Incorrect. The debate is regarding whether all of these officers were aware a homicide was occurring. That is a significant factor in determining their level of negligence, obviously.
George Floyd trial #2 - Kueng, Lane, Thao
- Thread starter crescent
- Start date
Incorrect. The debate is regarding whether all of these officers were aware a homicide was occurring. That is a significant factor in determining their level of negligence, obviously.
//Slight hijack//
I have an uncle who to this day if the topic is even tangentially mentioned will go off for a good 20 minutes on how Rodney King was obviously moments away from, to hear him say it, basically Hulking up, ripping the Staples Center from its foundation, and beating the entire city of Los Angeles to death with it the second the police paused their sustained beating of him.
plague311
Great minds think...
Which is? The actual argument. A link to a specific post would be better as I would like to avoid you strawmanning an argument.
Uhm, I don't think the level of negligence really matters. Though I may be wrong and would be open to being corrected by an actual lawyer.
I also don't know why you keep setting "were aware a homicide was occurring" as a benchmark. Where are you getting that from? Is there a statute or something? They were, literally, participating in the homicide by holding down his limbs, etc. for that full 9 minutes.
The question, despite what you're saying, is "did these officers aid and abet Chauvin's crime of second-degree homicide or second-degree manslaughter that he has been found guilty of". That's the question the jury is facing.
It's the same as with Chauvin. If you, Warp12, claim that Chauvin didn't know he was murdering Floyd, it doesn't really matter, does it? He was charged and convicted of Floyd's murder. So, again, did these men's actions aid or abet that crime? Yes. They did.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
As a matter of technicality, this federal trial has nothing to do with felony murder.
Our three accomplices are charged with illegally depriving Floyd of his civil right's under color of law.
Two of the pigs for failing to intervene to protect a person under their custody from the killer Chauvin, and all three for deliberate indifference to Floyd's medical needs.
A cop owes a person under their arrest a duty to protect their civil rights. These cops failed to do so and are criminally culpable.
Indictment here:
documentcloud.org/documents/20700166-indictment-derek-chauvin-thomas-lane-j-kueng-and-tou-thao
Our three accomplices are charged with illegally depriving Floyd of his civil right's under color of law.
Two of the pigs for failing to intervene to protect a person under their custody from the killer Chauvin, and all three for deliberate indifference to Floyd's medical needs.
A cop owes a person under their arrest a duty to protect their civil rights. These cops failed to do so and are criminally culpable.
Indictment here:
documentcloud.org/documents/20700166-indictment-derek-chauvin-thomas-lane-j-kueng-and-tou-thao
plague311
Great minds think...
Ok, I had confused an article then. I thought this was for the aiding and abetting. I haven't been keeping up on this one as much.
Obviously it does matter. Or else they wouldn't have a specific charge of unintentional second-degree murder, of which he was convicted.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I believe they also have state charges that more directly charges them for the homicide, but that's a different court and trial.
Chauvin has already plead guilty to his federal charges, so it seems like a layup for the prosecution to prove that Chauvin was using unreasonable force. With that in hand, it's hard to see how a failure to act wasn't a crime here.
plague311
Great minds think...
You kind of cherry picked the context out of it. I was saying whether intentional or not Chauvin was convicted of murdering Floyd. Correct? Is there something in that statement that is wrong?
As ST has pointed out, this is about depriving Floyd of his civil rights. Per ABC:
Is anything in the hilited statements untrue? If so, how?
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
From what I've learned from other news articles, after ST pointed out my flaw, is that they don't even have to improve intent. Did they see Floyd needed medical attention? That would be hard not to see since he was unconscious, not breathing and they were all touching\leaning on him.
Did they intervene to stop Chauvin? Obviously not. As ST said, seems like a slam dunk, especially since Chauvin has already said, "yeah, I did that ****" in his own plea bargain.
Now we have changed the debate, haven't we? My entire debate revolves around the ridiculous idea that these officers knew a homicide was taking place, and failed to intervene.
Do you believe that narrative?
It's not a narrative it's what happened. And it's not ridiculous. Sadly it's not even surprising or all that unique.
Your faux-shocked "Oh my I just can't believe anyone thinks this is true, it's just SOOOOOO outragoues" routine changes nothing.
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
As a side note, "deprivation of civil rights" is a tool the feds could use a lot more as a catch-all to deal with out of control cops, especially in areas where local DAs refuse to hold them accountable.
Use of excessive force and/or neglecting the well being of an arrestee is arguably a federal crime every single time it happens, which is a lot. It's great that the feds are bouncing the rubble of these pigs' destroyed lives, but it would be better employed as a means of going after cops where local DAs refuse to do their duty.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
I said I changed my end of the debate, clearly and openly. I was arguing the wrong charges as I mistook an article I had read. ST corrected me, and so I changed my statement.
Which means absolutely **** all to this trial. Which is why I didn't address it further.
Do I believe the idea that the officers knew a homicide was taking place? At some point, yes. Especially Lane. That's why his words and actions started to show concern the longer Chauvin was on his neck. He knew Floyd was dying, he knew Chauvin was killing him.
Did they fail to intervene? Yes. Obviously.
I don't think the officers thought that Chauvin originally intended to kill Floyd, but it would be pretty hard to believe that at some point during the 9 minutes they didn't realize what was happening. You seem to be looking for a yes\no answer. That's not how the law, or this case, works. At all.
That is exactly how the law works. Yes or no, guilty or not.
It is pretty obvious that you, on some level, agree with my notion that it is unreasonable to assume that these officers were knowingly witnessing a homicide and ignoring it. There is literally nothing to support that. Including the fact that Chauvin was convicted of an unintentional homicide.
Last edited:
plague311
Great minds think...
If that's how you see it, then who am I to argue with you? Having been through the legal process as much as I have, we obviously see it differently. It's never been this cut and dry for me.
It should be obvious since I've said that Lane was trying to prevent the homicide from happening, meaning he didn't ignore it. I think I said that. Other than that, we don't agree at all.
I have also said that there is a point that the other 2 and Chauvin knew that Floyd was dying and did nothing. So they did knowingly witness a homicide and did nothing to prevent it. Which means they aided and abetted that homicide. It became entirely too obvious to say they didn't know he was dying\dead.
You keep saying this and I'm not sure why. Just because he didn't intend to kill Floyd has nothing to do with the fact that he a) killed Floyd and b) the others watched and did nothing to stop it. I don't understand what you're not getting about that.
Less assumption would work in your favor. You know nothing of my legal history. What I do know is, unless we are talking about PBJ misdemeanors, is that verdicts are how we define outcomes.
So, I tend to look at things in that manner. Guilty, or not. Throwing out ambiguous accusations is not helpful, in this case. I'm not saying that is your tendency, but it definitely is going on in this thread.
plague311
Great minds think...
I don't care about your legal history. I didn't make an assumption about it. I only spoke to my experience in the system and how that formed my opinion. I said we obviously see it different, I'm not sure what you're arguing with.
Again, you can view it however you would like, but we see it differently.
There is no doubt in my mind that at least 2 of the officers committed the crimes they're charged with and will be found guilty. Lane is a bit of a wild card for me given that he took some action, his newbie status, and his efforts to resuscitate Floyd.
Your implication was that you have more experience with the legal process than I do. This may or may not be true. I am not inclined to reference such details on a regular basis, nor use them to validate my position on matters.
plague311
Great minds think...
No, it wasn't. You can't read minds.
Yet you'll willingly throw out that you recorded some girl being violated with vegetables.
Good for you, is this relevant to anything at all?