Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody

[Gyfts]

you cannot determine the pressure Chauvin was putting onto Floyd using a damn video. There is just no way to tell.

maybe I'm just wrong and missing something here.

Irrelevant. If you are kneeling on someone's neck, and they're telling you they can't breathe, then maybe you should just get off their neck? Rather than thinking "well, I'm only kneeling kind of lightly, it's probably not fatal pressure..."

George Floyd was saying he could not breathe before he was even being put on the ground. He was placed on his side for the first two minutes of the restraint in the recovery position and continued to say he could not breathe. Rewatch the body cam video, while the prone restraint was being used, Floyd was being held with his left side on the ground and his right side raised up in the air. Police officers in Minneapolis are trained that if someone can speak, they can breathe. In accordance to Derek Chauvin's own training and MPD policy, he had no reason to believe that Floyd could not breath.

Second point. Floyd did not die of positional asphyxia according to the medical examiner who conducted Floyd's autopsy report, and he in fact testified under oath that Floyd's airway was not blocked. This idea that Floyd was suffocated is nonsense and was disproved months ago when the autopsy report was published.

Your argument would hold up IF Dr. Baker ruled positional asphyxia as the cause of death and he didn't. So that means that fentanyl and methamphetamine clearly did play a role in Floyd's death and the whole point of contention is whether Chauvin's knee had "substantial causal factor" (this is the phrase used in the jury instructions for 2nd degree manslaughter and I think the murder charges as well) in Floyd's death

I never said fentanyl or meth didn't play a roll in the death.

I'm saying it doesn't matter if they did.  It wouldn't make Chauvin any less guilty of staying on top of the guy for 9 minutes while he begged for his life and then died.

What the jury instructions that the judge read out to everyone was -- you need to prove Chauvin had a "substantial causal factor" (this is the exact phrase that is used in the instructions) in Floyd's death. You need to prove this *beyond a reasonable doubt*. You need to separate meth, fentanyl, artery blockage, the actions of officers Lane and Kueng, an enlarged heart, and the fact that Floyd popped fentanyl/meth pills when police arrived on scene and isolate Derek Chauvin as the "substantial causal factor" of death. That's is downright impossible without the cause of death being positional asphyxia. If you disagree, tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me what evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, was presented that isolated Chauvin's actions as the substantial causal factor of death. You satisfy this if George Floyd was positionally asphyxiated, why the state had Dr. Tobin as a witness to testify that Floyd died of positional asphyxia. Except his testimony directly contradicts the testimony of Dr. Baker, the only person who conducted Floyd's autopsy. There were some other contradictions that I already mentioned before.

[Call me Fada]

 My happiness is that the bad cop that killed George Floyd has been sentenced to 75yrs imprisonment and this will serve as a lesson and stern warning to others. Sometimes it baffles me how the issue of racism still exists in this our generation till now, I thought it was the thing of old but now it’s on another dimension. And the white folks ain’t helping either. The government should do more.

[Tzupy]

The media is LYING to you about George Floyd and Ma'Khia Bryant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3YJ24roIzk

[Gyfts]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/us/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-trial-juror/index.html

Juror speaks out.

TL;DR - Pro BLM man who said Derek Chauvin's confidence deteriorated.

"To me, (Chauvin) started out really confident," he said. "The first week, for sure -- I felt like he was confident, his lawyers were confident. I could feel the confidence for sure."

"I didn't see any remorse."

I too look at a man's demeanor, and from my ass, determine how confident another person is and that he doesn't feel any remorse.


During his questionnaire to determine any biases "This is the most historic case of my lifetime, and I would love to be a part of it," he wrote. How Eric Nelson didn't strike this guy is beyond me. Anyone that wanted to be on that jury should've been dismissed
 
Last but not least, he said this to CNN:

"We haven't seen an outcome like this on a case. I really think this is a start, and I think it's a good start". "And then all the attention that it is still getting -- just keeping that magnifying glass there has to spark some kind of change."

If you think this person was impartial you are lying to yourself. I don't find it surprising he ran to CNN to cash in his 10 minutes of fame.

[PrimeNumber7]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/us/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-trial-juror/index.html

Juror speaks out.

TL;DR - Pro BLM man who said Derek Chauvin's confidence deteriorated.

<>

If you think this person was impartial you are lying to yourself. I don't find it surprising he ran to CNN to cash in his 10 minutes of fame.

