Derek Chauvin stabbed by inmate in federal prison, seriously injured

doesn't take much pressure to cut off the blood supply and if you're already having medical issues, it's not helping

 

It's touching seeing all the Chauvin fans trying to re-argue the case here at PF. Nevertheless, he's a convicted felon and a murdered.

As for him getting stabbed, that's tough. I don't see any of the Chauvin fans sympathizing with any other convicted murderer who was recently stabbed in prison.
If Chauvin didn't want to get stabbed in prison, he shouldn't have murdered Floyd.

 

Of course the progressives on the Left have a tendency to think that government, or a group of randomly selected members of the public never get it wrong.

"He should have been convicted of murder because he was convicted of murder"
circular logic


(And indeed a jury is not entirely selected just by random. video with some discussion about that here: The wild nature of a jury in self defense cases )


Obviously IF this person DOESN'T deserve to be in prison -- or doesn't deserve to be in prison very long -- then being stabbed in prison is much more of a worse and unjust thing.

 

1) Not a progressive;
2) I watched the tape. I watched the trial. They got it right.

He should have been convicted of murder, because we all watched him commit murder on tape.

Of course they're not entirely random. Do you think voir dire is somehow a state secret? Revealing the truths of the universe now are we?
Its an adversarial system, both sides have a chance to winnow the jury and there are always strikes for cause. You can have the array come in backwards, twice. ETC.

 

Did you?
Did you see the video of everything that led up to that?
Or did you only see what others wanted you to see?

It's hard to understand how you could hold that opinion with all the facts and arguments explained in this thread.

"The tape" doesn't even really show exactly how much pressure the officer applied to his neck, in my opinion.

 

Actually one would think he'd be safer in minimum security because it has less violent offenders with more to lose. Maximum security is greater risk. Segregated in some way would be safer, though.

 

1) Don't cut the ****ing quotes that answer your ****ing question. It makes you seem intellectually dishonest, as if you're avoiding the points or the facts. You wouldn't want to seem intellectually dishonest now would you?
2) Here's the full ****ing quote so you can be purged of this willful ignorance you're trying on:

I watched the trial. I saw what THE DEFENSE OFFERED at trial. I saw what led up to the arrest. I also saw Chauvin violate his training, override others when reminded of it, and admit he KNEW or suspected Floyd to be on the dope in his own words un-****ing prompted on ****ing camera.

He was trained not to do to a suspect on the dope what he did to Floyd, for the EXACT REASON you see: They tend to die when you do that, and then its YOUR fault.

You're going to say "but he was maybe gonna die anyway so what about that!!!?!?!?!?11111": You're bleeding out. You've been shot in the liver. In 10 minutes you're likely to die. I wander up and shoot you in the head.
Did I commit murder?
Answer: Yes, yes I did.

A simple question: Did YOU watch the trial?

You mention pressure on the neck: You're not grasping that the positional issue that occurred doesn't require you apply pressure to the neck. If you're on dope, simply being restrained in that position can kill you.
That is what the cops are TRAINED on. That is what the police chief testified to.

 

I don't understand how anything else you wrote was related that statement and my answer.

Yes, sometimes quoting just part of someone else's post can be dishonest, but not in this case.

Can you tell me how exactly you think I was being "dishonest"? If not, just admit you're being absurd and ridiculous.

I don't have to quote everything in your post, especially if your post is right above my post, and people can easily see if they want to.

 

Even if you see this as a murder, it is far from an ordinary murder.

Considering all the surrounding circumstances. It's NOT as if Chauvin had absolutely no reason whatsoever to do what he did.
We could say his reasons might not have been totally justified in their totality, but it's not like it was completely unjustified.

 

Like was already explained to you, the fact that the suspect was believed to be doped up was just MORE reason to hold him in a restraint.

I think one part of the controversy stems from the fact that people like you do not believe drug use should have consequences.

 

You cut everything but watched the tape. I also stated I watched the trial. All of it. The defense presented their evidence: I've seen it.
I've seen the initial stop by the other officers: That is completely irrelevant to the murder itself, and it was STILL shown out of fairness to the defense.
No one was saying they had no right to arrest floyd for counterfitting or being stoned to the bone in public.
They didn't have a right to contradict their own training and use force their training informed them would kill a man who was not presenting an imminent threat to the life or limbs of anyone at that time.
Being a cop arresting a criminal is not carte blanche to kill them. There are very particular circumstances required for deadly force, and cuffed on the ground with 3 cops on him ain't it.

