Derek Chauvin stabbed by inmate in federal prison, seriously injured

That doesn't mean he fully knew it would kill him.

 

We've gone over this before. The "cause of death" is not a medical fact. It's an doctor's opinion and interpretation of the facts.

We simply do not know with certainty what the true cause of death actually was. We can only discuss likelihoods and probabilities.
I concede that Floyd very likely probably would not have died that day if officer Chauvin had not done what he did. That still does not necessarily mean Chauvin's actions were the "primary cause" of death.

According to the official DEA site, "Two milligrams of fentanyl can be lethal depending on a person’s body size, tolerance and past usage."
Facts about Fentanyl (dea.gov)

The average adult has 5 Liters of circulating blood. Floyd probably had more due to his body size. There are a billion ng in a Liter of water.

2 mg per 5 Liters works out to 0.1 mg/L or 0.0001 mg/mL

 

The new information is not going to help him at all. Sorry, but it won't. It is not relevant to the facts of the case, nor does it violate any procedural evidence, nor proves his innocence. Once a person is found guilty, there has to be inconsequential evidence of his innocence, and even that is no guarantee. In one case, in Louisiana, a convicted rapist based on pure circumstancial evidence, finally won his freedom after 50 years, but that was because the victim and the prosecution decided not to retry the case. Both claim, the victim and the accused, that their story is true, but that is how difficult it is to win your freedom based on evidence to prove your innocence. Same will be the case with Chauvin.

Not getting a change of venue may be a reason for appeal, but it is not a reason to acquit. What happens if the court grants the appeal is to remand it back to the lower court, retry the case, etc. However, you have to prove that the venue in which it did happen showed that no fair trial could have occured, and that is a difficult bar to achieve. It is more than just news coverage of the incident or anything else, but it has to be proven that any potential jury could not have been achieved with those who can make a fair judgement. The judge did not err in this case who determined that no change of venue will happen.

The ME never changed his story. I think you are getting confused on who said what, when. You also don't understand hypothetical arguments when defense cross examines ME and other expert witnesses. But the ME was clear on their determination and no hypotherical would change the outcome. Pulmonary failure occured based on the outlaying circumstances, afixiation. He was choked to death, and given the fact that Chauvin used an illegal retraining method that the police department he worked for, indicates that is exactly what happened. You have to look at the cause of the pulmonary failure. Pulomary failure is the end result based on a set of bad decisions by Chauvin.

No one was appeasing anyone here. It was a bad arrest. I feel sorry for the two rookie cops who were "just following orders" but even they are trained to question situations that senior officers sometimes make, and that is why they were given lesser charges and pled guilty to those charges, dismissed from the department and so forth.

I'm sorry, the chief of police did not lie and there is no proof, just that conservative lynch mob who do not like end outcomes that don't agree with them politically. The training is also documented in the police procedure handbook, and the Chief of Police showed what those policies were. That is not lying. Try again.

You are forgetting that Chauvin was the one who opened the door in which Chauvin was in first, right? Once that happened, then yes, Floyd resisted, but it was an unlawful arrest. Chauvin should have talked about the fake $20 bill when he approached them, but within a minute, he used the old argument of "Are you on drugs." This is one of the oldest tricks in the books and once someone is charged with that type of crime, it is hard to disprove it in a court of law. There was one instance in which a girl, who worked at a bar as a bartender, was stopped. Intially, the police officer was trying to get the young girl on a DUI charge with alcohol. That same police officer then said "you are on drugs" and arrested her. They did a search, found no drug paraphania, not even a drug pipe or even drugs in her vehicle. She lost her job, her license as a bartender, but eventually won the case and the officer was dismissed from service, completely. It was a bad bust. These are the exceptions, not the rule. But the point is when officers do not follow the procedure and training, bad things tend to happen and yes, they are at fault. That was the case here with Chauvin.

