• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

George Floyd trial #2 - Kueng, Lane, Thao

ponderingturtle said:
Those are certainly points in his favor, I am just not sure it legally matters. Being threatened does not excuse criminal behavior. So it seems like it would play more in the sentencing phase than the guilt phase.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
I would have thought they would also be on trial for felony murder? When you are with an individual who murders someone i.e. unlawful killing i.e. a criminal then even if you didn't take part in the actual murder you are usually charged with felony murder. The classic example is the getaway driver who never went into the bank, was not armed, and hadn't agreed to murdering anyone in the commission of the crime.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I wonder if the getaway driver (in Darat's example) would also be guilty of murder if they were being threatened with a gun to do it?

(And by the way, I'm not commenting on Lane's guilt or innocence, but rather just asking a general legal question)
 
Last edited:
Radical concept maybe the ******* police should be held to a higher standard than "Let's hair split accessory murder definitions to see where they fit."

One LEO standing by why another LEO slowly murders someone in broad daylight, while on camera, with absolutely no fear of reprisals or any concept that he might be doing something IS A BAD THING and dear God can I please live one day in a world where that isn't a concept that requires elaboration before I die.
 
Thermal said:
What do you mean by "bad"? You a priest or something?
Click to expand...

Considering the context of this thread, bad would mean criminal behavior.

You don't need to be an ACLU lawyer to see that your cop colleague slowly murdering a restrained person you helped take into custody might be a legally dubious situation.

Sucks that a maniac like Chauvin put them into this position, but it seems quite clear that they had a moral and legal duty to act in defense of a man they helped restrain. The fact that they didn't isn't just morally abhorrent, but hopefully will be found to be criminal conduct.
 
Last edited:
No you just magically pick the "Cop Defending" hill to die in every thread by pure coincidence.

We know.
 
AmyStrange said:
Hmm, I wonder if the getaway driver (in Darat's example) would also be guilty of murder if they were being threatened with a gun to do it?

(And by the way, I'm not commenting on Lane's guilt or innocence, but rather just asking a general legal question)
Click to expand...

No, in that circumstance the driver would not be guilty of felony murder. It's pretty obvious that folks around here don't understand the concept. First of all to be guilty of felony murder, you have to be in the process of willfully committing a felony when the killing occurs. A person being forced to do something at gunpoint is not willfully doing anything.

One of the oddities about felony murder is that the voluntary driver could be convicted for it if one of his fellow bank robbers is shot and killed by a policeman during the course of the crime.
 
Brainster said:
No, in that circumstance the driver would not be guilty of felony murder. It's pretty obvious that folks around here don't understand the concept. First of all to be guilty of felony murder, you have to be in the process of willfully committing a felony when the killing occurs.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that would make the question of whether George Floyd's civil rights were being violated central to this case, because if so it could be argued that all four officers were committing that violation.

Dave
 
I wonder why we're magically having this discussion now and weren't having it in those cases?

Hmmm... what factor has changed...
 
Good. Glad the "What? I'm just a widdle ole' rookie. How was I to know that murdering a man in broad day light wasn't normal procedure? What was I supposed to do... stop it?" argument failed.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Good. Glad the "What? I'm just a widdle ole' rookie. How was I to know that murdering a man in broad day light wasn't normal procedure? What was I supposed to do... stop it?" argument failed.
Click to expand...

You forgot to actually read the article. Surprise.

All three were found guilty of violating Floyd's civil rights, but Lane was not found guilty of the additional charge of failing to intervene to stop Chauvin.

The jurors also found Thao and Kueng guilty of an additional charge for failing to intervene to stop Chauvin. Lane, who did not face the extra charge, testified that he asked Chauvin twice to reposition Floyd while restraining him but was denied both times.
Click to expand...

Which is all that was proposed. Lane was of a different caliber, not an innocent.
 
Thermal said:
You forgot to actually read the article. Surprise.

