The Derek Chauvin Trial

It is not logical, nor admissible in court, but people like me are not unfamiliar with individuals who have Chauvin’s mindset. The lack of humanity is chilling, and, in my experience, the “tell,” almost invariably, flat eyes. No warmth,

minimal expression, unless anger, sometimes contempt. It is like making eye contact with a cobra. They may learn to mimic emotive people, but their eyes don’t lie. If one is empathetic, working with them is like having your soul slimed. I will no longer accept such individuals as clients.
 
rgp said:
I disagree, all he had to do was comply with the custody/arrest . He took it to the ending we all witnessed . He killed himself.
Click to expand...

Had sad that remark is, really. What if it was a meaty mighty ten year old that resisted, knee his neck for 9 minutes, sit on his chest for nine minutes? You evidentially know little about the 4th AM and UNreasonable force. Hell, I knew better than Chauvin did and I've never been a police officer.
 

i still firmly believe that if people weren't doing the wrong thing they wouldn't be in the pickle they get into with the police a lot of times. most of us are living examples of that. but there is no place for cold blooded murder from someone who is sworn to protect and serve. not harm and kill.
 
ohioboy said:
Had sad that remark is, really. What if it was a meaty mighty ten year old that resisted, knee his neck for 9 minutes, sit on his chest for nine minutes? You evidentially know little about the 4th AM and UNreasonable force. Hell, I knew better than Chauvin did and I've never been a police officer.
Click to expand...
a child would've probably known better.
 
we were discussing this at work the other day while waiting for the verdict and i was telling my coworkers that i would hope if someone were trying to kill me on the job that they wouldn't just stand there and let them do it. that someone would try to stop them.

i can't believe those other officers knew he was killing that man and just stood there and watched.
 
Della said:
Chauvin is, and "upholding the law" is exactly what he was trying to do that day. The dispatcher told him to go to 38th and Chicago and help two rookies bring in a man charged with forgery. There followed a 25 minute struggle with Floyd resisting every step of the way and in classic "boy hollering wolf" pattern he was claiming he couldn't breathe while still standing beside his car so naturally he wouldn't be believed later.

Floyd's past of armed robbery would probably have been known to them, which is why Lane drew his gun when he approached Floyd's vehicle, and they were being more cautious than usual. By the time Floyd stopped struggling they would have all been exhausted -- and we don't know all the other calls they had been on that day.

It's my opinion that Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter based on the last 5 or 6 minutes when Floyd quit talking and struggling, but lets not forget what led up to that and Floyd's own part in what happened. Even that little girl witness knew that if you break the law the police will come and "mess with you."



Yet, there seems to be an enormous angry mob wanting to stone Chauvin to death for his mistake.
Click to expand...
I doubt that.
 
win231 said:
If you saw the video, you would know Chauvin is as guilty as can be. Doesn't take an expert.
Click to expand...

Ruthanne said:
Yes but each of the charges he could be found guilty of has an estimation of the amount of time that he might be given. I think the state, too, has added some "aggravating" terms too which could add to the estimated sentence.
Click to expand...
That's not "estimated" sentence time. It is the maximum the law allows. MN has sentencing guideline formulas to help the judge decide on sentencing.
 
Lewkat said:
This decision will be appealed for many years to come as the judge gave the jury 3 instructions as to which Chauvin was guilty of if at all. To find him guilty of all 3 is like saying he killed Floyd 3 times, which is totally impossible. That he should have let Floyd stand up once he said he could not breathe is not even debatable. To ignore the man was out and out negligence, but was it deliberate murder? Were I a juror, this would be my question. Manslaughter or negligent murder yes, I agree with one or both. But, will the appeals courts do so in the end? You can bet, they will dredge up Floyd's criminal past and involvement in drugs. This could cause the original charges to get lost in the shuffle. This is why I am uncomfortable with the Judge's instructions.
Click to expand...
Evidently from what I've read and heard, the finding of guilty on all three is consistent with the way they do it in MN. This varies from state to state.
 
JimBob1952 said:
Do what I do with Win and others, and use the Ignore button.
Click to expand...

Della said:
Chauvin is, and "upholding the law" is exactly what he was trying to do that day. The dispatcher told him to go to 38th and Chicago and help two rookies bring in a man charged with forgery. There followed a 25 minute struggle with Floyd resisting every step of the way and in classic "boy hollering wolf" pattern he was claiming he couldn't breathe while still standing beside his car so naturally he wouldn't be believed later.

Floyd's past of armed robbery would probably have been known to them, which is why Lane drew his gun when he approached Floyd's vehicle, and they were being more cautious than usual. By the time Floyd stopped struggling they would have all been exhausted -- and we don't know all the other calls they had been on that day.

It's my opinion that Chauvin is guilty of manslaughter based on the last 5 or 6 minutes when Floyd quit talking and struggling, but lets not forget what led up to that and Floyd's own part in what happened. Even that little girl witness knew that if you break the law the police will come and "mess with you."



