Chauvin Trial

He has to go down surely?

was totally egregious use of force. 

I expect this to turn into a civil war with far right and armed black militia having it out on the streets 

He will get off because OJ Simpson or Chewbacca defence or some such 

suppose it is the US. Dont know why he wouldnt just plead guilty its literally on video. 

he was under duress. having to deal with a black man. it can be difficult for some. 

The tricky bit (for all parties) will be what happened before the video bit. Frankly, in a way, I'm amazed that US rozzers arrest anyone - if there's the remotest possibility there's a gun there,  I'm following the alleged (from a serving US Marine) Mountie motto "never send a man where  a bullet will do".

Devil's advocate:

Is it possible that the defence will be able to argue that:

1. He was apparently having trouble breathing prior to the knee?

2. He was suffering the (potentially fatal) ill effects of drugs?

3. Medically it can't be proved the knee killed him?

4. No intent to kill.

Genuine questions. Not familiar with US law, or yknow the evidence per se. 

Based on some serious assumptions (and wikipedia re degrees of murder), I'd imagine he'd go down for involuntary manslaughter for sure, but a jury may struggle on anything more serious.

ffs

“did he die from the knee or with the knee?”

Also, perceptions of threat

If I were the defence lawyer, I'd be asking the jury what risk did they fancy taking

I appreciate it's grotesque, but unless the precise cause of death has been stipulated to be the knee (which surely the defence didn't accept), I'd expect this to be argued?

If I were the defence lawyer, I'd be asking the jury what risk did they fancy taking

cam seriously have you seen the video?

what risk was he posing?

How is it tricky, cam?  I mean, if Chauvin or any of the other officers had shot him during the course of trying to restrain him - regardless of what happened before - I doubt we would be here, it would have been business as usual (particularly once they made public Floyd's admittedly disturbing prior record).

But, he had been restrained, he was immobile, had been (I assume -  unless this Chauvin and all of the other police officers were so incompetent, it's a wonder they are still alive) checked to establish that he had no weapon, he was clearly in distress, Chauvin knelt on his neck for "eight to nine minutes" while he was cuffed : what could have happened before the video that would make this tricky?  (Unless you mean whether he is guilty of whichever degree of the 27 degrees of murder the yanks have, I agree this is not clear cut).

2nd degree murder appears to require intent. Under US law is that intent to kill or cause serious injury? I could well imagine some jurors accepting that the intent was to restrain and it went pear shaped.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the victim was suffering from terminal ageing before my client sliced his nutsack off and choked him to death with his own balls. There is no scientific proof that he did not die of his age related condition. Therefore you must acquit.

Also, my client is white and the victim err... wasn't.

"...I'd be asking the jury what risk did they fancy taking" - what risk might that be?  The risk that he would display that well known super human Negro strength (well, you know what they're like when they get riled) that would allow him to do them damage despite being unarmed, and having his hands cuffed behind his back?

The tricky bit (for all parties) will be what happened before the video bit.

yeah i’m struggling to think of anything he could have done pre-video (up to and including waving a loaded gun around, which was not the case) that would have justified an officer of the state kneeling on his neck for eight minutes until he died whilst he repeatedly said “i can’t breathe”

genuinely i can’t think of anything bad enough that would have justified that

2. He was suffering the (potentially fatal) ill effects of drugs?

so don’t kneel on his neck until he’s dead

that shouldn’t be difficult for a police officer to parse

Has anyone followed the trial so far? What's the evidence looking like?

Also, surely a lawyer's board can appreciate the various nuances and arguments likely to be material to a trial verdict? Any human is likely to have had the same reaction to the video, but it's not beyond our collective ken that there's more to it.

Also, have the US police forces said much re whether this was an authorised / legitimate restraining technique? If it's uncommon / not sanctioned, I imagine Chauvin might be in a lot more trouble. 

I could well imagine some jurors accepting that the intent was to restrain and it went pear shaped.

well yes tbf i can imagine that too 12 because i’ve read to kill a mockingbird

I assume the police aren't allowed to use a WWE sleeper hold, for example?

Anyway chill I would imagine the question at trial is (assuming the kneeing killed him, which from a non-medic's pov seems overwhelmingly likely) whether Chauvin intended to kill him or not. It's possible this was negligence / recklessness on an epic scale.

Are you on the jury?

Did you see the film before the bit shown on the media?