All three were found guilty of violating Floyd's civil rights, but Lane was not found guilty of the additional charge of failing to intervene to stop Chauvin.



Which is all that was proposed. Lane was of a different caliber, not an innocent.
Click to expand...

Well that's stupid. He's just as guilty.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Well that's stupid. He's just as guilty.
Click to expand...

Disagreed. Lane was not indifferent. He actively made efforts to stop it, called 911, and administered CPR. He didn't do enough, and has been found guilty of that. But he was not of the same malice that Chauvin and his crowd-control thugs were.

We'll see how sentencing goes. I think Lane will receive a much lighter sentence than the other two. The article says potentially life for this.
 
Thermal said:
Disagreed. Lane was not indifferent. He actively made efforts to stop it, called 911, and administered CPR. He didn't do enough, and has been found guilty of that. But he was not of the same malice that Chauvin and his crowd-control thugs were.
Click to expand...

Distinction without enough difference for me to care about.

He let a murder happen in front of him. There's hair worth splitting beyond that.
 
Investigation of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department Report [1]

The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney's Office District of Minnesota Civil Division, issued a scathing report today (Friday, 16 June 2023) about 'systemic problems' at the Minneapolis Police Department, that led to George Floyd's murder.

The report makes clear, that including and even in years before the police murder of George Floyd, there were issues of racial discrimination, excessive and unlawful use of force “including unjustified deadly force,” First Amendment violations (including against journalists), and a lack of accountability for officers.

US attorney general, Merrick Garland:
“We observed many MPD officers who did their difficult work with professionalism, courage and respect. But the patterns and practices we observed made what happened to George Floyd possible,” Garland said. “As one city leader told us, ‘these systemic issues didn’t just occur on May 25 2020 [when Floyd was murdered]. There were instances like that, that were being reported by the community long before that.’”
Click to expand...
[2]

The Guardian also reported Garland saying:
“We found that MPD … engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force, unlawfully discriminating against Black and Native American people in enforcement activities, violating the rights of people engaged in protected speech and discriminating against people with behavioral disabilities and … when responding to them in crisis,” Garland said at the event in Minneapolis on Friday morning.
Click to expand...
[3]

CNN.com reported:
First Amendment violations
According to the Justice Department’s report, MPD officers also violated people’s First Amendment rights, including journalists, and found that officers “regularly retaliate against people for their speech or presence at protests – particularly when they criticize police.”
Click to expand...
[4]

From page 51 of the DOJ report (and more examples continue onto page 52):
2. MPD Retaliates Against Journalists and Unlawfully Restricts Their Access During Protests

The press has a distinct and essential role in maintaining our democracy. When reporting on government conduct, the press serves as “surrogates for the public,”62 and their work gathering and sharing information “enable speech.”63 Accordingly, reporting is a constitutionally protected activity, and the First Amendment prohibits retaliation against individuals for gathering the news.64

Regardless, MPD officers regularly retaliate against members of the press—particularly by using force. For example, in October 2020, an MPD sergeant repeatedly pushed a journalist who was actively filming, verbally identified himself as press, and had a press credential around his neck. In the police report, the sergeant falsely claimed that the journalist was leaning against a business owner’s truck and that the sergeant had simply “moved the media member off the vehicle.” Body-worn camera footage clearly shows that the journalist was standing at least a foot away from it.
Click to expand...
[5]


Sources:

[1] [5] United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and United States Attorney’s Office District of Minnesota Civil Division. 16 Jun 2023. "Investigation of the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department" documentcloud.org

[2] [3] Stein, Chris. 16 Jun 2023. "George Floyd murder: Minneapolis police have pattern of aggression and discrimination, DoJ inquiry finds." The Guardian.

[4] Lybrand, Holmes. 16 Jun 2023. ‘Systemic problems’ at Minneapolis Police Dept. led to George Floyd’s murder, Justice Department says. cnn.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom