or to join or start a new Discussion

357 Comments
Article Rating 1.75 Stars

Get ready for riots if this is true

so with the court holding the George Floyd case leaking worse than a sieve with regards to medical facts, body cam footage the prospect of a full acquittal is looking highly likely:

George Floyd was experiencing cardiopulmonary and psychological distress minutes before he was placed on the ground, let alone had a knee to his neck. He was saying he couldn't breathe minutes before being placed on the ground.

George Floyd was foaming at the mouth as indicated in a transcript of the bodycam footage, which is indicative of a drug overdose.

The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) allows the use of neck restraint on suspects who actively resist arrest, and George Floyd actively resisted arrest on two occasions, including immediately prior to neck restraint being used.

The officers were recorded on their body cams assessing George Floyd as suffering from “excited delirium syndrome" (ExDS), a condition which the MPD considers an extreme threat to both the officers and the suspect, and requires extreme restraint.

A white paper used by the MPD acknowledges that ExDS suspects may die irrespective of force involved. The officers’ response to this situation was in line with MPD guidelines for ExDS.

Restraining the suspect on his or her abdomen (prone restraint) is a common tactic in ExDS situations, and the white paper used by the MPD instructs the officers to control the suspect until paramedics arrive.

Floyd’s autopsy revealed a potentially lethal concoction of drugs — not just a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl, but also methamphetamine. Together with his history of drug abuse and two serious heart conditions, Floyd’s condition was exceptionally and unusually fragile.

Chauvin’s neck restraint is unlikely to have exerted a dangerous amount of force to Floyd’s neck. Floyd is shown on video able to lift his head and neck, and a robust study on double-knee restraints showed a median force exertion of approximately approximately 105lbs

https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911

posted on 6/8/20

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 minutes ago
Yes, sorry to say TOOR that I think you're not seeing the grey area here.

Just because it's proven that the officer's behaviour was unacceptable, outside protocol and the cause of death does not automatically follow that they are convicted of murder.

I don't know the ins and outs of the case, nor am I an expert in American law, so I wouldn't feel remotely qualified to give a definitive opinion on this case, but your argument does seem to be missing that bit in the middle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he will be automatically convicted of murder. I made it quite clear that there will be a court case which will determine it, as there are differences between the county medical report and the original report.

Only thing I said for definite is that I think he'll do time in prison but above mentioned will determine that time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the real world you definitely said that it was murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I said it was murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so that is 2 things you definitely said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What? Of course I definitely said it, it's there in words. I'm confused by what is happening here. Generally when you type something, that is what you said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. You said that it was definitely murder. Which goes against your later post:

"Only thing I said for definite is that I think he'll do time in prison but above mentioned will determine that time."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it was murder. I didn't say that's what he will get convicted of. That will be determined in court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You have no idea if it was murder. Only he knows if it was murder.

But yes, the outcome will be determined in court.

posted on 6/8/20

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 56 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 seconds ago
There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)

I don't think he is saying that at all actually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean you don't think he is saying it? He repeatedly said it. It's in his words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What he has said is that the officer could make a case for following protocol initially but, in effect, doing it incompetently.

He's not saying the actions followed protocol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well if he's not saying that why did he say that?

If that's not what he's saying then what's the point of saying it?

if that's not what he's saying then how does it get him out of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think he did say that because that's my interpretation of it.

He doesn't need to get out of anything. The prosecution need to prove intent.

If his defence is that he was trying to restrain him using protocol and made a complete hash of it then it becomes manslaughter, not murder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Made a complete hash of it? Really? He put his knee in his neck for over 8 minutes until he passed out then continued to do it until he died.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Maybe I haven't expressed the point particularly well, but effectively the point is that his defence is that he tried to restrain him, facked it up, but didn't mean to kill him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you can get third degree murder for that.

posted on 6/8/20

I had a little look at that TOOR but it seems very rare that it's ever actually used.

Let's be honest neither you nor I have a comprehensive understanding of US law and so perhaps it's more a case of waiting to see what happens.

I do believe though that the difference between kill and murder is partly the cause of debate here.

posted on 6/8/20

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
I had a little look at that TOOR but it seems very rare that it's ever actually used.

Let's be honest neither you nor I have a comprehensive understanding of US law and so perhaps it's more a case of waiting to see what happens.

I do believe though that the difference between kill and murder is partly the cause of debate here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's rarely used across the US but is more commonly used in a few states with Minnesota being one of them, where the victim was killed.

I posted this yesterday.

The difference between third-degree murder and manslaughter often depends on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the killing. In Minnesota, for example, someone can be convicted of manslaughter in the second degree if they knew they were unreasonably risking someone else's life and took that chance. This is different from third-degree murder, where the person must act with a depraved mind and malice (wanton disregard for human life).

First-degree manslaughter — also called heat-of-passion manslaughter, or voluntary manslaughter — occurs when someone intentionally kills another person in the heat of the moment. Generally, they must have been strongly provoked in the moment and not have had time to cool off. Unlike third-degree murder, there is intent to kill, but it is assumed a reasonable person may have lost control of their emotions when similarly provoked.

Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, is the least serious of the charges (though still serious) because the killing was unintentional, and possibly accidental, but caused by the defendant's reckless behavior, such as drunken driving or DUI.

