Which Verdict Will Cause The Most Looting?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/derek-chauvin-trial-live-updates-as-george-floyd-murder-case-jury-to-hear-closing-arguments-before-verdict-on-ex-police-officer-12280352
Jury retires today, get ready for the riots.

[Untitled]

Not just his defence lawyers polly... Floyd said so himself on video years before any of this:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-nw-life-of-george-floyd-biography-20200611-cxmlynpyvjczpbe6izfduzwv54-story.html

[anneasquith]

DC is the ‘ poor sod’ in the situation . ?

[Sunk]

The Defence case appears to be that Floyd died of carbon monoxide poisoning from the tailpipe of the police car.
If the jury acquits on that, then there will be trouble.

[ToraToraTora]

Well there must be an experts report on the detailed cause of death. Surely that's not an opinion but a fact??

[Peter Pedant]

// shower, breakfast, a bit of interaction with his family perhaps - completely unaware that his life was about to change forever. Poor sod.//
change and end dead under the jack boot of a white policeman? asking for help and being given none before he DDDDIIIIIEEEEEDDD

hey that's quiiiiiiiiiiiite a change!

[pixie374]

TTT, there are several online. It's horrible reading though.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9449345/amp/Medical-expert-says-George-Floyd-died-low-level-oxygen.html

[Peter Pedant]

// Surely that's not an opinion but a fact??//

noop

what makes you think that for chrissakes? - juries decide facts in contention, I think the parties otherwise agree

(in a dental manslaughter case, the expert who had never anaesthetised a child was just wrong....he knows who he is)

[ToraToraTora]

the cause of death will be on the autopsy report genius. If he died of monoxide poisoning it'll say so, derr!

[Peter Pedant]

Prof Rushton of Brum used to say....
do a post mortem
do another - the second just does what no 1 left out
and tHEN
call a conference of all the others who want a go

decide what the agreed facts are - like he's dead
and then list the disagreements. pro and con
and send it off to the court

as trump used to say - - - sounds good to me

wasnt done here

[Sqad]

I totally agree with PP.
In the medical world one is often knee-deep in facts, but opinions on those facts abound.
Very clever of the defence to bring in carbon monoxide poisonings......very clever.

[Peter Pedant]

// the cause of death will be on the autopsy report genius. If he died of monoxide poisoning it'll say so, derr!//

honestly I just think you dont know how these things work....

[ToraToraTora]

I know that the point of an autopsy is to establish the cause of death. What did the report say?

[Peter Pedant]

um.... no CO strikes me as a bad deal

the level was low - not more than 10% - and cd be 2% - hearing not great. non starter for either
and it was said..... damaged the defence case as 'desperatton'


well as Dr Ponsonby goodbody smyth said in 1890 - whilst the doctors argue the patients die
BUT here
as the pathologists argue the bodes dont seem to get up and walk around the morgue innit chipping in their two pennorth

[Sqad]

TTT........the report is just an opinion of one man based on his post mortem findings.

[Peter Pedant]

gives us something to do whilst we await the verdict

it is even carried on France 24

[davebro]

Did I hear correctly on the video that Floyd was saying "I can't breathe" as he was being extracted from the car without any pressure being applied to his neck? Suggests he had serious underlying problems. I doubt he would have had CO poisoning if he couldn't breathe - how would he inhale it?

[Sunk]

Test of Floyd’s blood on the day of his death contain a reading of carbon monoxide levels. The prosecution say the reading is low and CM poisoning was not the cause of death.

// The judge in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin on Thursday rejected a request by the prosecution to enter newly discovered evidence that would have contained information about George Floyd’s carbon monoxide levels during his arrest, warning of a mistrial if the results were mentioned by their rebuttal witness before the jury.

However, the Judge has forbidden the result from being revealed to the Jury, and threatening a mistrial if the CM reading is divulged. The Defence had alleged CM poisoning without offering any evidence such as blood test results (they didn’t offer any evidence that the police vehicle had its engine running during the 9 minutes Floyd was on the ground).

[andy-hughes]

What concerns me about the approach of at least two posters on this thread - and obviously they do not need naming, they have nailed their colours firmly to their mast - is that violent death at the hands of the police appears to be something that criminals should accept as a routine risk of their chosen career path.

I find this deeply disturbing, not only becuase in my view it shows an absence of simple human feeling that someone has died a violent death, but also that it accepts that we are about to slide down a seriously steep and dangerous slope as a society, in terms of our attitudes to crime and policing.

If we say that Mr Floyd effectively 'got what he deserved' - shouldn't have been a criminal etc. etc., then by that measure we must accept that the offcer is blameless - just doing his job, regrettable consequences and so on and so on.

But if we accept that, then were, if indeed anywhere, are we going to draw a line?

Do we read about a UK police pursuit officer running a teenage faitl-to-stop off the road and killing him, and use the same approach - should't have been in the car, poor policeman got to live with it, and so on and so on?

In my view, that is presuming to a ludicrous degree, that criminals are bright enough to make a risk assessment before they embark on criminal activity, which, given that crime of any sort is a stupid thing to do in the first place, allows for a level of forethought and anticipation that is well outside the thought patterns of the average con.

People do stupid things, they behave in stupid ways, they break laws, that is why we have police forces.

But unless police forces are accountable to high standards, we will simply slide into anarchy where, as Clint Eastwood memorable says, you execute your neighbour because his dog wees on your lawn.

We have to have high standards of behaviour, and enforce them, or we cannot hold the moral high ground over situations like this.

To say that this officer went to a normal day of work, and ended up bewlidered and blinking in the full glare of the legal system is to assume that his actions did not precipitate the death of another human, which they clearly did - the finer points of the level of his contribution is what is being thrashed out now.

But to sympathise with one sideand condemn the other in the way that some on here are doing, is in my view morally wrong.

It does not allow for the complications of life whereby a simple 'You're a criminal, your death doesn't matter ...' approach is unrealistic, and not a view I can ever begin t understand, much less support.,

[pixie374]

I agree to a point, Andy. I just don't see it as one is "bad" so that makes the other "good". Maybe neither are publicly useful. Even if you consider Floyd got his "comeuppance" (I don't), that doesn't actually make Chauvin's actions any more acceptable.
If I went out and murdered a stranger...(I know this wasn't), and it turned out they were a serial killer, that might seem a "good result", but still, that doesn't change what I also did.

[mushroom25]

according to an activist in Minneapolis;

if chauvin is acquitted, "they will march".
if chauvin is found guilty of a lesser charge, "they will march".
if chauvin is found guilty on all counts, "they will march".

verdict is irrelevant to what the activists have planned, and presumably conviction will result in Victory Looting.