Would you put yourself in a position where you could be killed?

The whole situation is symptomatic of institutional racism, but would you risk death for that? You personally?

12 - I think the prosecutors are seeking (and have been allowed by the judge recently) third degree murder. 

Defence will try to aim for manslaughter - as the best possible deal. 

It’s not hard to appreciate that kneeling on someone’s neck may result in asphyxiation especially if you do it for a long time.

It only started today, didn't it?

TBF, as utterly repugnant as their actions were, as a non-criminal lawyer, I did wonder if they were overreaching when they bowed to public outcry and increased the charges against Chauvin, I think it is likely to backfire on them.  But, it turns out that Minnesota strangely differentiations between intentional vs unintentional 2nd degree murder, so perhaps that makes more sense.

(He is also charged with third degree murder and second degree manslaughter.)

Ah that's interesting Coffers. He must be toast on a third degree charge I imagine, unless they establish he was so high on fentanyl or something that he was about to die irrespective.

"Would you put yourself in a position where you could be killed?  The whole situation is symptomatic of institutional racism, but would you risk death for that? You personally?"

That's all nicely dramatic, cam, but what are you referring to exactly?  As I said above - we all know that if they had shot him while trying to restrain him, when he was actually resisting (there is video of that, he didn't come willingly), we would not be here, I would bet good money there wouldn't have been any charges at all, not even a slap on the wrist.

But, they didn't.  They had restrained him, they had immobilised him, they had neutralised the risk, and then Chauvin killed him.  Please explain what risk they were protecting themselves from when Chauvin knelt on his neck for 8 minutes, and continued to do so after it was clear he had passed out?  Unless you are, as above, suggesting that they reasonably feared that he would break out of the cuffs, or what - kill them with his blackness? 

fine negligent manslaugther in the UK then - sort it out at sentencing.

 

Agree there isnt likely to be a specific intent to kill, but the use of the restrain in that fashion for so long was egregious surely? 

Has to be an aggravating factor at sentencing. 15 years minimum job done. 

Wouldn’t be surprise if he argues that as they were by a road he was protecting Floyd from rolling into the road and being run over so he was kneeling on him to help him.  Clearly utter nonsense but no doubt his partner will swear they had discussed it and decided it was what they should do (only the discussion happened a month later when they realised they were going down).

Was listening to the radio earlier and they had the families lawyer (not prosecutor) on being interviewed. He was of the opinion that manslaughter was pretty much as a given and Chauvin should roll over to that one but they were after murder.

or what - kill them with his blackness?

sadheh but this will likely work

Apparently the verdict has to be unanimous so there have to be doubts that he will be found guilty. 

Positional asphyxia 

Excited delirium 

 

This is great forensic pathology. Truly the highest level stuff.

I wouldn’t want to be a cop in the USA. fook getting shot during a simple traffic stop. 

Well yes as an American cop I’d be inclined to advocate for gun control but most of them don’t seem bright enough to realise that would be in their interest.

Caveat: I am not commenting on the merits of the following, merely articulating a theoretical hypothesis which would justify something other than a murder conviction. i.e. please don't shoot the messenger.

I don’t know what the facts are, but I certainly don’t trust any mob to tell me that there is only a single narrative. There is at least a hypothetical scenario in which:

1. Floyd was legitimately arrested.

2. Once placed in the police car, on the full video he is seen complaining that he is unable to breathe: before any restraint is taking place.

3. He is taken out of the police car at his own request and laid on the ground.

4. He continues to be unable to breathe – solely, or primarily due to having taken fentanyl, a frequently lethal illegal drug.

5. The autopsy showed that his lungs were 2-3 times their normal, healthy size, supporting the ‘suicide by fentanyl’ argument.

6. The police officer uses a standard restraint technique which was taught by the Minnesota police department, and is viewable on YouTube in training videos. That technique (a) may be dangerous; or (b) it may be that the only genuine weakness of it is that it is not photogenic. None of us have seen that evidence. It is common ground among the left and right in the US however that it was an official technique (this may have been the basis for the civil settlement, i.e. a tacit concession of liability).

7. Floyd dies, primarily or solely due to the impact of the illegal drug he took prior to his contact with the police, and nothing that the police did caused or exacerbated his condition, whether by commission or omission. i.e. little or no legal causation between the officer's actions and Floyd's death.

