The Derek Chauvin/George Floyd Murder Trial

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

She also testified that it is dispatch who determines what sort of medical team to send (EMT, firefighters, both, etc.) - not the officers who call dispatch.

Dispatch makes that determination based on the information they are given. I suspect the cops on the scene could have inspired a speedier response.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by plague311

Apparently Chauvin was so concerned with the crowd and their actions, that he stuck around afterwards for a period of time interacting with people from said crowd. Tough sell on the whole "he was scurred" crowd.

We learned from Little Miss Officer Tired 'N Horny that cops can be "Killology Trained Master Assassin Navy SEALS my hands are lethal weapons" and "OMG I'm scawwed for my precious widdle ole' life" at the same time.

[plague311]

Defense chooses not to cross...interesting.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by plague311

You can save all this nonsense for someone else. I already said he shouldn't be killed. When you're ready to climb off your moral high horse, let me know. I can maybe grab you step stool or something.

But you'd relish seeing harm come to him in prison, right?

Is that not vengeance? Why are you inventing a straw man based around whether or not you want Chauvin to actually be killed? You do realise that I was using a rather obvious reductio ad absurdum when I wrote that "why don't they just hang, draw and quarter him" stuff?

You'd be delighted if harm came to Chauvin in prison. Suburban Turkey hopes he'll attempt suicide within a year of incarceration. You're both entitled to your own flavour of... erm...restorative justice. It's just that I (and, I'd imagine, the United States Supreme Court) disagree. And if that puts me (and, I imaging, the USSC) on a moral high horse, so be it.

[Vixen]

What I don't get is, why, after having bought his cigarettes and food with his dud twenty-dollar bill, Floyd and his companion didn't just drive off. Instead they are sitting in the car at the kerb, whilst the store junior and another guy confronts him, and they are still there when the police arrive.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But you'd relish seeing harm come to him in prison, right?

Is that not vengeance? Why are you inventing a straw man based around whether or not you want Chauvin to actually be killed? You do realise that I was using a rather obvious reductio ad absurdum when I wrote that "why don't they just hang, draw and quarter him" stuff?

You'd be delighted if harm came to Chauvin in prison. Suburban Turkey hopes he'll attempt suicide within a year of incarceration. You're both entitled to your own flavour of... erm...restorative justice. It's just that I (and, I'd imagine, the United States Supreme Court) disagree.

Where were these emotions when Skeptic Tank was salivating at how good it was that Chauvin killed Floyd?

Why are we getting the hissy fit and he didn't?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Vixen

What I don't get is, why, after having bought his cigarettes and food with his dud twenty-dollar bill, Floyd and his companion didn't just drive off. Instead they are sitting in the car at the kerb, whilst the store junior and another guy confronts him, and they are still there when the police arrive.

I'm going to off on a limb here and guess it's because they didn't expect to be murdered by the police in broad daylight.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But you'd relish seeing harm come to him in prison, right?
.....

Who says that?

Chauvin is 46. Spending the next 35 or 40 years in a cage would be the most severe punishment society could impose. Why foreshorten that? What would be an injustice would be is if he gets a handslap, or no punishment at all, and goes on to become a Fox legal analyst. That might be an argument for some street justice.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But you'd relish seeing harm come to him in prison, right?

I'll absolutely relish in the lifestyle that he has carved out for himself due to the actions he's taken in his life. Yes.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Is that not vengeance?

No, are you serious? I'm not doing anything. I'm not sending him to prison, I'm not even ******* involved lol. I'm in North Dakota.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Why are you inventing a straw man based around whether or not you want Chauvin to actually be killed?

Speaking of strawmen, when did I say I wanted to see him killed? I've actually specifically said I didn't want to see him killed. You made some absurd claim and I made an equally absurd joke in return. I've never said I wanted him dead though.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You do realise that I was using a rather obvious reductio ad absurdum when I wrote that "why don't they just hang, draw and quarter him" stuff?

Yeah, and you got a reductio ad absurdum in response. Is it only ok when you do it?

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You'd be delighted if harm came to Chauvin in prison. Suburban Turkey hopes he'll attempt suicide within a year of incarceration. You're both entitled to your own flavour of... erm...restorative justice. It's just that I (and, I'd imagine, the United States Supreme Court) disagree.

