|
|
Post by stewart on Mar 31, 2021 0:45:13 GMT
It looks as though the thread created by a deleted member and containing 41 pages has now died a death, except in the eyes of that member who has swiftly returned and who probably keeps posting nonsense which nobody is reading anyway.
So, here is something new for debate by anyone who is following this case, and for anyone who isn't, take a look at the coverage by the Court TV channel 179, if only for an hour or so. Cameras are in the court between 2.30 pm and 10.30 pm our time.
Here is my point for argument:
There will be hell to pay all across America if this corrupt, callous and racist cop is not convicted of the murder of George Floyd.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Mar 31, 2021 4:42:24 GMT
I haven't been following the trial stewart but I am sure you are right that an acquittal would lead to civil unrest. Mind you the nature of American society is such that if there is a guilty verdict there will probably be civil unrest.
I just hope that the verdict reflects the actual evidence presented and not the case made on social media. O J Simpson appeared to be a famous beneficiary of dodgy American justice.
An important issue is that the case must be decided on the evidence and not what may have been reported pre-trial on both main stream media and social media. For a murder conviction it has to be proved that the police officer on trial caused the death of the criminal being arrested. My understanding is that the medical / forensic evidence from post mortem is that the deceased did not die of asphyxiation. Now I am not stating that that is fact as I have not been following the trial, but if it is then the method of restraining of the deceased by the police officer may not have been the cause of death. It is an interesting case and it is important in a free democracy that the accused police officer gets a fair trial, and that the verdict is based on evidence and not on emotions.
Although it would be nice to hope that each jury member would make up their own mind based on the evidence which was presented, when it comes to making up their minds it is more likely they will each be influenced by what their therapist has tweeted the evening before! 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Mar 31, 2021 13:37:41 GMT
I haven't been following the trial stewart but I am sure you are right that an acquittal would lead to civil unrest. Mind you the nature of American society is such that if there is a guilty verdict there will probably be civil unrest. I just hope that the verdict reflects the actual evidence presented and not the case made on social media. O J Simpson appeared to be a famous beneficiary of dodgy American justice. An important issue is that the case must be decided on the evidence and not what may have been reported pre-trial on both main stream media and social media. For a murder conviction it has to be proved that the police officer on trial caused the death of the criminal being arrested. My understanding is that the medical / forensic evidence from post mortem is that the deceased did not die of asphyxiation. Now I am not stating that that is fact as I have not been following the trial, but if it is then the method of restraining of the deceased by the police officer may not have been the cause of death. It is an interesting case and it is important in a free democracy that the accused police officer gets a fair trial, and that the verdict is based on evidence and not on emotions. Although it would be nice to hope that each jury member would make up their own mind based on the evidence which was presented, when it comes to making up their minds it is more likely they will each be influenced by what their therapist has tweeted the evening before! 😉 Agreed, of course, that the verdict should be based on the evidence, particularly the medical findings. As you would expect though, only the defence experts are saying that the cause of death was not asphyxiation. Independent specialists agree with the prosecution, but they have been denied a voice in the trial. But then you have the nine minutes of the video and the question: what did Chauvin think would be the effect on GF during all that time when he kept his knee on his neck even after the medics had told him to move? |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Apr 1, 2021 8:43:45 GMT
But then you have the nine minutes of the video and the question: what did Chauvin think would be the effect on GF during all that time when he kept his knee on his neck even after the medics had told him to move? Yes it is something that has to be taken into account along with all of the other evidence. I am not fully up on American law but I understand that unlike in the UK there are 3 different degrees of murder, and that again unlike in the UK it is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm to the deceased for a conviction on one of the lesser degrees of murder. A major difficulty for the prosecution though will be the police body cam footage showing the deceased saying several times "I can't breath" when he was still in his vehicle and before the police removed him from the vehicle. The drugs the deceased had taken prior to arrest are known to cause heart problems and cardiac problems cause difficulty with breathing. Certainly not a straight forward case by any means. |
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Apr 1, 2021 11:33:59 GMT
I am not fully up on American law but I understand that unlike in the UK there are 3 different degrees of murder, and that again unlike in the UK it is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm to the deceased for a conviction on one of the lesser degrees of murder. The way I understand it 3rd degree murder (which is only defined in law by three states, Minnesota being one of them) is similar to manslaughter over here and I would have thought that if this had happened in the UK that is what the officer would have been charged with. Personally I don't think Chauvin intended to murder his victim (I know yanks can be pretty dumb but to murder someone in front of dozens of independent witnesses is stretching it a bit). What did strike me about the incident and other related police killings in the States is whether or not they bother to train police officers properly. There were three or four other officers with Chauvin, surely between them they could have subdued Floyd given he was struggling with the effects of the drugs he had swallowed. |
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Apr 1, 2021 12:53:05 GMT
But then you have the nine minutes of the video and the question: what did Chauvin think would be the effect on GF during all that time when he kept his knee on his neck even after the medics had told him to move? A major difficulty for the prosecution though will be the police body cam footage showing the deceased saying several times "I can't breath" when he was still in his vehicle and before the police removed him from the vehicle. My take on the two series of "I can't breathe" outbursts is that they were the result of two different mindsets. The first, while he was sitting in his own car, was probably caused by a mixture of taking some kind of drug together with seeing one of the officers approaching him with a gun already drawn. Apparently he had previously been shot, although the circumstances of that incident are unclear but also irrelevant. Two of them then attempted to handcuff him, all over a dud twenty dollar bill. No wonder he panicked and claimed that he was losing his breath. Instances of police officers manhandling and roughing up black people are far from uncommon. The second was totally different, in that he literally couldn't breathe with someone's knee constantly thrusting down on his neck and realised that before too much longer he was going to die. If the defence are planning to demonstrate a similarity between these two "I can't breathe" episodes, then surely the prosecution will pick it apart and common sense will prevail. If I sound biased, then yes I am. Over the years I have seen so many examples on TV of police officers in America mistreating black people that it is clear to me that there is a racist element in their ranks, and I detest it. Apparently the chief of the MPD will be appearing at some stage as a witness for the prosecution to explain the exact nature of police training and to condemn instances of excessive force. His testimony could be just as damning as the accounts of the bystanders. |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Apr 1, 2021 13:55:05 GMT
I would have thought the defence would have an easier job of demonstrating that the identical words used both before the incident and during the incident were because his breathing difficulties were caused by him taking illegal drugs, than the prosecution would have trying to say that the identical words meant different things at different times.
