Derek Chavin case - help me understand the charges

HMP

Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
39,555
Location
TRIAD
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
I need some help from you fine folks
So this guy is getting charged for killing George Floyd. Ok.
But Floyd was one man, how/why are they charging him with multiple accounts of murder and manslaughter, how does that work?
2nd murder, 3rd murder and a manslaughter, but only one man was dead.
 
There's several theories of how the murder happened. Murder in 2nd degree might no stick so manslaughter is charged as well. Under one theory or the other they want him declared guilty and responsible for the death.
 
It's not a multi jeopardy situation if charged in a single trial. Only one of the charges will stick if any. After this, he can't be charged with this death again in a new trial.
 
They had to file the murder charges to get the crowd to calm down, knowing they only have a chance on the manslaughter chanrge.
There will be riots, looting, and burning no matter the outcome.
ME says Floyd died from drug overdose, not anything the cop did.
The video looks bad but he certainly didn't have his whole weight on Floyd. If he did, there would have been findings in the ME report.
Floyd has a recorded history of swallowing drugs when he's caught, and crying wolf.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
There will be riots, looting, and burning no matter the outcome.
ME says Floyd died from drug overdose, not anything the cop did.
The video looks bad but he certainly didn't have his whole weight on Floyd. If he did, there would have been findings in the ME report.
Floyd has a recorded history of swallowing drugs when he's caught, and crying wolf.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
You don't keep a suspect proned out with an officer kneeling on him after the cuffs go on, a healthy person can/will have respiratory distress eventually. The pos might have died in the car or in jail, but there wouldn't be 9 mins of video with officer dumbass sitting on him.
The officer contributed to his death. Murder no, involuntary manslaughter, possibly.
 
The argument against Murder hinges onthe idea that Floyd had sealed his fate prior to the officer doing what he did. What if it wasnt drugs. Replace fentanyl with heart attack, allergic reaction, any number of things that can kill a man quietly... doesn't change a thing for me.

I do not want to live in a society where its ok for a LEO to kneel on a man's neck while he dies. That needs to be fixed and now. I don't care so much about charging this one man with a crime, I want the institution that trained him to do that to change.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's looking great for the prosecution. they threw a 9yr old girl on the stand to try to tug on the heartstrings of the jury.
Chauvin may be a PoS... but with a 3x lethal dose of fentanyl in floyd, he didn't murder him. I think maybe he'll take the 2nd deg manslaughter hit though
"(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or"
guy was complaining about not being able to breathe, and you kneeled on him until he stopped fussing. If he thought he was intoxicated and had the cuffs on him, he had some duty to see to his safety. but he didn't, so ... he died. in your care, under your knee. it probably would have been much better to just manhandle him into the back of the car and close the door.
either way, if i lived in a big city, i'd take a week or two vacation as soon as they say the jury is off to the deliberation chamber.
 
There is a current case in San Salvador, I think, where a female officer snapped the neck of a female drunk and disorderly, having her proned out like that and kneeling on her back.

Yeah, I noticed the trial was starting and thought it was time to be a little more alert for crazy stuff again.
 
Just in time for everything to open back up and summer vacations to begin!

I bet the hospitality industry is especially thrilled!
 
I was under the impression that if you are able to talk you are able to breath ... just sayin’ ...

Now there are certain levels of constriction or such that may lead to stressors or such that could bring on other conditions but that is not what every MSM story leads with “Floyd couldn’t breathe” is their go to story. To me it would boil down to what the ME says was cause of death and what factor Chauvin and crew played in it. We’re their actions reasonable considerint how Floyd acted? Did they render/allow reasonable medical assistance? All the facts would need to really be weighted to determine to what or if any level Chauvin and crew are responsible and should be legally held to.
 
Last edited:
When is the earliest the verdict can be expected? Not trying to be downtown when that happens.
 
When is the earliest the verdict can be expected? Not trying to be downtown when that happens.
The estimated time of riot ... 4 weeks for both sides to present their cases ... jury deliberation time and to what level of guilt will be the wildcard factor ...

