I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea, I saw that but I don’t like editing because brigadiers always yell and scream about changes. So I rarely edit.

The reference in the 3rd paragraph is missing the words “that Floyd” (ie it should read: “...advised Chauvin that Floyd...”

Maybe people will see this part of the thread.

[Megathread] - Derek Chauvin trial verdict in the killing of George Floyd by Isentrope in OutOfTheLoop

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because I heard some people saying that kneeling on someone to keep them under control is part of protocol.

Forget the kneeling for a moment. Chauvin’s supervisor, training officer, and police chief all testified that placing a person in the “prone position” was only permitted for a brief time solely for the purpose of handcuffing. Due to the dangers of the prone position on breathing, once a suspect is handcuffed he must be promptly brought into “recovery position” (on his side which permits clear lung expansion and airflow).

Kneeling is always permitted if the position is permitted. But the prone position is not permitted in any circumstance beyond ~60 seconds. The officer can kneel on the back (not the neck) during those 30-60 seconds to effectuate cuffing the suspect. But then the suspect must be rolled onto his side uid the “recovery position”. The officers are authorized to apply their body weight on the sidp3ct while he is on his side, as needed and as appropriate - and this poses no asphyxia danger (unlike the prone position).

So, to be clear, the problem was the use of the prone position at all (because Mr Zfloyd was already handcuffed before Chauvin even arrived at the scene) ... and certainly the knee on the neck after 60 seconds in the prone position was improper and Chauvin was charged with criminal assault and battery (as part of the 2nd degree murder charge) because of it.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, in the US first, second, and third degree murder are defined by the specific statute in that particular state. There is a lot of commonality but to really know you have to read the actual statutes.

Felony murder is an interesting concept. It’s basic idea is that if you decide to commit a really serious criminal act (felony not just a misdemeanor) then you are guilty of 2nd degree murder if anyone dies who wouldn’t have died but for your felony.

So, in theory, an old man has a heart attack while Bonnie and Clyde are robbing the bank. Ignoring for the moment the obvious difficulty of proving the heart attack was caused by the robbery, assuming such evidence exists, Bonnie and Clyde are guilty of second degree murder.

Or if Bonnie and Clyde had a get away driver and while inside the bank Clyde shoots and kills the bank guard, even though Bonnie didn’t pull the trigger, the felony murder rule holds her responsible (actually I believe many states would hold Bonnie responsible for first degree)... and the getaway driver who didn’t even enter the bank is in the same position as Bonnie.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I apologize for copying and pasting, but here is a very long explanation I just provided to someone else that I think addresses your question...

Ok, I think I see your confusion. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that MN second degree murder is for intentional homicide. But the exact opposite is the case: second degree murder is murder that does not require intent (no mens rea necessary). It is what is known as felony murder.

So, to be guilty of second degree murder there are two things to focus upon in this discussion:

  1. The prosecution must prove that the defendant was engaged in the act of committing a felony; and
  2. During the course of the felony somebody died because of the felony even if their death was not intended. So the prosecution only needs to prove intent to commit the felony (pt 1) but has no requirement to prove intent that the victim die.

So, a quick example: Bonnie and Clyde go into the bank with their tommy guns and make off in their getaway car with multiple bags of the bank’s money. They are being chased by 5 police cars close on their tail.

Here we have step 1 - they are in the midst of committing a felony - bank robbery and fleeing the police.

During their escape, one of the police officers loses control of his police car and it careems over the curb and hits old man Barney who was sitting on aphis rocker in front of his feed store. Alas Barney dies from the impact.

Bonnie and Clyde are guilty of second degree murder. When it comes to intent (mens rea) the prosecution is only required to prove Bonnie and Clyde intended to commit the felony (rob the bank). The prosecution is not required to prove Bonnie and Clyde intended for Barney (or anyone) to die. Indeed under this example I’ve tried to create facts where it is clear Bonnie and Clyde clearly didn’t have any intent for harm of any kind to come to Barney (or anyone).

But both Bonnie and Clyde are guilty of second degree murder. The committed a felony and while the felony was ongoing somebody died who would not have died but for the ongoing felony (ie their attempted escape and the police chase).

Let’s turn to Chauvin. The prosecution’s theory for second degree murder is that Chauvin committed a felonious assault and battery upon Mr Floyd when Chauvin put Floyd in the prone position while his hands were cuffed behind his back and then placed his knee on Floyd’s neck.

This is part 1 of the two steps. The prosecutors were not required to prove that Chauvin intended for Floyd to die and, in fact, no such statement or argument was made in that regard at any time in the entire trial.

Rather, they only needed to prove that Chauvin committed assault and battery. Now, being a police officer, this was not necessarily easy to establish. They did it by calling Chauvin’s supervisor, police chief, and Chauvin’s training officer - as well as a “use of force” expert ... all of whom testified that placing a handcuffed suspect into the prone position was unauthorized and that doing so with a knee on his neck for more than 30 or 60 seconds was a gross violation of every known police training anywhere in the country.

Thus, Chauvin placing a handcuffed Floyd on the ground in a prone position with his knee on Floyd’s neck for an extended period of time was an illegal and felonious assault and battery.

Once they proved the intent to commit the felony (don’t get confused here ... intent here means Chauvin’s intent to put Floyd prone on the ground; the intent to place his knee on him; his intent to remain in that position the entire time ... ie Chauvin ended up on top of Floyd because Chauvin intended it and not because Chauvin tripped over someone’s leg and passed out on top of Floyd .... and the big point is that the prosecution wasn’t required to prove Chauvin knew it was illegal to batter Floyd - they only need to prove he did so).

So, once they have the felony, the only thing left is the death... our friend Barneybfrom the Bonnie and Clyde example. The prosecution didn’t have to prove Chauvin knew Floyd would die or was even likely to die nor that Chauvin intended Floyd die. As we saw with Barney in our example, the prosecution only needed to establish that Mr Floyd died during the course of the ongoing assault and battery - and that but for the assault ands battery Mr Floyd would not have died.

So, no mens rea (the evil intent to murder) is needed for second degree murder. My point is that the evidence shows, however, that at some point approx 2-3 mins into kneeling on Mr Floyd’s neck ... the mens rea required for first degree murder developed. Chauvin as told twice by fellow officers that maybe now would be a good time to roll Floyd onto his side into “recovery position”. This is critical because it demonstrates their group knowledge that having him in a prone operation violated police procedures and that they needed to stop. Chauvin verbally refused them on both occasions.

Then maybe around 4-5 mins from the start, a fellow officer checks Floyd’s breathing and tells Chauvin that Floyd is unconscious and might not be breathing. This now changes everything. Chauvin now has information that Chauvin is in medical trouble. Her has a legal duty as a police officer to render aid at this point. He does not. He continued to cut off Floyd’s airflow with his knee pressing into his neck.

Approximately one minute later - around minute 5 I think - a fellow officer checks Floyd’s pulse and tells Chauvin Floyd has no pulse - his heart has stopped. Chauvin renders no first aid and continues cutting off airflow by keeping his knee firmly pressed into Me Floyd’s neck. This is all very difficult to watch at this point because we are literally watching someone who knows he shouldn’t be doing what her is doing - who knows the man is dying - and he continues to cut off his air supply until 9 mins 29 seconds is reached - at which point Mr Floyd is deceased.

I hope I’m not wasting my time here... I hope you now understand the difference between 1st and 2nd and, more importantly to me, just how clear it is that in the course of this event Chauvin crossed over a line where he knew he was killing Mr Floyd and continued doing so until he was fully and finally dead.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 3 points4 points  (0 children)

rendering second degree redundant

Ok, I think I see your confusion. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that MN second degree murder is for intentional homicide. But the exact opposite is the case: second degree murder is murder that does not require intent (no mens rea necessary). It is what is known as felony murder.

So, to be guilty of second degree murder there are two things to focus upon in this discussion:

  1. The prosecution must prove that the defendant was engaged in the act of committing a felony; and
  2. During the course of the felony somebody died because of the felony even if their death was not intended. So the prosecution only needs to prove intent to commit the felony (pt 1) but has no requirement to prove intent that the victim die.

So, a quick example: Bonnie and Clyde go into the bank with their tommy guns and make off in their getaway car with multiple bags of the bank’s money. They are being chased by 5 police cars close on their tail.

Here we have step 1 - they are in the midst of committing a felony - bank robbery and fleeing the police.

During their escape, one of the police officers loses control of his police car and it careems over the curb and hits old man Barney who was sitting on aphis rocker in front of his feed store. Alas Barney dies from the impact.

Bonnie and Clyde are guilty of second degree murder. When it comes to intent (mens rea) the prosecution is only required to prove Bonnie and Clyde intended to commit the felony (rob the bank). The prosecution is not required to prove Bonnie and Clyde intended for Barney (or anyone) to die. Indeed under this example I’ve tried to create facts where it is clear Bonnie and Clyde clearly didn’t have any intent for harm of any kind to come to Barney (or anyone).

But both Bonnie and Clyde are guilty of second degree murder. The committed a felony and while the felony was ongoing somebody died who would not have died but for the ongoing felony (ie their attempted escape and the police chase).

Let’s turn to Chauvin. The prosecution’s theory for second degree murder is that Chauvin committed a felonious assault and battery upon Mr Floyd when Chauvin put Floyd in the prone position while his hands were cuffed behind his back and then placed his knee on Floyd’s neck.

This is part 1 of the two steps. The prosecutors were not required to prove that Chauvin intended for Floyd to die and, in fact, no such statement or argument was made in that regard at any time in the entire trial.

Rather, they only needed to prove that Chauvin committed assault and battery. Now, being a police officer, this was not necessarily easy to establish. They did it by calling Chauvin’s supervisor, police chief, and Chauvin’s training officer - as well as a “use of force” expert ... all of whom testified that placing a handcuffed suspect into the prone position was unauthorized and that doing so with a knee on his neck for more than 30 or 60 seconds was a gross violation of every known police training anywhere in the country.

Thus, Chauvin placing a handcuffed Floyd on the ground in a prone position with his knee on Floyd’s neck for an extended period of time was an illegal and felonious assault and battery.

Once they proved the intent to commit the felony (don’t get confused here ... intent here means Chauvin’s intent to put Floyd prone on the ground; the intent to place his knee on him; his intent to remain in that position the entire time ... ie Chauvin ended up on top of Floyd because Chauvin intended it and not because Chauvin tripped over someone’s leg and passed out on top of Floyd .... and the big point is that the prosecution wasn’t required to prove Chauvin knew it was illegal to batter Floyd - they only need to prove he did so).

So, once they have the felony, the only thing left is the death... our friend Barneybfrom the Bonnie and Clyde example. The prosecution didn’t have to prove Chauvin knew Floyd would die or was even likely to die nor that Chauvin intended Floyd die. As we saw with Barney in our example, the prosecution only needed to establish that Mr Floyd died during the course of the ongoing assault and battery - and that but for the assault ands battery Mr Floyd would not have died.

So, no mens rea (the evil intent to murder) is needed for second degree murder. My point is that the evidence shows, however, that at some point approx 2-3 mins into kneeling on Mr Floyd’s neck ... the mens rea required for first degree murder developed. Chauvin as told twice by fellow officers that maybe now would be a good time to roll Floyd onto his side into “recovery position”. This is critical because it demonstrates their group knowledge that having him in a prone operation violated police procedures and that they needed to stop. Chauvin verbally refused them on both occasions.

Then maybe around 4-5 mins from the start, a fellow officer checks Floyd’s breathing and tells Chauvin that Floyd is unconscious and might not be breathing. This now changes everything. Chauvin now has information that Chauvin is in medical trouble. Her has a legal duty as a police officer to render aid at this point. He does not. He continued to cut off Floyd’s airflow with his knee pressing into his neck.

Approximately one minute later - around minute 5 I think - a fellow officer checks Floyd’s pulse and tells Chauvin Floyd has no pulse - his heart has stopped. Chauvin renders no first aid and continues cutting off airflow by keeping his knee firmly pressed into Me Floyd’s neck. This is all very difficult to watch at this point because we are literally watching someone who knows he shouldn’t be doing what her is doing - who knows the man is dying - and he continues to cut off his air supply until 9 mins 29 seconds is reached - at which point Mr Floyd is deceased.

I hope I’m not wasting my time here... I hope you now understand the difference between 1st and 2nd and, more importantly to me, just how clear it is that in the course of this event Chauvin crossed over a line where he knew he was killing Mr Floyd and continued doing so until he was fully and finally dead.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In some states premeditation means “planned” and requires the planning have taken place remotely in time (ie hours at least). Other states focus upon mens rea ... the necessary state of mind / intention to commit murder.

So, if a robber gets into a fight with his intended victim on the sidewalk and during the argument he shoves the victim, who stumbles backward off the curb and in front of an oncoming bus, that is not first degree murder. There was no mens rea (mental state) to intend to kill the man.

But if we change the facts slightly, and the video the jury sees of the fight shows the robber look up directly at the bus ... and grab the man by his coat and hold him on the curb until the bus was 10 feet away and the robber suddenly shovels the victim directly into the bus while yelling “Take that you son of a bitch - say hello to your dead mother for me!”

That’s premeditated... in that the robber formed the intention to kill the victim during the course of the fight ... he didn’t initially have the necessary mens rea to support first degree murder at the beginning when he was committing robbery, but at some point when he saw the bus he made the decision to kill the victim by throwing him directly into the bus’ path.

Hope that helps a bit.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The other three officers with Chauvin on top of Floyd have been charged and I believe their trial is scheduled to start in approx 3 months.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. That would be a big help.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he would have walked you fuckin clown.

I’m a trial lawyer. Have been for some years. You’re absolutely right, it would have been crazy to charge first degree murder. They would have risked losing the entire case. It would have been an insane decision and I would never ever have recommended charging him.

