegger]

mainstream media

A term commonly used by alt righters. Wouldn't want people to confuse you with them. Undermines your arguments because hard not to think racism plays a part in them as such.

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/show...3#post15942573

[Cope]

I guess you would say the same if the video would show Chauvin strangulating Floyd with both of his hands... or if he took him apart with a chainsaw.

"Actively promoting"... well you are a participant like everyone else and as such you basically reduce all commentary based on Chauvins guilt to the trivial point of in dubio pro reo, which, together with your rude and condescending approach, is needless and derailing spam.

To state that you as a participant - or "promotor" - of a discussion, cannot possibly hinder and undermine a discussion by gracing it with the destructive style of your participation - even calling it "contradictory" - is in fact bizarre and adds a further layer of funny to the freakshow. The level of projection you're continuously displaying here even suggests that you are self-aware somewhere in the back of your head.

This is a repetition of your prior claims that Chauvin's guilt has been established absolutely (the facts be damned) and that mere act of discussing any countervailing evidence is tantamount to a personal attack. Your belief that the Floyd case (in which "no life-threatening injuries were identified") is analogous to a homicide caused by the infliction of "chainsaw" wounds speaks for itself.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I agree with most of your assessment of the case. But I think you're getting too concerned with how Cope is delivering their (he/she dunno) argument, and not paying enough attention to what that argument is. Forgive me for paraphrasing, but from what I can see, Cope is suggesting that there appears to be grounds for charges to be laid, but is not going to be drawn into speculating about guilt, when that is the purpose of charges. It's reasonable to suggest in this case, in a highly politicised environment where there will be protests on the streets no matter whether Chauvin is found innocent or proven guilty (..of what ever degree of murder or assault or what ever), that particular care should be exercised in choosing what charges to lay, and how that case is made. It really does need to be beyond reproach.

So I might differ from Cope in that I see as a bigger picture problem of systemic abuse, where Cope sees advantage being taken by various left leaning groups - I do agree with Cope in that it's not particularly helpful to assume Chauvin is guilty of anything until a court process has established that fact. With that in mind, I think we should be able to discuss the intricacies of the event in minutia. It is a lens through which we can examine the case without passing judgement until it is deserved.

I think it is important to not blindly dismiss arguments simply because you don't like the approach. If you look hard enough, there are always points of commonality.

I have claimed on multiple occasions that I think there is a strong possibility that Chauvin will be convicted on the charge of manslaughter. My intention was, and still is is, to discuss the details and merits of the criminal case based on the available evidence. If other users insist on treating their their prima facie interpretations of Floyd's death as infallible and irreproachable, that is their choice.

[swabian]

This is a repetition of your prior claims that Chauvin's guilt has been established absolutely (the facts be damned)

We have the video and the two autopsy reports. You put it like it was some whacky speculation to assume his guilt.

and that mere act of discussing any countervailing evidence is tantamount to a personal attack.

Well, that's an easily verifiable lie. I never said that and i wonder why you even bother attempting to twist the truth like that. Kinda pitiful.

Your belief that the Floyd case (in which "no life-threatening injuries were identified") is analogous to a homicide caused by the infliction of "chainsaw" wounds speaks for itself.

There are two independent autopsy reports who declare it a homicide, one of which comes from the pathologist covering Minnesota. Apparently you need a letter signed by God to accept certain things as facts. Not only that, you try to turn tables and claim i'm the one who is ignoring facts. It's just baffling...

I have claimed on multiple occasions that I think there is a strong possibility that Chauvin will be convicted on the charge of manslaughter. My intention was, and still is is, to discuss the details and merits of the criminal case based on the available evidence. If other users insist on treating their their prima facie interpretations of Floyd's death as infallible and irreproachable, that is their choice.

I'm aware, i have a good memory. You yourself also called it a homicide, yet you claim Chauvin's guilt is unconfirmed. What is yet formally undetermined is the verdict, thus the exact degree of Chauvin's guilt, not whether or not there is any guilt at all.

