The Derek Chauvin/George Floyd Murder Trial

plague311 said:
I think, just to relive the experience, I'm going to rewatch the reading of the verdict a few times. Maybe some of the prosecution's highlights. Just really enjoy watching justice being served to someone who deserves it.

After that, if I'm feeling up for it, I'll rewatch the Arbery verdicts too.
Click to expand...

You mean these?



 
mikegriffith1 said:
Saying that George Floyd didn't die from the triple-lethal amount of fentanyl in his blood, his severely bad heart, his COVID-19, and his hypertension, but that he died from "a lack of oxygen" is like saying, "Oh, he didn't die from the three shark bites. No, no. He died from a loss of blood."

Floyd was eventually unable to breathe (1) because he'd taken nearly 4 times the lethal dosage of fentanyl, a drug with a documented side effect of restricting or even stopping breathing at normal dosage, and (2) because he had COVID-19, one of whose symptoms is shortness of breath.

His heart stopped beating because he had a severe heart problem (90% narrowing of the right coronary artery and a 75% narrowing of the left coronary artery), because he had hypertension, and because he had trouble breathing due to the fentanyl and COVID-19.

If Floyd had not had these issues, he would not have died from 91.5 pounds of pressure being applied to his upper back or neck for 9 minutes. The prosecution's own breathing expert, Dr. Tobin, said the most weight that Chauvin applied with his left knee (the knee that was on Floyd) was 91.5 pounds. Early in the case, the medical examiner made it a point to note that tests had proved that a person of average health could still breathe even with 200 pounds applied to their back while in the prone position.

The medical examiner admitted, under cross-examination, that Floyd would not have died from being pinned for 9 minutes if he had not had the above-mentioned health issues.
Click to expand...


None of what you say is true, but just for the sake of argument, suppose it was? How would that justify pinning Floyd to the pavement for 9+ minutes, even as he struggled to breath, even after he passed out, even after his heart stopped, and even after EMTs arrived? How do you defend that?
 
Bob001 said:
How do you defend that?
Click to expand...

He's not defending it, he's using it to... well I can't say troll because those don't exist on this board, parish the thought... but to tweak us for his own amusement.

"LOL lookit the sissy libruls getting mad when I say the black guy should die. LOL I'm in their head rent free!"
 
We need to understand that George Floyd did not just steal a pack of cigarettes. If he had just shoplifted the cigarettes, the police may well have merely made him return the cigarettes and left it at that. The police didn’t care about the cigarettes—they cared that Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to get them. That’s why they arrested Floyd for forgery, not theft.

In the bodycam footage, you hear a bystander ask the officers why they were arresting Floyd, and one of the officers explains they were arresting him for forgery.

Forgery is far more serious crime than petty theft. Counterfeit currency devalues everyone else’s money and enables its peddlers to steal things while appearing to pay for them.

That’s why the police wanted to take Floyd down to the station. They wanted to find out where he got the fake $20 bill. They probably suspected Floyd did not make the bill himself, so they wanted to find out who had given him the counterfeit money. Floyd likely would have gotten a very mild punishment, or even immunity, if he had given up his source for the fake currency.

And the verdict of second degree murder for Chauvin was absurd, preposterous, and obscene. Second degree murder meant that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground. But the bodycam footage shows that just minutes earlier Chauvin offered to get into the backseat with Floyd and to roll down the windows, with the obvious intent to make the drive to the police station less stressful for Floyd. The prosecution did not offer one shred of evidence that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground, and shame on the jury and the judge for ignoring this fact.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
We need to understand that George Floyd did not just steal a pack of cigarettes. If he had just shoplifted the cigarettes, the police may well have merely made him return the cigarettes and left it at that. The police didn’t care about the cigarettes—they cared that Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to get them. That’s why they arrested Floyd for forgery, not theft.

In the bodycam footage, you hear a bystander ask the officers why they were arresting Floyd, and one of the officers explains they were arresting him for forgery.

Forgery is far more serious crime than petty theft. Counterfeit currency devalues everyone else’s money and enables its peddlers to steal things while appearing to pay for them.