Now, my bet in a pool would be last week of April to maybe first week of May.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about Minnesota's laws...in some states you can charge murder 1 and during jury deliberation accept a lesser charge. In some states, what you charge, is what you try in court.

Here, murder? No. (Negligent) homicide? Probably.

Did y'all see the EMT/medic on the stand? Holy hell, what a Karen. I hope her boss kills her then makes her work the worst shift with the worst partner.
 
but with a 3x lethal dose of fentanyl in floyd, he didn't murder him. I think maybe he'll take the 2nd deg manslaughter hit though
"(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or"
I seem to recall reading somewhere along the line that the tactic Chauvin used was proper procedure by the book. If so it could be difficult to claim unreasonable negligence.

I do recall fairly recently they added back in the 1st or 3rd degree charge after it got dropped. I recall the talk being that they added it back because the 2nd degree likely doesn't fit a conviction but then it was initially dropped because it didn't either.

This could be a weird one for the books.

Still cue the race riots in 3, 2, 1 ...
 
Like the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore. Mosby went for 1st Degree and the facts of the case could not warrant 1st Degree and she lost.

I don't agree with being able to throw the menu at the accused. Pick your case and build it. The jury decides. I thought multiple counts are only when one count does not charge the same as another count, i.e. 2nd Degree Murder + Use of a firearm in a felony +etc.... you get the idea.

The way the prosecutors did in this case is throw everything up against the wall.

If Floyd had 3x the fatal amount of Fentynal in his system, Chauvins actions would not be the only reason for his death; although, it is a big part of the death. So charge the officer appropriately so that appropriate justice can be delivered.

(that's still asking a lot)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
Theater plays pretty big in these cases. The audience varies, but there's an act for each. The public needed to see the prosecution was serious about hanging the cop by his testicles. The jury is being subconsciously messaged murder, murder, murder, negligent (homicide) preconditioning them to find that this guy is guilty of causing death.
 
Theater plays pretty big in these cases. The audience varies, but there's an act for each. The public needed to see the prosecution was serious about hanging the cop by his testicles. The jury is being subconsciously messaged murder, murder, murder, negligent (homicide) preconditioning them to find that this guy is guilty of causing death.
And a good judge would be cutting all that off.
with the theatrics the prosecutor is throwing out there, it shouldn't even take a good judge to slap them for it.
 
Medic was back at it on the stand:

"There was a man being killed," Hansen, who testified in her dress uniform and detailed her emergency medical technician training, said in court Tuesday. "I would have been able to provide medical attention to the best of my abilities. And this human was denied that right."


I have not heard if she was there as a bystander or in an official capacity. Regardless, if she uttered that on the stand, she's be nuclear to me. I'd refuse to ride with her.
 
Medic was back at it on the stand:

"There was a man being killed," Hansen, who testified in her dress uniform and detailed her emergency medical technician training, said in court Tuesday. "I would have been able to provide medical attention to the best of my abilities. And this human was denied that right."


I have not heard if she was there as a bystander or in an official capacity. Regardless, if she uttered that on the stand, she's be nuclear to me. I'd refuse to ride with her.

When you viewed the Floyd video, was it clear to you that he was in serious distress?

It seemed perfectly clear to me, and I am certainly no medic. I thought "dang, this idiot is going to kill this dude. Ooops, he dead jeez."
If the medic did indeed think that, why wouldn't she say it on the stand? To protect the cop?

Trying to understand where you are coming from.
 
When you viewed the Floyd video, was it clear to you that he was in serious distress?

It seemed perfectly clear to me, and I am certainly no medic. I thought "dang, this idiot is going to kill this dude. Ooops, he dead jeez."
If the medic did indeed think that, why wouldn't she say it on the stand? To protect the cop?

Trying to understand where you are coming from.

First, again, I do not know what capacity she was there: a bystander (in which she did not have a duty to act), or was part of the ambo unit called (in which case, the crowd and the other cops kept her from doing her job).

If I am off-duty, I would likely not have intervened. Too much liability to my own license/certification. If I was on duty and being prevented from doing my job, different story.

