Zone1 The officer did not murder Floyd, should he get a new trial?

[HeyNorm]

While true. Floyd put himself in the position to be placed under stress. If the guy in your scenario starts the by punching you in the face and you retaliate…

It is a vast difference between a latent physical defect (skull) and taking a substance that all know can itself cause death and YOU allow YOURSELF to ingest it.

 

[KissMy]

Assuming that Floyd didn’t die from the neck compression caused by Chauvin’s knee on the neck for like 8 plus minutes, then at a very minimum, the murder conviction should get tossed.

Wrong!

Once police had Floyd in cuffs, it was their duty to do all they could to keep him alive. Chauvin did the opposite. Police were gassing him with exhaust fumes, bound his arms, legs & body prone with all his & their weight on his chest & stomach so he couldn't breath & knelt on his neck.

Keep Chauvin locked up!

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong!

Once police had Floyd in cuffs, it was their duty to do all they could to keep him alive. Chauvin did the opposite. Police were gassing him with exhaust fumes, bound his arms, legs & body prone with all his & their weight on his chest & stomach so he couldn't breath & knelt on his neck.

Keep Chauvin locked up!

You’re barking up a different tree.

If Chauvin failed to do whatever he might have been able to do to save the life of Floyd, then that fact still wouldn’t make him guilty of murder.

I’m not saying Chauvin didn’t have some criminal responsibility. It seems likely to me he needs to serve some time for whatever he’s guilty of.

But again assuming that his behavior wasn’t the actual cause of death of old Floyd’s death, one thing he seems not to be guilty of is “murder.”

 

[GLASNOST]

Now that this is out in public, should the officers get new trials?

Isn't the ONLY WAY to be legally innocent by way of a trial?

 

[forkup]

We now have evidence that the prosecutors in the George Floyd case and the coroner knew that the police officer restraining the violent criminal, George Floyd, did not murder him and was not the cause of his death………as many people pointed out, but the democrat party needed a reason to riot leading up to the 2024 election…….

Now that this is out in public, should the officers get new trials?

I called Dr. Baker early that morning to tell him about the case and to ask him if he would perform the autopsy on Mr. Floyd,” she explained.

“He called me later in the day on that Tuesday and he told me that there were no medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation,” Sweasy said, according to the transcript.

“He said to me, ‘Amy, what happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?’ And then he said, ‘This is the kind of case that ends careers.’”
————-
Ellison increased the charge to second-degree murder—again, knowing Chauvin was innocent. Sadly, prosecutorial immunity means that the corrupt individuals who put Chauvin behind bars for the rest of his life will face no consequences for their evil act.

Minneapolis’s prosecutors always knew George Floyd died of natural causes

A former Hennepin County, Minnesota, prosecutor is suing her employer, alleging that she was a victim of sex discrimination and retaliation. That’s par for the course. Hennepin County is entirely Democrat, and Democrats don’t always feel ...

www.americanthinker.com

The source of this article is "the American Thinker". I personally would be very weary about using as a source a blog that has already been forced to publicly admit they put out false information, in order to avoid a lawsuit.

Of course, just because they've lied before doesn't mean they're lying now. So I read the "article".

Immediately what strikes me is that it disparages the Democrats but that it simply asserts that everybody who reads them somehow has some special knowledge. Not only does it lead the reader but it plays into the sense of the reader being special. This makes me even more suspicious, because it's such an obvious manipulation tactic typically used to suppress the ability to think critically about something. If you simply assert that what you claim is true, people who are inclined to share your bias will simply accept that without thinking.

Of course, just because they lied before and the writer is trying to manipulate the reader doesn't mean the premise is by definition wrong so I read what is being said.

So what is it that they claim? A former prosecutor with an axe to grind claimed in a deposition that the coronor in Floyd's case lied on the stand. Therefore it is proven that what she said is true and therefore Chauvin needs to be released and in a just world the prosecutors punished.

This runs into a few problems in my opinion. Firstly why is her word more thrustworthy than that of the coronor? Second the idea that Chauvin is innocent runs in the reality of the well publicized video of the event.

In that video you see him sitting on Floyd's neck. You see his obvious relish when doing so. And you see him continuing doing so although bystanders yell at him that Floyd has lost consciousness. The chance that Floyd cause of death is completely unrelated to the officer sitting on his neck and simply refusing to render aid strains credulity. And people trying to paint Chauvin as a victim and not as what he is.. A murderer shows a moral bankruptcy.

 

[GLASNOST]

The source of this article is "the American Thinker". I personally would be very weary about using as a source a blog that has already been forced to publicly admit they put out false information ...

Yeah, you're right. Let's ask the CIA or O.J. Simpson's lawyer. That's the only way to get at the truth.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, you're right. Let's ask the CIA or O.J. Simpson's lawyer. That's the only way to get at the truth.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say? Can you rephrase your point and make it a bit clearer?

 

[Crepitus]

Actually he wasn't murdered he died of a overdose. Time to wake up!