He was not under arrest. His Miranda rights were never read to him before being restrained. he was suspected of passing a fake $20 bill, but it is unclear how that fake $20 bill got into his wallet. That was the point. Once that was taken care of, then the issue of drugs or what Chauvin thought he was on drugs should have been addressed. That was the reason why Chauvin was there. I have my own ideas why Chauvin did what he did, but that is not what the trial was about.

Nothing was withheld from the defense. The new evidence was not know to either the prosecution or the defense. If known to the prosecution, it wasn't used in the investigation. Knowing something and investigating something are two different things. But this evidence is really after the fact of the trial by an "investigative reporter" and being used in an appeal is not going to get him out either. Not enough to warrant an overturn of the conviction he received.

 

FFS.

Answer this question which you have continuously avoided directly answering: Did you actually watch the entire trial?

Because if you had, you'd know WHY he was trained not to do that to a doped up suspect: Because when you do that to a person on dope, restrain their hands behind their back and put them on their chest, they tend to DIE. The position and the strain on their heart that's already going on tends to cause what you saw in Floyd. This was testified to by the ME (the medical fact that the position was a factor). This training was testified to and explained by the chief of police who discussed the training that WAS given to Chauvin and the other officers. The exact same training officer young dumb and trusting of authority figures reminds Chauvin of, only to be overridden by Chauvin. Where that officer ****s up is in allowing himself to be overridden: Since it was against training, it was an unlawful order and he wasn't required to follow it. He was in fact required to disobey it and stop Chauvin doing what he was doing, but he didn't.
The reason it matters is because of the elements of the crime: He must demonstrate a reckless mens rea matched with actions that lead to someone's death.
Chauvin has been told that doing what he is doing is likely to kill someone, like wildly firing a gun in the air in a crowded area. Its not CERTAIN to, but its pretty ****ing likely and creates an unacceptable risk. Hence the explicit training not to do that.
Despite being told, he does it anyway. And the guy dies. Homicide, reckless mens rea is normally callled "murder 2.". Guess what he got? That's right: Murder 2.
His only shot at getting off would've been: I had no reason to suspect he was on dope.
However: He admits, on tape, and his partner vocalizes and he agrees with, in separate taped instances, that they are absolutely certain Floyd is on drugs. So that ostrich type defense wouldn't play.

You say 5 and 6 don't work like that. Let's review the list::

1) Chauvin was trained not to flip and restrain doped up suspects
2) Chauvin does flip and restrain Floyd.
3) Chauvin does admit on tape he thought Floyd was doped up.
4) Floyd dies in custody, and the ME reports the flip and restrain was a significant contributory factor.
5) That means Chauvin violated his training, using deadly force on a suspect he was not authorized to use deadly force on. This suspect then died.
6) Because he violated his training, he's outside the course and scope of his duty. Therefore he's not a "cop" for those uses of force that were outside that course and scope. He doesn't receive immunity to prosecution and must take his lumps like any other person would.


When you have direct training not to use force in a certain situation in a certain way, that is the "course and scope of duty".
When you don't follow that, per se, you are outside the course and scope of duty on that use of force.
When you use force outside the course and scope of duty, you're just a regular *******. You don't get QI, you don't get to say "cops can do that". That's for people within the course and scope of their duty only. It is LITERALLY the only way to tag a cop for something like this.
Its a fact he had the training. Its a fact he did what he did. Its a fact he admitted at the scene he knew floyd was doped up. Its a fact that he was reminded of his training and did it anyway (not that there is any requirement to remind him for it to be valid, but it makes it so much worse). Its a fact that Floyd died in his custody. Its a fact that the position he was taught not to put a doped up suspect in did in fact significantly contribute to his death in custody. Those facts match the elements of murder 2, the crime he was convicted of.

 

He was explicitly trained that to a doped up suspect that would be deadly force. That's WHY he was trained on that because its a common occurrence.

Answer this question which you have consistently avoided directly answering: Did you actually WATCH the trial and all testimony? Because this was explicitly covered.