[Cope]

We have the video and the two autopsy reports. You put it like it was some whacky speculation to assume his guilt.

I argued that, in all probability, the known evidence is insufficient to convict Chauvin of murder.

Well, that's an easily verifiable lie. I never said that and i wonder why you even bother attempting to twist the truth like that. Kinda pitiful.

You have repeatedly ignored the substantive elements of the discussion and interpreted topical disagreement as an affront to your person.

There are two independent autopsy reports who declare it a homicide, one of which comes from the pathologist covering Minnesota. Apparently you need a letter signed by God to accept certain things as facts. Not only that, you try to turn tables and claim i'm the one who is ignoring facts. It's just baffling...

I'm aware, i have a good memory. You yourself also called it a homicide, yet you claim Chauvin's guilt is unconfirmed. What is yet formally undetermined is the verdict, thus the exact degree of Chauvin's guilt, not whether or not there is any guilt at all.

A determination of homicide does not imply criminal culpability. It is not synonymous with murder, manslaughter or any other criminal charge. This was made apparent by the material that you cited:

There is a difference between homicide and murder. Your own source quotes the Medical Examiner's office claiming that the ruling of homicide "is not a legal determination of culpability or intent".

[swabian]

I argued that, in all probability, the known evidence is insufficient to convict Chauvin of murder.

You were dicking around about it without elaborating on why you think that, yes.

You have repeatedly ignored the substantive elements of the discussion and

I have not ignored but disregarded your only apparent contribution to the thread: in dubio pro reo and the various repetitions of it.

interpreted topical disagreement as an affront to your person.

Blatant lie. I can't believe you even repeat that.

A determination of homicide does not imply criminal culpability. It is not synonymous with murder, manslaughter or any other criminal charge. This was made apparent by the material that you cited:

Legal killings, which is what you are talking about, are executions and cases of self defense. As this was, to anyone who is not blind, beyond any reasonable doubt (!) recognizable as being not a case of self defense, it must have been - again beyond any reasonable doubt - an illegal killing. I don't care about that notion by the article i cited before, the coroner was obviously just overly cautious

[Cope]

You were dicking around about it without elaborating on why you think that, yes.

I have not ignored but disregarded your only apparent contribution to the thread: in dubio pro reo and the various repetitions of it.

Blatant lie. I can't believe you even repeat that.

These claims have been rebuked. They require no further comment.

Legal killings, which is what you are talking about, are executions and cases of self defense. As this was, to anyone who is not blind, beyond any reasonable doubt (!) recognizable as being not a case of self defense, it must have been - again beyond any reasonable doubt - an illegal killing. I don't care about that notion by the article i cited before, the coroner was obviously just overly cautious

Homicide is justifiable where the death is a consequence (or partial consequence) of a lawful arrest where the use of force was no more than absolutely necessary. Graham v. Connor (which I assume will be raised at trial) set out standards of objective reasonableness with regard to the state's use of force.

[swabian]

These claims have been rebuked. They require no further comment.

BS, but i guess one has to be glad you're not repeating yourself there anymore.

Homicide is justifiable where the death is a consequence (or partial consequence) of a lawful arrest where the use of force was no more than absolutely necessary. Graham v. Connor (which I assume will be raised at trial) set out standards of objective reasonableness with regard to the state's use of force.

Whatever those standards are, they cannot possibly apply to a handcuffed man who was already held down by 2 other men at times. A 6 year old kid could hold down a prone man with hands cuffed on his back by sitting on him. So the same effect could easily be achieved by putting the knee on the back with half body weight or cede the task to the other two men Chauvin needlessly "supported". Full weight on the neck was completely unnecessary, is certainly far beyond "no more than necessary", and it can only explain one reason, the real reason, namely that Chauvin intended to murder George Floyd, with whom he allegedly had previous altercations so that there would even be a motive besides sadism and rage.