We all watched the video. He died under a cops knee gasping for breath.

 

[GLASNOST]

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say? .....

Really?

 

[KissMy]

The source of this article is "the American Thinker". I personally would be very weary about using as a source a blog that has already been forced to publicly admit they put out false information, in order to avoid a lawsuit.

Of course, just because they've lied before doesn't mean they're lying now. So I read the "article".

Immediately what strikes me is that it disparages the Democrats but that it simply asserts that everybody who reads them somehow has some special knowledge. Not only does it lead the reader but it plays into the sense of the reader being special. This makes me even more suspicious, because it's such an obvious manipulation tactic typically used to suppress the ability to think critically about something. If you simply assert that what you claim is true, people who are inclined to share your bias will simply accept that without thinking.

Of course, just because they lied before and the writer is trying to manipulate the reader doesn't mean the premise is by definition wrong so I read what is being said.

So what is it that they claim? A former prosecutor with an axe to grind claimed in a deposition that the coronor in Floyd's case lied on the stand. Therefore it is proven that what she said is true and therefore Chauvin needs to be released and in a just world the prosecutors punished.

This runs into a few problems in my opinion. Firstly why is her word more thrustworthy than that of the coronor? Second the idea that Chauvin is innocent runs in the reality of the well publicized video of the event.

In that video you see him sitting on Floyd's neck. You see his obvious relish when doing so. And you see him continuing doing so although bystanders yell at him that Floyd has lost consciousness. The chance that Floyd cause of death is completely unrelated to the officer sitting on his neck and simply refusing to render aid strains credulity. And people trying to paint Chauvin as a victim and not as what he is.. A murderer shows a moral bankruptcy.

Genevieve Hansen (the white woman in the crowd of bystanders who came off the sidewalk confronting police as they were murdering Floyd), was an off duty fire dept EMS worker. Officer Tou Thao forced Hansen back onto the sidewalk. She was trying to save the police from committing murder & the city from massive lawsuit.

Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin PLEADED GUILTY to federal criminal charges in the death of George Floyd

 

[forkup]

Genevieve Hansen (the white woman in the crowd of bystanders who came off the sidewalk confronting police as they were murdering Floyd), was an off duty fire dept EMS worker. Officer Tou Thao forced Hansen back onto the sidewalk. She was trying to save the police from committing murder & the city from massive lawsuit.

That's a point I was making. Even if you accept the premise that Floyd somehow died of something else than Chauvin sitting on his neck, a VERY big if. Chauvin still was completely not prepared to get of of him even when he was alerted in no uncertain terms that Floyd became unresponsive.

It therefore becomes very unlikely that Chauvin's intention was innocent.

 

[forkup]

Really?

Yes really. That's why I asked you to clarify.

 

[KissMy]

Not a new trial….jury nullification due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Chavin should be released immediately to an undisclosed location chosen by the Witness Protection Program.

I would like to see the $20 million given to the Floyd family for “wrongful death” confiscated, with half going back to the state and the other half to Chavin.

Dear Idiot,

Police admitted to murdering George Floyd.

On Dec. 15, 2021 former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin under oath PLEADED GUILTY to federal criminal charges in the death of George Floyd.

The murder of Floyd could be charged as premeditated murder in the first degree. Officers approached unarmed nonviolent Floyd with guns pointed at his head forcing him to plead for his life before he was handcuffed, beaten & tortured to death within 13 minutes.

 

[Lisa558]

Dear Idiot,

Police admitted to murdering George Floyd.

On Dec. 15, 2021 former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin under oath PLEADED GUILTY to federal criminal charges in the death of George Floyd.

Dear Idiot,

Kiss my ***.

 

[GLASNOST]

Yes really. That's why I asked you to clarify.

Oh, I see.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Isn't the ONLY WAY to be legally innocent by way of a trial?

Innocent until proven guilty. That's the standard. And guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the very least, there is plenty of evidence that casts more than a reasonable doubt on the premise that Officer Chauvin is guilty of murder, of of any serious wrongdoing here. Also evidence that suggests significant prosecutorial wrongdoing, in tampering with witnesses and evidence.

 

[odanny]

it's such an obvious manipulation tactic typically used to suppress the ability to think critically about something.

That's always been the issue for the OP.

 

[forkup]

Innocent until proven guilty. That's the standard. And guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

At the very least, there is plenty of evidence that casts more than a reasonable doubt on the premise that Officer Chauvin is guilty of murder, of of any serious wrongdoing here. Also evidence that suggests significant prosecutorial wrongdoing, in tampering with witnesses and evidence.

Read post 85

Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond any doubt. It means that the doubt you have needs to have a reasonable bases.

To me claiming a cop can sit on someone's neck until they pass out, and remain sitting on there despite people yelling at him that the person has passed out and as such has done nothing seriously wrong is not reasonable.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Read post 85

Read post 125.

 

[GLASNOST]

Innocent until proven guilty. That's the standard. And guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read my lips: In - a - Court - of - Law. Did you forget that part? Duh.