George Floyd trial

[Hacky McAxe]

Yeh I hope the defence lawyers who have:-

- attempted to paint George Floyd as no good scum who deserved to die (which is irrelevant to the case)
- claimed that George Floyd was going to die one day anyways, so it doesn't matter that he died then

get a fair trial and not by media

I've read what the defence attorneys put forward. It's horrible, but I'm not surprised because they are defence attorneys.

Regardless of all that. I hope the guy gets a fair trial because everyone deserves a fair trial. Based on what I've read, it seems like murder to me. But I'm not an expert so I'll leave it up to the courts.

But my point is that there may be some fear based influence on the trial. Jurors and the courts will generally fear reprisal in this kind of situation. So if it's borderline and they're not sure if he's guilty or innocent, they may lean on the side of guilt. The courts aren't meant to work that way. If there's reasonable doubt then they are meant to lean on the side of innocence.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I've read what the defence attorneys put forward. It's horrible, but I'm not surprised because they are defence attorneys.

Regardless of all that. I hope the guy gets a fair trial because everyone deserves a fair trial. Based on what I've read, it seems like murder to me. But I'm not an expert so I'll leave it up to the courts.

But my point is that there may be some fear based influence on the trial. Jurors and the courts will generally fear reprisal in this kind of situation. So if it's borderline and they're not sure if he's guilty or innocent, they may lean on the side of guilt. The courts aren't meant to work that way. If there's reasonable doubt then they are meant to lean on the side of innocence.

In a country which has a legacy of documented wrongful convictions of people of the wrong colour, in a country which originally found 4 police officers innocent of the beating of Rodney King, I'm fairly certain there will be jury members who are of the type "police can do no wrong" and "he was bad, so got what was coming to him". The end result is that the prosecution and defence agreed on a 15 member jury from a pool of 130.

Chauvin trial: Who are the jurors who will decide the former police officer's fate?

The jurors in the murder trial over George Floyd’s death skew younger, white and female.

www.bbc.com

The damning evidence is the video in any case.

In any case any appeals on the jury's decision, this will go through the appeals courts and maybe higher up which will then have judges decide the outcome of the case.

 

[Dogna88]

I thought the Rolfe trial was more straight forward than the Floyd trial.

From the expert testimony I've seen (and all accounts of the incident), he was defending himself when he was stabbed and he fired on the assailant. But after that when the assailant was injured and posing no threat, Rolfe fired two more shots into his chest after pausing.

It's pretty clear cut homicide. The only defence I could see Rolfe giving is emotional distress defence. Saying that being stabbed made him lose focus and he didn't know what was going on.

Stopping a threat, pausing, then shooting a guy who poses no threat. That's not a trial by media issue. That's difficult to defend in any trial.

Wasn't the evidence, Rolfe stabbed, shot walker, partner now involved in scuffle with armed walker, paused 2.4sec, shot, paused 1sec shot again???

So from getting stabbed to final shot, 5seconds?

Disclaimer: i could be wrong

 

[Hacky McAxe]

In a country which has a legacy of documented wrongful convictions of people of the wrong colour, in a country which originally found 4 police officers innocent of the beating of Rodney King, I'm fairly certain there will be jury members who are of the type "police can do no wrong" and "he was bad, so got what was coming to him". The end result is that the prosecution and defence agreed on a 15 member jury from a pool of 130.

Chauvin trial: Who are the jurors who will decide the former police officer's fate?

The jurors in the murder trial over George Floyd’s death skew younger, white and female.

www.bbc.com

The damning evidence is the video in any case.

In any case any appeals on the jury's decision, this will go through the appeals courts and maybe higher up which will then have judges decide the outcome of the case.

Good point. I think some of the responses I've seen on Facebook and other internet forums show that there are people who will go with the "he deserved it" mentality. We've seen it on this forum plenty of times. So there may be more people who go with that over the fear of riots. Especially considering that those same people will just take the stance that they are right regardless.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Wasn't the evidence, Rolfe stabbed, shot walker, partner now involved in scuffle with armed walker, paused 2.4sec, shot, paused 1sec shot again???

So from getting stabbed to final shot, 5seconds?

Disclaimer: i could be wrong

Yeah, and the expert testimony seemed pretty damming. Expert testimony was that the initial shot from Rolfe was considered self defence and within standard procedures, then the follow up shots were not needed and seemed more like a revenge response (not in those words though)

Rolfe could probably argue that he was confused and wasn't thinking straight, but I don't think he has much chance and all evidence seems to suggest that he fired the kill shots out of anger.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Good point. I think some of the responses I've seen on Facebook and other internet forums show that there are people who will go with the "he deserved it" mentality. We've seen it on this forum plenty of times. So there may be more people who go with that over the fear of riots. Especially considering that those same people will just take the stance that they are right regardless.

