George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

wasnt_me

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
5,381
Reaction score
10,789
Both. Or either.

That made me chuckle.

I get you. I don't think he really has a defense. I think it's something he's done for a long time and gotten away with. It might have been something he was once trained to do, and even though he'd been trained not to anymore or whatever, he just kept doing it. He might not have thought GF was going to die from it. Others hadn't, right?

If I'm going along with that, the problem for me comes in when GF loses his pulse, stops talking, moving, and breathing. There's just no excuse to keep kneeling and not providing aid.

Say DC did get off him and provide aid at that point, but GF still died. I might not feel the way I do about it if that had happened. I can't get beyond DC being unchanged by GF having no pulse.

Others have suggested he didn't hear that GF had no pulse, but there was nothing wrong with his ears, and even if it didn't hear, I think he was in a position to check it on his own. He didn't need to wait for someone to tell him GF had no pulse, and if he did, well, the bystanders were telling him. They were pretty loud. So I can't excuse it.

But I hear how you feel. You are empathizing with DC because of your own history, but I really think you should separate yourself from him because you said you'd never make this kind of mistake. 9:29 minutes is a long time to keep making that mistake. It kind of seems intentional after that amount of time.
 

MadMcGoo

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
6,509
Reaction score
21,219
That made me chuckle.

I get you. I don't think he really has a defense. I think it's something he's done for a long time and gotten away with. It might have been something he was once trained to do, and even though he'd been trained not to anymore or whatever, he just kept doing it. He might not have thought GF was going to die from it. Others hadn't, right?

If I'm going along with that, the problem for me comes in when GF loses his pulse, stops talking, moving, and breathing. There's just no excuse to keep kneeling and not providing aid.

Say DC did get off him and provide aid at that point, but GF still died. I might not feel the way I do about it if that had happened. I can't get beyond DC being unchanged by GF having no pulse.

Others have suggested he didn't hear that GF had no pulse, but there was nothing wrong with his ears, and even if it didn't hear, I think he was in a position to check it on his own. He didn't need to wait for someone to tell him GF had no pulse, and if he did, well, the bystanders were telling him. They were pretty loud. So I can't excuse it.

But I hear how you feel. You are empathizing with DC because of your own history, but I really think you should separate yourself from him because you said you'd never make this kind of mistake. 9:29 minutes is a long time to keep making that mistake. It kind of seems intentional after that amount of time.
I don’t disagree with you. I should probably separate myself, you’re right. BUT, no matter what I say I’d do, I may never have done it in that situation. Maybe that’s my point. I was trained, and trained very well. But all that was rarely applied in real life situations. Hardly ever really.

And I’ll probably never think his actions were malicious or intentional. I will also never understand why he didn’t do what he was “supposed to do”. I won’t deny he knew. But I can understand maybe why he didn’t.
 

Gibbo214

Former Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
15,217
He had been fighting him the whole time. I was surprised to learn DC came in during the middle of this incident.

The complaints mean nothing to me. I’ve had a ton filed on me. None of them amounted to a hill of beans. On paper though, one would think otherwise. I think this why the State never brought his up.
Yeah, even when he was dead DC tried to claim he was fighting.
 

wasnt_me

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
5,381
Reaction score
10,789
I don’t disagree with you. I should probably separate myself, you’re right. BUT, no matter what I say I’d do, I may never have done it in that situation. Maybe that’s my point. I was trained, and trained very well. But all that was rarely applied in real life situations. Hardly ever really.

And I’ll probably never think his actions were malicious or intentional. I will also never understand why he didn’t do what he was “supposed to do”. I won’t deny he knew. But I can understand maybe why he didn’t.

Do any of his charges say intentional? I thought they didn't have to prove that he intended to kill GF? If I'm correct, then it's okay that you don't think he intentionally did it because it's not required. I don't believe he premeditated it or set out to do it, but once it happened, he sure as heck did not try to prevent it or help GF.

To me, not helping someone or keeping them in a position that they are telling you is hurting them -- that's malicious to me. When he's told there's no pulse and asked to put GF in recovery but he chooses not to, that's malicious to me. You might not agree.