That’s why the police wanted to take Floyd down to the station. They wanted to find out where he got the fake $20 bill. They probably suspected Floyd did not make the bill himself, so they wanted to find out who had given him the counterfeit money. Floyd likely would have gotten a very mild punishment, or even immunity, if he had given up his source for the fake currency.

And the verdict of second degree murder for Chauvin was absurd, preposterous, and obscene. Second degree murder meant that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground. But the bodycam footage shows that just minutes earlier Chauvin offered to get into the backseat with Floyd and to roll down the windows, with the obvious intent to make the drive to the police station less stressful for Floyd. The prosecution did not offer one shred of evidence that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground, and shame on the jury and the judge for ignoring this fact.
Click to expand...


Are you ...serious, or is this some kind of a delivered-with-a-straight-face joke?
 
mikegriffith1 said:
We need to understand that George Floyd did not just steal a pack of cigarettes. If he had just shoplifted the cigarettes, the police may well have merely made him return the cigarettes and left it at that. The police didn’t care about the cigarettes—they cared that Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to get them. That’s why they arrested Floyd for forgery, not theft.



In the bodycam footage, you hear a bystander ask the officers why they were arresting Floyd, and one of the officers explains they were arresting him for forgery.



Forgery is far more serious crime than petty theft. Counterfeit currency devalues everyone else’s money and enables its peddlers to steal things while appearing to pay for them.



That’s why the police wanted to take Floyd down to the station. They wanted to find out where he got the fake $20 bill. They probably suspected Floyd did not make the bill himself, so they wanted to find out who had given him the counterfeit money. Floyd likely would have gotten a very mild punishment, or even immunity, if he had given up his source for the fake currency.



And the verdict of second degree murder for Chauvin was absurd, preposterous, and obscene. Second degree murder meant that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground. But the bodycam footage shows that just minutes earlier Chauvin offered to get into the backseat with Floyd and to roll down the windows, with the obvious intent to make the drive to the police station less stressful for Floyd. The prosecution did not offer one shred of evidence that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground, and shame on the jury and the judge for ignoring this fact.
Click to expand...
Since Chauvin was convicted of unintentional second degree murder I don't think that means he intended [underlined and italicized] to kill Floyd.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
We need to understand that George Floyd did not just steal a pack of cigarettes. If he had just shoplifted the cigarettes, the police may well have merely made him return the cigarettes and left it at that. The police didn’t care about the cigarettes—they cared that Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to get them. That’s why they arrested Floyd for forgery, not theft.

In the bodycam footage, you hear a bystander ask the officers why they were arresting Floyd, and one of the officers explains they were arresting him for forgery.

Forgery is far more serious crime than petty theft. Counterfeit currency devalues everyone else’s money and enables its peddlers to steal things while appearing to pay for them.

That’s why the police wanted to take Floyd down to the station. They wanted to find out where he got the fake $20 bill. They probably suspected Floyd did not make the bill himself, so they wanted to find out who had given him the counterfeit money. Floyd likely would have gotten a very mild punishment, or even immunity, if he had given up his source for the fake currency.

And the verdict of second degree murder for Chauvin was absurd, preposterous, and obscene. Second degree murder meant that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground. But the bodycam footage shows that just minutes earlier Chauvin offered to get into the backseat with Floyd and to roll down the windows, with the obvious intent to make the drive to the police station less stressful for Floyd. The prosecution did not offer one shred of evidence that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground, and shame on the jury and the judge for ignoring this fact.
Click to expand...

Are you his defence attorney?
 
I don't think anyone can question that it would be difficult for Chauvin to get a fair trial, based upon the civil unrest generated. I mean, what potential juror would not have been tainted in some way?

Still, I think not allowing for a change of venue was pretty absurd.

Grounds for Change. To achieve a change of venue, defendants typically have to show a reasonable likelihood that they can't receive a fair trial. That reasonable likelihood is usually due to pretrial publicity, but it could have to do with some other event making it almost impossible to find an impartial jury.
Click to expand...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...=Grounds for Change,to find an impartial jury.