I never said I wanted harm to come to him. I said I'm looking forward to his life in solitary because he would never want to be in gen pop due to what he's done. If you're going to bitch about strawmen, quit making them. It's getting obnoxious.

As ST pointed out. You seem way more upset about what I've said than you are about what Chauvin did. I'm sure it's just a coincidence though, right?

[Skeptic Tank]

Originally Posted by Vixen

What I don't get is, why, after having bought his cigarettes and food with his dud twenty-dollar bill, Floyd and his companion didn't just drive off. Instead they are sitting in the car at the kerb, whilst the store junior and another guy confronts him, and they are still there when the police arrive.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I'm going to off on a limb here and guess it's because they didn't expect to be murdered by the police in broad daylight.

This has already been addressed during the trial, by testimony or maybe it was defense opening statements.

The passengers wanted to leave, and were worried cops were en route. They tried to get Floyd to drive away before cops arrived, but Floyd kept passing out from drugs and they couldn't get him to wake up and stay that way.

So he was already under the effect of a lot of drugs before he swallowed more to conceal them.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

This has already been addressed during the trial, by testimony or maybe it was defense opening statements.

Claims made in opening statements have no requirements to be factual.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

The passengers wanted to leave, and were worried cops were en route. They tried to get Floyd to drive away before cops arrived, but Floyd kept passing out from drugs and they couldn't get him to wake up and stay that way.

So he was already under the effect of a lot of drugs before he swallowed more to conceal them.

You: "He was so high he was falling asleep!"

Also you: "He was so high he was also an extreme danger that had to be pinned for 9 minutes!"

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Who says that?

Chauvin is 46. Spending the next 35 or 40 years in a cage would be the most severe punishment society could impose. Why foreshorten that? What would be an injustice would be is if he gets a handslap, or no punishment at all, and goes on to become a Fox legal analyst. That might be an argument for some street justice.

I'd guess that turning him loose on the street in any context would be a de facto death sentence. The bitch wouldn't last a month.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

But the people being being too mean to Chauvin are the ones wanting "Biblical Justice" and deserve to be hen pecked about it, let us not forget.

Since you're clearly referring to me, let me put you straight:

I abhor what Chauvin did. I don't think there's any moral or ethical defence to what he did. I hope - and expect - that he is convicted of murder and that he receives a very long prison sentence.

But I do not wish harm of any kind to come to him (whether by his hand, or by the hand(s) of others) while he is in prison.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I don't want to jinx it, but I'd say we're doing a far better job. With any luck Chauvin will be attempting to kill himself in prison within the year.

No, sociopaths take prison in their stride. They can do 'time' standing on their heads.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But I do not wish harm of any kind to come to him (whether by his hand, or by the hand(s) of others) while he is in prison.

The only one that's brought up any form of biblical punishment for Chauvin is you.

First, suicide isn't biblical. Second, no one else has asked for anything other than a worthy sentence.

Glad we could straighten that up.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Ah yes the inevitable "Oh now wait don't get too bloodthirsty to the racist murderer" stage of the discussion begins.

Yes because that's the problem that deserves your attention.

Why does this always after that a board's resident racist comes into the thread to get everyone worked up, we get one mother hen in here to take us to task.

Why did you stay quiet for Skeptic Tank's racism but you had to jump up and run in like someone put up the Bat Signal the second the response to him crossed a line?

Don't tell me what I should choose to post about, eh?

[Skeptic Tank]

Originally Posted by plague311

Claims made in opening statements have no requirements to be factual.



You: "He was so high he was falling asleep!"

Also you: "He was so high he was also an extreme danger that had to be pinned for 9 minutes!"

I'm no cop and no expert but what I've heard on this would indicate:

He could alternate between the two states because he took both meth and an opiate in a "speedball" so he could have both ups and downs as a result.

I also understand the cops' contention to be that they were using "maximal restraint" as much for his safety as theirs. He was large, and I'm sure they felt he could be a physical threat, but they also mentioned the "excited delirium" thing where he might harm himself.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Since you're clearly referring to me, let me put you straight:

I abhor what Chauvin did.

Yeah but you didn't take time out of your day to say that until AFTER you took the time to henpeck someone for being to mean to him, which you responded to with instant speed.