I started watching murder mysteries and studying trials because I wanted to know why. I was obsessed with why people did the heinous things they do. After 20 plus years, I still don't know. I'm still shocked by what they do. I still cry for victims. I feel you have to accept that you are not the same kind of person as the person who did the crime. Every person on this earth is uniquely motivated, and it's a mistake to think that everyone is like you or thinks like you. That's what my father always told me, and it took me a long time to accept it.

DC probably doesn't think like you do, and that's why you might not ever understand it.
 

Gibbo214

Former Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
1,744
Reaction score
15,217
I don’t disagree with you. I should probably separate myself, you’re right. BUT, no matter what I say I’d do, I may never have done it in that situation. Maybe that’s my point. I was trained, and trained very well. But all that was rarely applied in real life situations. Hardly ever really.

And I’ll probably never think his actions were malicious or intentional. I will also never understand why he didn’t do what he was “supposed to do”. I won’t deny he knew. But I can understand maybe why he didn’t.
What was the point of training very well if it was not applied? That is not very well trained IMO.
 

MadMcGoo

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
6,509
Reaction score
21,219
Do any of his charges say intentional? I thought they didn't have to prove that he intended to kill GF? If I'm correct, then it's okay that you don't think he intentionally did it because it's not required. I don't believe he premeditated it or set out to do it, but once it happened, he sure as heck did not try to prevent it or help GF.

To me, not helping someone or keeping them in a position that they are telling you is hurting them -- that's malicious to me. When he's told there's no pulse and asked to put GF in recovery but he chooses not to, that's malicious to me. You might not agree.

I started watching murder mysteries and studying trials because I wanted to know why. I was obsessed with why people did the heinous things they do. After 20 plus years, I still don't know. I'm still shocked by what they do. I still cry for victims. I feel you have to accept that you are not the same kind of person as the person who did the crime. Every person on this earth is uniquely motivated, and it's a mistake to think that everyone is like you or thinks like you. That's what my father always told me, and it took me a long time to accept it.

DC probably doesn't think like you do, and that's why you might not ever understand it.
I appreciate your comments. I guess I know what he did and what he didn’t do. I know. And it doesn’t matter why. The charges don’t allow for why. That just sucks. The whole thing does.
 

wasnt_me

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
5,381
Reaction score
10,789
I appreciate your comments. I guess I know what he did and what he didn’t do. I know. And it doesn’t matter why. The charges don’t allow for why. That just sucks. The whole thing does.

Yup. I agree. that Part sucks. I still want to know why Jodi Arias did what she did. STILL to this day. There was a woman convicted in GA of killing her stepdaughter, starving her to death while everyone else ate home-cooking. I STILL do not understand why she did that to that beautiful child. And on and on. There are so many I want to know why to.

<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,881
Reaction score
165,947
He had been fighting him the whole time. I was surprised to learn DC came in during the middle of this incident.

The complaints mean nothing to me. I’ve had a ton filed on me. None of them amounted to a hill of beans. On paper though, one would think otherwise. I think this why the State never brought his up.
Yet Lane said he was fighting them for a minute and a half. It wasn't until Chauvin arrived that they restrained him. Floyd was already in handcuffs. Once he was in the prone position he was no longer a threat. His supervisor and many others have testified to that.

Two officers that were both there have different versions of the story. One says he fought for more than nine minutes and the other says a minute and a half. They can't both be right.

If he really felt like his actions were justified then why didn't he tell his supervisor the truth? Why leave out the part about his knee being on his neck?
 

missy1974

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
31,354
He had been fighting him the whole time. I was surprised to learn DC came in during the middle of this incident.

The complaints mean nothing to me. I’ve had a ton filed on me. None of them amounted to a hill of beans. On paper though, one would think otherwise. I think this why the State never brought his up.

I would like to know why they didn't bring them in. They fought to get them in and then didn't use them.

I wonder what else was brought up in filings but never used? anyone know?
 

MadMcGoo

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
6,509
Reaction score
21,219
Yet Lane said he was fighting them for a minute and a half. It wasn't until Chauvin arrived that they restrained him. Floyd was already in handcuffs. Once he was in the prone position he was no longer a threat. His supervisor and many others have testified to that.

Two officers that were both there have different versions of the story. One says he fought for more than nine minutes and the other says a minute and a half. They can't both be right.

