Derek Chauvin Appeals Murder Conviction, Claims Protesters Intimidated Jury

That's not what Chauvin's superior said how cops must deal with these situations.
Stick to facts, not your fakebook best guessing about the "what if".

 

So, you disagree with the autopsy report? Said report concluded that although drugs were in his system, they were not the main cause of his death. Just a contributing factor. The amount of fentanyl, based on expert testimony for the prosecution, concluded it was not enough to kill him, let alone to act the way he did. The jury determined, through their deliberations, as a statement of fact in the trial, agreed with the prosecution's expert witness, and thus rendered its verdict as such. Thus, no retrial will be granted because you are disputing the offical record of the trial, its jury verdict, the matter of law.

There are no do-overs in criminal or civil trials just because you do not like how the jury rendered its verdict.

 

That depends exactly how you define the terms. Some of this seems to just be semantics and perspective.

Juries are so gullible, you could word the same exact facts two different ways and get two different verdicts.

I'm skeptical that the jury was intelligent and logical enough to be able to properly understand exactly what was being told to them. In my opinion the testimony of the autopsy report was worded in a very misleading way. It wrongly led the jury to believe that it was determined drugs were not a major cause of death, when that was not truly the case.

This mostly just involves word games.

Many people think in terms of simply black and white because it's easier to think about. So when the jury was told one message, they automatically made assumptions. Just like many people in this discussion are doing.

I think the defense should have asked the medical examiner better questions, more specific questions, to clarify what the medical examiner did not actually know, involving how the drugs may have been the cause of the death.
But the defense lawyer might have thought it was risky to do so because it might create too much emotional emphasis if the answers to the question did not turn out to be what the defense was hoping for.

 

You should read a little better.
I cited the ME's. Who also said things about drugs, but also attributed death to Chauvin's act.

I didn't make any claim, I only posted the actual story. So, read the entire story.

 

I know the story. Bottom of the line remains that the coroner calls it a homicide. And a homicide is when one person kills somebody else. Chauvin is that somebody else. The supervisor and the trainer of Chauvin both saw what he did on a vid, and testified against Chauvin, calling it murder and not necessary. The experts have spoken, with what I put in bold. That's where the curtain falls. And THAT is the entire story.

And yeah. He had drugs, he had a bad heart. The experts said it, hence that is why we know. They are fully aware of it. We are fully aware of it. Their expert opinion stands that it's not relevant enough to change their opinion away from homicide, murder and not necessary. I'm not interested in your fakebook opinion of I know best that it must have played a bigger roll. It just did not.

 

In my city last week they did it the right way. 5 state police surrounded the suspect in a car, asked him to get out. He rammed the car into 2 of them and they shot him to death. The cop who fired the fatal shot is on vacation pending review.

 

That would not apply here. The legal term is "on point."

Floyd wasn't fleeing from a house. He was resisting, combative and belligerent on the spot. A person fleeing from house is neither combative nor belligerent, because, well, you know, they're too busy hauling ass.

 

I'm not seeing where Chauvin had a laboratory capable analyzing blood gases on the scene.

Your Monday-morning-armchair-quarterbacking-second-guessing is distasteful.

I encountered violent suspects whom I truly thought were on PCP but they weren't. I've encountered violent suspects that had nothing more than THC in their system.

You can't tell what drugs someone used, or even if they used drugs just by looking at them. Sure, sometimes the pupils can give you a hint (pin-point or dilated).

It was Floyd's choice to resist or not and he stupidly chose to resist.

 

The outcome of a new trial is never a concern of any appellate court. You could never find a ruling where that was the holding.

An appellate court's only concern is procedural due process -- violated here -- or substantive due process.

 

Correct.

The choke hold/neck compression as I was taught was intended to restrict the carotid arteries depriving the brain of Oxygen.

The average person would become unconscious at about 7-9 seconds and go limp at which time you release the hold and blood flow is restored.

Someone who struggled/resisted would be rendered unconscious in less than 7 seconds, while someone who had a thick or muscular neck, or was in peak physical condition would last 9-12 seconds before going unconscious.

I don't remember when, but we got a memo that the choke hold was no longer authorized except in self-defense.

Contrary to popular view, race is not a social construct, it is a biological and physiological construct and as a result, the use of the choke hold on Black men resulted in a number of high profile deaths. I read a report that indicated a staggering number of deaths, or medical complications.

Later, I read something else where Amerindians and Pacific Islanders die at higher rates than Whites, but nowhere near the rates of Blacks. It seems Whites and Asians have minimal risk to death.

Over the years, I've periodically checked medical databases and other medical journals but have never gotten a satisfactory explanation as to why Blacks die at significantly higher rates than others.

Maybe the carotid arteries collapse completely, or maybe they don't open back up fully, or maybe it's something else, but I still understand why.

Oooops....

I never thought about that. Given the extent of his struggle it was probably 2 minutes (or less).

No, they don't get it, but they sure no how to play the Woulda/Coulda/Shoulda Game.

I've always held the opinion that jurors should be forced to endure.

Take the jurors to a combat range, recreate the situation and let's see how many jurors and Monday-morning-quarterbacks do better, since they got all the answers.

Then the charge should have been negligent homicide, not murder. By your own admission, Chauvin was negligent.

 

Floyd was unarmed and handcuffed on the ground, that makes it murder

 

Your desire to turn police officers into judge,jury, executioner is distasteful imo.

 

It's probably true that black males are more resistant to going unconscious in the chokehold, but they are also very probably more vulnerable to dying, since African Americans are more susceptible to heart attacks.

 

Yet they were struggling to control him, due to his huge muscular body size and him being on drugs, and if they had not been able to control him, if he had managed to get up and run into traffic (they would have had to follow/chase him), it could have resulted in someone being killed.

 

Yes, regardless of whether Chauvin's total actions were reasonable or not, his actions that actually resulted in the death of the suspect were probably not that unreasonable. If anyone is willing to look at the situation like that, from that perspective.

I think that is a pertinent argument that could be made on behalf of the defense here.

 

What admission did I make?
It's been a while but my posts were links to what the ME's said.
And I wasn't on the jury or the prosecution.

 

Wudda cudda shudda are terrible defense tactics. And completely unknown.

 

Appeals courts frequently do just that when they think the errors did not effect the facts or law that supported the conviction.