As far as the emotional outcry over the "murder" of "a black man". Spare me. Doesn't matter what color he was, if his death was unlawful. Floyd's death was no big loss, scumbag that he was. If he got run over by a dump truck instead, probably a lot of these same outraged people would celebrate the result. But that doesn't mean cops should be going around kneeling on people's necks.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
....That’s why the police wanted to take Floyd down to the station.
Click to expand...
If the police wanted to take Floyd to the station, then they would have left him in their vehicle instead of taking him out, putting him on the ground then kneeling on him until he had no pulse then kneeling on him some more to ensure he was dead.

mikegriffith1 said:
They wanted to find out where he got the fake $20 bill. They probably suspected Floyd did not make the bill himself, so they wanted to find out who had given him the counterfeit money. Floyd likely would have gotten a very mild punishment, or even immunity, if he had given up his source for the fake currency.
Click to expand...
So that is why Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd even after they could not find a pulse?

mikegriffith1 said:
And the verdict of second degree murder for Chauvin was absurd, preposterous, and obscene.
Click to expand...
Chauvin starred in his own snuff video, in public. I think he intended to use the video in the future to show how "bad to the bone" he was. Imagine purposely killing a man in broad daylight in front of witnesses and getting away with it. Chauvin acted like his star was on the rise when he was killing Floyd.
 
Ranb said:
If the police wanted to take Floyd to the station, then they would have left him in their vehicle instead of taking him out, putting him on the ground then kneeling on him until he had no pulse then kneeling on him some more to ensure he was dead.
Click to expand...


Wasn't it Floyd who was very vocal about not wanting to be in the Police car? I think that is where the cops wanted him...they put him in there, right? Didn't he ask to be put on the ground?

Chauvin starred in his own snuff video, in public. I think he intended to use the video in the future to show how "bad to the bone" he was. Imagine purposely killing a man in broad daylight in front of witnesses and getting away with it. Chauvin acted like his star was on the rise when he was killing Floyd.
Click to expand...


Pure fantasy. Ridiculous assertion. The death was clearly accidental, and the legal charges were not based upon an intent to kill. It is some wrangling to even call it "murder", and in most states you could not have placed at least one of those "murder" charges on Chauvin.
 
Last edited:
mikegriffith1 said:
And the verdict of second degree murder for Chauvin was absurd, preposterous, and obscene. Second degree murder meant that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground.
Click to expand...

That's funny. The conviction was for unintentional second degree murder. Here, I'll find my favorite video about this. Listen carefully at around the 15 second mark...:



...as to Count 1; unintentional second degree murder while commiting a felony...
Click to expand...

Cry more. I need them sweet, sweet tears of bootlicker frustration.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't think anyone can question that it would be difficult for Chauvin to get a fair trial, based upon the civil unrest generated. I mean, what potential juror would not have been tainted in some way?

...snip...
Click to expand...

I question your supposition. Can't see why he wouldn't have a "fair as it gets" trial within the USA justice systems.
 
Warp12 said:
Wasn't it Floyd who was very vocal about not wanting to be in the Police car? I think that is where the cops wanted him...they put him in there, right? Didn't he ask to be put on the ground?
Click to expand...
Since when was this about what Floyd wanted? If the police were going to be so accommodating, then why didn't they just send him on his way?

Warp12 said:
Pure fantasy. Ridiculous assertion. The death was clearly accidental, and the legal charges were not based upon an intent to kill. It is some wrangling to even call it "murder", and in most states you could not have placed at least one of those "murder" charges on Chauvin.
Click to expand...
Not really. Chauvin kept kneeling on Floyd even after he knew a pulse was not to be found. Chauvin knew he was killing Floyd, he knew he was being recording killing a man. Snuff video; this was going to give Chauvin some serious street cred after he was done.
 
Last edited:
I swear. Pretty soon we're going to hear that Chauvin was helping him to get a crick out of his neck, it's getting so ridiculous.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
We need to understand that George Floyd did not just steal a pack of cigarettes. If he had just shoplifted the cigarettes, the police may well have merely made him return the cigarettes and left it at that. The police didn’t care about the cigarettes—they cared that Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to get them. That’s why they arrested Floyd for forgery, not theft.

In the bodycam footage, you hear a bystander ask the officers why they were arresting Floyd, and one of the officers explains they were arresting him for forgery.

Forgery is far more serious crime than petty theft. Counterfeit currency devalues everyone else’s money and enables its peddlers to steal things while appearing to pay for them.

