seems as divided as nation's politics.
Chauvin guilty of murder, manslaughter in George Floyd's killing
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
49 comments:
While there is some effort to both sides this issue from MPR, it doesn't really work out in this case. It is certainly possible to criticize some aspects of how this case was handled. It is easy enough to says that the jury should have been sequestered throughout the trial. Maybe it should have been, although in my view, there is a lot to be said that the practice of jury sequestration has been discredited, that it puts too much stress on jurors impairing their ability to give fair consideration to the case, consigning them as it does to a netherworld of hotel food and "I Love Lucy" reruns. In any event, it's a long from saying this jury should have been sequestered to a finding that it was unable to reach a verdict fairly.
--Hiram
I just do not understand their rationale for finding him guilty of this one?
The other 2 charges make some sense.
When I was a juror they did a real poor job of explaining the consequences of finding the defendant guilty on the lesser charges and not guilty on the higher charges.
So we ended up throwing the book at a "road rage guy"... My guess is that is what happened to Chauvin.
"I just do not understand their rationale for finding him guilty of this one?"
Once the force crossed the line to unjustified, then Chauvin was committing assault. When George Floyd died as result, it became murder.
Yeah, I think that was political over reach...
"2nd degree Unintentional murder.
Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting."
It will be interesting to see what happens during appeal.
"Yeah, I think that was political over reach..."
What happened to Mr. "Trust the Jury"?
"while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense"
3rd degree assault is a felony, requires "substantial bodily harm".
I think this jury had a LOT of pressure on them.
I am not going to riot because I disagree with them where as the city may have burned if they had decided otherwise. That pressure had to have had some impact.
I may have agreed with you if the MPLS Police Handbook at the time had not described these "neck holds" as non-deadly and acceptable at the time of the death.
See the screen shots I took back then. It seems the goal posts changed on our overzealous cocky stupid police officer. Or do you think MPD had been approving the use of felony assault back then?
And if a police officer follows the book, shouldn't it be the Managers who go to jail?
Let me repeat, I agree that Chauvin was wrong and should be punished. I just disagree with the 2nd degree charge.
"And if a police officer follows the book, shouldn't it be the Managers who go to jail?"
Chauvin didn't follow the book, though. He kept the neck hold on far past the point it was necessary, even for two-plus minutes past the point he knew George Floyd had no pulse. The book says if someone doesn't have a pulse, you're supposed to start CPR, not keep your knee on their neck.
That is why I think he was guilty on 2 counts.
Though I am not sure how he would have known there was no pulse?
He seemed too distracted by the crowd to even notice.
When I was a juror they did a real poor job of explaining the consequences of finding the defendant guilty on the lesser charges and not guilty on the higher charges.
The consequence of finding someone not guilty is that he can't be tried again. The interesting situation would be if the jury acquitted on the lesser included offense, but conficted on the higher charge. Each element of an offense must proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. If one element is common to two charges, and found in one verdict but not in another verdict you have got a problem.
--Hiram
causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting."
This is the felony murder rule. Let's a person is robbing a bank using a pistol. You drop the pistol accidentally, it goes off, killing someone. The bank robber is guilty of felony murder even though the murder itself was unintentional, in this case, an accident.
==Hiram
Following the book as such is not a defense, although it may help some defenses, unless the book is a statute book.
Proper use of force is complicated in police situations. Quite clearly, police are authorized to use force in ways ordinary citizens are not, so the question becomes how much force are they allowed? The jury told us yesterday that the force used in the Floyd case was beyond that allowed, so I guess it was.
--Hiram
"Though I am not sure how he would have known there was no pulse?"
Officer Kueng searched for his pulse, couldn't find one, and informed Chauvin.
Strib: Prosecutor: Ex-officers pinned George Floyd for 9½ minutes, including after they couldn't find pulse
Thanks for the info.
"When Floyd passed out, Lane asked the others if they should roll him on his side in a recovery position, a suggestion he repeated as the crowd expressed concerns over Floyd being unresponsive. “Chauvin rejected that option out of hand, telling Lane and Kueng to ‘stay put where you got him,’ ” according to the document.
“Just leave him,” Kueng concurred.
Kueng finally complied with the crowd’s pleas to check Floyd’s pulse.
“I can’t find one,” Kueng reported. He tried again 10 seconds later, then leaned back and sighed. “I can’t find one.”
Still, the officers held him there — Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck, Lane and Kueng atop Floyd’s legs and back, Thao on crowd control — for another two minutes and thirty seconds.