And therein lies the problem with that country. It has deep seeded prejudicial problems amongst it's whole population and lawyers who are scumbags seeking to make a name for themselves and get rich, their legal system is open to massive manipulation. I'd think "trial by media" is the least of their concerns

 

[Dogna88]

Yeah, and the expert testimony seemed pretty damming. Expert testimony was that the initial shot from Rolfe was considered self defence and within standard procedures, then the follow up shots were not needed and seemed more like a revenge response (not in those words though)

Rolfe could probably argue that he was confused and wasn't thinking straight, but I don't think he has much chance and all evidence seems to suggest that he fired the kill shots out of anger.

Hmmm i dunno i dont think its that clear cut.

I mean the expert would need to prove that Rofle in the five seconds of adrenalin didn't fear for his life, or the life of his partner who was wrestling with Walker who has an edged weapon.

Anyone who has ever been in a fist fight, let alone a fight with an edged weapon where your life is in danger would know. 5seconds is a short time. There really is no room for error.

Unless there is other evidence lile walker was somewhat under control (again would have to prove rofle or any other reasonable person in that highted situation believe rofle was under control) i dont think its a clear cut case.

Simple test to run is.

I'll hold a permanent marker. You try arrest me. In that arrest, i stab you with the marker (you realise i will hurt people) and you shoot me not knowing if you actually got me, I get involved in an altercation with your parter. You have seconds (even less) to check yourself and make a decision. If i mark your partner to the neck, ribs, arteries. They have to leave Australia and never return. If you decide to put away your gun and go for taser or wrestle me, and i mark you in the neck, chest, arteries, you have to leave Australia and never speak to anyone you know again.

You have less than 5 seconds to make a decision to effectively stop me potentially ending yours or your partners life (leaving Australiawith no contact to your current life).

Its not an easy situation. Alot of things could have been running through Rofles mind in that short time rather than "i think he is under control but ill kill him anyway".

But fuk, if he did kill him because he was angry he got shanked. And there is direct evidence that can prove that. Fuck him

 

[speedy2460]

To be convicted of murder, there must be an irrefutable case of intent. I dont think that exists here.

 

[Nano]

Weren't the known to each other with some bad blood from what I heard?

 

[wendog33]

Weren't the known to each other with some bad blood from what I heard?

Yes Chauvin worked as security and Floyd was a bouncer at the same club.

There seems to be some conjecture on how much they knew each other.

 

[Nexus]

Of course the defence lawyers try and pick the witnesses apart and belittle them. I have been watching the testimony and it's damning against the police officer.

CNN just retold the actual court proceedings of that day.

I suggest you open your eyes and accept the possibility that Chauvin went overboard in kneeing, in the neck, a handcuffed guy on the ground and therefore restricted his air capacity, and kept on doing it after trained medical bystanders could see clearly that he had stopped breathing and pleaded with him to stop.

It’s really not. There is plenty of reasonable doubt being thrown up.

For example, there is video of him saying he couldn’t breath while he was in the car.

There is also bodycam footage showing it actually looked like his knee was in the shoulder / back to which the police chief and other expert agreed.

There was no damage to his trachea in the autopsy.

There was enough ketamine in him to kill a horse. A medical expert also admitted that that particular drug can cause breathing issues.

The reason the cop never got off him after he was passed out is because they are taught that a perp still has the ability to wake up and fight back. This was admitted by the police trainer.

The prosecution won’t even call up a key witness, a dude that was also in the car that is apparently Floyd’s dealer. They wouldn’t offer him a deal to testify (he is currently in jail). Think why that might be.

This is all just from questioning the prosecutors witnesses. The defence hasn’t even begun yet.

All I’m saying is if you think this is a slam dunk then you are mistaken.

 

[wendog33]

It’s really not. There is plenty of reasonable doubt being thrown up.

For example, there is video of him saying he couldn’t breath while he was in the car.

There is also bodycam footage showing it actually looked like his knee was in the shoulder / back to which the police chief and other expert agreed.

There was no damage to his trachea in the autopsy.

There was enough ketamine in him to kill a horse. A medical expert also admitted that that particular drug can cause breathing issues.