Second, coming from having to testify as a medic (and as an ED RN), we're in no way qualified to say "there was a man being killed". You can walk up to that line, explain what you saw/heard/smelled/tasted, but that's it. It does show sympathy to the prosecution. But a defense attorney could follow by asking, "are you trained in recognizing people being killed from (whatever distance she was from Floyd and the cop)?" "Do you have any forensic training?" "How often have you worked with law enforcement and saw patients as a result of actions like these?"...and so many more.

So if I was going to be assigned as her partner, I sense no credibility and a subjective assessment of situational awareness, and not sure I could trust her to have my back.

I was deposed, twice, with LE-related shootings (Orange County Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass shot a kid in a grocery store, the kid had a realistic toy gun; and in the Wendell Williamson Chapel Hill shooter event). In both times the prosecutors tried to get me to conclude LE in question were acting incorrectly, and the defense tried to make certain on the record I could not make judgment calls on forensics or behaviors.
 
Medic was back at it on the stand:

"There was a man being killed," Hansen, who testified in her dress uniform and detailed her emergency medical technician training, said in court Tuesday. "I would have been able to provide medical attention to the best of my abilities. And this human was denied that right."


I have not heard if she was there as a bystander or in an official capacity. Regardless, if she uttered that on the stand, she's be nuclear to me. I'd refuse to ride with her.
She was a bystander, was off her first day after working the previous day. She clearly identified herself as an EMT/Firefighter, but she didn't have ID on her so that didn't help. Officer told her if she really was a FF, then she knew better than to get involved.

Her testimony is worth watching in entirety, but her lack of experience/seniority on the job hampered her making a difference with the cops meaning, she didn't know how to present herself with authority, and then got mixed up in the chaff of the crowd/noise so the cops tuned her out.
 
I think the verdict will be "not guilty" all day long. I say that because the fuse burned out on social justice/racial tensions. In the eyes of those pulling the strings, it needs to be lit again. Not guilty in this case would light that fuse again like nothing else.

It's a twisted game they play. They can't finish ruining football (or pretty much any men's sports), TV shows, corporate America, and overall culture of the country while everyone is calm and spending their free money. Something has to stir things up.

It's a funny balancing act they have on their hands. Keep everyone somewhat calm by paying them off with stimulus checks. But not TOO calm as to prevent them from being whipped into a frensy when their leadership calls.

If this doesn't do it, I have a running bet with my neighbor. A beloved superstar of some sort is about to be gunned down by a white guy with an AR any day now. My bet is before July 4th. The prize is lunch at the restaurant of the winner's choice. They need martyrs, and they need them quickly. Two years pass faster than you think. They need to start slam dunking some of their agenda. They don't have time to duke it out in congress or the courts. They need to turn public opinion so hard that the "majority" will be clamoring for President Harris *cough* Biden to go ahead and deal with their campaign promises via executive fiat. Yep. Someone super famous and black is going down any time now. Mark my words. I pray I'm wrong.
 
She was a bystander, was off her first day after working the previous day. She clearly identified herself as an EMT/Firefighter, but she didn't have ID on her so that didn't help. Officer told her if she really was a FF, then she knew better than to get involved.

Her testimony is worth watching in entirety, but her lack of experience/seniority on the job hampered her making a difference with the cops meaning, she didn't know how to present herself with authority, and then got mixed up in the chaff of the crowd/noise so the cops tuned her out.

Thanks for the info, that helps context. The little testimony I saw was definitely cringe-worthy, and I am not sure she was any help to the prosecution.

I think the verdict will be "not guilty" all day long. I say that because the fuse burned out on social justice/racial tensions. In the eyes of those pulling the strings, it needs to be lit again. Not guilty in this case would light that fuse again like nothing else.

There are multiple charges, so I am not sure he'll be found not guilty on all counts/charges.
 
Thanks for the info, that helps context. The little testimony I saw was definitely cringe-worthy, and I am not sure she was any help to the prosecution.