This is going to get the case overturned on appeal. A single junior lying about being impartial means the defendant did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed by the US Consitution. In the case of this specific junior, I would not find it unreasonable to say that he intimidated other juniors inro voting for a guilty verdict.

This guy should be locked up for contempt, and purgery.

[Gyfts]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/us/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-trial-juror/index.html

Juror speaks out.

TL;DR - Pro BLM man who said Derek Chauvin's confidence deteriorated.

<>

If you think this person was impartial you are lying to yourself. I don't find it surprising he ran to CNN to cash in his 10 minutes of fame.

This is going to get the case overturned on appeal. A single junior lying about being impartial means the defendant did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed by the US Consitution. In the case of this specific junior, I would not find it unreasonable to say that he intimidated other juniors inro voting for a guilty verdict.

This guy should be locked up for contempt, and purgery.

It might be brought up during appeals, who knows. But this alone isn't grounds for appeals because any 3rd rate lawyer will just make the argument that the questionnaire this guy filled out was too vague and that he didn't "technically lie". Now of course, everybody knows for damn sure this guy wasn't impartial. And I'd go as far to say that anyone that believes the conviction was the right verdict would be forced to admit this guy wasn't impartial given this guy's statements on the trial thus far.

The CNN article touches on this I think, but this article goes more in depth.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/551624-chauvin-juror-on-attending-protest-i-just-thought-it-was-a-good

So Brandon Mitchell attends a BLM related protest in t shirt that says "get your knee off our necks" with Dr. MLK. Hmmm, surely impartial, right?

Well, look at the questionaire they gave out to every potential juror - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20508712/jurorquestionnaire.pdf


Look at page 8, question 12 - "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you,
participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Surely that March in D.C. was about police brutality, correct? Does this protest seem like something you ought to put on the questionnaire? Well, Brandon Mitchell would argue no. I wouldn't be so convinced.

But I guess that's just a play on semantics. Is a BLM protest a police brutality protest? Are the two words interchangeable? I think so, yes. But there will be some bonehead that would say no.

[franky1]

gyft scraping the bottom of the barrel

sounds like gyft is one of them skinhead whit supremisists that think that police should kill people. especially if black


heres some facts outside of your disliking the jury appeal

out of any 12 people you are going to fin someone that actually gives a crap about minorities
.. also
floyd was unarmed so no matter the method. no use of force that has a known result of death should be used.
yes kneeling on a neck is a method to kill someone

the only defense of using a knee on neck without intent to kill.. is if its used for 5-30 seconds to subdue someone while your colleagues position themselves to restain the suspect properly

but having 3 officers standing around watching. and a cop with a knee on neck for 9 minutes.. is not that

get over yourself. chauvin killed floyd.
accept it and move on

try using your time on the other thousands of officers that do make mistakes. and not this guy that purposefully done something that would kill anyone in under 9 minutes in any common sense reality
that even a 10yo can understand is something you do not even do play fighting

[PrimeNumber7]

It might be brought up during appeals, who knows. But this alone isn't grounds for appeals because any 3rd rate lawyer will just make the argument that the questionnaire this guy filled out was too vague and that he didn't "technically lie". Now of course, everybody knows for damn sure this guy wasn't impartial. And I'd go as far to say that anyone that believes the conviction was the right verdict would be forced to admit this guy wasn't impartial given this guy's statements on the trial thus far.

The CNN article touches on this I think, but this article goes more in depth.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/551624-chauvin-juror-on-attending-protest-i-just-thought-it-was-a-good

So Brandon Mitchell attends a BLM related protest in t shirt that says "get your knee off our necks" with Dr. MLK. Hmmm, surely impartial, right?

Well, look at the questionaire they gave out to every potential juror - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20508712/jurorquestionnaire.pdf


Look at page 8, question 12 - "Other than what you have already described above, have you, or anyone close to you,
participated in protests about police use of force or police brutality?"

Surely that March in D.C. was about police brutality, correct? Does this protest seem like something you ought to put on the questionnaire? Well, Brandon Mitchell would argue no. I wouldn't be so convinced.

But I guess that's just a play on semantics. Is a BLM protest a police brutality protest? Are the two words interchangeable? I think so, yes. But there will be some bonehead that would say no.

If he is wearing a tee-shirt that says "get your knee off our necks", he is protesting police brutality. The rally itself may or may not have been about police brutality, but the specific reason he was there was because of at least in part, police brutality.