 

Emphasis mine: This sentence reflects a stunning ignorance of the law and actual fact. He was under arrest, and you don't actually get mirandized at the scene in most cases. That's hollywood stuff.
The arresting officers had PC to arrest him for passing a counterfeit. Its not their purpose to prove his guilt or innocence at the scene. Once they have PC, they arrest and the court system sorts out guilt or innocence.

 

The cause of death is a medical fact. Reality put it more succinctly than I did, but he is correct.

 

He was literally trained that it would likely kill him. The same way you're trained that shooting someone is likely to kill them.
Doesn't always happen, but its always counted as deadly force whether it kills them or not.

 

For the arrest to be complete, miranderizing should be made based on probable cause. What I was arguing here was the fact that Chauvin had a reason to interview Geoge Floyd based on the fake $20 bill passed. But within a minute or two, then flipped to the "drug" argument and "arrested him" when in fact there was no probable cause to do so to begin with.

 

After being wrongfully convicted from murder because a habitual drug user died of a fentanyl overdose while he had custody over him. This side of show you that the justice system is corrupt.

Why don't people care that the justice system is corrupt what do they cheer this on why have they chosen to be on the side of criminal behavior?

 

Floyd died of a fentanyl overdose he was a chronic drug user.

The knee on the neck didn't kill him 16 times the lethal dose of fentanyl killed him.

Not being able to breathe is one of the symptoms of fentanyl overdose.

Yeah the paramedic would ask the police officer to give him some space by this point I think narcican was too late.

 

You're incorrect. You're seized under the 4th amendment as soon as you're not free to leave. That can happen at various times, in various circumstances, but the test for when it occurred looking back is "when a reasonable person would consider that they were not free to leave". Generally speaking: When they slap those cuffs on you you're not free to go anymore. But the line is far looser: When they turn on those flashing lights and indicate YES YOU, you're seized. When a cop sees you at a bar and says "Come here I need to talk to you" in a lot of cases you're seized.

You're 'arrested' when they decide they have probable cause (they need mere reasonably articulable suspicion to investigate and that generally requires seizure of your person temporarily while they investigate whether or not that suspicion is able to be compounded to probable cause) and that they will hold you in custody for a magistrate to set a bond or decide you're a flight risk.
They do not have to mirandize you at the scene. That's a nice best practice, certainly, but not legally required.
Further: If they'd failed to all it does is allow him to 1) get anything he said when he should've been advised of his rights stricken and 2) maybe get the case tossed out later.
It would not entitle him to 'beat the ride'. Only the rap.
No one beats the ride. That's not how it works. You do not resist arrest, its practically suicide. That doesn't give them the right to do it, but that doesn't mean its a great idea for you to.

It flipped to you're on drugs because Floyd was clearly on drugs and being combative. Having someone who potentially might OD in custody is a bad scene. You want them to do that in the ambulance.
Having them find dope on him at the jail would be doubly worse for Floyd, its an extra charge.
Taking him out of the car because he's having a drug induced and panic induced freak out, isn't the weirdest thing in the world. For most cops it means a ride to the hospital to check the guy out, maybe pump his stomach, then to the jail.
Chauvin literally only ****ed up by not rolling him onto his side as soon as the cuffs were on, and instead using an explicitly barred technique on that suspect.

 

He was trained not to do what he did. He did it anyway. A man died because of it (see ME report and testimony, see police testimony as to training, see chauvin bodycam admitting he thought floyd was on drugs).

It was not 16 times a lethal dose, see ME report and testimony.

If you're bleeding from the guts, and I walk up and shoot you in the head, are you saying I don't catch a murder case?

 

Yes but he started saying I can’t breath when he was in the car iirc

 

For an arrest to be proper, there has to be enough probable cause. Police officers just can't say "I smell dope on your" and then try to arrest you. They will and should detain you, ask your permission to search the car, and go from there. If they refuse, call in a K9 unit and have it search the outskirts of the car to see if dope is there. That should be and I do believe the proper procedure for Minneapolis and any other police department. YOu need that evidence first before you arrest someone. Or you can look at the example of the Georgia girl who was arrested for that very same line that Chauvin used. It turned out this girl had no history of dope in her life, but because of the mistake or arrogance of the Georgia State Trooper, it ruined her life for about three years until it was finally rectified. That state trooper was inevitably fired from the department once it was shown he had no probable cause to do so.

