The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[Darts]

He looked to be trying to run somewhere. We also know that King and his friends initially tried to outrun the police when pulled over.

I watched all the publicly available videos on CNN last night. There is a gap in the videos between the time GF was in the squad car and when he was lying on the ground.

Is it possible GF was trying to escape and the police caught him and put him on the ground?

Also, is this gap in the videos intentional as I know videos can be "edited"?

 

[Valcazar]

I think the problem with the gap theory is that it doesn't justify the force used.

"He tried to run so we had to stop him and immobilize him" seems entirely plausible. But he was caught, cuffed, and no longer a threat. Why are you still on his neck. Even if you think "we needed to render him unconscious in case he acted up again", the longer video shows Chauvin on the neck way after that point.

I will not be surprised evidence shows up that at least gives them some kind of plausible reason for initiating the force. The problem is justifying sticking with the knee on throat that long.

 

[mandrill]

Yes and no.
From your linked article.

The on-line version of the policy manual says, "The unconscious neck restraint shall only be applied … 1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or; 2. For life saving purposes, or; 3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective."

They will need to show that it was properly applied. They may be able to show it was correct to use it to subdue but the prosecution will argue leaving it on was inappropriate. The snippet doesn't address guidelines on letting up.

It does seem to open an argument for "I was just doing what is in the manual" though.

It's a step-up from the previous info from the Minne PD, which was "we never use neck restraint".

But yeah, the elephant in the kitchen is why C is on the poor guy's neck for so long and even after he had passed out. I can't imagine what a plausible explanation would be. Even if you say "C's an asshole, racist, nasty cop", you get C getting in 1 or 2 sucker punches while F is on the ground and calling him the N-word. Riding his neck for 3 minutes when the guy had passed out and bystanders are showing concern that he's dead would appear serious nuts.

OTOH, Forcillo put several rounds into Sammy Yatim while he was lying dead on the floor of the bus........

 

[kherg007]

I enjoy these threads exchanges where everyone is sticking to facts and speculating honestly and not name calling. Onya everyone.

On the Rodney video there is a longer version where Rodney does lunge at the cops twice whilst being tased. Then it devolves into the beating that we've all seen. I often wondered if the whole video was shown what effect that might have had.

On the George Floyd video, we have a missing piece - very critical moment that might explain why (for good or ill) 3 cops are sitting on him. However, what we do have in those final 8-9 minutes is horrific regardless how or why he got jammed down. The State AG Keith Ellison has taken the case over from the local county investigators/DA's thus hopefully this will cool things down a bit as the minority community trusts him. I saw him on tv this am saying he is reviewing all the evidence to date including the state autopsy and an independent autopsy conducted by GF's family. So we'll see. He also said he will charge as high a charge on all the officers involved as he can as supported by the evidence. He hinted strongly he might go higher than 3rd degree murder.

 

[Darts]

Has Chief Medaria Arradondo already prejudiced the case?

First, firing C without due process. I think the SOP is the subject cop is either given desk duty or suspension with pay.

Also, why did the Chief speak to CNN on live TV without the benefit of counsel? He clearly stated that C and the other 3 officers are guilty (at least of something). I think the SOP is for the Chief to say nothing about pending/ongoing legal cases.

 

[black booty lover]

It seems so, but until the autopsy comes in, you just don't know what the defence will spin. For example, if Floyd had a heart attack, the the defence will argue it was a natural thing not caused by the cop and if they can get one or two jurors to buy it - eeks. Again it seems the cop is culpable for the death but I've seen some amazing open and shut cases go sideways (e.g., OJ Simpson) so I'm fascinated and frightened all at once.

I would agree Kherg. The other issue is, despite the public scrutiny and the black lash on if he walks, it's not like it's up to the government. It's up to jury of his peers.

 

[SchlongConery]

The older and scared-er those whites are, the more they'll admire and love the cops.

This is true.

This phenomena is also a big reason why many support authoritarian-type leaders like Trump.

 

[Darts]

He also said he will charge as high a charge on all the officers involved as he can as supported by the evidence. He hinted strongly he might go higher than 3rd degree murder.

IMHO I think it was a mistake for him to say this publicly. It smells of a "hang them high" mentality.

Has anyone noticed that the 4 subject officers and their counsel(s) have said nothing publicly? I've been involved in a few work related court cases and the advice of counsel has always been "say nothing" and anything you say must be vetted by counsel.

 

[SchlongConery]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...conscious-neck-restraints-five-years-n1220416

Looky-looky. Neck restraint to the point of unconsciousness is accepted practice by MN police depts - despite official denials.

C's defence counsel has a big smile on his face about now,

I assume the police manual also allows police to shoot people.

But I don't think Brauti's Forcillo defence would work especially if the police officer keeps shooting the guy for a few minutes after he was already handcuffed, immobilized and unconscious.

But I agree with you completely in that everyone should have the right to a lawyer providing best efforts for a full defence.

 

[gibarian]

The U.S. is a white supremacist nation and jury selection doesn't adequately account for that, nor for the mythological status of the police as protectors instead of the lethal paramilitary they are, so no, it won't be a fair trial. But not for the reason you're wringing your hands over.

