OnTheRocks
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 11, 2016
- 5,088
- 7,415
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Did you seriously come to BF to try and practice law?
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
George Floyd homicide
- Thread starter sprockets
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
This is becoming clear
Please google the issue as it is widely discussed (police murder convictions rather than the reference or accusation of stupidity)
Further please consider your flip flop
Insinuating evidence has already been put forward but then.............
So after a big chest puff, you note not much has been presented by defence as yet other than this confusion..........
Are you saying or is the other you saying it?
So the most senior person in homicide in the state doesn't have real world experience
1) hard to believe that he wasn't promoted through the ranks
2) does not have an eye for "the reasonable man" as required when presenting evidence to the courts
3) would a reasonable man (the jury) accept the word of the highest ranked homicide detective, and department, speaking out AGAINST their own? I feel it speaks volumes
Having a different opinion is important in life, especially in courts. That's what generates fair trials.
What I'm struggling with is your reasoning and the flip flop
Last edited:
gimp!
Standus Operatus
- Feb 20, 2010
- 5,608
- 4,897
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
I'm saying that that's what they are saying. Sorry that it was so hard for you to understand.
No flip flop, you are just confused.
Doesn't have a great deal of real world experience in dealing with violent/resistant offenders, yes. Well, that's what the defense argued.
No chest puffing here mate, you're the emotional one saying things like "give him 40 years!!!!"
I am actually pretty on the fence about this (flip flop?!), but somebody can't just say 'it's on video' when they say somebody was choked to death (not you). To me, that doesn't work.
Last edited:
Floyd was a big bloke and you would have to restrain him pretty well but once he was hand cuffed he was no threat,the police officer was negligent maybe once this case is over they can look into all the deaths from the subsequent BLM riots
ossie_21
Premium Platinum
Chauvin guilty on all counts, sentencing to come.
Thankfully this decision happened, I can only imagine the riots if he was not guilty. He will no doubt appeal just like any of the most guilty and indefensible people do, so it could still happen. Or if his sentence is too lenient as a first offender and former cop.
Thankfully this decision happened, I can only imagine the riots if he was not guilty. He will no doubt appeal just like any of the most guilty and indefensible people do, so it could still happen. Or if his sentence is too lenient as a first offender and former cop.
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
Watched a lot of the court proceedings, and that’s a bad finding IMO. Emotionally based or pressured by the implications of a not guilty verdict.
The knee hold is procedure and an expert witness for the prosecution conceded he could have escalated to greater force of a taser.
No way should he have been found guilty of second degree unintentional murder as it wasn’t assault by police training.
Other two counts maybe but shouldn’t receive much punishment.
The knee hold is procedure and an expert witness for the prosecution conceded he could have escalated to greater force of a taser.
No way should he have been found guilty of second degree unintentional murder as it wasn’t assault by police training.
Other two counts maybe but shouldn’t receive much punishment.
This is basically what I thought too, figured it would only be a 2nd/3rd manslaughter, the appeal will be interesting.
- Sep 26, 2017
- 26,604
- 43,778
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Hope the price of s**t gets life , it will be appealed but I doubt it’ll be successful might just downgrade the sentence abit
Anyone who thinks that a knee on the neck with force even after there was no pulse found on a suspect that was already in handcuffs when the officer arrived on scene is justifiable needs their head read.
Anyone who thinks that a knee on the neck with force even after there was no pulse found on a suspect that was already in handcuffs when the officer arrived on scene is justifiable needs their head read.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
actually it is
the police training does not allow the knee to be placed above the shoulder and the person must be placed in the recovery position not on his belly or back
The other issue is, it is assault George is not resisting arrest. One can only use force appropriate for the situation and measured against to force against oneself. You only have to ask yourself, was it appropriate force for a person dying?
The defence, "I didn't know he was dying" could not be used as George and the many witnesses advised the police officer he was killing George. Instead the officer ignored the advice and continued to use a technique banned by the police force.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
If the US wants gun control and violence control, this is best achieved by locking up a police officer every time a cop shoots a citizen.
When cops start walking away from gun risk scenarios, explaining they didn't wish to risk imprisonment. Then the debate about gun control has to begin or simply descend into a vigil anti society.
The defence by a cop saying "it is a dangerous situation, thus I accidentally killed a citizen" only hides the real issue in the US.
When cops start walking away from gun risk scenarios, explaining they didn't wish to risk imprisonment. Then the debate about gun control has to begin or simply descend into a vigil anti society.
The defence by a cop saying "it is a dangerous situation, thus I accidentally killed a citizen" only hides the real issue in the US.
Last edited:
X_box_X
The Opportunist
Veteran
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2017
They're not expert witnesses, though, so this in isolation can't result in a murder conviction.
I mean, it could easily be argued that any Police officer lawfully restraining an arrested person in custody could be subjected to similar comments by onlookers. It doesn't mean Police will respond to that by backing off. Obviously Derek was being extremely reckless and doing something outside of his Police training, so he wasn't lawfully restraining George Floyd. No one is disputing that.