Needless to say, none of the above is the approved narrative.

I recall speaking to a few cops in A&E just after this happened and they were adamant that you don’t restrain people by kneeling on their necks. However, a U.K. cop isn’t facing anywhere near as much risk as a US one. 
 

People being restrained do shout all sorts of things including I can’t breathe. He clearly was breathing for most of the 8mins as evidenced by him shouting and struggling. 
 

US police training seems to be often substandard, probably as a result of having such a fragmented law enforcement operation with so many tiny departments. 

The autopsy showed that his lungs were 2-3 times their normal, healthy size, supporting the ‘suicide by fentanyl’ argument.
 

Dunno who taught you autopsy pathology, m7, but I’d be asking if they were qualified at all! 

Ha ha, I'll happily defer to the medic, while referring to my initial disclaimer!

Even if you believe the yelling signified that he was cool, despite common sense suggesting that a knee on the neck is likely to, y'know, not be good : according to the footage, his nose started bleeding, he feel silent at 6 minutes into the restraint, one of the officers checked his pulse and said he couldn't feel one.  And yet Chauvin stayed on him for at a minimum, an additional 2 minutes and 46 seconds, possibly more.

Apologies, I mis-remembered something I read. It was weight, not size. Here's the original:

One document is a memo from county attorney Amy Sweasy summarizing a conversation she had with Baker. The key bits:

Fentanyl 11. He said, “that’s pretty high.” This level of fentanyl can cause pulmonary edema. Mr. Floyd’s lungs were 2-3x their normal weight at autopsy. That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances. . . . AB said that if Mr. Floyd had been found dead in his home (or anywhere else) and there were no other contributing factors he would conclude that it was an overdose death. (emphasis added)

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-documents-in-the-george-floyd-case/

"...and there were no other contributing factors"

Erm, isn't that kind of a crucial caveat?

Pulmonary oedema is a very non-specific sign. It can occur is almost any mode of death including asphyxiation. I wouldn’t read much into it.

I don’t have any experience of fentanyl deaths because they’re fairly usual in the U.K. 

Crypto (finally, you come in useful!) - what would the apparent absence of bruising signify to you?

>I recall speaking to a few cops in A&E just after this happened and they were adamant that you don’t restrain people by kneeling on their necks. However, a U.K. cop isn’t facing anywhere near as much risk as a US one. 

Agreed. I have friends who joined the Met, all of whom have been attacked, one of whom was stabbed by a young drug dealer in London, and was only saved by his body armour (the attempted murderer was convicted, got a suspended sentence, and was let back onto the streets, of course). Generally, however, there aren't the amount of firearms available to criminals, so the risk to police is lower and they can afford to be less forceful.

>US police training seems to be often substandard, probably as a result of having such a fragmented law enforcement operation with so many tiny departments. 

That's true, according to family living in the US. But more importantly, there is just a higher level of threat, and that changes everything. The Dinkheller killing is an excellent example of why US police officers must be more risk averse, and willing to escalate:

On Monday, January 12, 1998, near the end of his shift, Deputy Kyle Wayne Dinkheller of the Laurens County Sheriff's Office  in the U.S. state of Georgia, pulled over motorist and Vietnam war veteran Andrew Howard Brannan for speeding. A verbal confrontation escalated to a shootout resulting in Brannan murdering Deputy Dinkheller. In the shootout, Dinkheller was armed with a pistol, and Brannan had an automatic rifle. Dinkheller shot and wounded Brannan. Despite this, Brannan fired his rifle, reloaded it, fired a lethal shot into Dinkheller's eye, and fled the scene. The next morning, police found and arrested Brannan. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but because Dinkheller's video recorded most of Brannan's actions, the jury found he murdered Dinkheller in a premeditated, torturous, and cruel manner. Two years following the murder, on January 28, 2000, the jury convicted Brannan.

An excellent analysis of the incident by CNN is here, and as the author notes, "One can view the entire Kyle Dinkheller video as a primer on the use of physical force -- more precisely the underuse of force, and the catastrophe that follows. For all the recent talk of de-escalation by police officers, of compassion and listening and gentle persuasion, policing experts say it is Kyle’s failure to properly escalate that puts his life at risk." https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/state/kyle-dinkheller-police-video/

The murder continues to receive national attention because the traffic stop and shootout were captured on a personal video recorder Dinkheller had placed on his patrol car dashboard and activated when he stopped Brannan. The recording is widely used for training purposes in U.S. police academies.