That’s why the police wanted to take Floyd down to the station. They wanted to find out where he got the fake $20 bill. They probably suspected Floyd did not make the bill himself, so they wanted to find out who had given him the counterfeit money. Floyd likely would have gotten a very mild punishment, or even immunity, if he had given up his source for the fake currency.

And the verdict of second degree murder for Chauvin was absurd, preposterous, and obscene. Second degree murder meant that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground. But the bodycam footage shows that just minutes earlier Chauvin offered to get into the backseat with Floyd and to roll down the windows, with the obvious intent to make the drive to the police station less stressful for Floyd. The prosecution did not offer one shred of evidence that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd when he pinned him on the ground, and shame on the jury and the judge for ignoring this fact.
Click to expand...


Floyd-Chauvin-TOIR.jpg
 
"I'm wrong, I'm proudly wrong, I have a chip on my shoulder about it, and I'm going to make it your problem and that's all to defend a horrible thing nobody should be proud to hold as an opinion" is not a personality.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Click to expand...


I am quite amazed that people think Chauvin had any chance at a fair trial. I mean, with the unrest generated nationwide, there was no doubt that he was going to be made an example of. And that they wouldn't even grant a change of venue was laughable. So, while it is fine to celebrate his punishment, it is a little silly to claim he had any chance for a trial by an impartial jury.

As far as the repeated claims of "crying"...too funny. Could anything possibly match the crying over the death of this scumbag? I mean, shrines and statues were erected for a guy who confessed to putting a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman. Mind-boggling.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I am quite amazed that people think Chauvin had any chance at a fair trial. I mean, with the unrest generated nationwide, there was no doubt that he was going to be made an example of. And that they wouldn't even grant a change of venue was laughable. So, while it is fine to celebrate his punishment, it is a little silly to claim he had any chance for a trial by an impartial jury.
Click to expand...

This is complete and total bull **** and you know it. He had a perfectly fair trial, and the result would have been the same no matter where he had the trial.

Do you think the jury got it wrong? Do you think he was innocent? Do you think if the trial were held anywhere else that he would currently be a free man? He is guilty on both state and federal charges.

Warp12 said:
As far as the repeated claims of "crying"...too funny. Could anything possibly match the crying over the death of this scumbag? I mean, shrines and statues were erected for a guy who confessed to putting a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman. Mind-boggling.
Click to expand...

"I'm not crying, you're crying" as tears are being wiped away.

Anyway, no one is saying he was a great person. No one in this thread has that I've seen. He didn't deserve to die. He certainly didn't deserve to be choked to death to an audience as he begged for his life.

We get it, you're happy he's dead. You've made that point so painstakingly clear that it would be impossible to miss. We get it, now what?
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
We get it, you're happy he's dead. You've made that point so painstakingly clear that it would be impossible to miss. We get it, now what?
Click to expand...

He want's us all to get triggered over how "edgy" he is.

Yes we get it. You and all the other racists apologist are glad the black person is dead. It's a very edgy opinion. You're just so edgy. Here's your "Edgy Person of the Week" fruit basket.
 
JoeMorgue said:
He want's us all to get triggered over how "edgy" he is.

Yes we get it. You and all the other racists apologist are glad the black person is dead. It's a very edgy opinion. You're just so edgy. Here's your "Edgy Person of the Week" fruit basket.
Click to expand...

Made even more ironic because I live in North Dakota. The people I work with don't even mask their blatant....edginess when it comes to stuff like this. Kind of makes it about as edgy as a bowling ball to me.
 
Warp12 said:
So, while it is fine to celebrate his punishment, it is a little silly to claim he had any chance for a trial by an impartial jury.
Click to expand...
So the jury was impartial, why? Because there was lot of publicity? The names of the jurors are known.

What do you personally know about each member of the jury that has convinced you that they were not impartial?
 
Ranb said:
So the jury was impartial, why? Because there was lot of publicity? The names of the jurors are known.

What do you personally know about each member of the jury that has convinced you that they were not impartial?
Click to expand...

And obviously because there was so much publicity, someone in the next county over will be far less tainted. Because nobody knew about it there.
 
gnome said:
And obviously because there was so much publicity, someone in the next county over will be far less tainted. Because nobody knew about it there.
Click to expand...


