SIGN UP

Chauvin's History

Avatar Image
pixie374 | 11:40 Fri 30th Apr 2021 | News
55 Answers
I don't think I've seen anything further about him here. But it was interesting that on AB, the past of the victim seemed more important than the past of the perpetrator..

With 18 complaints plus disciplinaries for violent behaviour behind him.... has anyone changed their mind (or willing to admit) that if you give a violent control freak too much power, they will abuse it?

https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/george-floyd-death-derek-chauvin-case-b1725071.html?amp=&amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16197785913388&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Fgeorge-floyd-death-derek-chauvin-case-b1725071.html

Answers

21 to 40 of 55rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Avatar Image
I maintain my earlier point, a handcuffed man cannot easily get to his feet, much less start causing trouble - as much trouble as you can cause without use of your hands - without being easily restrained. Had Mr Floyd managed to get up - and give it a try, just lie down, lace your fingers together behind your back and see how easy it isn't to get to your feet - any one of...
16:29 Fri 30th Apr 2021
Zacs - // I've no idea of the force necessary to restrain people and neither do you, Pix. //

I have no idea either, but i am pretty sure that if you have your hands fastened behind you r back, getting to your feet from a prone position is going to be pretty tricky.

It would certainly take long enough for a police officer easily to be able to restrain you, simply by holding onto the handcuffs - it would not necessitate kneeling on your neck to prevent you from being any kind of a problem.

That's even assuming that the officer is alone, with no support - in this case there were other officers there.

It's clear that at no time was Mr Floyd a threat of any description in terms of either resisiting arrest, or being able to cause harm to anyone in the vicinity.
Spicerack: "Pretty sure you can't bring a defendant's past history into play in any trial, girls, keen as you are/were to do so."

But it was fine to bring Floyd's criminal past in order to argue that his death was acceptable, like many on AB have been doing for months?
Floyd, may have been unconscious before death ?
I maintain my earlier point, a handcuffed man cannot easily get to his feet, much less start causing trouble - as much trouble as you can cause without use of your hands - without being easily restrained.

Had Mr Floyd managed to get up - and give it a try, just lie down, lace your fingers together behind your back and see how easy it isn't to get to your feet - any one of the officers on scene had simply to hold his handcuffs, and hey pretso, he is disabled and unable to do anything.

The idea that he needed to be knelt on at all is simply not valid - leaving out the length of time and force used, which was judged inappropriate to the point of being illegal.
Sorry pixie, I see no point in discussing this tragedy, black man killed by white policeman, what could possible be wrong there .?
Question Author
It seems not, Anne. Floyd was unconscious for 3.5 minutes before he died... at least according to the medical experts.
Mozz, you and your fellow virtue signalling friends on AB keep saying that some ABers kept bringing George's past up.
It was part of the trial. Are we only allowed to discuss parts of a trial approved of by the vacantly vocal.
It's long been predicted that when fascism returns it will be cloaked in Liberalism, How right they were.
Hark at Anne. Glasgow's answer to Rosa Parks. (who, incidentally, wasn't asked to change seats on a bus, wasn't kicked off a bus, wasn't a poor hard working seamstress on her way home from work) They know they can tell some people anything and it will be believed.
All I'm saying Spicerack, is that if Floyd's background is being considered important to the discussion, so should Chauvin's. No favouring one over the other, a level playing field.
// Spicerack: "Pretty sure you can't bring a defendant's past history into play in any trial, girls, keen as you are/were to do so."//

well it is called bad character evidence
and there is a bit here

https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/bad-character#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20Bad%20Character,or%20prosecution%20of%20that%20offence.

for the second time - ho hum

yeah yeah and someone will warble but dat not common law
and inva common on law of X state, it is not admissible

point is it can be admissible in some jursidictions in some circustances

so what?
so the statement "I am pretty sure....." should be "I am pretty sure but wrong, girls, ...."

just saying
no mozz that is NOT a rule of law

but hey stand for parliament, get elected, and get a private bill to do so

equally armed in front of the law is an idea but largely disregarded: police have infinite resources and so does the CPS in comparison to a defendant

Put anuvva way - floyds past has a direct bearing on the case - and the Chauvins doesnt ( on the facts )

In 'our' case - the judge went froo three days evidence on Day 1 - dont need that, dont need this dont need the third
and then said - this should be over by Wed....
"who, incidentally, wasn't asked to change seats on a bus, wasn't kicked off a bus"

don't know about the seamstress bit but I think you're wrong about that. Can you prove it?
"Sorry pixie, I see no point in discussing this tragedy, black man killed by white policeman, what could possible be wrong there .?"

You're making the mistake of thinking because it was white on black it was racism - you're not the first.

It may well have been fuelled by racism, but you don't know that - the only person in the whole world who knows whether racism was a factor, is Chauvin.
I haven’t changed my mind. The outcome of the trial was as I expected - a matter of political expediency rather than justice.
After all the disciplinary cases against him, I'm surprised he wasn't sacked. Should've been after the 3rd disciplinary.
I 'was' trained in restraint. Kneeling on someones neck for near on 9 minutes wasn't part of that training.
btw...I don't actually think it was racism. I think Chauvin would have done the same regardless of sex, creed, colour.
Not changed my mind.
Scumbag killed by a scumbag.
naomi - // The outcome of the trial was as I expected - a matter of political expediency rather than justice. //

Your view appears to infer that the two concept are mutually exclusive.

I would suggest that they are not, and the justice was served, and political expediency benefited in the process - but that is not the same as suggesting tha political expediencey was the prime driving force in the verdict that was reached. I believe that was a result of overwhemling evidence.
roy - // Scumbag killed by a scumbag. //

A somewhat simplistic view in my opinion.

Only one of the 'scumbags' was an individaul charged with upholding the law as his profession.

21 to 40 of 55rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Chauvin's History

Answer Question >>