The video itself is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mssNOhv1UMc (don't watch if you're squeamish. If so, however, perhaps don't criticise police officers for regularly risking their lives in situations which you find too unpalatable to even watch a 3 minute video of...) 

Mountain- I recall there was an independent autopsy done on the body and that report debunked the first report of the county coroner. 

I note you are quoting your suspicions fro the county coroner's reports. That will be a contentious document and the writer will be heavily cross examined. Let's see what prevails. 

I am siding with a lot what 12 is saying. This is not a clear cut case for murder for first or second degree. The test for that is "a killing that resulted from a depraved heart or extreme recklessness". For second degree it is "a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury". 

The recent allowance of third degree murder by the presiding judge seems to suggest that he is looking for a swift trial and not a place for showboating. Defence will have a job in hand to suggest this was not "extremely reckless" on Chauvin's part. 

Cru

My most useful act ever was my Brexit vote!

Im trying to find the autopsy report. The article  linked to above seems to indicate he was in quite poor health despite being a youngish man. 
 

Where did you get the stuff about bruises?

"People being restrained do shout all sorts of things including I can’t breathe. He clearly was breathing for most of the 8mins as evidenced by him shouting and struggling. "

Crypto - have you see people being suffocated and how long do that last while they are suffocated?

I found the video arresting (no pun intended), and my immediate reaction was to have nothing but contempt for Chauvin. The inescapable conclusion from the video was, quite reasonably, that the guy kneeling on his neck killed him. The race optics made everything appear all the more awful.

But this is a lawyer's board. We can surely critique the narrative that this is a straightforward case of murder, or 'killing', with a racial element? We can surely entertain the possibility that, as more facts become known, the substance of the narrative may in fact collapse? Or it may not, it may be that our initial reaction was absolutely right. I'd be amazed if the defence didn't have 'experts' who would say that the knee did not in fact kill him, or even if it did only because of the extremely unusual circumstances (fentanyl). And anyway even if it did kill him, that was plainly not Chauvin's intention given as Cru says he could easily have shot him and nary a word would likely have been said relatively speaking. 

I'm not saying that's a good argument, or right, but I imagine it could persuade some on a jury.

Anyway, let's see what the evidence is eh? I'll follow this with more interest.

Crypto - I will ignore that, and let you live when I become queen of the world, and reverse all the foolishness your lot ushered in.

It was in the motion to dismiss:-

"In a June 1, 2020, interview at the Attorney General’s Office, in the presence of Assistant Attorney General Frank, Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker informally shared the findings of his May 26, 2020, autopsy of George Floyd. (See Ex. 6, Baker Int. at Bates 22935-36). According to Dr. Baker, he found No petechiae in eyelids. No bruising in neck on any muscles or injuries to structures…. No bruises on back, or evidence of blunt trauma to back…."

https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/docu…
 

Lot to unpick in there, not least the level of natural disease. Plenty an defence expert could go to town on to suggest that even during a perfect restraint his diseased heart, under strain from illegal drugs, was unable to cope. 
 

As a general rule if someone can shout they have, at that moment at least, an open airway and adequate circulation. 

If he's acquitted of the murder charges, it must be likely there'll be some godawful race riots on the streets?

Ah I see Cru. It doesn’t mean the deceased’s airway wasn’t compressed it just means that the vessels were not. Pressure to the neck can kill in different ways: airway occlusion, vascular occlusion, vagal stimulation. 

People being restrained do shout all sorts of things including I can’t breathe. He clearly was breathing for most of the 8mins as evidenced by him shouting and struggling.

crypto - srs question - had you watched the video when you posted the above?

(this is a medical-ish question - i simply can’t imagine anyone thinking that but you are ofc a doctor)

The implications of this trial are severe from both sides. If he is found guilty of a murder charge that will lead to riots. On the other hand, if he is not, that will also result in riots. 

The recent precedent set by the settlement at 27 million could not have been more ill-timed. I think that was hastened (for what?). 

I wonder whether a speedy trial with more chances of appeal is the right way or a detailed trial with all points laid to rest here. 

Yes I have watched it. I think he was breathing during most of the restraint. That doesn’t mean it was appropriate or that it did it didn’t kill him. 

he will not be found guilty of a murder charge are you kidding?

