Supreme Court rejects appeal of former Minneapolis police officer convicted of killing George Floyd - Derek Chauvin Discussion

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

I'm surprised they even considered the case. Pretty slam dunk with the video and autopsy. The constitutionality of the case was never in doubt.

EDIT: the 22.5 years might be too stiff - I have no reason to believe that this was anything more than 2nd degree manslaughter while his conviction was for 2nd degree murder I believe.

reply

[–] redban (6194) a year ago

Very sad

reply

[–] xanthas (3215) a year ago

What a relief!!!

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Ex-officer Derek Chauvin makes another bid to overturn federal conviction in murder of George Floyd

https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-u-s-news/ap-ex-officer-derek-chauvin-makes-another-bid-to-overturn-federal-conviction-in-murder-of-george-floyd/

Former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin is making another attempt to overturn his federal civil rights conviction in the 2020 murder of George Floyd, saying new evidence shows that he didn’t cause Floyd’s death.

In a motion filed in federal court Monday, Chauvin said he never would have pleaded guilty to the charge in 2021 if he had known about the theories of a Kansas pathologist with whom he began corresponding in February. Chauvin is asking the judge who presided over his trial to throw out his conviction and order a new trial, or at least an evidentiary hearing.

This is why you don't plead guilty, dumb-ass.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

Wouldn't have mattered. They were going to get him on the bullshit "civil rights" angle no matter if he pleaded guilty or was convicted, and he would still not get a new trial either way.

He should be convicted for 2nd degree manslaughter only, not 2nd degree murder, and not on any civil rights violation, but that's where the country is today.

There is no evidence Chauvin's intent was to kill Floyd. Intent must be proven to make the murder charge and civil rights violation charges stick, and they didn't come close to proving that.

Did Chauvin kill Floyd? Yes. Did he intend to? Not a chance.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1391) a year ago

2nd degree UNINTENTIONAL murder

"To prove this count, prosecutors had to show that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing or trying to commit a felony — in this case, third-degree assault. They didn't have to prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd, only that he intended to apply unlawful force that caused bodily harm."

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

Doesn't "murder" by definition imply intent? Seems like "unintentional" and "murder" are mutually exclusive. I thought that was what "manslaughter" was for. You didn't cite that reference - it sounds like someone's interpretation of what happened.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1391) a year ago

2nd degree
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.19

3rd degree
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

Yeah, that's odd. I don't know if every (or any?) state beside Minnesota has that.

Thanks for those links.

Regarding the 2nd degree murder, it's for someone committing a felony (say a car jacking) and causing the unintentional death of an innocent bystander or victim - it wouldn't apply to a police officer restraining a prisoner.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1391) a year ago

Don't look at me, look at the jury.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

That is not what Chauvin admitted to in court, in 2021.

https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2021/12/15/chauvin_plea_0.pdf

The defendant is pleading guilty because he is in fact guilty of Count One of the Indictment and Count One of the Information. In pleading guilty, the defendant admits that the following facts are true, and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and constitute relevant conduct pursuant to the United States

On or about May 25,2020, in the State and District of Minnesota, the defendant,
while acting under color of law, and while aided and abetted by other officers, willfully
deprived George Perry Floyd, Jr., of his constitutional rights-specifically, the right to be
free from an unreasonable seizure, which includes the right to be free from the use of
unreasonable force by a police officer. The defendant held his left knee across Mr.
Floyd's neck, back, and shoulder, and his right knee on Mr. Floyd's back and arm. As
Mr. Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, the defendant kept his knees on
Floyd's neck and body, even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive. This offense resulted
in bodily injury to, and the death of George Floyd.

Chauvin claims he killed Floyd. He claims he knelt on Floyd until he was unresponsive then kept on kneeling on him. Would anyone here claim that was an accident if it happened to someone they cared about?

A person only kneels on a person without a pulse in order to kill them, on purpose.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

A person only kneels on a person without a pulse in order to kill them, on purpose.

Or, a POLICE officer might do that to restrain someone. Right or wrong (different debate), that technique has been used by police in tens of thousands of times and is still used today - without causing death. Regarding the timing, I don't know if Chauvin knew that Floyd didn't have a pulse - if he did, that would bolster your argument, yes.

