Chauvin Murder Trial

[Reforged]

There is room for debate on how much the disproportionate and somewhat unprofessional response of a botched take-down outweighed the risk of a large man demonstrably on drugs with a history of armed violence against a pregnant woman.

What is clear and somewhat harder to debate is the intent. Chauvin did not wake up that morning intending to kill anyone and there is no evidence he ever intended to kill anyone in his life. This is grounds for manslaughter, third degree murder at most.
If you disagree with this you must demonstrate he is guilty of intending to murder Floyd as opposed to gross incompetence in the carrying out of his duty.

It wasn't merely "botched", it was intentional. It isn't a matter of Chauvin waking up hours before to begin his shift and say" I get to kill someone today". It was however intentional that he had the mindset of "I am a cop, obey me."

A mindset? Is that what hes in prison for?
Don't be purposefully vague. Say what you mean.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There is room for debate on how much the disproportionate and somewhat unprofessional response of a botched take-down outweighed the risk of a large man demonstrably on drugs with a history of armed violence against a pregnant woman.

There isn't much of a debate. His actions were excessive and not just unprofessional they were criminally negligent, And comparing a group of armed police officers to one unarmed woman (who there is no evidence was pregnant) simply doesn't work.

[Reforged]

There is room for debate on how much the disproportionate and somewhat unprofessional response of a botched take-down outweighed the risk of a large man demonstrably on drugs with a history of armed violence against a pregnant woman.

There isn't much of a debate. His actions were excessive and not just unprofessional they were criminally negligent, And comparing a group of armed police officers to one unarmed woman (who there is no evidence was pregnant) simply doesn't work.

So say you, others would disagree. I am not here to debate for them, merely stating they would debate. 
Also I think that a willingness to physically abuse a pregnant woman when you outnumber her six to one demonstrates at the very least a willingness to do very violent and unpleasant things.
Whether you like it or not that is a part of his history and would have been a factor in the cops minds. Dismiss that when debating someone who cares at your peril.

[Brian37]

There is room for debate on how much the disproportionate and somewhat unprofessional response of a botched take-down outweighed the risk of a large man demonstrably on drugs with a history of armed violence against a pregnant woman.

There isn't much of a debate. His actions were excessive and not just unprofessional they were criminally negligent, And comparing a group of armed police officers to one unarmed woman (who there is no evidence was pregnant) simply doesn't work.

I agree. If one takes a job of public trust, but not just of public trust, one where your duty is protect and serve, and you do what he did, to me, that is no different than a doctor that kills you, not in an "assisted suicide" or "DNR" when they don't give you concent, but when you kill them because "I am a cop".  Chauvin was on a power trip.

[The Grand Nudger]

There isn't much of a debate. His actions were excessive and not just unprofessional they were criminally negligent, And comparing a group of armed police officers to one unarmed woman (who there is no evidence was pregnant) simply doesn't work.

So say you, others would disagree. I am not here to debate for them, merely stating they would debate. 
Also I think that a willingness to physically abuse a pregnant woman when you outnumber her six to one demonstrates at the very least a willingness to do very violent and unpleasant things.
Whether you like it or not that is a part of his history and would have been a factor in the cops minds. Dismiss that when debating someone who cares at your peril.

Floyd wasn't on trial, he died in the street an innocent man at the hands of a police officer while fully restrained.  Chauvin was, for causing the death of a man through extreme recklessness while committing assault.

Personally, I think they could have got him for murder int he first but perhaps the prosecutor knows better, eh, and judging by some of the responses just on these boards....well. If there are people willing to accept that he did exactly what he was charged with and still believe that he was innocent of the charges, then there wouldn't be much point in going for a greater charge no matter what the evidence suggested.

[Reforged]

So say you, others would disagree. I am not here to debate for them, merely stating they would debate. 
Also I think that a willingness to physically abuse a pregnant woman when you outnumber her six to one demonstrates at the very least a willingness to do very violent and unpleasant things.
Whether you like it or not that is a part of his history and would have been a factor in the cops minds. Dismiss that when debating someone who cares at your peril.

Floyd wasn't on trial, he died in the street an innocent man at the hands of a police officer while fully restrained.  Chauvin was, for causing the death of a man through extreme recklessness while committing assault.

Personally, I think they could have got him for murder int he first but perhaps the prosecutor knows better, eh, and judging by some of the responses just on these boards....well.  If there are people willing to accept that he did exactly what he was charged with and still believe that he was innocent of the charges, then there wouldn't be much point in going for a greater charge no matter what the evidence suggested.

I wasn't saying he was. I was saying his violent past would have contributed to the disproportionate response and that this should not be discounted.
All factors need to be considered when deciding the degree guilt. We can dislike the act, we can dislike the person but the reaction must be proportionate to the circumstances and what we know of both men.

They weren't initially going to press for second, I don't think they thought they could get it at first and given the wiggle room afforded to the defense by the circumstances I can't say I blame them. 
Public opinion definitely played a role. The jury and witnesses were not sequestered, public officials were dishing out guilt like it was in fashion and the use of force experts old house was smeared in pigs blood and had a pigs head laid outside it. 

Regardless of whether it was the right verdict or not this was a horrendously tainted trial. We can definitely expect a retrial at some point when things cool down. I imagine the defense probably knew that, infact the judge told him as much at one point.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There isn't much of a debate. His actions were excessive and not just unprofessional they were criminally negligent, And comparing a group of armed police officers to one unarmed woman (who there is no evidence was pregnant) simply doesn't work.

So say you, others would disagree. I am not here to debate for them, merely stating they would debate. 
Also I think that a willingness to physically abuse a pregnant woman when you outnumber her six to one demonstrates at the very least a willingness to do very violent and unpleasant things.
Whether you like it or not that is a part of his history and would have been a factor in the cops minds. Dismiss that when debating someone who cares at your peril.

Yes says me and apparently the justice system, And some people would debate me over the shape of the earth it's irrelevant, Furthermore, the willingness to do unpleasant things is neither here nor there when we're comparing a group of armed cops to an unarmed woman (Who there no evidence was pregnant) is simply off, And his history is not a factor in this scenario, And I will dismiss it because it's worthy of dismissal regardless of whether someone else cares or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Floyd wasn't on trial, he died in the street an innocent man at the hands of a police officer while fully restrained.  Chauvin was, for causing the death of a man through extreme recklessness while committing assault.

Personally, I think they could have got him for murder int he first but perhaps the prosecutor knows better, eh, and judging by some of the responses just on these boards....well.  If there are people willing to accept that he did exactly what he was charged with and still believe that he was innocent of the charges, then there wouldn't be much point in going for a greater charge no matter what the evidence suggested.

I wasn't saying he was. I was saying his violent past would have contributed to the disproportionate response and that this should not be discounted.
All factors need to be considered when deciding the degree guilt. We can dislike the act, we can dislike the person but the reaction must be proportionate to the circumstances and what we know of both men.

They weren't initially going to press for second, I don't think they thought they could get it at first and given the wiggle room afforded to the defense by the circumstances I can't say I blame them. 
Public opinion definitely played a role. The jury and witnesses were not sequestered, public officials were dishing out guilt like it was in fashion and the use of force experts old house was smeared in pigs blood and had a pigs head laid outside it. 

Regardless of whether it was the right verdict or not this was a horrendously tainted trial. We can definitely expect a retrial at some point when things cool down. I imagine the defense probably knew that, infact the judge told him as much at one point.

It did, and they were pretty damned brutal in restraining him.  Chauvin committed the crime for which he was charged and convicted -after- Floyd was fully restrained. Public opinion and tainted juries played absolutely no role in what chauvin did, for ten minutes, on video, in front of everyone's lying eyes. He committed the crimes for which he was charged and convicted -at least. IMO, it was more than that, but hey, whatevs, it's nice when the bad man does the bad shit on tape, right? You think that being a bad guy needs to be counted in when it comes to floyd...fine, same with chauvin.

He was committing assault, and through his extreme recklessness, caused a mans death. Those were the charges, that was the conviction. If you want to insist that taint played a part in convicting him for exactly what he did on camera, you could at least explain how, rather than waving at some boogeyman. I'm a friendly audience for it - I'm pretty much always critical of law enforcement and convictions. I'm even critical of this one, though not for any of the reasons bouncing around on social media. I think his buddies in blue fed him to the wolves to save their own asses. That, ofc, has no bearing on what he did...on tape........to a fully restrained man...who died.

[Reforged]

So say you, others would disagree. I am not here to debate for them, merely stating they would debate. 
Also I think that a willingness to physically abuse a pregnant woman when you outnumber her six to one demonstrates at the very least a willingness to do very violent and unpleasant things.
Whether you like it or not that is a part of his history and would have been a factor in the cops minds. Dismiss that when debating someone who cares at your peril.

Yes says me and apparently the justice system, And some people would debate me over the shape of the earth it's irrelevant, Furthermore, the willingness to do unpleasant things is neither here nor there when we're comparing a group of armed cops to an unarmed woman (Who there no evidence was pregnant) is simply off, And his history is not a factor in this scenario, And I will dismiss it because it's worthy of dismissal regardless of whether someone else cares or not.

Oh she wasn't pregnant? It was just a regular woman him and his gang threatened with a firearm? In that case fair enough, she had it coming.
No history of violence for cops to be wary of here.

Like I said, I'm not invested in any side but if you want me to take you seriously you need to stop dismissing relevant evidence out of hand. 
Chauvin killed him, whether it was murder is not as clear cut as you would like. Sorry.

[Brian37]

So say you, others would disagree. I am not here to debate for them, merely stating they would debate. 
Also I think that a willingness to physically abuse a pregnant woman when you outnumber her six to one demonstrates at the very least a willingness to do very violent and unpleasant things.
Whether you like it or not that is a part of his history and would have been a factor in the cops minds. Dismiss that when debating someone who cares at your peril.

Floyd wasn't on trial, he died in the street an innocent man at the hands of a police officer while fully restrained.  Chauvin was, for causing the death of a man through extreme recklessness while committing assault.

Personally, I think they could have got him for murder int he first but perhaps the prosecutor knows better, eh, and judging by some of the responses just on these boards....well.  If there are people willing to accept that he did exactly what he was charged with and still believe that he was innocent of the charges, then there wouldn't be much point in going for a greater charge no matter what the evidence suggested.

It doesn't matter what the call was. It is still legal to call police when you think something is illegal or dangerously wrong. The problem is that far too much of police response is to assume you are facing Hitler or Stalin. George Floyd was not a perfect human. I am not a perfect human. But it should not matter to law when they show up if someone is flawed. Floyd died over a minor infraction.