Wot 12 said.

Prove intent to kill, as opposed to intent to incapacitate for your own safety. In the context where an unrestrained person may kill you. 

Put enough doubt as to the restraints being fully working, and some convincing reasoning as to why he was a possible danger, a bit about why it's important to convict on the evidence of the case, and not the wider picture, rule of law not trial by media, and you've got a defence.

There’s enough there to make it seem that he could have dropped dead later that day and nobody would have been too surprised. 
 

Add in that he was excited and agitated during the restraint, that he was uncooperative, and basically his heart just gave up. There’s a makings of a good defence right there. A decent lawyer should be able to run this (rightly or wrongly). 

Not a criminal lawyer, but I vaguely remember something about a thin skull rule - i.e. if you hit someone with a low amount of force on the head, and they happen to have a very thin skull, and you kill them and they die, you can be done for manslaughter and murder regardless of intent

Have no idea if this applies to US criminal law

I imagine though it’s going to be a pretty hard sell to say that a normal human being would have survived eight or nine minutes of being knelt on the neck

Regardless of what the autopsy report may or may not say

Ah but, the pressure to the neck  cannot have been too severe: there were no injuries to the neck structures and the deceased remained alive and shouting for almost the entire duration. 
 

(is what I’d say if I was the defence). 

Jamie - that's why they have three of four levels of murder in the US. Each of those requires intent. I think that's where defence will argue that that was not the case. 

To which I'd ask (for the prosecution) : if your aim was to subdue him, why did you continue to kneel on him for 3 minutes after his nose had begun to bleed, he became non-responsive, and you had confirmation from your fellow officer that no pulse could be found?  Even if you are minded, for whatever reason, to believe that the kneeling on the neck for 6 full minutes was reasonable in the circumstances : once he had passed out, the pressure for an additional 3 minutes when, by definition, his breathing must have been compromised was at best reckless, and at worst deliberately intended to cause harm?

I dont think its an intentional killing - the neck restraint was total negligence, its not how you restrain crims full stop.

The crime was aggravated by his lack of care when the victim became unresponsive - irrespective of whether a fully healthy person would have died or not in those circs the officer was wreckless as to the potential that it may result in harm.

Its clear Adamako manslaughter to me, aggravated by the length of time over which it was perpretrated, stiff sentence. 

Not murder, but stiff sentence, everyone is happy - police do more to prevent such bad practice occuring in the future, family get to sue for the negligence.

Its a hard sell there was intent to murder, but its easily manslaughter. 

Fairly sure the thin skull rule doesn't obviate the need for intent. 

and by stiff i mean in the murder tiers of sentencing, like 15 - 20.

 

I really do think it was a mistake to add the second and even third degree murder charges - they are bound to acquit him, and the fallout will be immense.  A manslaughter conviction would still see him spend a long, hellish time in prison (can't imagine him getting early release under any circumstances), and his career is over, he will likely never work again.

They can't exceed manslaughter sentencing guidelines. That is a firm ground for appeal and no one wants that.

That manslaughter conviction, if achieved, will puts him behind bars for 10 years max. 

10 years as a convicted police officer, let alone a convicted police officer who killed George Floyd will, I reckon, be plenty hellish.

Does anyone know if they called an ambulance and attempted CPR after deciding they couldn’t find a pulse?

They did.  But, the paramedics didn't cover themselves in glory either - apparently, they didn't start CPR for 3 minutes after they arrived to find him unresponsive.

Apparently, Chauvin actually leaned on Floyd's neck for 9 minutes 29 seconds (not 8 minutes 46 seconds), broken down as follows:-

"4 minutes and 45 seconds as Floyd cried out for help, 53 seconds as Floyd flailed due to seizures and 3 minutes and 51 seconds as Floyd was non-responsive."

Nearly 4 minutes after he passed out.  I'm beginning to wonder if the third degree murder charge wasn't the right one after all...

"4 minutes and 45 seconds as Floyd cried out for help, 53 seconds as Floyd flailed due to seizures and 3 minutes and 51 seconds as Floyd was non-responsive."

jesus

this man was a police officer 

To Protect And Serve

I know I'm not a doctor but I don't really follow Crypto's comments on this thread.

"As a general rule if someone can shout they have, at that moment at least, an open airway and adequate circulation."

Eh? Someone put me in a chokehold at school as an experiment. I was quite comfortable and able to speak (or shout) and breathe until the moment I passed out after less than a minute. He put me on the floor and I spasmed a bit and came around 20 seconds later. I had no discomfort, no bruises, no damage. Its just a question of pressing the arteries on both sides if you know where or get (un)lucky.

This guy was kneeling on his neck so hard he was struggling to breathe, but the can't breathe thing (apart from the awfulness of it) was always a bit of a red herring surely in terms of cause of death. He was kneeling on the side of his neck not the front.

I get that you have an artery on both sides and this was not a chokehold. But this was 9 minutes. What relevance does stuff like no damage, no bruising have? It's not relevant to what is necessary to cut off the supply of blood to the brain.

I’m not arguing on Chauvin’s behalf I’m just thinking what a defence would say. 
 

My point is that while he was able to shout out his airway was open and his brain was being perfused. Clearly at some point one or both of those thing stopped being true and he became unresponsive and died. Therefore one potential (if not particularly attractive) argument is that there was nothing wrong with the restraint (since for 6mins or however long) he was breathing. What killed him, a defence expert may say, is agitation and excitement during the restraint on a background of significant natural disease. Ie his weak heart couldn’t cope with the strain. 
 

As I’ve said there isn’t any particular significance to the lack of damage to the neck since there are at least 3 ways that pressure to the neck results in death. However, that doesn’t mean a defence couldn’t make hay with this and use it to convince the jury that the restraint wasn’t too bad. 

an overlooked criminal aspect here is the aptronymic system malfunction

the machine’s bigotry identifier software needs updating 

Defence is going for 

"Mr Chauvin's lawyer argued his use of force was "unattractive but necessary".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56572472

The real risk for the prosecution here is overreach and the feel that it is a dead cert.

All the defence need to show is a perceived risk (and I'm sure they can show evidence of previous trauma suffered by Chauvin/others in similar situations previously and/or other footage other than the bit of Floyd being choked), point out the number of police officers killed making arrests and ask the jury what they would do in that situation. Remind the jury they are considering the actions of the man, not the system, add in the slowness of the CPR after the medics were called and you have reasonable doubt as to intent and/or causation.

The interesting bit will be if any of the jury are actually swayed by the presentation in court at all (which we will never know)

" A manslaughter conviction would still see him spend a long, hellish time in prison (can't imagine him getting early release under any circumstances), and his career is over, he will likely never work again."

That again is actually grist to the defence - the stakes are even higher than regular prison, so if there is any doubt, you have to acquit.

I would agree with Cam's last. Punitive element might apply in civil claims in the US but not in sentencing. Especially in a matter of this public interest. When I say public interest, I mean the interests of the far right and the black militia. Most moderate blacks and whites recognise the event for what it was but they also don't want this escalating to another race riot lingering for decades. 

Of course the judges have long disregarded that rule on punitive element in certain cases in certain southern States and ran with their discretion. Let's see how the judge here will preside. He has a difficult case in his hands. 

Wot Cam said, really. 

It isn't that I think Chauvin acted reasonably or correctly. I'm just not convinced this is a clear-cut as some are trying to make out. 

Chauvin will surely deploy various expert witnesses (who will all be highly decorated former police officers, ideally African American) who will testify that they too kneel on suspect's necks during difficult arrests. Their medical witnesses will go to town on the poor health Floyd was in (something Chauvin didn't know about). The poor response from the paramedics will be hammed up too - "it was actually the paramedics who killed him with their slovenly and lazy response" 

Chauvin will say he was terrified of Floyd who was resisting in a very severe way - acting like he was on drugs (and of course you'll recall drugs were found on toxicology). Floyd is a habitual criminal remember with form for violent offences. 

It isn't hard to see him being acquitted without the jury being racist in any way. 

surely the defence will also labour hard on the fact that he was trained and told to do the neck kneeling thing (to a degree) and so if anyone is liable it is the police force vicariously rather than him personally?

this case is just begging for his boss to be wheeled in as a witness and then for the prosecution to shout at him “did you order code red?”

Will Chauvin's historical record as a copper be allowed as evidence here to explain the motive? He has had some chequered past. 

Interesting, I have been swayed by the arguments against murder (in the UK i dont think there would have been a clear intention to kill or commit GBH).

Still think this is a slam dunk on manslaugther though surely? and it must be aggravated so would be a toppy sentence on the scale? 

I wouldn’t want to be black in the USA. fook getting shot during a simple traffic stop. 
 

There, fixed it for you

I vaguely recall seeing stats that showed you were more likely to get capped by a cop on a per capita basis in the USA if you are white. I think what it demonstrates is that they should take guns away from the police and stop employing so many fooking nutters  

I think it comes down to lots of guns being in circulation, lots of untreated mentally ill people, and a more violent culture in general. There is also no concept of policing by consent with the police being imposed on society in the wild west model of strong arm lawmen. 

Then the police officers are not well trained, as a result of there being so many small departments which are run more or less as personal fifedoms. Sheriffs etc are elected which encourges them to be popularist and high profile. Strong police unions are also an issue making it difficult to fire dodgy cops. There also seems to be no national police database so someone sacked in one state can then go to another state (or maybe even town) and be employed as a cop even though they were dismissed beacuse of serious concerns at another department. 

there’s a whole genre on you tube of us cop dashcam footage of regular traffic stops which turn into shootouts - fvcking terrifying. 
from what I can see a murder charge will be hard to get to stick to chauvin but only a murder conviction will do for a lot of folk invested in this. 

"The poor response from the paramedics will be hammed up too - "it was actually the paramedics who killed him with their slovenly and lazy response" 

Are we just ignoring the kneeling while Floyd seized for nearly a minute, and for nearly 4 more minutes after Floyd became non-responsive and the other officer couldn't find a pulse? I imagine the reason even the defence haven't mentioned the paramedics (at least, no so far) is because that would only direct more focus on the fact that, by the time they arrived, he had been seizing for nearly 1 minute, and been without a pulse for nearly 4 minutes. 

Is there an equivalent to English law gross negligence manslaughter? That’s what this looks like (from my armchair) and carrying a 20 year sentence. 

Cru - the narrative goes "we had reasonable grounds to fear he was dangerous, once he was safe we called the medics. If they'd got their act together he might have made it."

If you had spent the day being shot at and lied to by people, and you then have to get right close to someone who might have the ability to kill you, are you going to say you'd err on the side of him being able to get up and kill you? If he's known to be on drugs (and so unpredictable), and in a place where firearms are freely available?

This is what they will be saying to the jury.

Clearly he should never have been killed, but the reasons why he was killed go much deeper than the actions of Lloyd or the policemen.

That they put his life at a lower priority that their own is clear. What is their duty of care to him? Some kind of unlawful killing seems likely, but intent to kill?

Did any of the officers know Floyd before this incident? I understand he had a criminal record but only 1 previous violent offence - a domestic of some kind. 

If they did know him then they could spin a yarn about how he'd previously been difficult during arrests and that he was known to use violence. 

As Cam said he clearly shouldn't have been killed and kneeling on someone's neck seems like a very dangerous method of restraint - it shouldn't be approved by the police department at all should it? 

If I were the defence, I'd probably avoid to much on the victim and look at what else they'd done that day. If they'd arrested someone who then tried to escape after a shorter hold, or had pulled a gun on them etc etc, then that would be what I'd be bringing up, and/or what had recently happened to their colleagues.

It all comes back to the high level of guns though doesn't it? It's far too easy to kill someone with a gun. (Yes, there are lots of stabbings, but you don't have the sheer level of fatalities per incident). How on earth you make a split-second decision as to when it is "safe" to release someone who *could* turn around and kill you is the fundamental problem. Drugs/poverty/poor training/racism etc really don't help, but the ability to kill in a split second is the intensifying factor IMO

If you had spent the day being shot at and lied to by people, and you then have to get right close to someone who might have the ability to kill you, are you going to say you'd err on the side of him being able to get up and kill you?

he had already been searched and was handcuffed - what would the officer think he was going to do?

How on earth you make a split-second decision as to when it is "safe" to release someone who *could* turn around and kill you is the fundamental problem.

well the officer here made his “split second” decision for a full eight minutes and 46 seconds

i appreciate cam you are just theorising on a potential defence strategy but you are arguing hypotheticals that did not happen and tbh are starting to sound like an apologist for police violence

Chill - rather than accusing him, just ask him - on the facts as you currently have them, what is your gut?

Mine: Manslaugther - slam dunk.

Sentence: 15 - 20 - aggravating factors being the manner of restraint, the period of time to provide assistance etc.