• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

US Events Derek Chauvin trial and police using excessive or lethal force

birdup.snaildown

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
1,943
Location
Somewhere
There is an extraordinary amount of wealth within the extended royal family. They don't provide a service. They are set for life. It doesn't matter how many generations they produce, they will always be loaded. All of them. How is that not creepy?

I know someone (he used to live next door when I was a kid) who know works high up on one of Prince Charles' charities. I am aware that they do certain things, but I see it like the first lady. They have obligatory poses for their life album. Like all celebrities and politicians, they manipulate people with their image.

The royal family is the Kardashian family.

There is no longer any difference.
 

Pumpkin2021

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
Officer Derek Chauvin's education and training (from Wikipedia) (so if it's inaccurate don't blame me).

"He served in the United States Army Reserve from 1996 to 2004, including two stints in the military police between 1996 and 2000. During that time, he also attended Inver Hills Community College from 1995 to 1999 and later transferred to Metropolitan State University where he graduated with a bachelor's degree in law enforcement in 2006."
Education and intelligence doesn't matter when you let your emotions override your ability to perform your job.
 

Pumpkin2021

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
The Defense is off to a terrible start. Anyone else see the first 2 witnesses testify? Mr. Nelson dropped the ball and didn't prepare his witnesses at all. They both looked foolish and were chewed up on cross. Lordy mama I wonder if Nelson is setting up an appeal for his client to receive a new trial on the basis of inadequate council once the guilty verdict comes in.
 

the_void

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
220
The Defense is off to a terrible start. Anyone else see the first 2 witnesses testify? Mr. Nelson dropped the ball and didn't prepare his witnesses at all. They both looked foolish and were chewed up on cross. Lordy mama I wonder if Nelson is setting up an appeal for his client to receive a new trial on the basis of inadequate council once the guilty verdict comes in.

His big was use of stigmatized drugs in the defence ? Just curious , too lazy to watch the whole thing , the media and the layman can’t be relied on to give an accurate report as they don’t understand drugs (including the popular ones - antidepressants, marijuana , caffeine, alcohol and ADD meds )

Thanks !
 

Pumpkin2021

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
His big was use of stigmatized drugs in the defence ? Just curious , too lazy to watch the whole thing , the media and the layman can’t be trusted to give an accurate report as they don’t understand drugs (including antidepressants, ADD meds, marijuana , caffeine and alcohol )

Thanks !
They were testifying as to his 2019 arrest ( no violence on that one ) as to : How the use of opioids affected Floyd's behavior in the 2019 incident. The judge has limited any testimony on that prior arrest. Both witnesses looked almost foolish in their testimony as they couldn't even remember details and didn't understand NOT to answer a question if an objection is made. The talking heads are agreeing now that Nelson is off to a very bad start. I didn't want to see this. I wanted Nelson to be magnificent in presenting the defense as I was hoping to gain a better perspective of the whole thing. It's early yet though and I hope to see Chauvin testify but I fear Nelson will have already talked him out of it ( if he even wants to ) as he won't be able to withstand the cross examination.
 
Last edited:

the_void

Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Messages
220
They were testifying as to his 2019 arrest ( no violence on that one ) as to : How the use of opioids affected Floyd's behavior in the 2019 incident. The judge has limited any testimony on that prior arrest. Both witnesses looked almost foolish in their testimony as they couldn't even remember details and didn't understand NOT to answer a question if an objection is made. The talking heads are agreeing now that Nelson is off to a very bad start. I didn't want to see this. I wanted Nelson to be magnificent in presenting the defense as I was hoping to gain a better perspective of the whole thing. It's early yet though and I hope to see Chauvin testify but I fear Nelson will have already talked him out of it ( if he even wants to ) as he won't be able to withstand the cross examination.

And How did it affect this ? I heard some people argue that , the covid , the fentanyl , the fact that he was a cig smoker , made so that Floyd couldn’t handle the pressure (I dunno if it’s true or not )
 

Pumpkin2021

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
Lord have mercy the 3rd witness is worse than the first 2. The jury has to be squirming in their seats and I'm sure Chauvin is like WTF ? I'm not trying to do a play by play but what a shit show.
 