Of course this is closely linked to the medical evidence. The post mortem report stating that asphyxiation was not the cause of death is not really that helpful to the prosecution case. However medical matters can be confusing to juries. I used to always enjoy the 'Psychiatrists Day' in murder cases in British courts. Four barking mad experts would take to the witness box for about 2 hours each, 2 of them selected by the prosecution stating that the defendant was sane, and 2 of them selected by the defence stating that the defendant was mad (or technically had diminished responsibility). Although I was always there in a prosecution capacity I always thought the defence case made more sense as what sane person murders somebody? Anyway after a full day of 'experts' the jury was none the wiser!
Has any indication been given stewart as to how long this trial is likely to last for? I may try to catch it for the summing up. I like the way they do it in American courts some bloke comes bursting through the door at the last minute and hands Perry Mason a note which changes every thing! 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Apr 1, 2021 17:49:46 GMT
Has any indication been given stewart as to how long this trial is likely to last for? The judge said when the trial started (last Monday) that the whole thing was likely to last about a month. |
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Apr 6, 2021 0:05:58 GMT
Some damning testimony over the past few days: from the medics who described George Floyd's position and condition when they arrived on the scene; from the doctor at the hospital who tried every known method to save his life and rejected any possibility of a drug overdose; and from high ranking police officers who stated that the "knee on the neck" procedure had no place in any of the MPD's policies or training. The chief of police added that what he had seen on the video could only lead to one outcome: Floyd's death. I don't know why some of the commentators are surprised that one police officer is testifying against another.
The defence attorney is doing his best and I applaud him for trying to do his job. However, he is starting to ask laughable questions and is clearly struggling.
|
|
rjdgull
TFF member
Admin
Posts: 12,227 
|
Post by rjdgull on Apr 6, 2021 6:03:02 GMT
Part of the problem is that police officers in this country are rarely charged for overstepping the mark leading to the perception that they can literally get away with murder. Hopefully this case will change that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Apr 6, 2021 8:26:35 GMT
Thanks for the update stewart. Not watched any of it yet but if I time it right I may try to catch the final summing up. Not much coverage on UK main news.
I shall be expecting you to give equal weight to the defence case when they present their evidence stewart.
It may even be that some of the questions asked then by the prosecuting attorney will be perceived as being laughable. 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Apr 6, 2021 10:40:43 GMT
Interesting observation made on the Jeremy Vine show on Channel 5 this morning, that this trial would not be going the way it is if Trump had still been President and that it is refreshing to see this change in attitude under a Biden administration. The only sensible thing that came into my head on hearing that was "What a load of b@ll@@@s"! The accused police officer was charged with murder when Trump was still the President, and even in the USA there is such a thing as Judicial Independence but with some democratic control mechanisms to ensure that judges stick to their role and do not go rogue! I do not know enough about the overall evidence in this case to draw any firm conclusions (indeed nobody other than those most closely involved should as else what would be the point of a trial?). I also have an antipathy towards show trials (Nurembourg was a disgrace in justice [fairness] terms), and I am also against criminal trials being presented as entertainment. Perhaps I am just old and cynical!  |
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Apr 6, 2021 14:32:09 GMT
I shall be expecting you to give equal weight to the defence case when they present their evidence stewart. I am quite prepared to do that, however you must admit that it is difficult to think of anything the defence could come up with which will outweigh the "knee on the neck" video. Edit: at the moment the defence attorney is trying to demonstrate that Chauvin was distracted by a threat from bystanders who were filming the incident and shouting at him, resulting in his forgetting about the excessive force which he was applying! |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Apr 6, 2021 15:03:47 GMT
I shall be expecting you to give equal weight to the defence case when they present their evidence stewart. I am quite prepared to do that, however you must admit that it is difficult to think of anything the defence could come up with which will outweigh the "knee on the neck" video. That is why the defence present their case last, for fairness to the accused. The jury has yet to hear the defence case, but when they retire to consider their verdict it will be that which will be fresh on their minds. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by plainmoorpete on Apr 6, 2021 18:28:51 GMT
That is why the defence present their case last, for fairness to the accused. Actually I thought the defence presented their case last because logically you cannot defend yourself against an accusation until the prosecution has presented that accusation. E.g. You can't go around saying "I didn't do it" if nobody knows what it is you are supposed to have done. |
|