“The officers also ignored the off-duty firefighter’s plea for them to begin chest compressions,” says the motion. “Indeed, none of the officers ever attempted CPR while Floyd was on the ground.”
When paramedics arrived, Lane told them Floyd wasn’t responsive and they leaned to check his neck for a pulse. Chauvin still kept his knee pressed into Floyd’s neck.
Floyd was pronounced dead later at the hospital. The Hennepin County medical examiner ruled Floyd died from “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression,” listing the cause as “homicide.” A separate medical examiner also listed “police subdual and restraint” as the cause of death."
I would love to know what was going on in Chauvin's head at that time?
What made him resist rolling Floyd over?
Was he rationalizing that he had done this many times with no problem, so it would be fine?
Did his ego get in the way when the cameras started rolling? Not wanting to appear weak?
He definitely screwed up...
I would love to know what was going on in Chauvin's head at that time?
Chauvin didn't testify. There were lots of really good reasons for that choice, but the fact is, for him the outcome could hardly have been worse.
--Hiram
More generally, the problem is cop culture. There are a lot of things that go into it, but to me, the problem was evident when Minneapolis police visibly supported a president perceived in the community to be racist. They were just asking for trouble.
--Hiram
"More generally, the problem is cop culture."
Yeah. The MPD put up a Christmas tree in one of its precincts and decorated it with fried chicken containers and menthol cigarettes. The mayor and police chief banned "warrior training" and the rank and file just laughed at them and kept going. The only MPD officer who has been disciplined related to the George Floyd fallout was the one who spoke to GQ magazine about the department's culture -- not the ones who hit people in the eyes with rubber bullets, hassled the media or did drive-by pepper spraying. Chauvin had 17 excessive force complaints against him before George Floyd, and somehow he was responsible for training new officers.
Now I remember why I am against public employee unions... :-O
Union or not, Minneapolis politicians didn't take on the cops. And we are seeing the results. The image of the Minneapolis Police Department is Derek Chauvin, friendless, alone, being handcuffed and taken away, taking our sins with us and never to be seen again.
--Hiram
The Minneapolis Police Union was/is run by an actual pig named Kroll, who stood shoulder to shoulder on stage with a pig named Trump. We shouldn't be surprised that there are other police officers who are also pigs.
Moose
Moose,
Unions are a problem in general, they exist to protect all employees. Even the questionable ones. And Officer Kroll was elected by his peers because he was effective in doing so.
Let's remember, employers aren't there to protect any employees even the ones who aren't questionable. The City of Minneapolis was failed by Derek Chauvin, but the City of Minneapolis also failed the people of Minneapolis, and it failed it's employees, the Minneapolis police. A scapegoat needed to be found, and Chauvin fit that role well.
--Hiram
I won't label Chauvin a scapegoat / victim, he for sure deserved the man slaughter charge due to his ego, stubbornness and lack of empathy.
But I do feel for our county's police officers in general, They have a terrible and challenging job.
They have to deal with dregs of our society and are blamed whenever anything goes wrong during those interactions.
"They have a terrible and challenging job."
Made worse by persistent poverty, exacerbated by the wealth gap, and our love affair with a misreading of the 2nd Amendment.
Moose
Moose,
I agree... Let's end poverty, slow crime and help kids...
Or do you want to do that through wishful thinking and handouts?
You start with taxing the proper people the proper amount.
Then you forgive student loans and make public college free.
Then you decouple healthcare from employment.
Then you can slash the Defense budget.
You can try to replace the 2nd Amendment with something better...or officially tie certain firearms to actual militia, as the constitution requires...or require registration and insurance...whatever.
None of those are handouts. They're what morally good people and nations do.
Moose
How will any of these ensure that people have only have the number of children that they can raise well?
How will any of these ensure children are challenged academically and have good role models?
Remember that poverty is not the primary cause, ACES are and they are not addressed much in your proposal... I know good parents with low incomes who raised great educated kids.
How will any of these ensure that people have only have the number of children that they can raise well?
I am pretty sure people don't decide to have children on that basis. As a pro choice person, I think what public policy should do is support the choice people make, but it is not up to me or anyone to tell them what choice to make.
--Hiram
And thus the children will continue to be neglected, maltreated, abused, undereducated, etc, and generational poverty, higher crime rates, etc will persist.
Please remember that many of these kids are born to and raised by young adults who had very poor role models and experienced many ACE's, thus they developed very poor emotional maturity and poor decision making capabilities of their own. And it sounds like your goal is to propagate those dysfunctions.
Hiram,
Do you support people being allowed to drive drunk, or drive without a license or insurance?
What is your rationale for this belief?
Nope.
