mightymoose
Moderator
Haven't seen them
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Is there enough evidence to charge Chauvin with first degree murder
- Thread Starter ZJhilltop
- Start date
They must not trust the state...and really...who can blame them? I think it's very smart to have a independent exam.
mightymoose
Moderator
I agree. Doesn't hurt. It can either strengthen the initial findings or find something that was overlooked, but they can have peace of mind with an independent review.
I found this in a news article on foxnews website-
An official autopsy revealed nothing to support strangulation as the cause of death, concluding that the combined effects of being restrained, potential intoxicants in Floyd's system and his underlying health issues, including heart disease, likely contributed to his death.
I found this in a news article on foxnews website-
An official autopsy revealed nothing to support strangulation as the cause of death, concluding that the combined effects of being restrained, potential intoxicants in Floyd's system and his underlying health issues, including heart disease, likely contributed to his death.
That is an excerpt from a NOT YET complete autopsy. It's in the charging doc's (I posted a link ).
mightymoose
Moderator
Regardless of the training issue, which is surely going to become a focal point of this, when I watch that video I can't help but wonder whether Chauvin is applying pressure or not. He shifts a couple times, apparently for balance, but does not appear to be exerting himself at all. His knee is there, but what is actually happening? Did he let up at any point?
It is obvious the the officers had determined to keep him in place until the ambulance arrived. It is not obvious how much force is being applied by any of them.
I do agree it went on longer than it needed to, which is the biggest reason they all got fired immediately.
Last edited:
cbg
Super Moderator
In the same circumstances, would you be?
I sure wouldn't.
I sure wouldn't.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Or they've already contacted a lawyer and the lawyer wants an autopsy done by an expert he/she selects so that the lawyer has an expert witness to use that is not aligned with the county/state. That's what the tort lawyers in my firm would do in this instance. Relying on the government's own autopsy may mean that important details are left out or are cast in a light more favorable to the police. No way would a plaintiff's lawyer want to concede that the examination done by the coroner was complete, properly done, and without bias without the opportunity for their own expert to do an examination and double check the coroner's findings.
Have you read the link I provided? Seriously...read it.
Dropbox - Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf - Simplify your life
The Floyd Family has an Attorney spokesperson...He was on CNN earlier today.
cbg
Super Moderator
Frankly, I wouldn't believe a report from Fox News unless it came with three independent supports and positive reviews from Snopes, Factcheck.org and Polifact.
mightymoose
Moderator
Well I was suspect too because it didn't indicate where that information came from, but I do see now it was in the PC statement.
mightymoose
Moderator
After reviewing that I am in the same spot.
They went wrong when they had him down and took no action, even after expressing concern that he should be on his side and after checking for a pulse and not finding one. At least one knew what to do but failed to intervene.
If the medical exam holds up I don't see how they can proceed with a murder charge. The negligence comes into play for everything else but it is muddied up by policy and training, and a failure to provide the necessary training for the last four years. It is good that all four were fired, but I still don't see enough to support a crime against them.
We have to remember that the reasonablness of the use of force is that of a reasonable officer at the time of the incident. We have the benefit of viewing as a bystander over and over. I believe in their minds they were simply keeping him in place while awaiting the ambulance- they were done messing around with him.
How much simpler it all would have been for everyone if people would just cooperate with police.
The civil suit will be solid.
They went wrong when they had him down and took no action, even after expressing concern that he should be on his side and after checking for a pulse and not finding one. At least one knew what to do but failed to intervene.
If the medical exam holds up I don't see how they can proceed with a murder charge. The negligence comes into play for everything else but it is muddied up by policy and training, and a failure to provide the necessary training for the last four years. It is good that all four were fired, but I still don't see enough to support a crime against them.
We have to remember that the reasonablness of the use of force is that of a reasonable officer at the time of the incident. We have the benefit of viewing as a bystander over and over. I believe in their minds they were simply keeping him in place while awaiting the ambulance- they were done messing around with him.
How much simpler it all would have been for everyone if people would just cooperate with police.
The civil suit will be solid.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
I'd want to see all the evidence before making a firm conclusion, of course, but just from what I know so far I don't think that it's unreasonable that one or more of them could be found guilty of manslaughter in the second degree, which only requires that the defendant "cause the death of another...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." Minnesota Statutes § 609.205(1). They certainly appear to have been negligent, and their actions and inactions created an unreasonable risk for the victim, and by not acting when he became unresponsive they consciously took the chance that death would result.
I might buy that as a defense up to the point they had him on the ground and restrained. Their indifference (at the very least) to his condition after that, however, is very troubling and certainly that was not sanctioned by any policy. Indeed, I think the policy instead would be to act on the signs that the suspect is suffering distress.
But the police know that some don't, and should be prepared to deal with that without killing a person after he's restrained.
I agree that from what we know so far the city will end up paying out a lot for the civil suit by the time this is over.
PayrollHRGuy
Well-Known Member
From the Wikipedia page of Michael M. Baden.
"He testified at the trial of O. J. Simpson on behalf of the defendant"
Looks like there is going to need to be a tie-breaker.
"He testified at the trial of O. J. Simpson on behalf of the defendant"
Looks like there is going to need to be a tie-breaker.
army judge
Super Moderator
In the end, jury selection will determine the outcome no matter what is charged.
Share this page