 

[SchlongConery]

Has Chief Medaria Arradondo already prejudiced the case?

First, firing C without due process. I think the SOP is the subject cop is either given desk duty or suspension with pay.

Also, why did the Chief speak to CNN on live TV without the benefit of counsel? He clearly stated that C and the other 3 officers are guilty (at least of something).

Bravo to the Chief for standing up and being counted. He has perhaps put himself at risk but if he believes in what he is doing then he makes the choice as Chief.

The premise of "suspension" and desk duty is probably governed in most PD's by the Union's contract, as it is in Toronto.

In the US and Ontario non-union workplaces, your employment can be terminated at any time without cause. If your termination is "wrongful", then the civil courts can make a financial award commensurate with your damages. In many cases, the cost to get rid of a bad employee is well worth the civil cost to get the poison out of the blood of the company. Everyone knows of those toxic people in their workplaces. Too bad the cops don't see it that way to weed out the bad apples.

 

[mandrill]

The U.S. is a white supremacist nation and jury selection doesn't adequately account for that, nor for the mythological status of the police as protectors instead of the lethal paramilitary they are, so no, it won't be a fair trial. But not for the reason you're wringing your hands over.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit....

You can pack a jury just as easily w Black jurors as w white and get quite different results.....

 

[mandrill]

Bravo to the Chief for standing up and being counted. He has perhaps put himself at risk but if he believes in what he is doing then he makes the choice as Chief.

The premise of "suspension" and desk duty is probably governed in most PD's by the Union's contract, as it is in Toronto.

In the US and Ontario non-union workplaces, your employment can be terminated at any time without cause. If your termination is "wrongful", then the civil courts can make a financial award commensurate with your damages. In many cases, the cost to get rid of a bad employee is well worth the civil cost to get the poison out of the blood of the company. Everyone knows of those toxic people in their workplaces. Too bad the cops don't see it that way to weed out the bad apples.

Probably because those bad cops have support one or two rungs up in the hierarchy, which is why they stayed and went from not-quite-good young cops to very bad older cops.

I once chatted to an ex cop who was going to law school and he told me that there were cliques and power blocks in the MTPD and you kissed ass to make your way. If you pissed off the wrong staff sergeants, you could look forward to a lifetime of doing mid night shift foot patrol on Cherry Beach in January with no promotion or recognition ever coming your way.

 

[Darts]

This could be a really long legal process.

Next, the prosecution will present their case to a grand jury. My understanding is that the grand jury has a very low bar to indict.

Next will come the actual trial.

If he is found guilty then there is likely an appeal.
If he is found not guilty the feds will jump in and argue GF's civil rights were violated.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a plea bargain.

 

[mandrill]

I assume the police manual also allows police to shoot people.

But I don't think Brauti's Forcillo defence would work especially if the police officer keeps shooting the guy for a few minutes after he was already handcuffed, immobilized and unconscious.

But I agree with you completely in that everyone should have the right to a lawyer providing best efforts for a full defence.

Same point that Valcazar made and it's valid.

But the manual allows neck restraint to the point of unconsciousness.......

If that's the case, "I thought he was just unconscious, judge and the manual allows that" is going to be the pitch.

Now that gets squarely into excessive force and F lying on the ground in cuffs outnumbered 4:1 and that's probably your trial right there.

Plus we still really need the results of the coroner's exam.

 

[SchlongConery]

This could be a really long legal process.

Next, the prosecution will present their case to a grand jury. My understanding is that the grand jury has a very low bar to indict.

Next will come the actual trial.

If he is found guilty then there is likely an appeal.
If he is found not guilty the feds will jump in and argue GF's civil rights were violated.

Of course, there is always the possibility of a plea bargain.

Thanks for explaining this.

 

[SchlongConery]

Probably because those bad cops have support one or two rungs up in the hierarchy, which is why they stayed and went from not-quite-good young cops to very bad older cops.

I once chatted to an ex cop who was going to law school and he told me that there were cliques and power blocks in the MTPD and you kissed ass to make your way. If you pissed off the wrong staff sergeants, you could look forward to a lifetime of doing mid night shift foot patrol on Cherry Beach in January with no promotion or recognition ever coming your way.

I know that to be true also.

As for Cherry Beach... ever heard of "Trailers"?

 

[mandrill]

Thanks for explaining this.

Grand jury - same test as a judge at a prelim inquiry in Canada.

Did the prosecution present ANY evidence that could reasonably - if accepted - hypothetically lead to a conviction. It's almost automatic.

 

[gibarian]

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit....

You can pack a jury just as easily w Black jurors as w white and get quite different results.....

No, it is not something that is achieved "as easily." De facto conditions make it easier for a majority white jury to be assembled.

It's probably most endemic to the American south, but nowhere is completely exempt.

 

[Darts]

Two questions for the audience.

1) Is the defense allowed to conduct their own autopsy? If yes, did they?

2) Are civilian videos allowable as evidence in a court of law? If yes, how do we validate their authenticity?