There are multiple charges, so I am not sure he'll be found not guilty on all counts/charges.
I hope you're right. I hope he's found guilty of just enough to keep the sheep calm.
 
First, again, I do not know what capacity she was there: a bystander (in which she did not have a duty to act), or was part of the ambo unit called (in which case, the crowd and the other cops kept her from doing her job).

If I am off-duty, I would likely not have intervened. Too much liability to my own license/certification. If I was on duty and being prevented from doing my job, different story.

Second, coming from having to testify as a medic (and as an ED RN), we're in no way qualified to say "there was a man being killed". You can walk up to that line, explain what you saw/heard/smelled/tasted, but that's it. It does show sympathy to the prosecution. But a defense attorney could follow by asking, "are you trained in recognizing people being killed from (whatever distance she was from Floyd and the cop)?" "Do you have any forensic training?" "How often have you worked with law enforcement and saw patients as a result of actions like these?"...and so many more.

So if I was going to be assigned as her partner, I sense no credibility and a subjective assessment of situational awareness, and not sure I could trust her to have my back.

I was deposed, twice, with LE-related shootings (Orange County Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass shot a kid in a grocery store, the kid had a realistic toy gun; and in the Wendell Williamson Chapel Hill shooter event). In both times the prosecutors tried to get me to conclude LE in question were acting incorrectly, and the defense tried to make certain on the record I could not make judgment calls on forensics or behaviors.
One thing I haven't heard were very many objections like you suggest.
 
One thing I haven't heard were very many objections like you suggest.

For the life of me I don't get why. But then, I am not an attorney, and certainly not HIS attorney.

When I was a young medic we treated a GSW patient, one of the dime-a-dozen GSW patients we were used to seeing. It went to civil court; he was suing the guy for something or other, and I ended up on the stand. The guy's attorney gave me a copy of my call sheet (i.e., run report, CFS report, whatever it's called these days). My documentation was atrocious, and he ripped me a new one, asking me questions like I had posted above. I left the stand with zero credibility. Later in the day, he saw me in the hallway outside, and said, "hey, no hard feelings, it's just business" and was super nice.

I don't get when there are witnesses like this why the other side doesn't come down with the hammer of Thor.
 
Here's how I see it. To me, it doesn't matter if George Floyd was overdosing on 4 times the lethal dose of anything. He was alive and handcuffed at the start of the last 9-1/2 minutes of his life. Whether he was a habitual criminal or the most respected law abiding citizen of the land doesn't matter one bit in my book. If he put up major resistance including punching, kicking, or trying to flee, makes no difference in my opinion. He was ultimately subdued with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Let's forget about the drugs in his system for a moment. What if he had ran a red traffic light and got t-boned by a semi while running from the cops? He's laying there with his hands cuffed behind his back while dying from his injuries while a law enforcement officer kneels on his neck for almost 10 minutes and does absolutely nothing to render any aid and prohibits others nearby from doing the same.

Now let's insert the drugs back into the story. To me nothing changes. There was a suspect, in medical distress, with his hands cuffed behind his back while a law enforcement officer kneeled on his neck and back for 10 minutes while others nearby, including an off-duty EMS technician, pleaded with the officer to get off of Floyd so some sort of medical intervention could be implemented. Chauvin refused to get up and after 9-1/2 minutes or so, Floyd was dead or close to death. No first aid or resuscitation efforts were ever performed, or allowed to be performed.

What's interesting to me is the fact that Chauvin's fellow officers stood there and told Floyd to get up or asked him why he wasn't getting up while Chauvin sat there with his knee on his neck and back. This guy was murdered in my opinion over something as trivial as a counterfeit $20 bill.
 
First, again, I do not know what capacity she was there: a bystander (in which she did not have a duty to act), or was part of the ambo unit called (in which case, the crowd and the other cops kept her from doing her job).

Second, coming from having to testify as a medic (and as an ED RN), we're in no way qualified to say "there was a man being killed". You can walk up to that line, explain what you saw/heard/smelled/tasted, but that's it. It does show sympathy to the prosecution. But a defense attorney could follow by asking, "are you trained in recognizing people being killed from (whatever distance she was from Floyd and the cop)?" "Do you have any forensic training?" "How often have you worked with law enforcement and saw patients as a result of actions like these?"...and so many more.

