In my mind, Chauvin should have acted differently. Remaining on Floyd’s back/shoulder/neck for the last 4-5 minutes was completely unjustified. Firing was a given, civil liability was warranted, IMO, and even assault or man 2 could have been justified. The Murder 3 charge is ridiculous on its face, and the Murder 2 charge is not warranted, based on the law, again, obviously IMO. The trial judge was prosecution-friendly, and I would have preferred a fairer trial in a less prejudiced district, with less prejudicial evidence. It’s difficult to accept that the results of this trial with how it was conducted, even though I think that Chauvin did deserve punishment.
4 Likes
sorry i’m catching up still did someone already mention that chauvin was involved in 5 other police killings before he killed george floyd?
I don’t think so. What was Chauvin’s involvement in those killings? Were they justified?
honestly i haven’t looked into them all and couldn’t tell you. all i can say is that seems like a lot, but that’s just the impression i get. whether or not they were justified, i imagine that would be a case-by-case basis. i can’t think of a justifiable reason to kill someone as a police officer with the exception of being in real or perceived life-threatening danger to yourself, civilians, or your colleagues, or in self-defense in such an instance.
so take what i say with a grain a of salt because i haven’t looked into the specifics of the killings, it just seems like a lot. maybe that’s just me tho.
edit: i didn’t watch any of the trial or proceedings either, so maybe someone who did would know more? it seems like something the prosecution would bring up.
Yes, in a few stills. Wow. Wonder why they asked about a few stills rather than asking him to comment on the video overall? I didn’t buy what they were selling, and jury obviously didn’t either. But you did, so there’s that I guess.
1 Like
Yes, in stills of the video from Chauvin’s body cam it clearly looked like Chauvin was kneeling on the shoulder or back of Floyd, a fact that even prosecution witnesses had to admit was true.
Yep. And the jury apparently decided those few fractions of a second didn’t tell the story of the 9:29.
It wouldn’t be allowed to be brought up unless it was probative in Chauvin’s guilt. I watched a lot of the trial, but not all of it, so I can’t say whether it was brought up or not. However, I suspect if Chauvin was culpable in previous incidents of unjustified police brutality it would be both probative and a focus of prosecutors.
1 Like
Fractions of a second? Can you please show me the evidence that the kneeling on the shoulder/back were just fractions of a second?
The stills themselves only cover fractions of seconds. If the defense wanted to show that he was on the shoulder for a significant portion of time, having the witness comment on the video might have been a better option. But they avoided that - to me, for obvious reasons.
[quote=“Poundsand, post:599, topic:204038, full:true”]
OK, so you didn’t watch the trial. The defense did show the bodycam video and did ask for the witness to comment on it.
[quote=“Mithrandir, post:600, topic:204038, full:true”]
Which witness you talking about? The context of our discussion was the Minneapolis use of force trainer - that would be Mercil. I believe you are incorrect that they had him comment on other than stills of the hold.
Is your argument that in between the video stills that show that Chauvin’s knee wasn’t on Floyd’s neck that Chauvin changed the position to Floyd’s neck, but changed again just at the time of the video stills?
Before I answer your goalpost move, are you retracting your claim? 
1 Like
I’m sorry, I thought we were discussing whether Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck or shoulder/back, and, if the latter, whether it was just fractions of a second. Where are those goalposts now?
1 Like
Nope - I didn’t claim Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s back just for a fraction of a second, rather that the defense showed stills that captured fractions of a second.
So… the defense show video and ask Mercil to comment? No? ;D
I don’t think it matters. I think this is the best that the defense could do to try to make that argument, as they clearly didn’t want to show the video, even if his knee never moved. Because, you know, it’s pretty clear to most people (but apparently not you) that the video shows Chauvin killing someone - and I think the defense probably feels the same way.
Huh? Where do you get that idea from?
The defense clearly suggested that GF’s pre-existing heart conditions and his drug use at the time of the death were instrumental in his death.
3 Likes
And the video was showed with no indication that Chauvin moved his knee around to sometimes be on the back/shoulder and sometimes on the neck.
Just my opinion. It seems clear they wanted the jury to think what Mithrandir is suggesting - that his knee was on the shoulder rather than the neck for a long period of time - but didn’t want to show the video of said stretch of time and ask the witness about it.
Not sure what that has to do with whether they think most people probably thinks the video shows Chauvin killing someone and hence avoided showing the video some more, but yea, they suggested that.