Yes, I make good choices. Thanks for the explanation.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Mar 31 2021 03:49am

Never been selected for Jury Duty then? That's rather odd. You must be either very young or excessively lucky.

They drill you on protocols within the court room first thing. And quite literally, that court room belongs to the judge. Should the judge (especially in a televised trial) do something untowards, their actions can be appealed to a higher court. But as long as the trial is occurring in their court room, their word is literally law, and shy of gunning someone down, there's very little "wrong" they can do.

Consider yourself more well-informed.

Wish I was young and excessively lucky.

ROFL

learn to read. i'm not saying he never committed a crime, and i'm also not suggesting he was "murdered on the spot cuz black" (although i'm 99.999% sure that if he was a white man in a suit, cheating millions of elderly people out of their life savings, he'd still be alive today) - that only makes sense in your simplistic world of extremes.

what i'm saying is that his criminal record, his character, and appearance are pretty much irrelevant for this case. in the civilised world you shouldn't have to be a saint in order to expect not to get killed for selling loose cigarettes or allegedly using a counterfeit bill. the fact that you're blaming the victim while excusing the killer really tells me all i need to know about you as a person - not that any of that is a surprise at this point.

Still completely missing the whole point but it's clear that you're doing so on purpose.

This dude was gently put in the cop car, his own behavior caused the cops to take further action and the narcotics in his blood is what caused him to croak.

Google fentanyl ffs it's literally an endgame drug for junkies.

It's purple haired radicals like you that are using this poor guy's misfortune to spin your retarded narrative fuck off man

Was this hold identified as having risks when applied for several minutes at a time? I imagine Chauvin's team is going to argue that he had no idea that this approved and taught technique might present a risk to Floyd's life.

Floyd was saying "I can't breathe" while he was in the car. The officers were aware that he was under the influence and not in a right state of mind. They made an incorrect assumption that he was ok based on the fact that he was talking. It was a high stress situation, and the officers felt the need, with Floyd agitated and a crowd around them, to maintain control of the situation and the suspect. They're aware that officers have died when suspects seemingly under control break free. They're aware that he is on drugs and cannot be trusted to act in a right frame of mind.

Again, the question is whether this is a plausible explanation for the events of that day. If it is, Chauvin should be exonerated for both unintentional 2nd degree and 3rd degree. 2nd degree manslaughter is a more appropriate charge.

A "criminal" died at the hands of the people charged with the protection of the public.

the hold is specifically designed to immobilize someone that is otherwise uncooperative. its a last resort for an especially wiggly perp. and it's designed to hold them still enough to cuff. it's not a hold designed to hold someone indefinitely.

tbh this fact escaping you is uncharacteristic. you're dealing with the concept of "an approved hold" here with all of the nuance and context of an autistic child.

approval of police tactics, either in arrest or self defense, aren't static. they're highly subject to context. a police officer can shoot people, but only in the correct context, and only until they're no longer a clear threat. this approved hold is subject to the same context. why you can't address that, and circle back to it being approved continually, boggles my mind sir. so better.

The context of the situation is that the officers were dealing with an uncooperative, drug addled subject in a tense situation surrounded by a crowd. Floyd had been put in the police vehicle when he freaked out and demanded to be brought outside. Should they have put him back in the car? Allowed the maybe/maybe not off-duty EMT to deliver medical treatment? Wait for the EMTs to arrive on scene? Allow Floyd to stand up? Was Floyd, who was saying "I can't breathe" in the car, already suffering from a heart attack? Does the fact that he was very high provide a convincing explanation for why the officers were less likely to take Floyd seriously?

There are a lot of moving parts. The analysis itt is at the level of "a hold for "x" of minutes is murder" with zero legal explanation or context. How were they trained to deal with that situation? What were the restrictions placed on that particular type of hold? These are key to the question of whether Chauvin has legal responsibility for Floyd's death.

Anyone who is advocating for a particular conviction or sentence at this stage is being hyper-emotional / irresponsible. It will play out in Court, as it should.