The tee-shirt also shows that he had already made up his mind prior to hearing the evidence. The tee-shirt is saying that the use of force was excessive and lead to Floyd's death. This was a point of contention during the trial.

[Gyfts]

gyft scraping the bottom of the barrel

sounds like gyft is one of them skinhead whit supremisists that think that police should kill people. especially if black

Classy, very classy, franky. No, I am not a skinhead.

You two still haven't accepted that the trial is over?

And your posts are still 100% speculation-driven.... just holding out for a glimmer of hope - any sort of a sign, really - that you haven't been misled the entire time. Well, the next time you're publicly proven to be wrong about something, which will be soon, perhaps ask yourself why you continue to fall for the words of the same falsehood peddlers time after time. What about their influence drives you to adopt their beliefs and parrot their thoughts back here to us?

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/551624-chauvin-juror-on-attending-protest-i-just-thought-it-was-a-good

“It was directly related to MLK’s March on Washington from the '60s. ... The date of the March on Washington is the date. ... It was literally called the anniversary of the March on Washington,” Mitchell told the Star-Tribune in reference to the demonstration he attended last year.

Oh, but you guys know what he's really thinking, right? 

I'm glad you're quoting the guy that might face legal consequences for lying to get on a jury and taking his opinion on things.

Did you know that George Floyd's family spoke at this march?

Here's what The Guardian has to say about this march, article written august 28th.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/28/march-washington-dc-racism-get-your-knee-off-our-necks

They call it a "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" march. You're telling me this march had NOTHING to do with police brutality?

Direct quote from article "Rally highlighted police brutality and voting rights"

You have a juror that attended a march in which the alleged victim's family member spoke at, speaking about police brutality, wearing a "take the knee off our necks" t shirt and a BLM hat. You are lying to yourself if you think this person was neutral, and it sure looks like to me that he lied to get on the jury.

Also, half of Republicans consider the verdict wrong - https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-republicans-think-chauvin-trial-verdict-was-wrong-poll-1586278 while many democrats find the verdict right. So as with most things, it boils down to shitty political opinions being conflated with facts, and I made my position very clear and cited the autopsy report, Dr. Baker's testimony, Dr. Fowler's testimony, and plenty others in my reasoning as to why Chauvin should not have been convicted. I wasn't mislead on anything.

[TwitchySeal]

Also, half of Republicans consider the verdict wrong - https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-republicans-think-chauvin-trial-verdict-was-wrong-poll-1586278 while many democrats find the verdict right. So as with most things, it boils down to shitty political opinions being conflated with facts, and I made my position very clear and cited the autopsy report, Dr. Baker's testimony, Dr. Fowler's testimony, and plenty others in my reasoning as to why Chauvin should not have been convicted. I wasn't mislead on anything.

Most Republicans agreed with the verdict and the ones that didn't overwhelmingly disagree with any idea tied to BLM.


The 25 percent of overall Americans in the CBS News/YouGov poll who said they disagree with the Chauvin verdict also overwhelmingly responded that they "strongly" disagree with any ideas tied to Black Lives Matter (BLM).

Obviously this has become all about race, but anyone capable of forgetting all the politics shouldn't have any trouble watching the video of George Flloyd being murdered and figuring out who the murderer is.

[Gyfts]

Also, half of Republicans consider the verdict wrong - https://www.newsweek.com/nearly-half-republicans-think-chauvin-trial-verdict-was-wrong-poll-1586278 while many democrats find the verdict right. So as with most things, it boils down to shitty political opinions being conflated with facts, and I made my position very clear and cited the autopsy report, Dr. Baker's testimony, Dr. Fowler's testimony, and plenty others in my reasoning as to why Chauvin should not have been convicted. I wasn't mislead on anything.

Most Republicans agreed with the verdict and the ones that didn't overwhelmingly disagree with any idea tied to BLM.


The 25 percent of overall Americans in the CBS News/YouGov poll who said they disagree with the Chauvin verdict also overwhelmingly responded that they "strongly" disagree with any ideas tied to Black Lives Matter (BLM).

Or....it might be about ideology and not race? Plenty of republicans disagree with BLM, nothing wrong with that. Unless you're saying that most republicans are racist.

Obviously this has become all about race, but anyone capable of forgetting all the politics shouldn't have any trouble watching the video of George Flloyd being murdered and figuring out who the murderer is.