Pumpkin2021

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
And How did it affect this ? I heard some people argue that , the covid , the fentanyl , the fact that he was a cig smoker , made so that Floyd couldn’t handle the pressure (I dunno if it’s true or not )
Hey void. The above 3 matters ( Covid, fentanyl, and cigarettes ) have been deemed ( so far ) as having no bearing on what happened.
 

dalpat077

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
1,463
@Pumpkin2021.

Thanks. Great unbiased coverage! Thanks! (Not joking by the way).

I've been unable to watch anything today and have something to take care of in a few minutes so will have to catch up tomorrow.

Thanks again.
 

Zephyn

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
2,301
For those mentioning race so much, if anyone were to say that its not just a racial issue, would be me. One of my closest friends was shot and killed by a police officer, and although he wasn't exactly "white" his mother was and he appeared so in any sense of the word. And then there's me, your average white guy, who literally got raped in the ass by two other white cops. Police brutality effects us all, and part of me wants it to stop being so racialized, I even thought about making a #whitelivesmatter hash tag and flooding social media with reports of innocent white people murdered or attacked by police, of course I don't want to detract from BLM or their moment, so I thought of tagging the posts with #blacklivesmatter and #whitelivesmatter to show solidarity, but idk the whole thing didn't feel right, ND im sure if I was black I would have been shot and not just raped (I said some very insulting things to those cops).

On other occasions, I've been the white guy getting beaten by a group of black cops in LA. The issue is not as polarized as people would like to think.

Now, all that said, I usually keep this to myself as I wholeheartedly support BLM, do think racism is a serious issue in policing (and the court system), and do know white privilege exists in the streets and the courts.
 

Pumpkin2021

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
@Pumpkin2021.

Thanks. Great unbiased coverage! Thanks! (Not joking by the way).

I've been unable to watch anything today and have something to take care of in a few minutes so will have to catch up tomorrow.

Thanks again.
Have a pleasant day. I am going to quit watching for awhile myself. I expected Nelson to come out with a bang and so far it is a bust. I have only watched LIVE coverage today and have been mostly watching it after the fact as all the stations are replaying testimony. I wanted so much to garner a different perspective on this ( and maybe it's coming ) but I am unimpressed so far.
 

Pumpkin2021

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
666
Location
Michigan
What did they say exactly
Just that the experts agree that those 3 stipulations were not the Cause of Death. What really is the issue here is HOW Floyd died. Would he have lived continuing to smoke ciggies? Yes. Would he have lived on the dose of Fentanyl and methamphetamine he was on at the time? Yes. Would he have survived with the Covid virus he was carrying? ( he was asymptomatic ) Yes. Would he have lived if Chauvin had gotten off of him at the 5 minute mark? Yes. Did Chauvins extra 4 minutes on his neck and shoulders kill him? Yes. This is from medical experts and the Autopsy results.
 

aemetha

Bluelighter
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
128
You're assuming intent in this case. Which there wasn't.
You're making assumptions here too. Let's examine...

Is there criminal intent? This is two questions Did he mean to commit the act? Is that act criminal? Note: He doesn't need to be aware the act is criminal, he just needs to know he's committing an act - this is an important distinction. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of ones actions is, so one cannot be convicted of an act committed while sleepwalking for example (unless the crime is one which specifically excludes a requirement for intent).

Anyway, I think most people are in agreement that the requirement for criminal intent is satisfied. He knows he is engaged in the act of kneeling on the man's neck. His supervisors and training officers have all testified that it is not a trained or approved restraint technique and that it was applied beyond what would be reasonable, implying that he engaged in the criminal activity of assaulting, not legally restraining, the suspect.

Anyway, you have three basic levels of criminal intent. The highest level, malice aforethought, which is where someone intends to kill someone. You then have specific intent where someone intends a certain outcome from their criminal act - kneecapping someone might be an example of this, the crime is more serious because the assault with a weapon is intended to create a certain injury. Then you have general intent where the person acts intentionally without desire to create a certain result. All three are criminal intent, unless specifically stated in the statutes.

Basically it all boils down to this, he didn't need to intend to kill him to establish general intent. Criminal intent at the most basic level refers just to the act, not the outcome or desired outcome of the act. Just knowingly engaging in that act is sufficient evidence of intent. The case is even clearer in this example because general intent does not need to be inferred. The communication recorded on camera between the officers makes clear that he is aware he is committing the act.
 
Top