The reason the cop never got off him after he was passed out is because they are taught that a perp still has the ability to wake up and fight back. This was admitted by the police trainer.

The prosecution won’t even call up a key witness, a dude that was also in the car that is apparently Floyd’s dealer. They wouldn’t offer him a deal to testify (he is currently in jail). Think why that might be.

This is all just from questioning the prosecutors witnesses. The defence hasn’t even begun yet.

All I’m saying is if you think this is a slam dunk then you are mistaken.

It's good you have presented your opinion in a clear and concise manner without the need to lecture and berate.

Like most situations, different people have different opinions and perceptions.

I believe the cop was excessive and there was no immediate threat to the 4 officers. Chauvin let the situation get out of hand, over reacted bc he had no patience to get the suspect under control and showed shocking disregard for due process.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

And therein lies the problem with that country. It has deep seeded prejudicial problems amongst it's whole population and lawyers who are scumbags seeking to make a name for themselves and get rich, their legal system is open to massive manipulation. I'd think "trial by media" is the least of their concerns

It's all part of the problem for America. A country driven by capitalism where everything is polarised, including the media.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Hmmm i dunno i dont think its that clear cut.

I mean the expert would need to prove that Rofle in the five seconds of adrenalin didn't fear for his life, or the life of his partner who was wrestling with Walker who has an edged weapon.

Anyone who has ever been in a fist fight, let alone a fight with an edged weapon where your life is in danger would know. 5seconds is a short time. There really is no room for error.

Unless there is other evidence lile walker was somewhat under control (again would have to prove rofle or any other reasonable person in that highted situation believe rofle was under control) i dont think its a clear cut case.

Simple test to run is.

I'll hold a permanent marker. You try arrest me. In that arrest, i stab you with the marker (you realise i will hurt people) and you shoot me not knowing if you actually got me, I get involved in an altercation with your parter. You have seconds (even less) to check yourself and make a decision. If i mark your partner to the neck, ribs, arteries. They have to leave Australia and never return. If you decide to put away your gun and go for taser or wrestle me, and i mark you in the neck, chest, arteries, you have to leave Australia and never speak to anyone you know again.

You have less than 5 seconds to make a decision to effectively stop me potentially ending yours or your partners life (leaving Australiawith no contact to your current life).

Its not an easy situation. Alot of things could have been running through Rofles mind in that short time rather than "i think he is under control but ill kill him anyway".

But fuk, if he did kill him because he was angry he got shanked. And there is direct evidence that can prove that. Fuck him

Yeah, probably not clear cut. The expert testimony did cover a lot of that. They discussed how he fired the first shot, then paused before firing the additional shots, and how the officer wasn't under threat when he fired. They also discussed how standard procedure with an edged weapon is to retreat, but the footage shows him moving toward the assailant and possibly holding the gun against his skin (from another officer testimony). The other factor being that police are meant to be trained to handle these issues better than a member of the general public.

But there's many factors and I couldn't say for sure if he's guilty or not. But it's definitely not a case of the media trying to make him look guilty.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

It’s really not. There is plenty of reasonable doubt being thrown up.

For example, there is video of him saying he couldn’t breath while he was in the car.

There is also bodycam footage showing it actually looked like his knee was in the shoulder / back to which the police chief and other expert agreed.

There was no damage to his trachea in the autopsy.

There was enough ketamine in him to kill a horse. A medical expert also admitted that that particular drug can cause breathing issues.

The reason the cop never got off him after he was passed out is because they are taught that a perp still has the ability to wake up and fight back. This was admitted by the police trainer.

The prosecution won’t even call up a key witness, a dude that was also in the car that is apparently Floyd’s dealer. They wouldn’t offer him a deal to testify (he is currently in jail). Think why that might be.

This is all just from questioning the prosecutors witnesses. The defence hasn’t even begun yet.

All I’m saying is if you think this is a slam dunk then you are mistaken.

The defence showed images of Chauvin having a knee on the shoulder blade, not the back, but this was quickly retorted when they showed evidence that he moved the knee to the back after having the knee on the neck until he lost consciousness. Evidence shows that he had one knee on the neck for most of the time and occasionally had the other knee on his back often putting his full weight on him.

But there's definitely some doubt. There was enough drugs to kill a man who didn't normally use drugs, but the medical examiner said that he had most likely (not definitely, just likely) developed a resistance through constant use. The medical experts said that his heart failure was almost certainly due to a lack of oxygen and it would have happened to anyone regardless of drugs or health condition, but they can't say that for certainty as it could have been something else (like the drugs) that caused the heart failure.

