George Floyd trial #2 - Kueng, Lane, Thao

[Warp12]

We are NOT having a "But is it really reasonable to expect a sworn officer of the law to just... do something about a murder that's happening right in front of him?" discussion.

This is a very bad interpretation of events, since in no way has it been established that he knew a homicide was taking place.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is a very bad interpretation of events, since in no way has it been established that he knew a homicide was taking place.

*Rolls eyes*

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think it is easy for us to be self-righteous and pretend that we would be the first-day rookie that would wrestle the salty old cop off Floyd. What we would have really done if we were that first-day cop may be very different.

You're correct here that this is a very difficult position to be in. It's also an entirely optional position to be in. Nobody ends up a cop by accident.

The fact that police departments routinely engage in criminal violence means that anyone choosing to join them is probably exposing themselves to legally risky situations. The wiser move is to not join. At the very least, they should be mentally prepared for how they are going to respond should one of their peers expect them to be an accessory to a violent crime.

Like most street gangs, the wisest course of action is to not join.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We are also not having a "It was reasonable to in the moment think that the knee embedded in his neck isn't what killed him and just decided and up die by pure amazing coincidence" discussion.

The other officers could tell that George Floyd was dying and what was killing him. There is no honest, non-trolling debate to be had about this.

Also the fact that it was a murder has been proven in a court of law.

 

[Warp12]

This is a very bad interpretation of events, since in no way has it been established that he knew a homicide was taking place.

*Rolls eyes*

Essentially, what you and some others are trying to do is propagate a conspiracy theory. That all of these cops knew the extent of what was happening, and all were in support. It isn't a reasonable assumption to begin with.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Essentially, what you and some others are trying to do is propagate a conspiracy theory. That all of these cops knew the extent of what was happening, and all were in support. It isn't a reasonable assumption to begin with.

The radical conspiracy theory that 3 people watching a man being crushed until he stops breathing knew he may be in danger of dying. Truly galaxy brain leaps of logic.

 

[plague311]

I disagree. It is not reasonable to suspect that even Chauvin knew he was killing Floyd.

A jury of his peers, and the law seem to be in stark contrast with this statement. I'm going to side with the jury and the law, if it's all the same to you.

In this case, I don't see where the partner did anything wrong; particularly taking into account that he was a rookie.

Rookie or not. An argument could be made, I'm not making it, that he should have been more on top of the events since he just got out of the academy.

Lane is at fault, of that there is no doubt, the extent of which is what is up for debate. Lane obviously knew Floyd was dying (he took his pulse, noticed he stopped breathing, etc.) and did little about it. He did more than the others, granted, but he still could have done more.

 

[Warp12]

I disagree. It is not reasonable to suspect that even Chauvin knew he was killing Floyd. In this case, I don't see where the partner did anything wrong; particularly taking into account that he was a rookie.

A jury of his peers, and the law seem to be in stark contrast with this statement. I'm going to side with the jury and the law, if it's all the same to you.

Chauvin's convictions:

unintentional second-degree murder; third-degree murder; and second-degree manslaughter

The word "unintentional is key, here. So, I think when we look at the big picture, we must take that into account when analyzing the responding actions of the other officers. It doesn’t seem reasonable, at all, to assume that they knew a homicide was occurring.

 

[plague311]

Chauvin's convictions:

The word "unintentional is key, here. So, I think when we look at the big picture, we must take that into account when analyzing the responding actions of the other officers. It doesn’t seem reasonable, at all, to assume that they knew a homicide was occurring.

It doesn't change anything I said. He still murdered him, whether intentional or not, and that will never change. Just because there was no premeditation doesn't mean it wasn't clear-cut murder.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It took over nine minutes for George Floyd to die. That's enough time to develop intent even if you didn't start with it.

As said "intent" doesn't require pre-planning.

 

[Warp12]

It doesn't change anything I said. He still murdered him, whether intentional or not, and that will never change. Just because there was no premeditation doesn't mean it wasn't clear-cut murder.

This isn't a debate of whether Chauvin killed Floyd. It is about what the other officers believed they were witnessing. Some are arguing that all of these officers knew a homicide was occurring. If the homicide itself was ruled unintentional, it is not reasonable to assume that the other officers had nefarious intent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This isn't a debate of whether Chauvin killed Floyd. It is about what the other officers believed they were witnessing.