So if I was going to be assigned as her partner, I sense no credibility and a subjective assessment of situational awareness, and not sure I could trust her to have my back.

She was a witness to a mans death. Any witness (regardless of their job) is qualified to say "there was a man being killed" because IN FACT there was indeed a man being killed. We all saw it in the video and every person standing there witnessed his death and in fact some were vigorously voicing the opinion that he was being killed. She certainly doesn't have to be there in a uniform to have an opinion, no? The fact that she is a firefighter only makes her point more credible.

My point: doesn't matter what capacity she was there. She was put on the stand and asked a question. She was compelled to answer the question. What is she supposed to do? "well, I saw dirty streets, there was a distinct bacon smell, I tasted my lipstick, and heard sirens....but that's it.......I didn't see anything else, please don't take my license?" Not sure what you mean by that saw/heard/smelled/tasted. She saw a dude in distress and dying and was concerned as a medical professional. That is what happened. Same thing I saw on the videos as a basic dude.

"Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd while fellow Officer Tou Thao held the crowd of about 15 back, even when Hansen identified herself as a firefighter and pleaded repeatedly to check Floyd’s pulse, according to witnesses and bystander video. Floyd grew listless while under Chauvin’s restraint and was eventually carried on a stretcher into an ambulance. He was pronounced dead later that same day."

You must be a tough guy to work with, lol. Keep yer mouth shut about the dead bodies or Chucks gonna ghost you! I keed, I keeed.
 
She was a witness to a mans death. Any witness (regardless of their job) is qualified to say "there was a man being killed" because IN FACT there was indeed a man being killed. We all saw it in the video and every person standing there witnessed his death and in fact some were vigorously voicing the opinion that he was being killed. She certainly doesn't have to be there in a uniform to have an opinion, no? The fact that she is a firefighter only makes her point more credible.

My point: doesn't matter what capacity she was there. She was put on the stand and asked a question. She was compelled to answer the question. What is she supposed to do? "well, I saw dirty streets, there was a distinct bacon smell, I tasted my lipstick, and heard sirens....but that's it.......I didn't see anything else, please don't take my license?" Not sure what you mean by that saw/heard/smelled/tasted. She saw a dude in distress and dying and was concerned as a medical professional. That is what happened. Same thing I saw on the videos as a basic dude.

"Chauvin continued to kneel on Floyd while fellow Officer Tou Thao held the crowd of about 15 back, even when Hansen identified herself as a firefighter and pleaded repeatedly to check Floyd’s pulse, according to witnesses and bystander video. Floyd grew listless while under Chauvin’s restraint and was eventually carried on a stretcher into an ambulance. He was pronounced dead later that same day."

You must be a tough guy to work with, lol. Keep yer mouth shut about the dead bodies or Chucks gonna ghost you! I keed, I keeed.

The fact she wasn't torn up on cross is still amazing. How did she know the man was being killed? Did she feel his pulse? Use a stethoscope? They would not let her (and, in fact, if they had, her statement would have made her more credible). No, we did not see a man being killed, we all saw a man become unconscious; only later from the media did we know he died. She had no clue she was a witness to the death. So her emotion got the best of her; as such, her credibility as a professional suffers.

It does matter capacity. As Nancy Citizen she did what she felt compelled to do, she volunteered to help. She might have been able to; she might have hastened his death. And there is no law to shield her from liability.

How I might have answered the question: "I saw the victim prone on the ground with the officer's knee on (insert whatever body part; neck, back, whatever it was). His eyes were closed, and from my distance I could see he was (shallow breathing? Guppy breathing?) at a rate of (insert resp rate here). I could not visualize chest expansion; however, a man's body weight on the (body part) could academically inhibit efficient chest expansion (as written in textbooks and could easily know). His mouth was (open? Closed?) and it appeared from my vantage that respirations were inhibited." She should have walked up to the line and say it without really saying it.

