Why are the prosecutors for George Floyd going to trial?
17 Jul 2020, 9:50 pm
ironpony wrote:
Well I suppose we are spending money on a trial, because no one wants to do the hanging?
The magic trick that is used in high profile cases , is to draw it out sooooo looong, that the public gets tired of it .
At that point then the real dealing starts . But now nobody cares and just want it over .
Here in my town and , I think in Portland the police have had several different law enforcement groups come in as a crime task force and make protestors “ go away” the fbi the dea and homeland security have descended on Portland Oregon and here as well. Almost 2000 miles away from Portland. But same task force . “ goon squads”
Sorry to made these observation but it is in the news. And. It is on the net , but nobody calls them goon squads .
But reports exist from Portland of protesters being practically abducted by the. Special enforcement group s
In unmarked vehicles . And no defining uniforms . But article stated definitively that these are police support group
( crime task force ).
_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are
17 Jul 2020, 10:58 pm
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well as are as them being acquitted goes, would most jurors want to acquit them based on the 'occupational hazard' point of view? I mean most people seem to scream about how the police used excessive force in this case, so wouldn't most jurors see it that way, and not as occupational hazard?
It would likely depend on whether they look at it as the incident, seperate from the training\directives, or whether they operated as required under their instructions (subjective Vs objective views).
In the first case, they were solely in the wrong, whereas in the latter, while in the "wrong", they were doing as they had been "expected" to, and it was the training\directives which were the "cause" of this, not personal discretion\choices. The latter would require looking at what reasoning was used to decide the incident needed to be handled in the way it was, which could still be a problem, depending on what reasoning\evidence was used to decide.
Yeah but for Derek Chauvin, the jury would not be able to use the defense for him that he was operating under instructions though, compared to the others, right?
It would depend: If the department\city had "instructed" the officers that they were to act in this way, he could use that (for mitigation, if nothing else). Instructions don't need to be "at the scene", but include training provided, directions set for how certain types of incidents are to be handled, etc.
17 Jul 2020, 11:03 pm
Jakki wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I suppose we are spending money on a trial, because no one wants to do the hanging?
The magic trick that is used in high profile cases , is to draw it out sooooo looong, that the public gets tired of it .
The other side of this, however, is that in high profile cases, they may have to wait a certain length of time in order to allow for a reasonable jury, not one that is caught up in the "heat of the moment" and so will not give the evidence supplied by both sides due consideration, as they have already decided on guilt/innocence based on minimal information and at that point are unable\unwilling to reconsider their opinions.
17 Jul 2020, 11:41 pm
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well as are as them being acquitted goes, would most jurors want to acquit them based on the 'occupational hazard' point of view? I mean most people seem to scream about how the police used excessive force in this case, so wouldn't most jurors see it that way, and not as occupational hazard?
It would likely depend on whether they look at it as the incident, seperate from the training\directives, or whether they operated as required under their instructions (subjective Vs objective views).
In the first case, they were solely in the wrong, whereas in the latter, while in the "wrong", they were doing as they had been "expected" to, and it was the training\directives which were the "cause" of this, not personal discretion\choices. The latter would require looking at what reasoning was used to decide the incident needed to be handled in the way it was, which could still be a problem, depending on what reasoning\evidence was used to decide.
Yeah but for Derek Chauvin, the jury would not be able to use the defense for him that he was operating under instructions though, compared to the others, right?
It would depend: If the department\city had "instructed" the officers that they were to act in this way, he could use that (for mitigation, if nothing else). Instructions don't need to be "at the scene", but include training provided, directions set for how certain types of incidents are to be handled, etc.
Oh okay but I think the whole, someone told me to do it, defense is a weak one personally. Plus they went against police training, so if they were told to go against it, they still went against it.
17 Jul 2020, 11:43 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Jakki wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I suppose we are spending money on a trial, because no one wants to do the hanging?
The magic trick that is used in high profile cases , is to draw it out sooooo looong, that the public gets tired of it .
The other side of this, however, is that in high profile cases, they may have to wait a certain length of time in order to allow for a reasonable jury, not one that is caught up in the "heat of the moment" and so will not give the evidence supplied by both sides due consideration, as they have already decided on guilt/innocence based on minimal information and at that point are unable\unwilling to reconsider their opinions.
Well this case has gotten the country in such a stir, I don't think they are going to get an unbiased jury unless they literally leave the country. However, the defense is entitled to a speedy trial as the term goes, if they wish, so therefore, how long would the prosecution be allowed to drag it out for?
18 Jul 2020, 12:22 am
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well as are as them being acquitted goes, would most jurors want to acquit them based on the 'occupational hazard' point of view? I mean most people seem to scream about how the police used excessive force in this case, so wouldn't most jurors see it that way, and not as occupational hazard?
It would likely depend on whether they look at it as the incident, seperate from the training\directives, or whether they operated as required under their instructions (subjective Vs objective views).
