The Derek Chauvin Trial

The trial of the policeman accused of killing George Floyd is being shown live in America, the trial starts at 3.30pm our time (9.30am their time).

Now I'm all for justice being seen to be done but I'm troubled somewhat by any trial being turned into a circus such as the OJ Simpson and the Louise Woodwood (the English au pair accused of killing a baby she was looking after) cases.

It is quite clear looking back on those two cases that both ended up with the wrong verdict - OJ, an extremely popular black athelete was found innocent and Woodward, widely perceived publicly to be a child killer found guilty - almost if you will that the widespread public views of how the two were seen be, directly influenced the jury more than the evidence?

(Before the trial on May 7, 1997, Woodward decided to undergo a polygraph examination conducted by Dr. David C. Raskin, a polygraph examiner hired by her own lawyers. During the course of the examination, she was asked questions about whether she caused injury to Matthew while he was in her care on February 4, 1997. She denied having caused any injuries to him, and Dr. Raskin concluded that her answers to these questions were truthful to a confidence level of 95 percent. Dr. Raskin's results were evaluated by Dr. Charles Honts, another polygrapher hired by her defense lawyers, who also claimed that she had answered truthfully when responding to relevant questions about whether she had injured him)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case#Polygraph_testing

Already before the trial as even starts we have a civil rights lawyer on the steps of the courtroom publicly saying that Floyd was 'tortured'!

14:16
Civil rights lawyer: 'This was torture'

Civil rights lawyer Ben Crump is speaking now on the courtroom steps ahead of Derek Chauvin's trial - which will begin shortly.

Crump rejects the notion that the case against Derek Chauvin is "hard".

"We know if George Floyd was a white American citizen... nobody would be saying this is a hard case," Crump says.

"This murder case is not hard when you watch that torture video of George Floyd."

"We have to call it what it was," he says. "This was torture."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-56565492

So what is the best way to find justice - and for it seen to be fair - should trials be televised and livestreamed as they are in America or should the cameras be kept out like they are in the UK?

It shouldn't matter if its televised or not what happened to Floyd was murder pure and simple in my opinion. How many times did he say he couldn't breathe and Chauvin carried on?

If there is anything other than a guilty verdict then America will be on fire straight after.

Thing is everyone has seen what happened and Chauvin is guilty as hell so at least a public trial will go some way to ensuring that justice is done rather than brushing police crime under the carpet.
Hopefully it will send out a clear message that the police are not above the law and that the public can play a role in ensuring the truth comes out.

Norpig wrote:It shouldn't matter if its televised or not what happened to Floyd was murder pure and simple in my opinion. How many times did he say he couldn't breathe and Chauvin carried on?

If there is anything other than a guilty verdict then America will be on fire straight after.

OJ Simpson was guilty too - but he was acquitted mainly it would seem because he was a black icon at the time who many believed was innocent no matter what.

As for Chauvin, I don't know how the American justice system works but in the UK I think you need to prove preconceived intent for 'murder', otherwise the lesser charge of 'manslaughter' is what the verdict must be.

And yes I remember the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Until today I hadn't watched the full video, but fook me, it's fooking unbelievable. If the officer doesn't go down it's a fooking travesty.

He's been charged with second-degree murder which can be intentional or unintentional, it's only first degree murder that the state has to prove intent.

The defence are flogging a dead horse, they cannot claim restraint as Floyd was incapable of movement 6 minutes in, in fact was probably already dead, yet Chauvin kept his knee on his neck until paramedics arrived, guilty as sin, and as Norpig says, if this twat gets off, America will burn.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Until today I hadn't watched the full video, but fook me, it's fooking unbelievable. If the officer doesn't go down it's a fooking travesty.

He's been charged with second-degree murder which can be intentional or unintentional, it's only first degree murder that the state has to prove intent.

Derek Chauvin is a power mad bully but I doubt he’ll get any worse than manslaughter..

I think the fentanyl, meth and cannabis may have played its part in George Floyds death.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Until today I hadn't watched the full video, but fook me, it's fooking unbelievable. If the officer doesn't go down it's a fooking travesty.

He's been charged with second-degree murder which can be intentional or unintentional, it's only first degree murder that the state has to prove intent.

He is also charged with third degree. The defense will try and prove he could have died from the drugs found in his system, as well as underlying health conditions. The prosecution will rely on the horrific video evidence, which in my mind, shows depraved indifference by the officer.  
Under Minnesota statutes, a person can be charged with second-degree murder if they intentionally killed someone without premeditation or unintentionally killed someone while committing certain other offenses. A person can be charged with third-degree murder if they unintentionally cause “the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.” If convicted of second-degree murder, Chauvin faces up to 40 years in prison. He faces up to 25 years behind bars if convicted of third-degree murder and up to 10 years if convicted of second-degree manslaughter. 

Boggersbelief wrote:
Derek Chauvin is a power mad bully but I doubt he’ll get any worse than manslaughter..

I think the fentanyl, meth and cannabis may have played its part in George Floyds death.

If someone leans on your neck for 9 minutes and cut off your air supply it won't matter what drugs are in your system, you will die.

Are they claiming Chauvin didn’t know that Floyd had necked the drugs?

If he knew then that defence is invalid.

Norpig wrote:
If someone leans on your neck for 9 minutes and cut off your air supply it won't matter what drugs are in your system, you will die.

You can’t shout out that you can’t breathe if you genuinely can’t breathe..

I hope you are playing Devils advocate here Boggers and don't actually believe that?

wanderlust wrote:Are they claiming Chauvin didn’t know that Floyd had necked the drugs?

If he knew then that defence is invalid.

Norpig wrote:I hope you are playing Devils advocate here Boggers and don't actually believe that?

You’re telling me you can talk if someone’s got all their weight on your neck?

Sluffy wrote:

Too complex for you?

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Too complex for you?

It must be because you clearly think you are vastly more intelligent than the best American legal team assembled at great expense to defend Chauvin and have already pontificated after just the first day that their combined brains aren't a match for yours, with their defence strategy of him!!!

You really are an utterly ridiculous 'know it all'.

You are clearly a legend in your own head!

a legend in (one's) own mind
A person who affects or believes that they are of greater importance or notoriety than is actually the case. A humorous, ironic twist on the phrase "a legend in one's own lifetime."

Legend in his own mind
An individual who experiences grandiosity, with probable undertones of liberal to severe narcissism. Someone who thinks that they hold an immense amount of clout in the world when in reality they hold very little, or likely, none.

You two must have been at it for about two years now. Straightener outside the club shop, first home game we are allowed back in.

Boggersbelief wrote:You two must have been at it for about two years now. Straightener outside the club shop, first home game we are allowed back in.

Much longer than two years I'm sorry to say.

And I'd stand no chance against someone who at seventy years old can apparently still run rings around men in their peak who are nearly fifty years younger than him, nor someone smart enough to know better than Chauvin's American lawyers and the forensic inspection of the clubs accounts by the Administrators who couldn't find anything illegal that Ken Anderson had done, or even how governments work based upon his experience in working at a NON GOVERNMENT organisation!!!

I'll simply stick to calling out his perpetual bullshit even if that upsets his mates on here.

Which apparently it does!

Actual footage of Sluffy and Lusty sorting out their differences