Derek Chauvin Trial

[dx4100]

Originally Posted by Dougie

It has nothing to do with a 'more grown up attitude'.

Two people can hear the same evidence and come to two totally different conclusions. I agree with listening to the evidence but that doesnt stop everyone /anyone coming to their own conclusions. Its human nature.

See more...

You are confused...

I was suggesting someone takes a more grown up attitude and listens to all the evidence. The person in question had already made there minds BEFORE hearing all the evidence.

I never said they couldn't come to a different conclusion. Its pre-determining guilt I found immature given the stakes. Everyone deserves a fair trial and fair hearing of the evidence.

[dx4100]

Originally Posted by lyn1

It's your right to come on here and disagree with me but please don't try and tell me I am not grown up, maybe you should look in the mirror when making remarks like that.

As I said above I am calling it as I see it and I am listening to the evidence. Others are seeing it differently from myself and I fully respect their point of view just as I expect people to respect my point of view, that's what I call grown up.

See more...

Its not an issue of you seeing it differently. Its an issue of seeing all the evidence before determining guilt. Your post strongly suggested you would find him guilty regardless. That is what I find disturbing.

[Tco200]

Originally Posted by Mr Tom Morrow

I really wouldn't want to be a Police Officer in America facing a shoot/don't shoot situation for all the tea in China.

Damned if you do damned if you don't. Or possibly Dead if you don't or in Prison if you do.

See more...

Problem is all too often their first instinct is to reach for the gun rather than let someone get away ignoring if they are actually a threat or not.

Seems there is very little attempt to de-escalate. Whilst not relevant directly to this case a reform is needed including this increased accountability.

On this case it seems to me that the prosecution is ripping apart any legitimacy the defence has, the defence attorney is floundering, the only question seems to be if the highest charges stick which is trickier to prove

Edited to remove an unfair use of ‘murder’

[dx4100]

Originally Posted by Blue nose

I have no issue with you 'calling it' but surely you need to listen to both sides first before doing?

See more...

Exactly!

[dx4100]

Originally Posted by Tco200

Problem is all too often their first instinct is to murder rather than let someone get away ignoring if they are actually a threat or not.

Seems there is very little attempt to de-escalate. Whilst not relevant directly to this case a reform is needed including this increased accountability.

On this case it seems to me that the prosecution is ripping apart any legitimacy the defence has, the defence attorney is floundering, the only question seems to be if the highest charges stick which is trickier to prove

See more...

The defence guy seems to be doing it all himself as well. Sure he has support in the background but its quite an ask doing what he is doing - being the only one doing the questioning etc.

It does seem that he is trying to defend the indefensible the more the trial unfolds. Waiting to see if he has something huge to pull out of the bag at the end but looks unlikely.

In the end - those four officers had him controlled in handcuffs on the ground - and he was their responsibility at that point - and he died... hard to get away from that They should of done better.

[dx4100]

I think which count he is found guilty of (if he is found guilty) will depends largely on what sort of direction the jury get from the judge. Often a judge will explain to the jury the factors they need to decide on to work out which count to apply. Specially given every case is unique and the law is a little blunt in its wording.

For example : in this case how do you work out if we had a "depraved mind"

EDIT:

This is a good link

psychologytoday/gb/b...uvin-is-facing

Third-Degree Murder. Third-degree murder is an unintentional killing that occurs as a result of a "depraved mind." This archaic language has led to some confusing legal analyses, but it is generally thought of as acting recklessly, with a total indifference to human life. An example would be speeding at 100 miles per hour through a school zone and unintentionally killing a student crossing at an intersection. Third-degree murder can carry a maximum sentence of 25 years.

Third-Degree Murder

Third-degree murder, which requires that a death occur unintentionally but with a "depraved mind," also aligns with Chauvin's actions. The prosecution will need to prove to the jury that Chauvin acted with reckless indifference to human life by placing his knee on the neck of Floyd for several minutes, despite Floyd continuously stating that he could not breathe.


I think Third-Degreee could be made to stick given the evidence so far but more likely manslaughter.

[Tco200]

Originally Posted by dx4100

The defence guy seems to be doing it all himself as well. Sure he has support in the background but its quite an ask doing what he is doing - being the only one doing the questioning etc.

It does seem that he is trying to defend the indefensible the more the trial unfolds. Waiting to see if he has something huge to pull out of the bag at the end but looks unlikely.

In the end - those four officers had him controlled in handcuffs on the ground - and he was their responsibility at that point - and he died... hard to get away from that They should of done better.

See more...

For me he’s just picked at silly threads to pull at, trying and failing to discredit the Doctor asking about his fees (there were none) etc

Supposedly he had a team of 12 behind him and is meant to be hot stuff, maybe they know in reality that manslaughter is almost a given and just trying to get enough doubt over the intent to keep the higher charges from being unanimously agreed

[cornishfrogboy]

Originally Posted by Tco200

Problem is all too often their first instinct is to murder rather than let someone get away ignoring if they are actually a threat or not.