So you are agreeing that the odds of getting a non-tainted jury were practically zero?
 
Warp12 said:
I am quite amazed that people think Chauvin had any chance at a fair trial. I mean, with the unrest generated nationwide, there was no doubt that he was going to be made an example of. And that they wouldn't even grant a change of venue was laughable. So, while it is fine to celebrate his punishment, it is a little silly to claim he had any chance for a trial by an impartial jury.
Click to expand...

Floyd-Chauvin-Violin.gif
 
Warp12 said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You can post rolleyes smileys as much as you like, but it will make no difference... the rest of us are on to you.

If Chauvin was black and Floyd was white you would be celebrating that justice has been done, and screeching that no way did Floyd deserved to die. Deny it if you like - no one here will believe it. You have long since nailed your colours to the mast when it comes to race issues.
 
smartcooky said:
You can post rolleyes smileys as much as you like, but it will make no difference... the rest of us are on to you.

If Chauvin was black and Floyd was white you would be celebrating that justice has been done, and screeching that no way did Floyd deserved to die.
Click to expand...


Complete nonsense. Firstly, this is interesting commentary coming from someone who is on record as stating that the lives of criminals have no value.

smartcooky said:
Nope, but if they want to, I will not shed a tear nor lose any sleep over it. It doesn't matter whether your skin is white, black, brown, red, yellow or orange...

Being a criminal is a choice! Taking drugs is a choice! Murdering others is a choice!
Click to expand...


I think Floyd checked off two of your three boxes mentioned above. What made Floyd a scumbag had nothing to do with the color of his skin. Karma killed Floyd, but was dressed as a cop that day.

Secondly, I am not even upset with Chauvin being punished. I am just making the point that there was very little chance of him getting a fair trial, either way. As I already said, it is fine to celebrate his punishment...but pretending he was going to get an impartial jury is just silly.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Complete nonsense. Firstly, this is interesting commentary coming from someone who is on record as stating that the lives of criminals have no value.




I think Floyd checked off two of your three boxes mentioned above. What made Floyd a scumbag had nothing to do with the color of his skin.
Secondly, I am not even upset with Chauvin being punished. I am just making the point that there was very little chance of him getting a fair trial, either way. As I already said, it is fine to celebrate his punishment...but pretending he was going to get an impartial jury is just silly.
Click to expand...

As usual, you pulled that quote completely out of its context.

There is a big, obvious difference between someone (you) saying that a Floyd deserved what happened to him, and someone (me) saying that a criminal like Floyd has to realize that their chosen career path is likely to shorten their life and result in a violent death at the hands of other criminals.

If you truly cannot see the difference between these two positions, then you are a long way beyond any help I can give you.
 
Warp12 said:
So you are agreeing that the odds of getting a non-tainted jury were practically zero?
Click to expand...

Only if we decide that any high profile case is impossible to try fairly. I don't think that's the case. My point is that changing venue would likely have no impact in that regard.
 
Ranb said:
Here are the jurors that convicted Chauvin. What evidence do you have that they were not impartial? You made accusations against these people; going to man up and tell us why?

https://www.kaaltv.com/minnesota-news/juror-names-in-chauvin-trial-released/6288096/
Click to expand...


I would hardly consider it an "accusation against them", so much. After the nationwide events of the Summer of 2020, and resulting fallout and exposure, there is no way any jury could be expected to be impartial.

As I have said, to pretend otherwise is silly. Go ahead, celebrate the verdicts and proclaim them correct as you like...but:

When a person is charged with a crime, or involved in some other legal dispute, they have the right to a fair trial. This means a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court.
Click to expand...


Under that definition of "fair trial", there was nearly zero percent chance of Chauvin getting one in this country.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
I would hardly consider it an "accusation", so much. After the nationwide events of the Summer of 2020, and resulting fallout and exposure, there is no way any jury could be expected to be impartial.

As I have said, to pretend otherwise is silly. Go ahead, celebrate the verdicts and proclaim them correct as you like...but:




Under that definition of "fair trial", there was nearly zero percent chance of Chauvin getting one in this country.
Click to expand...

You keep asserting it doesn't make it true. Perhaps you are projecting your inability to be impartial onto others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom