Derek Chauvin stabbed by inmate in federal prison, seriously injured

Floyd denied he was on drugs. Chauvin was only there for the final restraint where such a suspect how refuses to comply and has thrown himself onto the ground and has been injuring himself in those struggles is meant to be kept. But he was dead man standing before that, was going into that pulmonary failure back at the first vehicle when they first called the EMT's.

 

False they were concerned with his injury to himself and to the officers as he continued to struggle even after he had briefly stopped only to start again. They were NOT going to try and move him around anymore to give him that change and were correctly using the MRT training they had been given. But Floyd was a DEAD MAN before that.

 

I've watched the tape where the rookie states they should roll him on his side because of training.

I've seen the trial where the training they were given was explained by their superior officer.

You're citing out of court statements offered for their truth: That is the definition of hearsay.

See ME report, they did indeed significantly contribute to his death.

 

And what does Floyd's denial have to do with the price of butter?
CHAUVIN admits ON TAPE he knew Floyd was on drugs in the aftermath of the incident. A witness walks up to him, and calls him a murderer. Chauvin responds he had to do what he did because Floyd was on drugs and therefore unpredictable. His partner? During the incident mocks the crowd and Floyd with "this is why we don't do drugs kids" to which Chauvin sagely nods and snickers.

The final restraint, which he was trained not to put that kind of suspect in because just what occurred might happen. Reckless. Homicide.

 

They didn't have to move him around. He simply needed to be rolled on his side and his legs and head held. As per the training they were given which was testified to at trial.

If you're bleeding out through the guts, and I walk up and shoot you in the head, I committed murder whether or not you were soon to be a dead man either way.

 

Failing to support what conclusion? That murder 2 is what he was given and that doesn't require him to plan it?

LOL ok bud.

He was stabbed in jail because he's 1) high profile and 2) a cop. Being a cop in lock up is like being a chomo.

Media masters? I watched the trial dude, I'm talking about the COURT'S DECISION and the actual evidence offered at trial. What the **** are you talking about?
I'm not selling you ****, you don't have to buy it, its a fact.

 

Court's decision shouldn't be a gold standard. Court's can be wrong and it's increasingly an issue now.

 

I didn't say it was the gold standard friend. Quote me otherwise if you disagree.

You attributed my decision to my "media masters", which is silly. I'm pointing out I based my opinion on the evidence adduced at trial, including that offered by the defense. Based on what was admitted, its an open and shut murder 2 case. Which is what the dude caught.
It has nothing to do with the media, and everything to do with the evidence.

 

That's in your opinion. Your reasoning for that, as explained in this thread, mostly seems weak and absurd to me.

Seems the thrust of your argument is Chauvin knew Floyd was on drugs, therefore when Chauvin put him in the chokehold it was murder.

 

That's actually the law, not my opinion. You can say that in your opinion you think the law is absurd, but it IS the law.

See, I know you're not reading because you're missing the key element. Let me try emphasizing what you missed, maybe that will help: BECAUSE CHAUVIN WAS TRAINED NOT TO DO THAT RESTRAINT ON A PERSON HE KNEW OR SUSPECTED TO BE ON DRUGS BUT DID IT ANYWAY, HE WAS OUTSIDE COURSE AND SCOPE AND THEREFORE COMMITTED A CRIME WHEN HE APPLIED THAT FORCE. A MAN DIED THEREBY, HENCE HE CAUGHT A MURDER CHARGE. CAN YOU READ IT NOW?

Additionally: Not a chokehold. No one said chokehold. The restraint position of hands cuffed behind your back and flat on your chest is the issue, with a suspect who is high on narcotics.

Further: You've never answered the question of whether or not you actually watched the entire trial itself and therefore viewed the evidence and motions of the parties.
Do answer that question.

 

It seems more like a technical point, rather than a moral or independently logical argument. Yes, many things in many unanticipated unique situations could be construed as "illegal" under the law, according to literal interpretation. That doesn't mean they should.

I think that's still kind of a weak argument.
Maybe it would be stronger in some other cases, but not as much in this one.

Are you saying if Chauvin didn't have reason to suspect Floyd was likely on drugs, it wouldn't have been murder?

 

You do understand that the law is a series of rules and technicalities, and that if you end up on the wrong side of one you end up in the pokey..... right?

Had Chauvin simply rolled Floyd on his side, as per his training, and Floyd had stroked out, guess what? No crime. Since he violated his training, acted outside course and scope in the application of force he'd been trained counted as deadly for this sort of suspect (a doper), and that act was a significant contributory factor in the death (see ME report and testimony) that means he TECHNICALLY committed a crime.
Which means he TECHNICALLY goes to prison for it.

The law is not about morality.

Here you've declined to answer, yet again. One might almost expect you do so because the answer is that you didn't watch the trial, and haven't seen the evidence.

 

That is not how it should work. Always holding a 100% literal and strict interpretation of the law in all situations would be unfair and evil. The law can be abused that way.

The way I see it, the real question is how much of the blame and culpability should be on Chauvin. Should he have known better, and if so, how obvious should it have been to him?
Is it fair to have expected Chauvin to foresee the death?

And what about mitigating factors? Even if we do say it was a mistake, how easy was it to commit a mistake in that situation?