Chauvin's a bully, he had little regard for Floyd's discomfort, didn't care that Floyd was struggling to breathe, and his over-zealous restraint of Floyd killed him, but to say that he killed him on purpose is a stretch.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15638) a year ago

I'm a little confused about how we're all so sure the pulse was missing early on .
Chauvin or one of the others must have done a check?

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

I think the EMTs said it, but it's been a while since I read the story. What I don't know is whether Chauvin was informed there was no pulse and didn't let up - that wouldn't seem likely. If he knew, then he deserved all he got and more.

EDIT: It appears that the EMTs arrived and found Floyd still restrained and with no pulse. They immediately put him in the ambulance where they started chest compressions.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/88awk3/george-floyd-had-no-pulse-when-derek-chauvin-was-on-top-of-him-paramedics-say

I'm not sure why they assume Floyd had no pulse for three minutes as reported other than the strong coincidence that his pulse stopped the second they checked for it. It may be based on video evidence that might show Floyd not breathing or struggling for breathe for several minutes.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

What would be the reason for kneeling on a person without a pulse? Is a knee on the back really required to restrain someone without a pulse?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-chauvin-knee-george-floyds-neck-minutes-complaint/story?id=70961042

Floyd went face down on the ground with Chauvin's knee in his neck at 8:19:38 p.m., according to the complaint. At 8:24:24, Floyd stopped moving. Approximately a minute later, video "appears to show Mr. Floyd ceasing to breathe or speak."

Keung checked for a pulse on Floyd's right wrist, said he couldn't find one, the complaint states, and still none of the officers moved from their positions.

At 8:27:31 p.m., Chauvin removed his knee from Floyd's neck, according to the statement. An ambulance was called to the scene and Floyd was pronounced dead at Hennepin County Medical Center shortly after.

This clearly says Chauvin kept kneeling on Floyd after the police the scene told him they could not find a pulse. Since Chauvin did not accuse his fellow officers of hiding information from him, it should be obvious that they told him of Floyd's condition. How is it that you know so little about Floyd's death and appear to be almost completely uninformed, but still think your opinion matters?

This information has been available to you for over there years, but you choose to remain ignorant or ignore it. Did you read anything about this incident other than a white cop killed a black criminal? Is that the extent of your knowledge in this case?

Various people have repeated, many times, that Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd even after he had no pulse. People have said that for years, in various threads here. Why did you ignore that?

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

Whoa, slow down chief.

This information has been available to you for over there years, but you choose to remain ignorant or ignore it.

I said in my reply to you that I did not know if Chauvin was informed about the pulse - maybe you should read my entire reply before you started shooting. I also said that if that was the case, it would support your opinion. Again, read my reply.

The link I posted to moviechatter that I found this morning ( posted above) gave a timeline from when the EMTs arrived. If another cop found no pulse, I didn't see that.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

I said you pretended to be blind for three years.

Almost everyone else with an opinion on this topic knows that Chauvin was kneeling on a dead guy for two minutes. Just like they know, the police knew, they could not find a pulse two minutes prior to Chauvin finally taking his knee off of the guy.

Why has it taken you three years to figure this out?

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

Good God you're dense.

I've been saying since this happened that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd for three minutes after he stopped breathing (and I was getting killed by the rightists), what I'm questioning is whether Chauvin knew Floyd wasn't breathing (which is causing me to get killed by the leftists).

I said this three weeks ago on MC:

The trial might have been faked for all I know, but then that pesky video of Chauvin kneeling on a guy face down on the ground while handcuffed behind his back as he gasped out his last breath and then doing so for several minutes after he was dead is why I don't care how or why he's in the pokey.

One of the cops according to your link says he checked for a pulse, and maybe he did, but is it known if he knew where to check for pulse? Is it a requirement for police? Maybe it is.

What I'm saying is that the bar for me to call anyone an intentional murderer is a lot higher than yours apparently. My bar for calling someone a racist is just as high.

What is known is that Chauvin killed Floyd. To say unequivocally that it was his specific intention to kill him is being disingenuous. The only person who could possibly know that is Chauvin himself, and he would never admit that even if he did.

EDIT: I don't know why people have to be so binary on both sides. How about the truth? Nothing is absolute.

Those who defend Chauvin say he had no impact on Floyd's death - "it was a drug overdose". They want him completely exonerated and given an apology. Those on the other side said Chauvin was a racist who summarily executed Floyd. It's not enough he was convicted of killing Floyd, he must also have killed him because he wanted to.

