You don't get to consider past offenses. That is prejudicial without speaking to the facts of the case. Unless they specifically found drugs on him and found that he had taken them, and found it was in severe enough amounts to kill him without the cops actions, then and only then would the cop not be liable. This isn't a case of "I patted him on the back and his heart randomly exploded from an unknown congenital defect". This is "I held my knee on his neck for 10 full minutes while he told me he couldn't breathe and onlookers told me I was killing him".

You are trying to take the standard of reasonable doubt and twist it into absolute certainty.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 29 2020 07:24pm

That isn't how the legal system works lol.....

idk where you been living so far, but that is definitely NOT how the current policing works.. it should work that way, BUT it DOES NOT work that way

thats not even remotely how the legal system works. You can't introduce prior bad acts of a defendant unless they're going to motive or pattern and are more probative than prejudicial. George Floyd is not on trial. They would be allowed to introduce evidence about Floyd that would cast doubt on whether he died from homicide or another theory like drug overdose. But that doesn't matter, because we're not at trial, we're at the stage of filing a criminal complaint, which like a grand jury is a determination that requires a non-adversiarial, one-sided process as the state declares it has evidence to press a case, and must lay out that evidence. Well they laid out evidence that doesn't support their case.
In a normal trial, the state has a case that stands on its own before filing charges, then the defense tries to poke holes into it and contradict it. In this case, the state doesn't have a case before they even filed charges, there's not enough evidence to sustain a conviction even without anyone contradicting the state's narrative.

Shits going crazy in Minneapolis

Standoff under the freeway between Cops+national guard and a mob of rioters. Curfew came and passed, no action taken but a few teargas and rubber bullets in response to thrown projectiles. Then police elsewhere in Minneapolis started taking gunfire from two men who fled on 32nd, and the cops under the freeway retreated and left to go support the ones taking gunfire a few miles away, mob has free reign now, and immediately there are reports of explosions and building fires


https://twitter.com/CrimeWatchMpls
SHOTS BEING FIRED AT COPS Two white males fled on 32nd, wearing white shirts
2930 park Ave reports of explosion and now smoke from O’ Riley’s
https://twitter.com/CrimeWatchMpls
Shots being fired at officers from Hiawatha ave
1200 ordering a retreat from 3rd pct section
Strike teams needed downtown per 1100
2930 park Ave reports of explosion and now smoke from O’ Riley’s

ima go with your not a legal expert on this one

edit
i also love how white cops are escalating this further just for the shits

This post was edited by hunter_1 on May 29 2020 07:41pm

If the officer on trial tries to submit Floyd's past criminal record it would get struck from evidence in two seconds flat because it is not probative to the case AT ALL. Even if he had a rap sheet a mile wide that wouldn't be evidence that he was on drugs or even had drugs at the time. It would do absolutely nothing to support another potential cause of death, and unless the officer specifically knew of the charges at the time it wouldn't even speak to his mindset. The record would not be relevant to the case in any manner.

Whether the case stands on its own is up to the prosecutor or a grand jury. The evidence you have seen might not rise to your personal level of wanting to file charges, but that doesn't really mean anything.



you're*

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 29 2020 07:44pm

thats what i said

To prosecute someone for murder, you have to demonstrate both actus reas and mens reas and demonstrate the action led to the death.
There's a famous hypothetical example in law school where someone walks up to a sleeping hobo on the street and shoots him in the head. Except the hobo was already dead, not sleeping. So no murder was committed. Even though the gunman has every intention of committing a crime and pulls the trigger, thus having both the guilty mind and guilty act, if it didn't cause the death, its not murder. It is, however, an ironclad case of attempted murder- you can still be charged with attempted murder even if the person you tried to kill was already dead.

What the officer knew or thought at the time of the arrest is not enough to establish a murder charge. You need to prove that his actions caused that death.



A prosecutor who all but admitted at his press conference that this is the fastest charge in any such case in history and the only reason he rushed it well before its ready was to appease a mob.
Hence, the degradation of our civil liberties that I'm criticizing.

Fastest of any such case =/= not justified.

I brought up the mindset to demonstrate that the evidence you would want brought in couldn't be brought in to speak to any aspect, act or mental state, as it couldn't even be brought in to show that the officer had good intention with the action. There is no part of the charge that the victim's previous criminal record can speak to.

You are trying to bring up hypotheticals akin to "what if he was walking around and he died of a totally unrelated cause between when I saw him and when I suffocated him". That's not how reasonable doubt works. If the officer's defense cannot substantiate that there was another cause then the reasonable conclusion is that the officer's actions lead to death, because we know that crushing somebody's neck with your knee for 10 minutes will kill somebody.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 29 2020 08:01pm