 

They already had PC with the counterfeit bill.
Whether or not he can be found guilty at trial is not what makes an arrest proper.

You beat the rap, you do not beat the ride.
They already had him properly detained. Literally the only mistake Chauvin makes is the barred hold. That's it.

Save your anecdote, you're as bad as the people who think he did nothing wrong.


An officer can get you out of a car and into handcuffs "for their safety" whether or not they can even search your car. Go read Penn v Mimms and come back educated.

 

that doesn't mean you get to probably come pick him up some burgers on someone who he didn't murder and then pretend Justice was served. Fire him maybe even charging with manslaughter or criminal negligence.

Sentencing him for murder is a miscarriage of Justice unless you can tell me that he intended to kill Floyd.

of a fentanyl overdose. Not because he was restrained by the police.

ME reports are not the solid evidence you think they are.

He had multiple lethal doses a fentanyl in his system he died from asphyxiation which is how you die from a fentanyl overdose. Police restraining him did not cause his asphyxiation

It was not 16 times a lethal dose, see ME report and testimony.

you would have a point if you could show how anybody was proverbly shot in the head.

If you can show intent to kill from Derek chauvin then the murder charges appropriate if you can't and your support the murder verdict either don't understand Justice or don't want it.

I think it's option three you're being manipulated by the media told what to think by people you agree with and you don't question them because you agree with them.

And I'm starting to think that the point of this is to try and convince people not to think the police ever do anything that's wrong so that the people supporting this can install a police state and no one will know you're helping it.

Justice should come before your emotions or your tribalism always.

 

WTF does the emphasized portion mean in English?
His crime met the elements of reckless homicide, ergo he caught reckless homicide. Meet his facts to the elements of manslaughter or criminal negligence and you'll see it doesn't add right. You've got extra bits.

Murder 1 would be intentional murder. He got Murder 2, reckless murder. He only had to engage in conduct which he knew reasonably might lead to the death of a person and the person die to catch that. He had the training telling him that a hold like that on a person he thought was doped up COULD REASONABLY LEAD to that person's death. He did it anyway. That's reckless mens rea.

No, he did not have a 16 times dose in his system. This was explained at trial during the ME's testimony. Did you watch the trial? The position damn sure did, that's what the training Chauvin was given warned him about with dopers. Its a known phenomenon.

Sure I can point to it: See the ME's report and testimony.

I don't need to show intent to kill, that's murder 1. He got murder 2. Do spare me your venom here.

By the media? I watched the actual TRIAL chief. I'm citing evidence given AT TRIAL with the opportunity for cross examination and rebuttal by the defense. Did you watch the trial?

The **** are you talking about? Police never do anything wrong propaganda mindset must be created so that's why 4 cops caught a murder beef? You alright over there? I'm helping a police state by having a cop who committed reckless homicide jailed? How do you figure?

My emotions? My tribalism? The **** are you on about? I'm a lawyer analyzing a legal case. I don't have emotions regarding it other than disgust with most of you for your ignorance of basic jurisprudence yet your insistence that you be taken seriously. Tribalism? Do you not see me lighting into Alyssa above for being wildly off base about the law?

 

Unless you can say Derek chauvin wanted to kill Floyd initial evidence for that you cannot get a justified murder conviction. Manslaughter, criminal negligent homicide sure. But it isn't a murder.

None of the stuff you say matters unless you can show intent to kill.

Murder is defined as intentionally killing someone for no legal reason.

It was clear from the video alone he intended to restrain Floyd.

If you support convicting a man for murder who absolutely did not commit murder you do not believe in Justice. Or you have no idea what murder is.