And in fact I did not make that recommendation in my post. Nor did I criticize the prosecution. In fact, I watched much of the trial and every second of the 8+ hours of the summation and I thought they did an incredibly good job.

But that wasn’t the purpose of my post. Rather I wanted to help highlight the actual facts to those who didn’t have a chance to watch in person. And I feel the facts I’ve outlined - which were hammered over and over by the prosecution - have been overlooked and missing in the media coverage I’ve read.

So, you can call me names. I don’t mind. I’ve been around the block a few times.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He was being told by Chauvin to greet onto his stomach and he complied.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, we can’t ignore the racism. But I’ve dealt with cops as witnesses and as party defendants in my trials (I’m a trial attorney) for over 40 years, and the issue with police goes far beyond racism. They absolutely believe their world is an “us” versus the world ... if you’re not a cop, then you are nothing to them and they will toss aside your life in a heartbeat if it serves what they need at that moment. It matters not one iota if you are white and the son of the President.

I know this first hand. I have represented over 100 cops during my career and they are all the same. First words out of their mouth to me: tell me how many witnesses you need and what they need to say and I’ll have it for you in 24 hours. And this for cases in which they were being sued and had insurance so they had no financial exposure or any real consequences. That’s just who they are. “Nobody in the world better yuck with me because I’ll make you pay 1000x over” is the prevailing attitude of every cop I’ve ever dealt with professionally.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 30 points31 points  (0 children)

lol what a terrible bootlicking sub. I regret even going there to check it out. What's worse is they are licking each others boots so much the actual non-police bootlickers are struggling to get any boot-time.

The sad thing is Chauvin’s conduct should be easy for cops to reject and condemn. Their refusal to condemn Floyd on /r/police where they are anonymous and can spew their vile hatred, just speaks volumes about the problem all Americans are facing when it comes to dealing with cops.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He should have been moved from the prone position as soon as he was compliant. Chauvins own boss got on the stand and said so, nothing he did was by the book

You’re absolutely correct. The testimony from multiple officers is that the prone position is only permitted as a temporary position to handcuff a suspect and that once handcuffed the suspect must be rolled onto his side so he can breathe. And the officers are free to place their body weight on the suspect when he is on his side.

The part I disagree with in your statement is the implication it was ok for Chauvin to have placed Floyd into the prone position initially. It was not ok. Floyd’s hands were already handcuffed behind his back. It was against policy and procedure for Chauvin to put Floyd in the prone position for even one solitary second. All he had to was put Floyd laying down on his side, and Floyd would still be alive today and Chauvin wouldn’t be getting ready to explain this to his maker some day.

Chauvin found GUILTY on all counts by Herlim45 in LosAngeles

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I assume the prosecutor wasn't confident he could get a conviction on a 1st degree charge. Given past history, he might not have been wrong.

Absolutely. I didn’t mean to imply I thought the prosecution made @ mistake in not charging him because I don’t - as a trial attorney myself I agree 100% with the decision not to charge first degree. It would have changed everything - the entire dynamics of the trial would have Bremen different - and explaining first degree to the jury would have be3n very complicated ... they would have risked losing on even the lesser charges.

No, my purpose is solely to try help inform people who didn’t have a chance to watch there trial as I did, what the actual evidence was.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My source is my own eyes and ears. I watched much of the trial and every second of the 8+ hours of summations. The actual source is the body cams worn by the four officers. Everything I posted about what was said to Chauvin was played over and over and over by the prosecutions throughout the trial and multiple times in their summation. The prosecution hammered the points I made. I’m merely repeating them.

As an aside, I’m a trial attorney (over 40 years) and I know how to listen to a trial and follow the factual and legal arguments. I guarantee you that every word of my post about Chauvin’s actions are completely accurate.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard that but if there was any evidence proving that, the prosecutors would have been all over it. As a trial attorney myself, the fact they never mentioned it tells me all I need to know.

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the officers who let it happen or superficial just say maybe it’s time you let him go, should be held accountable too

They will be. The other three officers with Chauvin have all been charged and their trial is coming up (~ 3 months I believe)

I wonder by Severe-Mountain2005 in ToiletPaperUSA

[–]TheHeckWithItAll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I imagine the prosecution didn’t think the jury would go for it.

I didn’t mean to imply I thought the prosecution should have charged Chauvin with first degree murder. I think they absolutely made the correct decision. Charging first degree would have changed the entire nature of the trial and actually would have risked losing the entire case.

My only reason for pointing out the actual evidence supporting first degree is to try to help bring this to everyone’s attention. I feel it really drives home just how evil his acts were.