The point I'm making is I'm sure there are many civilians who are anti-Police who will use certain tactics by making such outlandish comments to assist someone in escaping custody. It would be very unlikely for Police to act on the advice by a civilian in those circumstances. It wouldn't always be easy ascertain whether onlookers are being genuine or using tactics to assist someone from escaping custody. The fact Derek's offsiders weren't taking any action to prevent Derek's reckless actions definitely didn't help. I'm purely guessing, but I'd be very confident Derek would have been more likely to respond to his offsiders by releasing pressure had any of them spoken up.
I guess it comes down to whether Derek was trying to kill him. It appears obvious he wasn't trying to kill him, so I don't see how the murder charge stands.
This is manslaughter every day of the week, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
You don't need intent to kill for second degree murder. Some things we would call manslaughter in Australia are second and third degree murder in the US - its semantics.
It's like how in Australia some acts can be considered so reckless that even if you didn't intend to kill someone a reasonable person would expect that to be a likely outcome from your actions, and are thus considered murder.
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
The first charge is unintentional murder but requires a felony assault to be taking place. So that charge is stating that Chauvin was trying to harm Floyd.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
And the jury found that he was - I have no issue with that finding.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
are you really arguing an expert is required to assess a submission blocking the airway, blocking blood flow to the brain and preventing the lungs to expand could result in death?
In Australia under Australian workplace law, for civilians, the bosses and directors would be going to gaol under criminal negligence.
The reason for this is the practice of placing the knee above the shoulder whilst detaining or restraining a criminal is a breach of procedure. The reason the procedure does not allow the knee above the shoulder is the unacceptable risk of death.
So we have:
1) a breach of procedure which is an act of ones own folly. Thus manslaughter and or murder prosecution for the officer is appropriate.
2) under Australian law a processes not only have to be in place but compliance of process needs to be proven by directors to avoid criminal prosecution. It is clear that not only one officer breached the procedure but also all those cops who saw the breach but said nothing. Thus evidence the procedures are not followed by the department as a whole.
I just wish a few mayors in the US went to gaol, as under Australian laws. This would be the catalyst for change the US needs.
In this occasion and under US law, I agree it was definitely manslaughter based on the act of his own folly. Where is became murder was he was warned several times by several people that death was a risk. It is at this moment, regardless of the intent of those giving a warning, was to assess his actions. He should have:
1) assessed danger (the golden rule of emergency services)
2) assessed if the individual was resisting arrest - NO then release
2a) assume the answer was yes (even though the answer was no; then he should have
3) assessed if his knee was above the shoulder - YES - then move the knee lower
4) then assess if he has control - YES then move George into the recovery position
There is no way any reasonable person could place a knee on the neck, with weight on the persons back, whilst chest down and hand cuffed can be surprised that death was not an eventuality.
Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
X_box_X
The Opportunist
Veteran
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2017
You've mentioned the word could here, which concerns me. We're talking a murder charge here, so "could result in death" isn't relevant. Actions that knowingly "will result in death" is a lot different, and that would be murder. Your comment here strengthens the argument for manslaughter being appropriate.
A civilian who is not an expert (an onlooker) cannot have been certain Derek's actions would categorically result in George Floyd's death. They can make an assumption, sure, but my point remains - in isolation, civilians mentioning "you're killing him" shouldn't be evidence enough to convict him of murder, which is what your initial post suggested.
You've mentioned you agree manslaughter would be appropriate, but you've attempted to strengthen your point of murder being the appropriate upgrade based on those non-expert civilian witnesses warning Derek of the risks.
I'd be inclined to agree with you if one of the civilians announced themselves as a Doctor or medical professional, and then warned Derek about the risks or his actions and the possibility or likelihood of those actions resulting in death. Had that occurred, I'd agree murder would be appropriate in those circumstances.
One would have thought that logically it is impossible to commit murder and manslaughter on the same person at the same time.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Again this is semantics - there would actual be legal definitions for all these terms and points.
Like PR said - you don't need an expert witness to prove death is likely if it should be obvious to a reasonable person. I can't start randomly firing a gun down the straight and claim i didn't intend to kill anybody. You don't need an expert witness telling me to stop doing that or I could kill someone for it to be murder. A reasonable person would know that it is likely to cause death already.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
shooting someone could result in death
strangling someone could result in death
if a person dies, because they were shot or strangled we have no concerns as a reasonable person to lay murder charges subject to other considerations. So "could" is not relevant in the debate at all.
I won't chase you down the rabbit hole of "will" but rather guide you to "may" result in death. As courts operate on the basis of the reasonable person rather than black and whites. However if you want a black or white; how about George "did" die. George "did" die based on a submission hold banned by the police department because the "risk" of death is too high.
Imagine a defence for shooting someone in the chest and saying, there was no guarantee he would die as a defence? After all lots of people have survived.
Further considerations would have been, "was the force reasonable". The answer to that is clearly no.