What was dishonest was what I pointed out: You wanted to know what I'd seen. What you cut indicated I'd seen WHAT THE DEFENSE WANTED ME TO SEE. You acting like I only saw the prosecution's side or a news reel is specious and you know it. Take the hit, maybe man up and admit you were wrong to do it and just move the **** on.

Now answer my ****ing question: Did you watch the ****ing trial?

 

Did you consider that additional evidence and arguments may have been presented in this thread?

Maybe the defense could have done a better job. The jury only sees what is pointed out to them.

Is the "why" irrelevant?
If the defendant is arguing that he was justified, or half justified in doing something, then it would seem to me that the why matters.

 

So the **** what? Murder is murder. There aren't exceptions for weird ones.

You're completely wrong. He had no right to use deadly force at the point he used it. He was TRAINED not to do what he did because doing what he did to the type of suspect he did it to constituted a use of deadly force. He was told this directly in training. Two other officers reminded him of this. He overrode them as the senior officer on scene, and got them prison sentences too because they were too chickenshit to gainsay him. He admits, unprompted in his own words on tape, that he knew this was that type of suspect. He did it anyway. He got murder 2 which is a reckless homicide. Those elements fit his facts.

He had absolutely no reason to violate his training. Zero. None.

 

That's just black and white thinking. In logic we call that an equivocation fallacy.

 

Point to them then o wise and learned one.

Maybe they could have if Chauvin had given them something to work with like not blatantly admitting the key fact on tape like any number of idiot suspects he's booked over the years.
Except we got to see what happened when the jury was out of the room friend. So anyone who watched the trial saw MORE than the jury saw.

 

He would not have considered that to be "deadly" force.

Again, it seems like you are conflating together two different concepts.

Can you make an argument without resorting to loaded words?

A neck restraint like that might carry a risk, but in most circumstances it is usually extremely minimal. (I'd draw a comparison to a using a stun gun)

 

I hold an undergraduate degree in philosophy to go alongside my juris doctorate and law license valid in Texas and in Federal courts.
The elements are met. The elements make the crime, not the circumstance or your feelings.
I've already described how they are met, take issue with the elements or the facts.

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.

 

If that's what the main thrust of your argument is based on, it's very weak, in my opinion.

If you want to argue Chauvin should not have done that to Floyd, fine. But arguing that the main reason he should not have done it was because Floyd was on drugs, that strikes me as kind of absurd.

That sounds to like it's beginning to into the territory of an equivocation fallacy, to me.

I don't think #6 necessarily entirely follows #5. You seem to be apply an "all or nothing" understanding.

 

yes, but if they mix murderers in min security, then that means less security and mixed with murderers

 

and they should not repeatedly stun gun a person in cuffs either

 

11ng/ML is not high enough to cause death. It has to be at least 26.4 ng/ML to cause death, theoretically. So your statement there is incorrect, to say the least. Even the ME official cause of death does not state that the drugs were the primary cause. He used "afixiation" aka strangling, chocked to death, as the primary cause of death, with contributions of an enlarged heart and some drugs in the system.

Even the meth levels were small, according to the ME. So that is out of the question here.

 

What agenda is that? I agree with the ME because the ME made the most sense on the witness stand, along with another expert witness that the Prosecution called as a rebuttal. There are literlaly thousands of documented evidence of how much fentanyl it takes to kill a person, not to mention meth, cocaine, barbituates, etc. It has been studied and studied and studied, and those results are pretty accurate. They are the norms, What you are arguing is an outlier, not a norm, and although possible, it wasn't probable given the EXACT SET of facts and circumstances.

For starters, Chauvin used a method not authorized by the police department, PERIOD. That alone should have gotten his ass fired, PERIOD. He. Chauvin used an unauthorized method of securing someone, refused to allow treatment until it was too late, and the results of the ME, that is why he was found guilty. You even had three police officers, including his own supervisor, testify against him. That is rare even in these days for the police to do that. So some was afoot with Chauvin.

Your claim is at best an outlier, that is all. It is not correct given the facts, PERIOD. You lose, you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. end of story

 

I know some people get out earlier than the intended sentence, but that is because they have time off for good behavior or they need to make room for more, nastier convicts coming in. But this guy is currently in ag seg for fighting, and has not obeyed the rules even though this is his third stint in prison. Two other times were for minor offenses.

 

George Floyd was complaining while Chauvin had im in that position with his knee on his neck. Chauvin literally said, "if you are complaining, you are breathing fine." Or words to that effect.

 

Actually it did which is what @Reality, me, and others have said. you are just not paying attention or ignoring it intentionally altogether.