I believe both extremes are wrong and maybe there is some truth in both arguments - Chauvin unintentionally caused Floyd's death because he was a bully asshole who didn't get off Floyd soon enough - maybe because the crowd was telling him to.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Why are claiming civil rights are BS?

How else do you explain why Chauvin kept kneeling on Floyd for two minutes after Kueng could not find a pulse? Is there any reason to do that other than to make sure the perp is dead?

Nothing has to be proven when the defendant pleads guilty. Too bad you were not there to advice Chauvin of what to do in court. You could have told him that "the MovieChat forum sent me to rescue you".

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

How else do you explain why Chauvin kept kneeling on Floyd for two minutes after Kueng could not find a pulse? Is there any reason to do that other than to make sure the perp is dead?

Well, "civil rights" doesn't explain it...

To answer your question (which is getting off the civil rights topic), maybe Chauvin was simply an asshole who showed wanton disregard for Floyd and his struggles and not to ensure he was dead. For me to claim anyone responsible for someone's death *wanted* to kill him is a very high bar for me to clear. I would give you or anyone the same benefit of the doubt. The first issue is that Chauvin had no motive, and even if he did, would he intentionally murder someone in public in front of a dozen cell phone cameras? Doesn't make sense.

What makes sense is that Chauvin was an asshole who killed Floyd because he was a dick and didn't care about his breathing struggles. Claiming he intentionally killed Floyd is too much a stretch.

Getting back to the civil rights issue and the claim that it was part of this case, by that definition, *any* aggrieved person can claim a "civil rights" violation for anything. Claiming civil rights violations for anything and everything dilutes the claims of those who actually do have a legitimate civil rights violation claim. Reminds me of the cop who was cuffing a woman motorist who claimed he was raping her.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

They were going to get him on the bullshit "civil rights" angle....

You said civil rights; I was not putting words into your mouth.

So all of that word salad is some sort of explanation about why it was okay for Chauvin to keep his knee on Floyd's back for two minutes after they could not find a pulse?

I suspect that Chauvin killed Floyd because he thought he could get away with it. Imagine the street cred he would have (in his own mind) after watching himself kill a guy in public, on video.

Yes, claiming civil rights violations for everything would dilute legit claims. There were about 37,000 civil rights cases filed in 2021 in the USA, the same year Chauvin plead guilty. But there were over 1.2 million violent crimes reported in 2020, when Chauvin killed Floyd. This is 3% of violent crimes resulting in federal civil rights cases.

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-judicial-caseload-statistics-2021
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191129/reported-violent-crime-in-the-us-since-1990/

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

I said civil rights because that was one of the charges against him *and* it was mentioned in the link you posted.

I suspect that Chauvin killed Floyd because he thought he could get away with it. Imagine the street cred he would have (in his own mind) after watching himself kill a guy in public, on video.

Wow, that is a stretch, one I think most people wouldn't make. But even if that was true, it's impossible to prove legally without a confession (or a found manifesto or other type of statement to media which can be located) and that's why in a nation of laws, we shouldn't convict based on a gut feeling.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

My suspicions are not allowed as statements of fact in court, and properly so. But I am free to make those claims here.

Remember, Chauvin did claim later in his civil court case that he killed Floyd. He knows he was kneeling on a man without a pulse. Chauvin is not so stupid as to actually believe that it was the right way to protect anyone.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

He [Chauvin]knows he was kneeling on a man without a pulse.

Did he say that or are we supposing?

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Officer Keung told Chauvin at the scene. How is it that you do not know this? This was common knowledge among anyone who read about the trial. It is kind of late to be constantly pleading ignorance about this incident.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-chauvin-knee-george-floyds-neck-minutes-complaint/story?id=70961042

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

You know, you're a condescending prick.. LOL

I addressed this earlier - I'm not pleading ignorance, I'm questioning whether Keung was knowledgeable about taking a pulse? Did Chauvin say he heard Keung say this? There were a lot of people at the scene talking and some yelling. None of the other cops moved either. Was Keung even sure himself?

If Chauvin said he heard the other cop say he had no pulse, that would be damning.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Kneeling on Floyd for over two minutes while he was out cold is damning. You just don't see it that way.

reply

[–] tvfan (12742) a year ago

Blame it on the drugs, his deteriorated health, and defiant criminal behavior.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

I blame it on Chauvin's defiant criminal behavior.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

You just don't see it that way.