Seems there is very little attempt to de-escalate. Whilst not relevant directly to this case a reform is needed including this increased accountability.

On this case it seems to me that the prosecution is ripping apart any legitimacy the defence has, the defence attorney is floundering, the only question seems to be if the highest charges stick which is trickier to prove

See more...

That is one of the most sweeping, unpleasant generalisations that I have ever seen on the DIBB and it is an insult to the millions of dedicated Police Officers Worldwide most of which carry firearms every day as part of their duties in order to protect others and occasionally, themselves. Let us remember that the Police generally respond to, rather than create incidents and have a clear duty to the public that they serve.
Things can be perceived entirely differently when your heart is racing, the adrenaline pumping and everybody around expecting wonderful decision making.
It is very easy to form the 9 O Clock Jury, never having done it in person, but rather different when you are actually there and making dynamic decisions. That is why so many Police Officers get killed themselves.

Police Officers are merely representative of the societies from which they are drawn. Whilst Psychiatric profiling and good training can assist in both eliminating the unsuitable and educating the remainder, given the scale of Policing, then some unsuitables will inevitably get through and some well intentioned Officers will make errors. They are human.

A trial follows a clear process.. the Prosecution case, then the Defence case , the closing speeches and then the judges summing up before the jury retires to consider the guilt or otherwise of the defendant and only on the charges as read. They must make a decision based purely on the evidence that they have heard in the trial and not be swayed by anything else.. at all.

Many on the DIBB have convicted Chauvin..
Before he was even charged
Before the trial even started
Whilst they had only heard the evidence of the prosecutor.

I have investigated and taken many cases to Crown Court trial over the last 17 or so years of a Police Career as ‘Officer in the case’, ‘Lead Investigator’ or whatever you want to call it and am only hopeful that the Juries concerned were able to listen to the whole of the evidence (whilst not being swayed by outside influences such as prejudice, the media, ‘Dave down the pub’ or anything else). Having read this thread, I am no longer confident that this has in fact occurred.

[dx4100]

Originally Posted by Tco200

For me he’s just picked at silly threads to pull at, trying and failing to discredit the Doctor asking about his fees (there were none) etc

Supposedly he had a team of 12 behind him and is meant to be hot stuff, maybe they know in reality that manslaughter is almost a given and just trying to get enough doubt over the intent to keep the higher charges from being unanimously agreed

See more...

Yeah I think so too. He has to offer up a defence and do anything he can for his client. But it does seem to be about stopping Counts 1 & 2 while Count 3 seems pretty certain at this point.

[Pinchy]

Originally Posted by cornishfrogboy

That is one of the most sweeping, unpleasant generalisations that I have ever seen on the DIBB and it is an insult to the millions of dedicated Police Officers Worldwide most of which carry firearms every day as part of their duties in order to protect others and occasionally, themselves. Let us remember that the Police generally respond to, rather than create incidents and have a clear duty to the public that they serve.
Things can be perceived entirely differently when your heart is racing, the adrenaline pumping and everybody around expecting wonderful decision making.
It is very easy to form the 9 O Clock Jury, never having done it in person, but rather different when you are actually there and making dynamic decisions. That is why so many Police Officers get killed themselves.

Police Officers are merely representative of the societies from which they are drawn. Whilst Psychiatric profiling and good training can assist in both eliminating the unsuitable and educating the remainder, given the scale of Policing, then some unsuitables will inevitably get through and some well intentioned Officers will make errors. They are human.

A trial follows a clear process.. the Prosecution case, then the Defence case , the closing speeches and then the judges summing up before the jury retires to consider the guilt or otherwise of the defendant and only on the charges as read. They must make a decision based purely on the evidence that they have heard in the trial and not be swayed by anything else.. at all.

Many on the DIBB have convicted Chauvin..
Before he was even charged
Before the trial even started
Whilst they had only heard the evidence of the prosecutor.

I have investigated and taken many cases to Crown Court trial over the last 17 or so years of a Police Career as ‘Officer in the case’, ‘Lead Investigator’ or whatever you want to call it and am only hopeful that the Juries concerned were able to listen to the whole of the evidence (whilst not being swayed by outside influences such as prejudice, the media, ‘Dave down the pub’ or anything else). Having read this thread, I am no longer confident that this has in fact occurred.

See more...

I don't disagree with much of what you say here. However I watched bodycam footage again this morning and noticed how calm and collected was the conversation between Lane and Chauvin as Lane asked about excited delerium, the recovery position, another car and so on.. It wasn't the heat of the moment at that time. Chauvin seemed in full control of Floyd and those other officers.