Floyd Tested Positive for Covid

[Mountain Man]

RWNJ

Everytime I see that abbreviation, I think of the line from Gangs Of New York: "I might take offense at that if I had any idea what it meant."

[Leonhard]

I'm not sure a healthy man could have survived what happened. And at any rate he informed the officer he couldn't breathe, and the cop continued for several minutes after unconsciousness.

[DivineOb]

Ah, fair enough! My apologies.

I forgot to include the "far left fringe". Does that include you?

I don't see much on where that I consider to be far left fringe but ok :). I don't think your attitude is helpful to your own efforts at understanding people but that's for you to figure out :).

[Cow Poke]

I don't see much on where that I consider to be far left fringe but ok :).

You're not even close to the far left extreme nutters I'm referencing.

I don't think your attitude is helpful to your own efforts at understanding people but that's for you to figure out :).

My attitude? I have a WONDERFUL attitude. I just don't have much patience for extreme leftist fringe nutters. I don't know ANYBODY in real life who's as wacky as some of the ELFNs here.

[Mountain Man]

I'm not sure a healthy man could have survived what happened. And at any rate he informed the officer he couldn't breathe, and the cop continued for several minutes after unconsciousness.

Continuing to "restrain" the suspect with pressure to his neck after he went limp and unconscious was definitely way over the line.

[oxmixmudd]

Yep... that was my point asking if it's reasonable to think a healthy person would have survived, because you know the defense is going to put that question to the jury. Remember, the only thing that stands between a verdict of "guilty" and "not guilty" is reasonable doubt.

But I think Chauvin, at least, needs to face consequences, because it seems pretty clear that he went far beyond what was necessary to restrain an unruly suspect.

I would agree Chauvin needs to face serious consequences, murder to be exact.

I'm not so sure that rookies a first few days on the job should face murder. That is quite a lot to expect that a rookie just a few days out will aggresively jump in and stop a senior officer. That officer is supposed to know what he is doing. CP - is it reasonable to expect a rookie would know what to do there? They should be punished, fired for not speaking up. But could they have anticipated this officer was trying to murder him so as to step in and actually stop him and thus be charged with murder also?

[Mountain Man]

I would agree Chauvin needs to face serious consequences, murder to be exact.

You could make a moral argument for murder, but I'm not certain you could make a legal one. A murder conviction would require the prosecution to prove malice aforethought, and I don't think there is any evidence for that. I think manslaughter would be a safer bet if the prosecution wanted a guaranteed conviction (at least as guaranteed as anything can be in the legal system).

[Leonhard]

A murder conviction would require the prosecution to prove malice aforethought,

That would be first degree murder, this isn't needed for second degree. For the latter it suffices to show that he was criminally negligient or indifferent to whether Floyd would have lived or died.

[Mountain Man]

That would be first degree murder, this isn't needed for second degree. For the latter it suffices to show that he was criminally negligient or indifferent to whether Floyd would have lived or died.

As I understand it, malice aforethought applies to 1st or 2nd degree murder -- in other words, there was an intent to kill. Whether it was planned or done in the heat of the moment is the dividing line between 1st and 2nd degree. Criminal negligence or indifference without an intent to kill would be manslaughter.

[Littlejoe]

As I understand it, malice aforethought applies to 1st or 2nd degree murder -- in other words, there was an intent to kill. Whether it was planned or done in the heat of the moment is the dividing line between 1st and 2nd degree. Criminal negligence or indifference without an intent to kill would be manslaughter.

Under Minnesota state law, he would qualify for Unintentional 2nd degree murder.

causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

[Mountain Man]

"...while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim..."

Well, yeah, that would be the "malice aforethought" part of the equation. The question is, can the prosecutors prove intent to cause bodily harm? If he was using a common restraint method that was not disallowed by his department then he may have a valid defense, at least against a murder charge.

Before the peanut gallery jumps in to declare that I'm trying to justify the officer's actions, I feel the need to point out that I'm talking from a purely legal perspective. Morally, I think what he did was cruel and indefensible.

[seanD]

Second degree murder looking strong...

As mourners in Houston honor the life of George Floyd in Minneapolis, CBS News is learning new details from a nightclub coworker about alleged history between Floyd and Derek Chauvin, the former officer who is charged in Floyd's death. According to a former coworker, not only did they know each other, but they had a history of friction.

Floyd and Chauvin both worked security at a nightclub at the same time. Coworker David Pinney said the two men had a history.

"They bumped heads," Pinney said.

"How?" CBS News asked.

"It has a lot to do with Derek being extremely aggressive within the club with some of the patrons, which was an issue," Pinney explained.

The Floyd family says they believe what happened on May 25 was in part personal. Their lawyer has called for Chauvin to be charged with first-degree murder, "because we believe he knew who George Floyd was."

"Is there any doubt in your mind that Derek Chauvin knew George Floyd?" CBS News asked Pinney.

"No. He knew him," the coworker said.

"How well did he know him?" CBS News asked.

"I would say pretty well," Pinney replied.

[Littlejoe]

Second degree murder looking strong...

I wondered if this wasn't personal...making it not racism. They worked security together at a night club FWIU, you don't do that without knowing your co-workers fairly well...unless one of them was a pretty recent new hire.

[Whateverman]

I wondered if this wasn't personal...making it not racism. They worked security together at a night club FWIU, you don't do that without knowing your co-workers fairly well...unless one of them was a pretty recent new hire.

I hope it's something that comes up in the trial, because I'm curious about this too. I believe the manager of the nightclub was interviewed early on, and she said it's possible they never had much contact with each other. She also said the alleged murder seemed out of character for Chauvin.

[seanD]

I wondered if this wasn't personal...making it not racism. They worked security together at a night club FWIU, you don't do that without knowing your co-workers fairly well...unless one of them was a pretty recent new hire.

I find it very hard to believe the Floyd's family lawyer is actually calling for first degree murder. I'm no lawyer, but just from a basic understanding of what premeditation is, I'm pretty sure you could never prove that in this case. Maybe the lawyer is just pandering to the emotions of the family, knowing that would actually be a foolhardy idea in legal terms.