[Common Soldier]

Whatever those standards are, they cannot possibly apply to a handcuffed man who was already held down by 2 other men at times. A 6 year old kid could hold down a prone man with hands cuffed on his back by sitting on him. So the same effect could easily be achieved by putting the knee on the back with half body weight or cede the task to the other two men Chauvin needlessly "supported". Full weight on the neck was completely unnecessary, is certainly far beyond "no more than necessary", and it can only explain one reason, the real reason, namely that Chauvin intended to murder George Floyd, with whom he allegedly had previous altercations so that there would even be a motive besides sadism and rage.

How do we know if "full body weight" was applied? I don't see how you can tell from that video one way or the other. And deliberating murdering someone in front of witnesses does not make sense.

Also, Floyd was a big guy 6' 7" (2 meters) and a guy that big could be difficult to control if he struggled, even handcuffed and with several officers, especially if a man was on some kind of drugs. A large man like that, even if handcuffed, could possibly injury somebody if he suddenly turned violent, head butting, or lashing out with his legs. Have you every tried to control a really big guy when they were violently struggling? Although in Floyd's case, there is no indicating that I can see which would have indicated to the cops that Floyd was on drugs or would likely turn violent.

One question is why they arrested Floyd and handcuffed in the first place? He could have innocently passed the counterfeit money someone gave him. I would hope thst if I unknowingly passed some conterfeit money I got as change that the police would ask me abou it first instead of automatically handcuffing me.

And deliberately murdering someone in front of witnesses does not make sense. It is very likely Chauvin was messing with Floyd, deliberately using more force than necessary, but most persons in a neck hold like that do not die. They are risky, though, which is why they are discouraged from being used, but they are not automatically fatal. I don't see a deliberate attempt to kill Floyd, maybe just an attempt to cause Floyd some unnecessary discomfort. If the neck hold trigger some medical condition (hypertension, effect of drug use, etc.) Floyd's death likely came as a surprise to Chauvin. While Chauvin might very possibly have had some comflicts with Floyd previously, I have yet to seenany actual evidence. Do you have some?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think what gets lost in all the back and forth over the racist pig who executed Comrade Floyd is the underlying imperative that the evil capitalist white supremacist American empire is maintained on the backs of the BIPOC proletariat, and we are owed our pound of flesh. Comrade Ariel put it best:

I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci, or a Macy’s, or a Nike, that makes sure that that person eats [and] has clothes. That is reparations. Anything they wanna take, take it, because these businesses have insurance.......Jesse Jackson has nothing to do with BLM, [he] was not there for the creation of BLM, [he] can keep his opinions to himself.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...onday/2320365/

#BlackLivesMatter
#RiotsForReparations
#BlackPower
#BIPOCSolidarity
#BLMChicagoSolidarity

[swabian]

I think what gets lost in all the back and forth over the racist pig who executed Comrade Floyd is the underlying imperative that the evil capitalist white supremacist American empire is maintained on the backs of the BIPOC proletariat, and we are owed our pound of flesh. Comrade Ariel put it best:

#BlackLivesMatter
#RiotsForReparations
#BlackPower
#BIPOCSolidarity
#BLMChicagoSolidarity

Is this supposed to be mocking people who falsely accuse you of something? If so, then this was the wrong way and the wrong place. If you wanted to be sarcastic then this was bold, but uncalled for.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Is this supposed to be mocking people who falsely accuse you of something? If so, then this was the wrong way and the wrong place. If you wanted to be sarcastic then this was bold, but uncalled for.

There’s nothing funny about the genocide of BIPOC by the evil capitalist white supremacist American imperial slave catcher police. The idea you could find humor in that is merely further evidence of racist white privilege.

[swabian]

Yeah, yeah. I get it. This is awkward, though.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Yeah, yeah. I get it. This is awkward, though.

It’s not BIPOC’s job to make whites feel comfortable, though their bloody heirloom of racist white privilege may tell them theft is a crime. The discomfort you feel is merely the Spirit of Anti Racism at work.