I think there is probably enough there for reasonable doubt. At least, enough doubt to avoid a murder charge. But he's facing three charges and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the lesser charge of either 2nd degree manslaughter. It'll just come down to whether his actions were negligent and if there's enough evidence that his actions at least contributed to the death.

But there's still a lot more trial to go. Will be interesting to see which way it goes.

 

[The DoggFather]

Yeh I hope the defence lawyers who have:-

- attempted to paint George Floyd as no good scum who deserved to die (which is irrelevant to the case)
- claimed that George Floyd was going to die one day anyways, so it doesn't matter that he died then

get a fair trial and not by media

Is that legit? I know Murikans are dumb but that takes the cake.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Is that legit? I know Murikans are dumb but that takes the cake.

I'm paraphrasing bro, they don't exactly say that but the picture the defence is trying to paint is that George floyd is a drug addict and was already on a crash course with death. That he died from an "overdose" and not the kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes.

Basically they're trying to paint him in a light that he was sub-human and doesn't deserve any pity. They've even gone to the lengths of trying to prove that when he says something along the lines of "tell my mom I love her", that he actually means his drug addict girlfriend because that was a nick name he had for her. This is all part of their "defence" where they're trying to throw as much mud as possible on George floyd and hope it sticks and de-humanise him as much as possible.

This is how yank defence lawyers work, they're trying to weasel their way around the charges and the law.

It's black and white, I've watched the whole video, there's no ifs or buts that chauvin killed him (it could have been unintended). This whole garbage that the defence is bringing that chauvin kneeled on his back is a little 30 second clip that they're taking out of context, ie when the damage was already done.

And I don't give a shit what your history is, if you're being apprehended by the police, I expect the police to put that person in cuffs and bring them before courts where their innocence or guilt is decided. We do not pay our taxes to have state funded kill squads.

The way George floyd is being painted, the way that some say "a drug addict is being made a martyr for BLM", it disgusts me. It is a human life at the end of the day. We all make mistakes, some of us are "priviliged" that we're brought up in good families with good role models, others aren't and they go down that path. The way I see it, in a lot of these cases society is persecuting people for the simple reason of who they were born to.

 

[The DoggFather]

I'm paraphrasing bro, they don't exactly say that but the picture the defence is trying to paint is that George floyd is a drug addict and was already on a crash course with death. That he died from an "overdose" and not the kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes.

Basically they're trying to paint him in a light that he was sub-human and doesn't deserve any pity. They've even gone to the lengths of trying to prove that when he says something along the lines of "tell my mom I love her", that he actually means his drug addict girlfriend because that was a nick name he had for her. This is all part of their "defence" where they're trying to throw as much mud as possible on George floyd and hope it sticks and de-humanise him as much as possible.

This is how yank defence lawyers work, they're trying to weasel their way around the charges and the law.

It's black and white, I've watched the whole video, there's no ifs or buts that chauvin killed him (it could have been unintended). This whole garbage that the defence is bringing that chauvin kneeled on his back is a little 30 second clip that they're taking out of context, ie when the damage was already done.

And I don't give a shit what your history is, if you're being apprehended by the police, I expect the police to put that person in cuffs and bring them before courts where their innocence or guilt is decided. We do not pay our taxes to have state funded kill squads.

The way George floyd is being painted, the way that some say "a drug addict is being made a martyr for BLM", it disgusts me. It is a human life at the end of the day. We all make mistakes, some of us are "priviliged" that we're brought up in good families with good role models, others aren't and they go down that path. The way I see it, in a lot of these cases society is persecuting people for the simple reason of who they were born to.

I haven't been following it but I'm expecting trouble which ever way it gets ruled on. There will be a lot of angry people on both sides wanting "justice".

 

[CaptainJackson]

I haven't been following it but I'm expecting trouble which ever way it gets ruled on. There will be a lot of angry people on both sides wanting "justice".

That country has a massive problem with ingrained racism. It exists massively there. Until they solve their racism problem, there will always be problems.

The recent changes to voting that Georgia is trying to bring in, are clearly designed to make it harder for black people to vote but yet republicans are saying the democrats are racist. It's a whole bunch of fucked up there.

When one of the most popular TV hosts (tucker carlson) is a white supremacist and can spout his bullshit day in day out with popular support, you know there's massive problems over there

 

[CaptainJackson]

Forget that it's CNN, just look at the snippets from witness testimony