From what you described chauvin should have been charged with criminally negligent homicide. That's based on what you said you didn't show intent to kill

Again I don't think you give a rat's ass about Justice I think you care more about tribalism and adhering to what the media told you to think.

 

You reflect a dire misunderstanding of the law. Murder 1 is what you describe. Chauvin didn't get Murder 1. He got Murder 2. Reckless homicide. It wasn't negligence because he'd been TRAINED not to.
He could've pled down to manslaughter, he declined the plea. So he gets the guns.

Murder 1 is defined that way. Murder 2 involves a reckless mens rea. Cite the statute in question if you disagree.

It was clear from the video he engaged in the exact thing he was trained not to do, to the exact sort of suspect he wasn't supposed to do it to.
His own supervisor testified as to training, that Chauvin had received it, etc.

I think it is you who has no idea what the law says. Cite the statues he was convicted of.

 

There is no point in arguing with you. You want to be right and you don't care whether you're correct or not.

This means you want to use the justice system to abuse people and that's tyranny.

Preventing people like you from getting what you want is precisely by the Constitution was written.

 

Again dude: What the **** are you talking about?

You defined murder a certain way: I've explained you should look to the actual statute he was convicted of rather than your imagination. You refuse to. I can't help it if you won't read the *******ned statute he was convicted of and understand he was not convicted of intentional murder.

 

you failing to support your conclusion.

yes the correct way.

your explanation means **** all.

Sorry you wasted your time.

engage with your incompetence? Yes. I don't need to engage with your incompetence when I am more competent.

He was wrongfully convicted. That's why he was stabbed in jail. The conviction is going to be overturned if he lives long enough to see it.

You can pretend you're media Masters are the arbiters of truth if you want that's your business. I don't drink that flavor of Kool-Aid so you can quit trying to sell it to me.

 

I totally uninformed opinion since you have not bother to even learn the PREVIOUS evidence. ALL evidence is relavent but do explain how body cam footage is not relevant?

It has to be evidence, and it was evidence from the getgo, it was either not allowed into to court or not discovered until several months later that it existed.

I'm not the one who got this wrong here don't think you can educate me on it. SCOTUS only ruled on the change of venue appeal they did not rule on the facts of the case, that ruling proves nothing the facts of the case as was being presented as some further proof of Chauvin's guilt. That is fallacious nonsense from the uninformed.

Yes they did as the new evidence shows.

The ME changed the original conclusion and the evidence of the autopsy doesn't not show any suffocation or asphyxiation. It was PULOMNARY failure.

He breath was never obstructed he did not choke, he died of pulmonary failure. His heart could not pump the blood through the lungs to exchange the CO2 of O2.

He used the proper MRT training but Floyd was already a dead man why do you keep ignoring that fact.

Answer me this, when did Floyd first complain he could not breath and gave signs of going into a medical distress? How long later was it he forced him self to the ground the officers started restraining there?

A bad arrest by whom and why? It was a perfectly proper arrest and it did not kill Floyd, his RESISTING it along with his grossly unhealthy hearth and pulmonary system and the lethal does of drugs in his system.

They didn't they were trained just the same to use that restraint to keep Floyd from further injuring himself and others. What do you think they were trying to do with him?

Yes he did and I have posted it and in the documentary a half dozen highly experience and highly trained officers who also did the training attest to it. The official training documents are presented. Refute it.

CHAUVIN WASN'T THE ARRESTING OFFICER HE CAN'T EVEN GET THAT STRAIGHT!!!



And spare me your made up stories which have nothing to do with anything here.

False you don't know what you are talking about.

 

No they don't say different watch the video where the arresting one gives his interview, where the half dozen highly experienced officers attest to their receiving the department MRT training on an annual basis and present the documents showing the officer at the scene were doing EXACTLY as it says they should have done. That is not hearsay. They did not contribute to his death, he died because his heart could not pump his blood through his lungs there was nothing they could do about it.