Derek Chauvin stabbed by inmate in federal prison, seriously injured

And the premise of you think this is what exactly? The documentary has half a dozen who clearly state otherwise. What are you claiming he did "wrong" that specifically killed Floyd?

 

sure, here is some under oath

"Many of Derek Chauvin's law enforcement colleagues disagree with how he restrained George Floyd. Here's how they have testified."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-cha...-disagree-restrained-george/story?id=76899862

 

Nothing says you are required to or supposed too. Floyd was the danger to himself with his refusal to stop resisting and they were trying to get him to calm down and lay still and not get physical with them again. Floyd had assured them he had not taken any drugs. And HE COULD BREATH, it was his hearts inability to pump blood through his lungs that killed him. They could have done a trachea cut on him and it wouldn't have saved his life.

 

How much should be on George Floyd?

 

Your article is false on it's face because the officers they asked don't know what they are talking about.

Many have said the former officer's actions didn't follow department policy.

See #300, they DID follow their training.

 

Yes, kind of. The safety of a suspect in custody is the officer's responsibility. The overall health of that suspect is not part of that responsibility. The officer is not a medical professional that can or should diagnose medical issues that aren't obvious. In the case of Floyd, he was having some kind of panic attack and Chauvin DID address that issue by getting him on the ground. Once on the ground, however, Floyd kept rolling around so Chauvin applied additional restraint in the form of using his leg to control Floyd's movement. Chauvin also called for medical assistance. It's even reasonable that Chauvin would have noticed other issues with Floyd if not constantly distracted by the gathering crowd which, reasonably, he had concern that they would become violent.

If Chauvin had been charged with some form of manslaughter or negligence I could have seen that. I wouldn't have agreed with it but I could see how a jury might find guilt on that charge. The murder charge, however, was WAY excessive and the jury decision was obscene.

 

O **** off with that ostrich defense bullshit. You watched the trial? You saw the tape. You didn't watch the trial? Go watch it then speak.

Feel free to simply quote what you want to talk about from those videos.

No rebuttal evidence at trial, multiple people testifying otherwise. I'm not clicking your documentary link to give it hits.

An unsworn out of court statement offered for its truth is LITERALLY the definition of hearsay. Quote a legal definition of hearsay that shows otherwise

Again: If you're bleeding out from a stomach wound, that doesn't mean I can hurry you along. The autopsy and ME testimony is clear, the testimony regarding training is clear. You're citing hearsay. **** with that ****.

 

no it did not

 

had it not been for 9+ long minutes, I would agree with you - but anyone watching that could see what was gonna likely happen

 

Yes it did as I linked you too. The actual training manuals presented and the officers who routinely trained on it state.

 

Every bit of it and my critiques posted here.

THE tape? You think there is only one? Have you watched ALL the tape?

You didn't watch those? Go watch it then speak.

I have then gave you the time stamps to those points in the video and if you had you would hear them call out to go into MRT mode. You would also see the officers ACTUAL training books discussing when and how to use the technique.

As I said and the documentary shows the prosecution would not allow it into the proceeding and the judge sded with them.

It litterally is not.

Quote one that says it is. Hearsay is me tesifying someone else told you something.

The autopsy was made up after the ME changed hs findings.

 

did not say what you think it did

 

Yes I watched the actual tapes presented at trial of body and phone cameras at the scene.

And WHY did the judge side with them? WHAT WAS THE RULING? Go on and tell the class.

It literally is. Are they being deposed in a trial? Are they on the witness stand in court? NO? The documentary is all out of court statements offered for their truth?
Hearsay.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay#:~:text=Hearsay is an out-of,the truth of the matter.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court.
This is basic rules of evidence. Perhaps THE most basic.

Lol sure friend, its all a conspiracy

 

Then you missed the body cam that is presented here but withheld at trial. Seems I have seen more than you.

What I told you and linked you to already.

It literally is not nor did you provide a definition that says it is. That they are out of court does not refute them, they were left out of the court proceeding and some newly discovered.

The persons being quoted ARE in the documentary they are not engaged in hearsay of what someone else said, it is THEIR PERSONAL experience and knowledge.

Between the Mayor and the DA and the Police to keep the city from being burned to the ground...............yep. They have the emails and memos.

 

so could of the guards handcuffed Chauvin, put their knee on his neck and called for an ambulance?

 

O my, does that body cam somehow erase Chauvin admitting he suspected Floyd was on dope?
Does that body cam take place during his training?
No?
Cool.

Again: Explaining the decision of the court in your own words shouldn't be difficult friend. Tell the class why the court excluded the evidence.

Literally: You wanted a definition of HEARSAY. That's LITERALLY what I gave you. Now you're trying to say it doesn't say what it says. Seek aid.

Again: ANY unsworn, out of court statement offered for its truth. I SAID X as a witness is hearsay. I SAID X is hearsay AS A PARTY unless offered against you by your opponent.
This is not that. You show a gross misunderstanding of the rules of evidence. A first year student would know better.

Sure sure sure. Keep huffing that cope.

 

His fellow officers could've arrested him, and if he resisted they could hold him in that fashion so long as they didn't suspect he was doped up.

 

I bet those defending Chauvin, would not be happy if the cops did that though

 

Since their underlying premise is that the hold didn't constitute force he was trained was likely to be deadly as to such a suspect and their additional premise is that he did not in fact receive that training?
Sure wouldn't because they don't admit he did anything wrong.

 

so do you think they would not be upset if the guards did that to Chauvin and he had died

 

Again: Since they don't perceive he did anything wrong I expect they would be upset by his fellow officers arresting him.
Security guards don't get to arrest people.

Chauvin wouldn't have died, he wasn't doped up. You can use that hold on someone who doesn't have issues.

 

were talking after he was stabbed, had the guards came in and handcuffed him, put their knee on his neck until an ambulance came, and he died

so you don't think Chauvin could have died if the guards treated him that way after stabbed?

 

You mean if they used force on him without cause because 1) he's not being arrested there and 2) he was not resisting them?
Yes they would be mad about it, and I would expect you to be as well unless you're a simple partisan in motivation.

Either you're consistent or you are not.

 

he was involved in a fight, they could detain him right?

 

Being stabbed is not being involved in a fight, first, second he is a ward of the state and bleeding out. No, they could not simply sit on him until he bled out.