Yet, there seems to be an enormous angry mob wanting to stone Chauvin to death for his mistake.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you mention an officer "Drawing his gun when he approached Floyd's vehicle."
I haven't heard anyone complaining about any officer drawing his gun. I have no problem with that & neither does anyone else.
What does an officer drawing his gun have to do with torturing & murdering a suspect?
 
ohioboy said:
Had sad that remark is, really. What if it was a meaty mighty ten year old that resisted, knee his neck for 9 minutes, sit on his chest for nine minutes? You evidentially know little about the 4th AM and UNreasonable force. Hell, I knew better than Chauvin did and I've never been a police officer.
Click to expand...

Once again you reply with scenarios that do not apply to this debate.
 
I believe provision for birth control would be a great boon for both black and white men.
Click to expand...
Dana, is there a shortage of birth control items in the stores? Are they that expensive to buy? (I have absolutely no idea what they cost, that's a serious question.)

If it's a matter of expense, I would say they should be available free of charge to one and all.

Also, what about the women? If the men can't/won't use birth control, what's stopping the women? After all, they are the ones who end up getting pregnant, and often having to raise the children on their own. Why not provide free birth control to them?

I don't think getting birth control is really the problem. The emphasis should be on the realization by both men and women that children need two caring parents. (The involvement of clergy is irrelevant; they need the love and nurturing of both parents, period.)

Yesterday I saw a family of ducks crossing the road. One parent was in front, followed by a line of about 5 little ducklings, backed up by the other parent. If animals know enough to raise their children responsibly, why not humans? It was so cute, but we were driving by, and I didn't have time to get my phone out to get a picture.
 
Sunny said:
Dana, is there a shortage of birth control items in the stores? Are they that expensive to buy? (I have absolutely no idea what they cost, that's a serious question.)

If it's a matter of expense, I would say they should be available free of charge to one and all.

Also, what about the women? If the men can't/won't use birth control, what's stopping the women? After all, they are the ones who end up getting pregnant, and often having to raise the children on their own. Why not provide free birth control to them?

I don't think getting birth control is really the problem. The emphasis should be on the realization by both men and women that children need two caring parents. (The involvement of clergy is irrelevant; they need the love and nurturing of both parents, period.)

Yesterday I saw a family of ducks crossing the road. One parent was in front, followed by a line of about 5 little ducklings, backed up by the other parent. If animals know enough to raise their children responsibly, why not humans? It was so cute, but we were driving by, and I didn't have time to get my phone out to get a picture.
Click to expand...
I really don't know how much contraceptives cost in the US..but yes, I agree, it should be the responsibility of both males and females to protect against unwanted pregnancies. However, I understand, many young black females suffer rape, are bullied into having sex etc, so education is also necessary. What to do? It's a monumental job... I have no real answers.
 
digifoss said:
The jury, and the judge, were coersed. The verdict may have been the right one, but whether it was or was not, there was coersion going on, and a lot of it and no steps were taken to prevent, or even reduce it.
Click to expand...



Kindly supply us with evidence to back that up. I have a law degree and we can use it to file an appeal - the police union will pay us plenty for it.
 
oldiebutgoody said:
Kindly supply us with evidence to back that up. I have a law degree and we can use it to file an appeal - the police union will pay us plenty for it.
Click to expand...

Evidence ? All you had to do is look at the MSM during the trial, or listen to one or more politicians posturing about the verdict, do you think none of the jurors felt like there would be violence in the street, even considered the possibility of violence directed at them, if anything but a guilty verdict was returned. ? Maybe that's not the legal definition of coersion but it seems like it to me.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
However, I understand, many young black females suffer rape, are bullied into having sex etc, so education is also necessary. What to do?
Click to expand...
Go to the drug store for the morning after pill. From $10 to $40 at CVS.
Ruthanne said:
I doubt that.
Click to expand...
My remark about people wanting to stone Chauvin for his mistake, was in reply to someone who said Floyd had made mistakes, but only we without sin should stone him. I was replying to her in the same use of "mistake" and "stoning" as she did. We were both speaking in metaphor. No one is really stoning anyone.
 
digifoss said:
Evidence ? All you had to do is look at the MSM during the trial, or listen to one or more politicians posturing about the verdict, do you think none of the jurors felt like there would be violence in the street, even considered the possibility of violence directed at them, if anything but a guilty verdict was returned. ? Maybe that's not the legal definition of coersion but it seems like it to me.
Click to expand...
That's got to be the silliest "defense" of a clearly guilty person that I have ever heard. Who threatened any kind of violence in the street? Was it the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol and killed 5 people? No? Wrong mob? Who, then?

If jurors really reached their verdict based on fear of some hypothetical "violence," that would be the end of our legal system. The threat of mob rule would make our laws for us, and determine who gets sent to prison and who doesn't. That would mean the end of freedom and democracy in this country, and would usher in a period of fascism ruling over a terrified citizenry.

If a verdict results in violence, that violence has to be dealt with, when it happens. Shaking in our shoes because of the "possibility of violence" resulting from the forgiveness of a murder of an unarmed black man, is cowardice. Thank God the jury had enough guts to stand up for what was right. And the suggestion that they were influenced by the threat of violence is absolutely ridiculous.
 
@Sunny good post. However, I can see where the jury could be concerned about their safety after. How much you wanna bet that didn't come up when they were deliberating? If it were me I'd have been concerned about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top