In regards to civilians warning the officer, it is a major piece of evidence. As it is easy for an officer in the heat of the moment to get angry and inflict unlawful force, further it is reasonable for an officer to unknowingly be killing someone. However when the officer was made aware of the situation, he and the cops around him should have adjusted their submission and or placed him in the recovery position. The fact they didn't proves their was intent to carry out an unlawful practice and unlawful excessive force likely to cause death.
The other piece of evidence is the hand in the pocket, whilst murdering george. On one hand an untrained eye will see a calm officer, so calm he can have his hand in his pocket. For others, it is evidence George was not resisting arrest and thus the officer did not need his hand to balance himself or have hands free to defend himself from George. The officer was thus confident George posed no risk, thus evidence of unlawful force and he knew George was likely blacking out from the loss of blood flow and or oxygen to the lungs. Watch UFC submissions for guidance.
Perhaps we should have trained medical professions and UFC referees accompany police, to advise them "that dangerous submission hold, likely to cause death and banned from the police departments procedures is dangerous and likely to cause death". As it is clear police don't know it is dangerous and civilians can't be relied upon, even if the outcome of death eventuated as warned by civilians.
I don’t think anybody accuses the US of being a functioning society. Particularly when it comes to race relations and violence.
I did a little bit of googling on this. Quite remarkable really. In 2020 Police shot dead 458 whites !!! Over 1,000 in total the vast majority of which are not black.
So on average police shoot dead about 3 a day in the US. It is routine to the point of being banal.
The percentage of blacks killed by police ( about 25% ) is lower than the percentage of violent interpersonal crime committed by blacks ( about 31% )
I could be wrong but it seems police are so inured to violence both from themselves and more pertinently I suspect from the criminals that they routinely shoot irrespective of race with blacks ( who represent 31% of violent crims ) somewhat underrepresented among the shot and killed because police fear the shitstorm of publicity. I suspect the whole race issue is a canard behind which lies epic levels of underclass dysfunction among all colours in US cities with the blacks simply the most dysfunctional and thus more likely on a per head basis to come to police attention.
One asks three questions:
1. Just how long will the moral panic about racist policing continue?
2. Just how many extra people ( mostly black ) will be murdered in the US because of it....killings in urban areas are skyrocketing!
3. Will the underlying dysfunction remain taboo to mention indefinitely and thus unmet by any policy response or will reality break through at some stage?
So on average police shoot dead about 3 a day in the US. It is routine to the point of being banal.
The percentage of blacks killed by police ( about 25% ) is lower than the percentage of violent interpersonal crime committed by blacks ( about 31% )
I could be wrong but it seems police are so inured to violence both from themselves and more pertinently I suspect from the criminals that they routinely shoot irrespective of race with blacks ( who represent 31% of violent crims ) somewhat underrepresented among the shot and killed because police fear the shitstorm of publicity. I suspect the whole race issue is a canard behind which lies epic levels of underclass dysfunction among all colours in US cities with the blacks simply the most dysfunctional and thus more likely on a per head basis to come to police attention.
One asks three questions:
1. Just how long will the moral panic about racist policing continue?
2. Just how many extra people ( mostly black ) will be murdered in the US because of it....killings in urban areas are skyrocketing!
3. Will the underlying dysfunction remain taboo to mention indefinitely and thus unmet by any policy response or will reality break through at some stage?
Last edited:
- Nov 17, 2007
- 18,626
- 22,824
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Well the judge did not declare a mistrial but said Maxine Waters' saying that failure by the jury to find Chauvin guilty of murder would necessitate “more confrontational” protests would be grounds for an appeal.
Now one of the jurors has come out and said that jury duty was "activism."
Judge Cahill asked Juror #52, whether he heard anything about the #GeorgeFloyd civil case. He says, no. He explained hearing some basic info about trial dates, etc from the news in recent months, but nothing that would keep him from serving as impartial juror.
Mitchell also told Chauvin's defense lawyer during questioning that he didn't know whether Chauvin did anything wrong and that he believed the officer had no intention of harming anyone.
Here's a pic from *before* being called up for jury duty:
If that isn't grounds for having the decision overturned and a new trial ordered, I don't know what is.
(IMO Chauvin deserves everything he gets, but you can't let this sort of s**t go on in a jury trial.)
Now one of the jurors has come out and said that jury duty was "activism."
Judge Cahill asked Juror #52, whether he heard anything about the #GeorgeFloyd civil case. He says, no. He explained hearing some basic info about trial dates, etc from the news in recent months, but nothing that would keep him from serving as impartial juror.
Mitchell also told Chauvin's defense lawyer during questioning that he didn't know whether Chauvin did anything wrong and that he believed the officer had no intention of harming anyone.
Here's a pic from *before* being called up for jury duty:
If that isn't grounds for having the decision overturned and a new trial ordered, I don't know what is.
(IMO Chauvin deserves everything he gets, but you can't let this sort of s**t go on in a jury trial.)