It seems you want to hold Chauvin responsible for errors in executing proper training.

I see a disconnect there. I don't think you can or should do that.

I DO NOT find it logical to say that because he did not follow his training exactly, and that led to a death, that that automatically means he is 100%, or even mostly, legally responsible for that death.

This isn't the black and white thing you're trying to make it out to be.

The real question, as I see it, is what was the level of reasonableness of the decision Chauvin made in that moment? (Not taking plenty of time to think about it after the fact, and not basing whether it was a mistake on what ended up happening)

 

A literal and strict interpretation of the law is the only way to have it. Otherwise, a judge's bias or a prosecutor's bias infiltrates the system. Its bad enough as it is, you're trying to change the one non moving part in the system to something unclear and nebulous. Ambiguous even. Ambiguous laws are unconstitutional, void for vagueness.
He did the thing we proclaim is murder. He is being punished the way we punish such persons. What is unfair or evil about it? What has been abused about it? BE SPECIFIC.

He had training that let him know. So if I tell you that something is likely to kill someone, and you do it anyway, are you culpable for reckless homicide? Absolutely you are.
Protip: Follow your training on use of force, and don't exceed your course and scope.

He has the exact amount of blame and culpability as any other person. That is fair and equal treatment.

Still further: You STILL haven't affirmed you viewed the trial, and its associated testimony and presentation of evidence.
DID you watch the trial or not? Yes or no.

 

Projection. No it didn't at all what you claimed was wrong.

 

It's more complicated than that.

Lots of laws can be rather vague and open to plenty of interpretation.

Look up Baher Mohamed, an Egyptian producer who was with a Canadian and Australian journalist, who was sentenced by a corrupt court in Egypt for having a spent shell casing, which he had picked up from the ground as a souvenir, despite spent shell casings being all over the ground in Cairo at that time from a conflict.

 

You align with what you want to hear. Every expert witness held their ground just find. Nothing you heard was contradictory

Given his health he absolutely had more than enough be fatal. It wasn't an outlier at all. This is exactly why he couldn't breathe and this was while sitting in the vehicle, well before any knee was on him.

He died to his drug issues and eating habits. The knee did not kill him.

And no a sup testifying against an officer is not rare, especially today where people can be easily made to fear a rabid mob of blm terrorism.

 

most watching that video knew what was happening was wrong, who needs training to know that is wrong?

 

According to the testimony at trial, their training absolutely told them not to flip and restrain a doper.

 

It very much is not.

The law you are citing was not vague. It was quite clear. The law was BAD in that it was frivolous because who the **** cares about a shell casing? We're talking about a murder statute in Minnesota, not possession of firearms paraphernalia in Egypt. Try to restrict your silly anecdotes to the same nation and body of law, ok champ?

And do answer whether or not you actually saw the trial, its testimony and the evidence presented. It will be the 10th time you've attempted an inartful dodge.

 

Nothing about their training says you cannot flip or restrain a doper who is being uncooperative. That makes zero sense. It isn't true. It was a lie.

 

It's absurd that you think Floyd being on drugs is what makes this into a murder.

Even if, hypothetically for the sake of argument, we were to fully accept that the training said not to do that to someone on drugs.

If you were try making the argument that a neck restraint should only be used in last resort situations, whether the suspect is on drugs or not, that is at least an argument that I'd have an easier time swallowing. Then we could argue about whether and to what degree Chauvin should have fully known not to do this.

 

Parody for your opinion I heard it when the news media told you to have it.

I disagree then and I still do. You have failed to support it.

It's clear chauvin didn't intend to kill Floyd.

 

Since you've added so much, let's go back over it.

Should he have known better? Yes, he received that training more than once and the rookie reminded him.
How obvious? Pretty ****ing obvious, he was trained explicitly and the rookie reminded him.
Is it fair to foresee? Yes, that's what the training is about. It makes it foreseeable, because someone literally prognosticated it for him and told him not to do it. They removed from him the authority to do it.

Mitigating factors? He committed reckless homicide and there are not mitigating factors here. He was outside his course and scope. He was explicitly trained not to.

Yes, I want to hold him culpable for him disregarding his training, acting EXPLICITLY AGAINST his given remit from the city PD, and using force illegally which resulted in a man's death.
We call that murder 2.

Since he EXPLICITLY ACTED IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION OF HIS TRAINING TO USE FORCE ILLEGALLY AND A MAN DIED HE CATCHES HOMICIDE WITH THE APPROPRIATE MENS REA. HERE THAT IS RECKLESSNESS, ERGO ITS MURDER 2.

It very much is black and white.

What level of reasonableness is it to disregard your explicit training and act outside your remit to use force illegally? Not reasonable at all.
It happened over 10 ****ing minutes. Spare me your split second he couldn't have known bullshit.
Further: Go read the ****ing statute.
Still further: And do FINALLY answer the ****ing question "DID YOU WATCH THE TRIAL AND VIEW THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED?"

 

It was testified to in Court, with the opportunity for cross examination, impeachment, and rebuttal.
If it were a lie, there would be copious amounts of impeachment evidence for the witnesses who testified to the training.
You're emotional about this and not thinking clearly.