In the first case, they were solely in the wrong, whereas in the latter, while in the "wrong", they were doing as they had been "expected" to, and it was the training\directives which were the "cause" of this, not personal discretion\choices. The latter would require looking at what reasoning was used to decide the incident needed to be handled in the way it was, which could still be a problem, depending on what reasoning\evidence was used to decide.
Yeah but for Derek Chauvin, the jury would not be able to use the defense for him that he was operating under instructions though, compared to the others, right?
It would depend: If the department\city had "instructed" the officers that they were to act in this way, he could use that (for mitigation, if nothing else). Instructions don't need to be "at the scene", but include training provided, directions set for how certain types of incidents are to be handled, etc.
Oh okay but I think the whole, someone told me to do it, defense is a weak one personally. Plus they went against police training, so if they were told to go against it, they still went against it.
My understanding was that they were following the training\departmental directives with regards to the restraint method, with no information having been supplied to them regarding the potential risks with the type of restraint used. If this is the case, while what they did was "bad", it would place the blame as much (if not more) on those who approved this training\directives and\or those who didn't ensure staff were aware of the risks.
Sadly, if this is the case, it is only those on the front line who have to pay for the mistakes of their superiors.
18 Jul 2020, 12:26 am
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Jakki wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I suppose we are spending money on a trial, because no one wants to do the hanging?
The magic trick that is used in high profile cases , is to draw it out sooooo looong, that the public gets tired of it .
The other side of this, however, is that in high profile cases, they may have to wait a certain length of time in order to allow for a reasonable jury, not one that is caught up in the "heat of the moment" and so will not give the evidence supplied by both sides due consideration, as they have already decided on guilt/innocence based on minimal information and at that point are unable\unwilling to reconsider their opinions.
Well this case has gotten the country in such a stir, I don't think they are going to get an unbiased jury unless they literally leave the country. However, the defense is entitled to a speedy trial as the term goes, if they wish, so therefore, how long would the prosecution be allowed to drag it out for?
I would guess that there is possibly an issue with jury trials at the moment which may be causing the delay (for some reason large numbers of people in a small area isn't really a popular thing to have)...The defence may or may not also be requesting the delay: who (other than those involved) really knows.
It's not fair on the accused if the jury aren't able to see the full face of those being questioned in court to see facial expressions, etc., nor is it fair to have some people forced to have no mask on (should they wish to wear one) in order to answer the questions.
18 Jul 2020, 12:29 am
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well as are as them being acquitted goes, would most jurors want to acquit them based on the 'occupational hazard' point of view? I mean most people seem to scream about how the police used excessive force in this case, so wouldn't most jurors see it that way, and not as occupational hazard?
It would likely depend on whether they look at it as the incident, seperate from the training\directives, or whether they operated as required under their instructions (subjective Vs objective views).
In the first case, they were solely in the wrong, whereas in the latter, while in the "wrong", they were doing as they had been "expected" to, and it was the training\directives which were the "cause" of this, not personal discretion\choices. The latter would require looking at what reasoning was used to decide the incident needed to be handled in the way it was, which could still be a problem, depending on what reasoning\evidence was used to decide.
Yeah but for Derek Chauvin, the jury would not be able to use the defense for him that he was operating under instructions though, compared to the others, right?
It would depend: If the department\city had "instructed" the officers that they were to act in this way, he could use that (for mitigation, if nothing else). Instructions don't need to be "at the scene", but include training provided, directions set for how certain types of incidents are to be handled, etc.
Oh okay but I think the whole, someone told me to do it, defense is a weak one personally. Plus they went against police training, so if they were told to go against it, they still went against it.
My understanding was that they were following the training\departmental directives with regards to the restraint method, with no information having been supplied to them regarding the potential risks with the type of restraint used. If this is the case, while what they did was "bad", it would place the blame as much (if not more) on those who approved this training\directives and\or those who didn't ensure staff were aware of the risks.
Sadly, if this is the case, it is only those on the front line who have to pay for the mistakes of their superiors.
Oh okay, I have a friend who took the police academy training course and he said that Chauvin completely broke procedure and protocol on the training, but I was taking his word and trusted he knew what he was talking about. So I thought therefore, if he is right with his knowledge, that the defense on saying it's proper training will be weak, if it is proper training, like my friend says.
18 Jul 2020, 12:30 am
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Jakki wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I suppose we are spending money on a trial, because no one wants to do the hanging?
The magic trick that is used in high profile cases , is to draw it out sooooo looong, that the public gets tired of it .
The other side of this, however, is that in high profile cases, they may have to wait a certain length of time in order to allow for a reasonable jury, not one that is caught up in the "heat of the moment" and so will not give the evidence supplied by both sides due consideration, as they have already decided on guilt/innocence based on minimal information and at that point are unable\unwilling to reconsider their opinions.
Well this case has gotten the country in such a stir, I don't think they are going to get an unbiased jury unless they literally leave the country. However, the defense is entitled to a speedy trial as the term goes, if they wish, so therefore, how long would the prosecution be allowed to drag it out for?