It doesn't pass the sniff test.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Don't tell me what I should choose to post about, eh?

Yeah that's the excuse I figured I was gonna get.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Don't tell me what I should choose to post about, eh?

Strawman, no one is telling you what you should choose to post about. Just calling you out for deciding which one was worthy of you defending. It wasn't the black man being killed, it was people saying mean things about the white cop.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

I'm no cop and no expert but what I've heard on this would indicate:

He could alternate between the two states because he took both meth and an opiate in a "speedball" so he could have both ups and downs as a result.

I also understand the cops' contention to be that they were using "maximal restraint" as much for his safety as theirs. He was large, and I'm sure they felt he could be a physical threat, but they also mentioned the "excited delirium" thing where he might harm himself.

Yeah, they did a bomb ass job of making sure his safety was a concern. They did such a good job that once he passed out, didn't have a pulse, and completely stopped responding they continued to kill him while not allowing anyone to check on him.

Top notch!

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Even that is questionable. The EMT testified that it is standard practice for firefighter/EMTs to respond to a medical 911 call before an ambulance. She said her "house" was three blocks away, and other fire stations were close. She said if this was treated as a medical emergency, firefighters would have arrived in seconds. But no fire truck ever arrived.

All the police back up vehicles were already there so they don't appear to have been awaiting any medics. AIUI four different people rang for help and that is why they eventually arrived. Chauvin was asked politely by the medics to take his knee off Floyd's neck. As he refused, they had to push him off.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bob001

He explicitly said he had claustrophobia, and the cops believed he was on drugs. That's more indication that they were dealing with a medical emergency, not a resisting criminal. It is beyond disgusting that you think killing him is okay.

It could have been a thoracic blockage or an asthma attack. The police had a duty to take this seriously and arrange to ease his airways,

[JoeMorgue]

So question for Skeptic Tank to ignore.

If Chauvin had wanted to kill Floyd what would he have done differently?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by plague311

The only one that's brought up any form of biblical punishment for Chauvin is you.

First, suicide isn't biblical. Second, no one else has asked for anything other than a worthy sentence.

Oh is that so?

I wonder if all these quotes from just the last couple of pages of this thread were requests for nothing more than a worthy sentence:

Quote:

I'm not saying he should be killed, but if he dies in prison I certainly won't lose a fraction of the amount of sleep....

Quote:

With any luck Chauvin will be attempting to kill himself in prison within the year.

Quote:

I'd like an answer to why someone saying that Chauvin should be killed triggered this hissy fit from you

Quote:

I'll absolutely relish in the lifestyle that he has carved out for himself due to the actions he's taken in his life. Yes.

(As an (opaque) answer to the question: "But you'd relish seeing harm come to him in prison, right?)

Quote:

Glad we could straighten that up.

Indeed.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah but you didn't take time out of your day to say that until AFTER you took the time to henpeck someone for being to mean to him, which you responded to with instant speed.

It doesn't pass the sniff test.

You knock yourself out and think that. It stands as another shining example of critical thinking on your part.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You knock yourself out and think that. It stands as another shining example of critical thinking on your part.

You ignored racism, but practically fell out of your chair getting up to wag your finger at someone being mean to the racist as if you've been waiting all day for it.

I'm comfortable with what I think.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by plague311

Strawman, no one is telling you what you should choose to post about. Just calling you out for deciding which one was worthy of you defending. It wasn't the black man being killed, it was people saying mean things about the white cop.

So let's get things straight: you get a free pass on wishing harm upon Chauvin in prison.... on account of the fact that he will (almost certainly) be convicted of a pretty horrific murder? Have I got that right?

I mean, if there was intellectual or moral justification (never mind legal justification) for you to be wishing harm upon Chauvin in prison, you'd easily have been able to provide it. Wouldn't you? Or would you try to defend it by trying the misdirection trick: "but but but Chauvin killed a black guy in horrible circumstances! Why don't you condemn that first/instead?"


Well, this forum gets the "arguments" it deserves, I suppose. Please carry on.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You ignored racism, but practically fell out of your chair getting up to wag your finger at someone being mean to the racist as if you've been waiting all day for it.

I'm comfortable with what I think.