Yes, because from the video you're able to tell Floyd's lung volume, right? You're able to tell the amount of force Chauvin's knee had upon Floyd's neck/upper back from the video? From the video you were able to determine that Floyd's fentanyl levels, enlarged heart, 90 percent arterial blockage, methamphetamine use and restraint from officers Lane and Kueng didn't have any role in his death. From the video, you were able to isolate all these factors I mentioned, and determined that Chauvin's knee to be the substantial causal factor of death, per the jury instructions? From the video you were able to tell that Floyd died of positional asphyxia, a cause of death that the Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner did not determine, the only person who reviewed Floyd's body? This case was more than just the video.

[franky1]

gyfts seems to be the one that thinks the trial is not over.

plus when someone is MURDERED(proven guilt confirmed) and there is a protest about murder. and the victims family went to the protest... gyfts wants to highlight this as a thing to negatively point the finger at the victims family for protesting about their own family member being murdered.. and anyone else.. as if protesting about murder should be abolished or shunned(facepalm)

what should they do celebrate the murderer and throw him a party... um no.

Did you know that George Floyd's family spoke at this march?
Here's what The Guardian has to say about this march, article written august 28th.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/28/march-washington-dc-racism-get-your-knee-off-our-necks
They call it a "Get Your Knee Off Our Necks" march. You're telling me this march had NOTHING to do with police brutality?
Direct quote from article "Rally highlighted police brutality and voting rights"
You have a juror that attended a march in which the alleged victim's family member spoke at, speaking about police brutality, wearing a "take the knee off our necks" t shirt and a BLM hat. You are lying to yourself if you think this person was neutral, and it sure looks like to me that he lied to get on the jury.

when it comes to murder.. no one is neutral.. everyone detests murder. no one applauds murder.
no one accepts murder is ok.
what someone is neutral about is if they can put their personal opinion about murder aside. and look at the evidence to see if it even comes close to being unanimously clear as being murder.

9 minutes on someones neck is not temporary restraint to get a better position to arrest someone.

i know you dont accept the verdict Gyfts. bu the verdict is the verdict.
accept the trial is over.
accept putting a knee on someones neck for anything more then 30 seconds is bad.

stop acting like it was anything else
dont be a trump, trying hard to find any silly loophole to try to explain a result is not a result.

reality is.. he is guilty.. end of.
accept it and move on

[Gyfts]

Cops executing black men for passing fake $20s is just one example of many civil rights violations historically experienced by African Americans.

And this happens to ALSO be police brutality. Why is this so hard? Did you know something can be a civil rights violation and police brutality at the same time, it's not just one or the other? Unless you're telling me you think cops executing a man for passing a fake 20 is NOT an example of police brutality?

- You're not a lawyer. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you have no formal training or experience with the legal system, outside of the occasional court appearance we are statistically privy to during our lifetimes.
- You're speculating (that's what it is: pure speculation; per usual you have no actual evidence to back your assumptions) that the juror answered "no" to questions he should have answered "yes" when you don't even know that's what actually happened.
- You're overpowering all common sense to assume the defense attorney (a real attorney with an actual law degree and years of experience) is incapable of selecting impartial jurors and doesn't have an idea of when jurors may be lying or impartial

Well good thing Eric Nelson is a lawyer, he alleges juror misconduct - https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion.pdf

So... why do you keep proffering conclusions about this case even after being proven incorrect time after time? You're not letting your lack of understanding of the judicial system get in the way of disagreeing with actively involved experts in the subject, and I just want to understand why not.

Well, if you care to know I'd be happy to tell you. I happen to be agreeing with the cause of death that Dr. Baker, Hennepin county medical examiner says was the cause of death. I also happen to agree with expert Dr. Fowler, chief medical examiner of Maryland with decades of experience.

You keep saying I disagree with the experts. I agree with the guy who conducted Floyd's autopsy report. Does that sound like I disagree with the experts?

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/05/04/993665655/derek-chauvin-files-for-new-trial-in-george-floyd-murder-case

He actually did allege juror misconduct, read the document - https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion.pdf

Page 3, number 2. He uses the words "juror misconduct".

...

Why do you think I haven't moved on? I am posting NEW articles about updates regarding this case. I'm not just putting over the same articles same old news over and over again. There's a difference. But I am a Nazi skin head according to you so I guess it just means I'm a racist huh?