If he really felt like his actions were justified then why didn't he tell his supervisor the truth? Why leave out the part about his knee being on his neck?
Chauvin’s arrival and the escalation are mutually exclusive events.

Being handcuffed and restrained does not result in a non threat. Far from it.

You’re right, they both can’t be right. There’s your story, their story, and the truth. The same can be applied here.

I haven’t seen video of what happened after the incident.
 

missy1974

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
31,354
I don’t disagree with you. I should probably separate myself, you’re right. BUT, no matter what I say I’d do, I may never have done it in that situation. Maybe that’s my point. I was trained, and trained very well. But all that was rarely applied in real life situations. Hardly ever really.

And I’ll probably never think his actions were malicious or intentional. I will also never understand why he didn’t do what he was “supposed to do”. I won’t deny he knew. But I can understand maybe why he didn’t.

I appreciate that you are able to give some perspective from your experience.

Just like we have health care people here that give their perspective from their experiences.

We all come here with life experiences, and I always appreciate that when it comes to these cases, we can't put ourselves in any of their shoes, but we can try!
 

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,881
Reaction score
165,947
Chauvin’s arrival and the escalation are mutually exclusive events.

Being handcuffed and restrained does not result in a non threat. Far from it.

You’re right, they both can’t be right. There’s your story, their story, and the truth. The same can be applied here.

I haven’t seen video of what happened after the incident.
As I understand it, before the neck restraint was banned, it was meant to be used in order to put a suspect (who is actively resisting) in handcuffs. Once the person was in prone position they were to be placed in the recovery position. Once they are handcuffed they are to be lifted onto their feet as soon as possible. This was discussed in the first or second thread quite a bit. Zimmerman and the Chief of police, (or was it Arrendando?) also explained this during the trial. They both said Chauvin used unnecessary, unauthorized force and saw no reason for it. I thought this was the reason for the charges in the first place.

There is also a video linked in one of the earlier threads of two officers arresting a protester during the riots. They used the neck restraint, handcuffed him and had him on his feet in less than two minutes. I thought it was a good example of the right way to do it. Before it was banned, that is.
 

MadMcGoo

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
6,509
Reaction score
21,219
As I understand it, before the neck restraint was banned, it was meant to be used in order to put a suspect (who is actively resisting) in handcuffs. Once the person was in prone position they were to be placed in the recovery position. Once they are handcuffed they are to be lifted onto their feet as soon as possible. This was discussed in the first or second thread quite a bit. Zimmerman and the Chief of police, (or was it Arrendando?) also explained this during the trial. They both said Chauvin used unnecessary, unauthorized force and saw no reason for it. I thought this was the reason for the charges in the first place.

There is also a video linked in one of the earlier threads of two officers arresting a protester during the riots. They used the neck restraint, handcuffed him and had him on his feet in less than two minutes. I thought it was a good example of the right way to do it. Before it was banned, that is.
It’s been awhile since I went through training, but from what I remember... you did everything to avoid positional asphyxia. In my job, there were non stop uses of force. And I mean, NON STOP. I was actually a trainer and a supervisor, so I was held to the highest standard. No matter how much I trained my staff, they (and I), experienced things far removed from our training. We had to adapt. There’s no rule book for that.

I don’t want to personalize, but what we should do and what we see others do may be far different than what we actually do. For whatever reason.
 

SouthAussie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
25,593
Reaction score
137,175
I would like to know why they didn't bring them in. They fought to get them in and then didn't use them.

I don't think it was necessary to bring in the previous complaints. The state proved their case quite thoroughly. In the opinion of experienced prosecutors whose words I have linked previously.

Perhaps the state was waiting to see if they needed the previous complaints for rebuttal (as new evidence is required in rebuttal) ... but as it turned out very little rebuttal was required.
 

mickey2942

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
11,506
Reaction score
108,173
I would like to know why they didn't bring them in. They fought to get them in and then didn't use them.

I wonder what else was brought up in filings but never used? anyone know?

I don't know. But I do know that bringing in the documents about DC "use of force", would have opened a "Pandora's Box" regarding how many other officers in Minneapolis PD have complaints, and they are still employed.

I also agree with @MadMcGoo, those type of complaints filed go with the job. It is difficult to differentiate what is "serious" from the "routine".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top