Yep. As I said, if you choose to believe that a) I was lying about my true opinions when I condemned Chauvin's actions and hoped for a long prison sentence, because b) I'd been directly confronted about it and I didn't want to reveal my latent underlying racism or any general ambivalence about it...

....you knock yourself out.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yep. As I said, if you choose to believe that a) I was lying about my true opinions when I condemned Chauvin's actions and hoped for a long prison sentence, because b) I'd been directly confronted about it and I didn't want to reveal my latent underlying racism or any general ambivalence about it...

....you knock yourself out.

Again I'm questioning your priorities, not your opinions.

[LondonJohn]

Oh and in parting, I am interested in the way that many people have toned down their true wishes about what degrees of harm (up to and including his death) they'd like to see come to Chauvin in prison as...

...being mean to Chauvin.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again I'm questioning your priorities, not your opinions.

So the rules say I must first write a post condemning Chauvin and his actions, before I'm allowed to write a post condemning the views of people who wish harm upon Chauvin in prison.

I totally wasn't aware of that rule until now. But now you've told me about it, I'll be sure to follow it in future.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

So let's get things straight: you get a free pass on wishing harm upon Chauvin in prison.... on account of the fact that he will (almost certainly) be convicted of a pretty horrific murder? Have I got that right?

Nope, you failed right out of the gate. I never wished any harm on him at all, unless you can provide a quote. You can't. You're just making **** up.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I mean, if there was intellectual or moral justification (never mind legal justification) for you to be wishing harm upon Chauvin in prison, you'd easily have been able to provide it. Wouldn't you? Or would you try to defend it by trying the misdirection trick: "but but but Chauvin killed a black guy in horrible circumstances! Why don't you condemn that first/instead?"

Continuing this strawman, eh? It's still a strawman in case you're curious.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well, this forum gets the "arguments" it deserves, I suppose. Please carry on.

Thanks for coming in, complaining about strawmen, making a bunch of strawmen, and now acting intellectually superior. Your "contributions" won't be missed.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

So the rules say I must first write a post condemning Chauvin and his actions, before I'm allowed to write a post condemning the views of people who wish harm upon Chauvin in prison.

I totally wasn't aware of that rule until now. But now you've told me about it, I'll be sure to follow it in future.

Another strawman? You should have sold all this straw, you'd be rich.

No one is saying you're required by rules to do a ******* thing. They're saying the person you decided to defend is telling.

Do you know what a strawman is? Do you know how to avoid them?

[plague311]

Lt. James Rugel on the stand right now. He's testifying about the software used to record the cities cameras (Milestone). I have some experience with that software.

So far they've just been having him confirm the footage, the software and the process they go through to manage the evidence.

Sidebar, I'd never heard of evidence.com before. I learned something new.

[plague311]

Is anyone else watching? I'm trying to figure out if he's managing the PTZ right now. The reflection in the glass looks like someone is moving it around. Tht would seem extraordinary to me though.

[JoeMorgue]

I get legality is a game of insane details but how does any of this relate to a cop kneeling on someone's neck until they die?

What possible difference does camera software make?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I get legality is a game of insane details but how does any of this relate to a cop kneeling on someone's neck until they die?

What possible difference does camera software make?

Solid question. I'm assuming they're just using him to go through the process so the defense can't say it was hacked, manipulated or changed at all? Even as a tech guy it's boring as hell.

That's why I wouldn't talk about my job to pick up women. It's about as exciting as watching paint dry.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I get legality is a game of insane details but how does any of this relate to a cop kneeling on someone's neck until they die?

What possible difference does camera software make?

He's authenticating the videos. He's explaining how the system works and why the jurors can be sure they weren't tampered with. It's just part of the process:

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

When you say it's "the right thing to do", do you mean that it's morally the right thing to do?

Or do you mean that it's financially the right thing to do? Because that's almost certainly what's driving all of this: whether he's convicted or acquitted, Chauvin is likely to face 1) a fair amount of legal costs, and 2) (and much more financially significant) a civil suit from Floyd's family for many millions of dollars. If he's divorced from his wife, and if his wife has legal title to those assets, then those assets will be untouchable wrt demands for legal fees or court orders to pay any damages awarded to Floyd's family in a successful civil suit.

At this point his legal costs are likely covered by the Union, and I don't know if he would be covered from personal costs from the victims family because of qualified immunity.