[Gyfts]

And your point being what? Again, you're completely bypassing the fact that you don't know how the juror answered the questions, or that it is even a problem at all. You're just assuming that it is, treating tenuous presumptions as some sort of weird life raft for your argument

We do know how the juror answered. What do you mean? He said no, he has not attended any protest related to police brutality. So the fact he attended a police brutality protest that was advertised as a "Get your knee off our neck" march sure looks like he might've lied or maybe not been truthful. Not like we can "prove" he lied, but we can prove that it wasn't the truth. It's basically a pick between willful malice or ineptitude. Perhaps both? Who knows.

I admit that in my haste I missed this part. So he's a lawyer, and as I respect the legal process I feel Chauvin definitely deserves an appeal.

THANK YOU. Let the appeals process play out, if it is successful, then a new trial. If not, Chauvin was given his due process. That's all I'm saying.

[PrimeNumber7]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/551624-chauvin-juror-on-attending-protest-i-just-thought-it-was-a-good

“It was directly related to MLK’s March on Washington from the '60s. ... The date of the March on Washington is the date. ... It was literally called the anniversary of the March on Washington,” Mitchell told the Star-Tribune in reference to the demonstration he attended last year.

Oh, but you guys know what he's really thinking, right? 

The junior wearing the "get your knee of our necks" shirt is prima facie evidence that he had a predisposed opinion on the defendant's guilt.

Most Republicans agreed with the verdict and the ones that didn't overwhelmingly disagree with any idea tied to BLM.

I don't think many Republicans are comfortable giving their honest opinion on the matter.

[TwitchySeal]

Most Republicans agreed with the verdict and the ones that didn't overwhelmingly disagree with any idea tied to BLM.

I don't think many Republicans are comfortable giving their honest opinion on the matter.

Of course.  Poll results show your opinion in the minority, must discredit.

[suchmoon]

The junior wearing the "get your knee of our necks" shirt is prima facie evidence that he had a predisposed opinion on the defendant's guilt.

But but but... if the knee on the neck didn't cause Floyd's death then protesting against the knee is like protesting against mint chip ice cream.

You guys crack me up. The trial is over. Chauvin was found guilty. He would have been found guilty by pretty much any reasonable jury. Pinning someone to the ground until they stop breathing is murder, despite the hypocritical claims about Floyd's medical conditions... in which case he should have been in a hospital, not being arrested for a fucking $20.

Let it go already. I'm sure this is not the last chance you'll get to defend murderous cops and most of the time they get away with it so you'll be "winning" the debate more often than not.

[PrimeNumber7]

The junior wearing the "get your knee of our necks" shirt is prima facie evidence that he had a predisposed opinion on the defendant's guilt.

But but but... if the knee on the neck didn't cause Floyd's death then protesting against the knee is like protesting against mint chip ice cream.

You guys crack me up. The trial is over. Chauvin was found guilty. He would have been found guilty by pretty much any reasonable jury. Pinning someone to the ground until they stop breathing is murder, despite the hypocritical claims about Floyd's medical conditions... in which case he should have been in a hospital, not being arrested for a fucking $20.

The tee-shirt shows bias on the part of the junior. This means the trial will likely be thrown out by the appellate courts. The trial judge was not exactly courageous in making rulings consistent with the law during the trial that may have been unpopular.

You are correct, the trial is over, however losing parties have the right to appeal negative court outcomes, and Chauvin is appealing on the basis of the junior being biased and on the basis of the junior lying on his junior questionnaire (among other issues).

My expectation is that Chauvin's guilty verdict is eventually overturned.

[DaveF]

My expectation is that Chauvin's guilty verdict is eventually overturned.

Overturned, no.
Granted another trial, possibly.

Considering that he has now been federally indicted it's a tough call from a legal perspective on how to proceed.
That's now 2 grand juries and 1 court case that he lost. Might be better to work on getting a sentencing / plea deal.

Remember if he is found guilty in the federal trial, the Office Space quote comes into play. "We're not going to some white-collar resort prison. No, no, no! We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison!"

If you plea it down and work on a deal, you can go to golf resort prison, you go to trial you take your chances.

-Dave

[Cnut237]

In case anyone is interested in some wider context...

The Washington Post has a database of police killings since 2015.
And there is also The Guardian's award-winning 2 year investigation, covering 2015-16.

"It is unacceptable that the Washington Post and the Guardian newspaper from the UK are becoming the lead source of information about violent encounters between [US] police and civilians."

There's also a decent summary of available data by Nature.