It was a murder. We've covered this already.

 

[plague311]

This isn't a debate of whether Chauvin killed Floyd. It is about what the other officers believed they were witnessing.

And as we know, at least 1 of those officers believed they were witnessing a man die in front of their eyes due to another officer kneeling on his neck. The other officers were right next to the concerned officer, they could feel him not breathing, they refused to do anything to help. You can't argue with any of this, it's on actual video.

Some are arguing that all of these officers knew a homicide was occurring.

We know for sure that at least 1 did considering the actions he took.

If the homicide itself was ruled unintentional, it is not reasonable to assume that the other officers had nefarious intent.

Is their intent part of the charges or law? If not I don't think their intent really matters. Their negligence is the issue at hand. Whether it was intentional or unintentional homicide they still watched a homicide and did absolutely nothing to change the outcome. They knew he stopped breathing, all of them. They knew he was in distress, all of them. They knew he passed out, all of them. They did nothing to help. They're going to prison for it.

 

[Warp12]

Is their intent part of the charges or law? If not I don't think their intent really matters. Their negligence is the issue at hand. Whether it was intention or unintentional homicide they still watched a homicide and did absolutely nothing to change the outcome. They knew he stopped breathing, all of them. They knew he was in distress, all of them. They knew he passed out, all of them. They did nothing to help. They're going to prison for it.

Intent is a huge factor in such cases. It will dictate the charges.

Again, my point is that it is unreasonable to assume that all of these officers knew that a homicide was occurring, and chose not to intervene. In fact, it is a preposterous assumption.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Intent is a huge factor in such cases. It will dictate the charges.

Again, my point is that it is unreasonable to assume that all of these officers knew that a homicide was occurring, and chose not to intervene. In fact, it is preposterous.

Okay so what do YOU think they thought was happening, the world's most overly complicated Heimlich Maneuver?

Again people spent the entire thread about the original case arguing as if the FACT THAT HE DIED was some piddling little detail.

We're not talking about a case where the person didn't die, so what are we talking about?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Prolonged choking for no legitimate reason is obviously aggravated assault, and this aggravated assault resulted in death, making it murder and felony murder.

It's not that complicated of a legal problem. These 3 cops were accomplices to an aggravated assault that lead to death.

The real question is whether a jury is going to find that it's a crime when cops commit a crime. Often the answer is no, but notably this was not the case for Chauvin's murder trial.

 

[plague311]

Intent is a huge factor in such cases. It will dictate the charges.

They're already charged. If your implication was that Chauvin didn't intend to murder Floyd, but was still charged, convicted and sentenced for his murder, then I'm not sure intent is going to have much sway here. Like I said, it's their negligence. You don't have to have intent to murder someone to be found guilty of their murder.

Again, my point is that it is unreasonable to assume that all of these officers knew that a homicide was occurring, and chose not to intervene. In fact, it is a preposterous assumption.

And, again, your opinion that it's preposterous means nothing since these men are on trial. It doesn't matter if they "knew a homicide was occurring" since they're not charged with actually murdering Floyd. They're charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder\manslaughter. You seem not to have an understanding as to the charges and how they work.

 

[JoeMorgue]

He's trying to fringe reset back to making us prove George Floyd was murdered.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

He's trying to fringe reset back to making us prove George Floyd was murdered.

I'm ok with it. It's funnier to me to know that lots of right wing weirdos think that Chauvin is an innocent man being unduly punished.

I once met a person at a shooting match who seemed legitimately distressed that some guy was doing a life sentence for running over rioters trying to carjack him and that the world was going to hell. He was referencing James Alex Fields Jr. Some people are just lost causes, it's easier to just hope these people live in enough fear to stay in line than try to fix their broken moral compasses.

 

[Warp12]

And, again, your opinion that it's preposterous means nothing since these men are on trial. It doesn't matter if they "knew a homicide was occurring" since they're not charged with actually murdering Floyd. They're charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder\manslaughter. You seem not to have an understanding as to the charges and how they work.

I'm not debating the court; I am debating the preposterous argument that some here are putting forth.