I would guess that there is possibly an issue with jury trials at the moment which may be causing the delay (for some reason large numbers of people in a small area isn't really a popular thing to have)...The defence may or may not also be requesting the delay: who (other than those involved) really knows.
It's not fair on the accused if the jury aren't able to see the full face of those being questioned in court to see facial expressions, etc., nor is it fair to have some people forced to have no mask on (should they wish to wear one) in order to answer the questions.
Oh okay. But can't people talk with masks on?
21 Jul 2020, 1:26 am
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Jakki wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well I suppose we are spending money on a trial, because no one wants to do the hanging?
The magic trick that is used in high profile cases , is to draw it out sooooo looong, that the public gets tired of it .
The other side of this, however, is that in high profile cases, they may have to wait a certain length of time in order to allow for a reasonable jury, not one that is caught up in the "heat of the moment" and so will not give the evidence supplied by both sides due consideration, as they have already decided on guilt/innocence based on minimal information and at that point are unable\unwilling to reconsider their opinions.
Well this case has gotten the country in such a stir, I don't think they are going to get an unbiased jury unless they literally leave the country. However, the defense is entitled to a speedy trial as the term goes, if they wish, so therefore, how long would the prosecution be allowed to drag it out for?
I would guess that there is possibly an issue with jury trials at the moment which may be causing the delay (for some reason large numbers of people in a small area isn't really a popular thing to have)...The defence may or may not also be requesting the delay: who (other than those involved) really knows.
It's not fair on the accused if the jury aren't able to see the full face of those being questioned in court to see facial expressions, etc., nor is it fair to have some people forced to have no mask on (should they wish to wear one) in order to answer the questions.
Oh okay. But can't people talk with masks on?
They can talk, but masks cover facial expressions (mouth\lower portion of face), making it harder for people to determine if what is said is true (in the person seakings belief) or not...An "out of place" smile (or other expression) would likely impact on how something said would be interpreted.
21 Jul 2020, 2:02 am
Not sure if (how) this may impact on the cases, but I came across a review of an article by someone who has seen the police body-cam footage of the incident (I was looking at a video analysing an interesting case regarding Patreon when this was suggested):
Article referenced in video:
https://www.startribune.com/bodycam-video-shows-minneapolis-police-officer-pulled-gun-on-george-floyd-early-on/571778072/
The part I'm curious about (around 18:40 into this video) is the section where it mentions that when paramedics arrived (based on the body cams) they checked Mr Floyd's pulse, then walked away, showing no indication of urgency (or that there were any problems), and it was 3 minutes later, when they checked again, that CPR was started. Not sure what happened in that 3 minutes, but it seems he was still "alive" at the time they arrived.
Of course, as the lawyer going over the article mentions, the report does jump around a bit, is "subjective" in that the reporter focuses on items they were interested in, missing other, potentially important details, and isn't really a substitute for seeing the video "in person", but the lack of "urgency" (according to the journalist) shown by the paramedic who checked the pulse on arrival is curious.
21 Jul 2020, 4:47 pm
Well as as far as using police training as a defense goes, what was the officers' intention was Floyd. If they are going to arrest him and bring him in, then why not just do that instead of kneeling on his neck for nine minutes, if that time is roughly correct?
Why not just bring him?
21 Jul 2020, 7:29 pm
ironpony wrote:
Well as as far as using police training as a defense goes, what was the officers' intention was Floyd. If they are going to arrest him and bring him in, then why not just do that instead of kneeling on his neck for nine minutes, if that time is roughly correct?
Why not just bring him?
Why not just bring him?
An interesting question...I would guess they were waiting for a larger transport vehicle than their cars, as there had been issues getting him into (and then to remain within) one of the cars, which led to the restraint.
Apparently he had been in a personal vehicle, but claimed "claustrophobia" and started struggling when they tried to place him in the rear of one of the police cars, with Mr Chauvin arriving in a second vehicle to assist: He wasn't there initially, and I'm not sure if he had seen (or was only told about) the problems the initial 2 officers had had when trying to get Mr Floyd into the rear of the first car.
21 Jul 2020, 8:53 pm
There is a law on the books consider weight and size factories of a person committing a crime , if there is a great discrepancy between the weight and size of the perpetrator versus size of the victim , just by mere size of mass of person committing the crime , it can be considered assault with deadly force , ( I think) .
So .if criminal is so large that police seek. Additional restrain in order to match force with mass of size of the suspect, they might employ , what maybe considered adequate restraint , depending on their own judgement .
This is just a FYI thing I am writing here .
If you have a suspect in handcuffs that should be sufficient to subdue any disparity. Between to individuals engaged in such a struggle . Especially if you have several other armed officers already to back the intially officer up.!
_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Man LIGHTS HIMSELF ON FIRE outside Trump Trial |
Yesterday, 9:20 pm |
| George Santos Will Now Run as an Independent |
25 Mar 2024, 3:31 pm |
| NY Judge Declines To Delay Hush-Money Trial of Donald Trump |
13 Apr 2024, 4:44 am |
| George RR Martin Calls out Anti-Fans |
10 Feb 2024, 10:33 am |