Of course I do - what Chauvin did was mean, outrageous, and showed wanton disregard for Floyd.

I just can't make that final leap to say that causing Floyd's death was what his *plan* was.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

That final leap was his decision to stay on Floyd's back after he was told he had no pulse. Get off or stay on; I think Chauvin chose death.

reply

[–] tvfan (12742) a year ago

Floyd chose death.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

That final leap was his decision to stay on Floyd's back ..

OK, but if it was Chauvin's intention to kill Floyd, why did he stay on his back after he accomplished his "plan"?

The evidence just doesn't make the leap that a cop would willfully execute someone in front of a crowd with cameras, particularly without a motive.

The only thing that would explain Chauvin's willingness to kill without motive would be insanity, of which there was no evidence.

Maybe that will make up his appeal...

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Maybe Chauvin wanted to make sure the EMT's would not revive him? Chauvin would not even tell the jury he did not intend to kill Floyd, as was his right to do so.

The appeal would only consist of alleged mistakes made during the trial. Chauvin cannot choose to explain his actions by testifying at the appeal.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

Maybe Chauvin wanted to make sure the EMT's would not revive him?

Maybe, but then we get back to why on God's green Earth a cop with a family and career would want to kill someone in public with no motive?

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Killers kill so they can kill. Perhaps you can ask him why some day.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

I think you're mostly alone on this - from what I've read even the prosecutors didn't claim that Chauvin intentionally killed Floyd, but that Floyd's death was due to reckless actions on Chauvin's part.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

I think a prosecutor will only claim what they think they can prove in court.

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

Exactly.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18410) a year ago

"Pretty slam dunk with the video and autopsy."

The autopsy indicates that Floyd was full of drugs, had blocked arteries, and Covid. It also states that he had no injuries from anything Chauvin might have done. If he had been just found dead somewhere, in exactly the same condition, his death probably would have been ruled a drug overdose. Chauvin was sacrificed so we won't have more burned cities.

reply

[–] robocat893 (15923) a year ago

That's not what happened at all. It's been over three years and you idiots still don't understand why Chauvin is in prison so I'll explain it again. All Chauvin had to do was get off of Floyd who was handcuffed and subdued then call for medical assistance then Floyd might be alive but Chauvin would not be in prison. Instead Chauvin murdered Floyd in the street so that's why he is going to be in prison for most of the rest of his life.

reply

[–] mnphotoguy99 (436) a year ago

Spot on!!! And for those whining that there was no civil rights violation, Chauvin had a track record of other excessive force violations…including kneeling on the back of the neck of a 14 year old boy and hitting him with a flashlight. He was a disgrace that the Mpls PD enabled and swept his actions under the rug before George Floyd.

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Which report did you read? Not this one obviously. https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/medical-examiner/floyd-autopsy-6-3-20.pdf

HENNEPIN COUNTY
MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE
AUTOPSY REPORT
ME NO.: 20-3700
CASE TITLE: CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT
SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION
I. Blunt force injuries
A. Cutaneous blunt force injuries of the forehead, face, and
upper lip
B. Mucosal injuries of the lips
C. Cutaneous blunt force injuries of the shoulders, hands,
elbows, and legs
D. Patterned contusions (in some areas abraded) of the wrists,
consistent with restraints (handcuffs)

Why do you act like everyone reading your post is too stupid to look up and read the autopsy report themselves?

reply

[–] strntz (12254) a year ago

The autopsy indicates that Floyd was full of drugs, had blocked arteries, and Covid.

People under restraint/arrest could have all sorts of medical issues going on, which is why a professional like Chauvin should have paid more attention.

When a guy who was struggling to breathe while face down with his chest compressed suddenly becomes still, don't you think Chauvin should have checked on him?

reply

[–] Ranb (9616) a year ago

Officer Keung told Chauvin at the scene that he could not find a pulse. Chauvin kept his knee on Floyd for another two minutes anyway.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-chauvin-knee-george-floyds-neck-minutes-complaint/story?id=70961042

reply

[–] SamNoyoun (5847) a year ago

https://media.tenor.com/HC5czhxIYsgAAAAC/mr-burns-excellent.gif

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) a year ago

They are both pieces of shit and right where they belong. ;)

reply

[–] robocat893 (15923) a year ago

🤣

reply