Defenses Against a Third-Degree Murder Charge
Defenses to a third-degree murder charge might include:

Innocence ("It wasn't me."
Insanity ("I was mentally impaired and didn't understand what I was doing."
Self-defense ("I was protecting myself from immediate and serious harm."
Defense of others ("I was protecting others from serious harm."
Exercise of duty ("I am a public officer who killed without unlawful intent, recklessness, or negligence.

posted on 6/8/20

Again excuse the winks

posted on 6/8/20



With all due respect TOOR, you're searching for info on it and just trying to take in what you read... no one on this thread is an expert in US law from what I can gather and it's a very complex subject.

Ultimately, you say he murdered him but none of us really know that for sure.

We all think it was despicable and that he deserves whatever punishment comes to him.

The courts will decide... not too much to disagree on really, apart from terminology.

posted on 6/8/20

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 minutes ago


With all due respect TOOR, you're searching for info on it and just trying to take in what you read... no one on this thread is an expert in US law from what I can gather and it's a very complex subject.

Ultimately, you say he murdered him but none of us really know that for sure.

We all think it was despicable and that he deserves whatever punishment comes to him.

The courts will decide... not too much to disagree on really, apart from terminology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You misjudge the feeling of the majority here. Us majority believe the cop was right to kill him for not getting in the far and having eaten some drugs.

posted on 6/8/20

comment by Benjamin Kallman (U1734)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 minutes ago


With all due respect TOOR, you're searching for info on it and just trying to take in what you read... no one on this thread is an expert in US law from what I can gather and it's a very complex subject.

Ultimately, you say he murdered him but none of us really know that for sure.

We all think it was despicable and that he deserves whatever punishment comes to him.

The courts will decide... not too much to disagree on really, apart from terminology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You misjudge the feeling of the majority here. Us majority believe the cop was right to kill him for not getting in the far and having eaten some drugs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some drugs, if he saw the far and refused to get in.

posted on 6/8/20

comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
I had a little look at that TOOR but it seems very rare that it's ever actually used.

Let's be honest neither you nor I have a comprehensive understanding of US law and so perhaps it's more a case of waiting to see what happens.

I do believe though that the difference between kill and murder is partly the cause of debate here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's rarely used across the US but is more commonly used in a few states with Minnesota being one of them, where the victim was killed.

I posted this yesterday.

The difference between third-degree murder and manslaughter often depends on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the killing. In Minnesota, for example, someone can be convicted of manslaughter in the second degree if they knew they were unreasonably risking someone else's life and took that chance. This is different from third-degree murder, where the person must act with a depraved mind and malice (wanton disregard for human life).

First-degree manslaughter — also called heat-of-passion manslaughter, or voluntary manslaughter — occurs when someone intentionally kills another person in the heat of the moment. Generally, they must have been strongly provoked in the moment and not have had time to cool off. Unlike third-degree murder, there is intent to kill, but it is assumed a reasonable person may have lost control of their emotions when similarly provoked.

Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, is the least serious of the charges (though still serious) because the killing was unintentional, and possibly accidental, but caused by the defendant's reckless behavior, such as drunken driving or DUI.

Defenses Against a Third-Degree Murder Charge
Defenses to a third-degree murder charge might include:

Innocence ("It wasn't me."
Insanity ("I was mentally impaired and didn't understand what I was doing."
Self-defense ("I was protecting myself from immediate and serious harm."
Defense of others ("I was protecting others from serious harm."
Exercise of duty ("I am a public officer who killed without unlawful intent, recklessness, or negligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are those defences against third degree murder charges, or excuses when Shaaggy’s girlfriend catches him with another woman?

posted on 7/8/20

comment by rosso - for your protection, we’ve installed this camera (U17054)
posted 15 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
I had a little look at that TOOR but it seems very rare that it's ever actually used.

Let's be honest neither you nor I have a comprehensive understanding of US law and so perhaps it's more a case of waiting to see what happens.

I do believe though that the difference between kill and murder is partly the cause of debate here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's rarely used across the US but is more commonly used in a few states with Minnesota being one of them, where the victim was killed.

I posted this yesterday.

The difference between third-degree murder and manslaughter often depends on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the killing. In Minnesota, for example, someone can be convicted of manslaughter in the second degree if they knew they were unreasonably risking someone else's life and took that chance. This is different from third-degree murder, where the person must act with a depraved mind and malice (wanton disregard for human life).

First-degree manslaughter — also called heat-of-passion manslaughter, or voluntary manslaughter — occurs when someone intentionally kills another person in the heat of the moment. Generally, they must have been strongly provoked in the moment and not have had time to cool off. Unlike third-degree murder, there is intent to kill, but it is assumed a reasonable person may have lost control of their emotions when similarly provoked.

Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, is the least serious of the charges (though still serious) because the killing was unintentional, and possibly accidental, but caused by the defendant's reckless behavior, such as drunken driving or DUI.

Defenses Against a Third-Degree Murder Charge
Defenses to a third-degree murder charge might include:

Innocence ("It wasn't me."
Insanity ("I was mentally impaired and didn't understand what I was doing."
Self-defense ("I was protecting myself from immediate and serious harm."
Defense of others ("I was protecting others from serious harm."
Exercise of duty ("I am a public officer who killed without unlawful intent, recklessness, or negligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are those defences against third degree murder charges, or excuses when Shaaggy’s girlfriend catches him with another woman?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scooby doo

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
1 Vote
4
0 Votes
3
1 Vote
2
0 Votes
1
6 Votes

Average Rating: 1.75 from 8 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available