Do you think people should be allowed to have sex without a license or insurance? How about ID? If it's okay to require an ID before they buy liquor should we require an ID before they have sex?
__Hiram
Having sex is not the problem, now is it?
It is being allowed to take a baby home when one is unqualified and/or incapable of caring for and raising it well.
You support laws and enforcement regarding operating a motor vehicle... And yet you will give a baby to almost anyone, and pay them for it... I will never understand why the needs of children are so unimportant to Liberals and Conservatives.
"I think what public policy should do is support the choice people make, but it is not up to me or anyone to tell them what choice to make."
Should only people with licenses be allowed to keep their babies? Seems to me, that's the kind of policy that is too totalitarian even for totalitarian regimes. Certainly, as a pro choice person, I just can't support it.
It is interesting to think of how children are like cars. Both need keys on Saturday nights, I suppose. We require that to have a car you must be insured. Should families be required to have children insurance? I have never really heard that proposed before, but it is an interesting idea. If mom and dad miss their child insurance payments, should the child be repossessed? Or possessed I guess? I guess those are issues we could discuss.
What is being proposed here is a very active and instrusive state role in families. I don't support that, and my guess is that it wouldn't be very popular with Republicans or conservatives either, so it's kind of a moot point, I would say.
--Hiram
That is true.
Conservatives, Liberals and yourself support sending children into likely dangerous neglectful circumstances...
Places where no respectable child or pet adoption agency would place a child...
And that is why many children grow up into disturbed poorly educated citizens, and the cycle continues.
Worse yet, DEMs encourage these same lacking adults to bring more babies home through additional free money for each child.
"Worse yet, DEMs encourage these same lacking adults to bring more babies home through additional free money for each child."
Republicans have not stopped this process when they've had control of government. Please stop projecting what you want the Republican party to be on their actual actions.
Oh come now, even you must admit that DEMs and Progressives are more likely to support removing welfare caps, increasing welfare amounts and increasing child tax credits for the lowest income Americans. And these values are usually collected on a $1000s/child basis.
We may not be back to the terrible 1990's... But I think most progressives wish we were...
Welfare Family Caps
Child Tax Credits
I agree that the GOP contributes to the problem also, but mostly by skimping on early childhood education funding, being against free birth control / sex education.
Another interesting read.
"Oh come now, even you must admit that DEMs and Progressives are more likely to support removing welfare caps,"
Your own link shows that states controlled by both parties have removed caps -- because they don't work, they only make the problem worse.
"And these values are usually collected on a $1000s/child basis."
Your own link, again, shows that states that have removed caps are still only reimbursing a fraction of additional expenses that come along with having another child. It's also worth pointing out that here in Minnesota, removing the cap was the first upward change in the amount of benefits a person on welfare could receive since 1996 -- the dollar amounts had literally not changed, no inflation adjustment, nothing.
If you want deny that DEMs and Progressives are more likely to believe that every person deserves food, housing, higher education and healthcare "no matter what" than GOPers and Conservatives. I will happily let you argue that with Moose...
I agree there are some moderate GOPers who want to ensure the unlucky kids get money for food and housing, I mean I am one of them. But most conservatives like Jerry would limit it.
And I alone want to stop irresponsible parent(s) from bringing more kids home.
"If you want deny that DEMs and Progressives are more likely to believe that every person deserves food, housing, higher education and healthcare..."
Imagine being so morally bankrupt and repugnant that you think that's a bad thing.
Moose
Thank you for confirming my comment.
The GOP variation is:
"believe that every citizen who learns, works, makes good decisions, etc deserves food, housing, higher education and healthcare..."
It is a small but significant difference.
Repubicans are committed to the idea of distinguishing between deserving and undeserving poor. It reminds me very much of Alfred Doolitttle's speech in "Pygmalion".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO7VdkbGD2A&ab_channel=DonCook
--Hiram
Seems logical to me after watching the clip.
Or do you think people who drink too much and sell their daughter should be given tax dollars from people who do not?
I think it's possible to cherry pick the situation, but basically no, I don't think it's a good idea to moralize public services. And it doesn't work.
--Hiram
Please prove that it does not work.
I don't believe a person's value is dependent upon what they are worth to the economy.
Your mileage may vary.
Moose
It is not their value to the economy.
It is their value to our society and country.
Every citizen should be pressured to be a good citizen.
Abd not be rewarded when they choose to not be.
The value of our country is the sum of all of us citizens and our capabilities and choices.
For you, it all boils down to the person's benefit to or drag on the federal budget.
I don't buy your BS.
Moose
Post a Comment