"There's a man being killed" is a statement of a rookie, and if she wanted to enter that statement, it should have been as Nancy Citizen, not Karen EMT.
 
Cut/paste from The Daily Wire. Opinion by Ben Shapiro

The prosecution first has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Floyd’s death was caused by Chauvin’s actions. But the autopsy report shows that Floyd had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system and had a serious heart problem, and that Chauvin’s neck hold did not in fact cause damage to Floyd’s trachea. That means that while Chauvin’s neck restraint may have contributed to Floyd’s death by ratcheting up his blood pressure, for example, it’s uncertain that it caused Floyd’s death more than, say, the excited delirium from which Floyd may have already been suffering.

Second-degree murder requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin unintentionally killed Floyd while committing a felony — in this case, felony assault. But felony assault requires “intentional” infliction of bodily harm — that Chauvin wanted to hurt Floyd, not just use a suppression tactic already greenlit by the Minneapolis Police Department.

Third-degree murder — depraved-heart murder — doesn’t actually seem to fit the crime here, since it requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin acted in a way “eminently dangerous to others.” Others — plural. Usually, depraved-heart murder applies to someone who fires a gun into a crowd, not a person who targets an individual.

Second-degree manslaughter requires that the prosecution prove that Chauvin acted with “gross negligence.” But such gross negligence would have to show that Chauvin should have known that his behavior might cause Floyd’s death — an unlikely expectation, since the Minneapolis Police Department actively taught neck holds of the type Chauvin used, and which Chauvin applied only after Floyd resisted arrest and refused to be confined to the back seat of a police car.
 
The very fact that Chauvin is being tried and people are backing that decision amazes me. Our herders are able to pick their grounds to make a fight when, where and whom at their whim. What about the poor unarmed Babbit girl that the killer thug shot Jan. 6. That's the trial everyone should be concerned about.
 
I've never understood how that's allowed. Seems kinda like triple jeopardy...
I say, pick a charge and prosecute.
That's what I think - choose a charge and go for it, dont pick three and hope one of them sticks
 
The fact she wasn't torn up on cross is still amazing. How did she know the man was being killed? Did she feel his pulse? Use a stethoscope? They would not let her (and, in fact, if they had, her statement would have made her more credible). No, we did not see a man being killed, we all saw a man become unconscious; only later from the media did we know he died. She had no clue she was a witness to the death. So her emotion got the best of her; as such, her credibility as a professional suffers.

It does matter capacity. As Nancy Citizen she did what she felt compelled to do, she volunteered to help. She might have been able to; she might have hastened his death. And there is no law to shield her from liability.

How I might have answered the question: "I saw the victim prone on the ground with the officer's knee on (insert whatever body part; neck, back, whatever it was). His eyes were closed, and from my distance I could see he was (shallow breathing? Guppy breathing?) at a rate of (insert resp rate here). I could not visualize chest expansion; however, a man's body weight on the (body part) could academically inhibit efficient chest expansion (as written in textbooks and could easily know). His mouth was (open? Closed?) and it appeared from my vantage that respirations were inhibited." She should have walked up to the line and say it without really saying it.

"There's a man being killed" is a statement of a rookie, and if she wanted to enter that statement, it should have been as Nancy Citizen, not Karen EMT.

"There WAS a man being killed". That was the statement.
She knew this to be true, because the man was, in fact, killed. Her statement takes place after the event. Not sure if you are serious about this? But at the time of the event, there are people standing around saying "you are killing him" including this lady. They, and her, where 100% correct. Just trying to stick to facts. These are facts.
I am sorry you don't like that and would have preferred a stethoscope was involved.

But I get it: you wouldn't have got involved because of your extensive medical training and you would have done better on the stand because of your extensive court experience. Unfortunately you were not there to not save the day.
 
LEO denied medical attention to Floyd, other LEO says 'I got no pulse, lets sit him up.' "HE STAYS WHERE HE IS". They will convict on manslaughter.
The eight plus minutes having his knee on the neck could have made a difference if medical care was not withheld.
 
Back
Top Bottom