Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Endus]

I don't follow Chauvin's "defense" team's new argument:

Carbon Monoxide from the running cop car that Floyd was forcefully held next to caused his death.

Uh. Ok. H-how is that any better? "No no your Honor, we didn't crush his neck until he stopped breathing, we held him close to a source of CO until he died haha"

Seriously, positing new theories of death that were not substantiated through autopsy should be grounds for legal sanctions of the lawyer bringing that defense.

By all means, if they're getting the coroners to testify to that, fine. If they want to exhume and do another autopsy, sure. But just making shit up? Fuck off and stop practicing law.

[Belize]

Seriously, positing new theories of death that were not substantiated through autopsy should be grounds for legal sanctions of the lawyer bringing that defense.

By all means, if they're getting the coroners to testify to that, fine. If they want to exhume and do another autopsy, sure. But just making shit up? Fuck off and stop practicing law.

Even then, Chauvin would still be responsible since he held him down next to a running car.

It's such an asinine defense.

[ghotihook]

I'm fine with not enhancing the actual charge; that seems like it's potentially excessive, upgrading from manslaughter to murder "because cop" or something.

That said, maximum sentences for convicted officers, that I can get behind. No special considerations when it comes to prison time, either.

I have thought that cops should get worse sentences for the same crimes as regular people, because they are literally doing the opposite of what their job is supposed to be, but I doubt that would be legal.

[Endus]

I have thought that cops should get worse sentences for the same crimes as regular people, because they are literally doing the opposite of what their job is supposed to be, but I doubt that would be legal.

Sentencing considers the context of the crime, and given that a police officer has training with regards to these things and special powers they are abusing to commit these crimes, it means a crime committed by an officer is more egregious than the same crime committed by a random citizen. It's a worse context, by virtue of the defendant being a police officer.

That's plenty to warrant an increased sentence all by itself.

I wasn't even suggesting treating it like a hate crime, where there's an additional charge that adds to the sentence. Just that officers automatically get the maximum standard sentence for the crime.

[eschatological]

Higher duty leading to higher sentences can get tricky and snowball fast. I'm not a fan of that idea.

[Breccia]

Carbon Monoxide from the running cop car that Floyd was forcefully held next to caused his death.

First of all, isn't holding someone's face in lethal fumes still murder?

Second of all, he also blamed a bone spur. Sorry, "bone cyst" which suddenly killed him while his neck was being crushed directly in the path of car exhaust, apparently.

- - - Updated - - -

Higher duty leading to higher sentences can get tricky and snowball fast.

I mean, it kind of exists, in that we have special crimes that only apply to certain official duty people. I mean, when's the last time someone got arrested for bribing a waiter?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't follow Chauvin's "defense" team's new argument:

Carbon Monoxide from the running cop car that Floyd was forcefully held next to caused his death.

Uh. Ok. H-how is that any better? "No no your Honor, we didn't crush his neck until he stopped breathing, we held him close to a source of CO until he died haha"

Well, seems like they'd be going for a "it's not murder, it's negligent homicide" kind of deal

[cface]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/14/u...te-wright.html

The officer that shot and killed Wright will be charged with second degree manslaughter.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

Max 10 year sentence. IMO charges should always be enhanced for officers who are supposed to be trained not to make these kinds of mistakes in their job, but this seems to fit the situation.

Trained, very funny.
I don't understand why these idiots keep resisting arrests. I have the impression that cops in that shithole country are batshit/severely-undertrained, and I wouldn't dare do anything else than do exactly what they tell me (and even then pray I don't get killed).

[Themius]

Honestly... court always seems like a game to me...

Judge saying he will declare a mistrial if the prosecution rebuttal witness mentions the existence of tests showing that Floyds carbon monoxide was normal due to short notice.

Well... do we want to get to the truth or not? Was his carbon monoxide levels normal, are there tests to prove that? If so what is the purpose to say "no can't use because short notice"

[Endus]

Honestly... court always seems like a game to me...

Judge saying he will declare a mistrial if the prosecution rebuttal witness mentions the existence of tests showing that Floyds carbon monoxide was normal due to short notice.

Well... do we want to get to the truth or not? Was his carbon monoxide levels normal, are there tests to prove that? If so what is the purpose to say "no can't use because short notice"

Wait, what?

How is offering rebuttal evidence not allowed? If Floyd's autopsy results showed no trace of CO, how is that not already in the record from submitting said autopsies? Why would you even consider a CO claim by the defense team unless they had evidence to back up the possibility it contributed?

Courts excluding evidence because it's "not your turn" is rank bullshit that seems directly intended to avoid the serving of justice.

I also have to assume the prosecution didn't present that evidence because there was no CO evidence submitted by the defense team in discovery, so they had no way to know they'd even make up an imaginary baseless hypothesis and that their fantasy would constitute a legal defense.

[Edge-]

Judge saying he will declare a mistrial if the prosecution rebuttal witness mentions the existence of tests showing that Floyds carbon monoxide was normal due to short notice.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...raint-77084151

In a tense exchange before the jury was brought into the courtroom, the judge rejected prosecutors’ request to introduce new evidence that carbon monoxide levels in Floyd’s blood were within the normal range.

...

But the judge warned that if the prosecution's expert witness "even hints that there are test results that the jury has not heard about, it’s going to be a mistrial, pure and simple. This late disclosure is not the way we should be operating here.”

That's a good thing. You don't introduce new evidence in the middle of a court proceeding, all evidence has to be introduced before proceedings in my understanding. It protects scumbags and innocent people all the same, as innocence is presumed.

The court isn't there to make you feel good, even when it's working as intended as it is in this instance.

- - - Updated - - -

How is offering rebuttal evidence not allowed? If Floyd's autopsy results showed no trace of CO, how is that not already in the record from submitting said autopsies?

This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.

[Nurasu]

So the defense can claim anything they want "could" have happened, and the prosecution isn't allowed to say "but it didn't". How is the prosecution supposed to account for the defense making shit up before it's happened?

[Lost controller]

So the defense can claim anything they want "could" have happened, and the prosecution isn't allowed to say "but it didn't". How is the prosecution supposed to account for the defense making shit up before it's happened?

It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.

[Edge-]

So the defense can claim anything they want "could" have happened, and the prosecution isn't allowed to say "but it didn't". How is the prosecution supposed to account for the defense making shit up before it's happened?

If this was evidence introduced by the defense earlier, and the prosecution failed to introduce opposing evidence, that's a mistake on the prosecution. Late evidence introduction causes other problems for a court where the deck is supposed to be fair for both lawyers when it comes to the evidence they're working with.

Super secret evidence is like, the stuff of daytime soaps - https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...-disclose.html

- - - Updated - - -

It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.

There is no solid case at all, actually. Extensive testimony from prosecution experts including multiple medical professionals presented hard data backing up their view of the cause of death.

The defense has yet to present hard evidence concluding a drug overdose, and their case of overall illness is sketchy at best when you simply consider, "Yeah, but would he have died of those 'overall illnesses' absent the pressure of Chauvin on the back of his neck for nearly 10 minutes?"

This is a pretty predictable take, tho.

[Endus]

This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.

I understand the rule, but it's supposed to be a "both sides provide their evidence and witness lists, and you can only introduce something new with a good reason".

1> The defense team got to blindside the prosecution with this because they literally have no evidence that speaks to it. It's literally a fantasy what-if they invented, based on nothing.
2> Being blind-sided by such a horseshit move is exactly what should justify allowing new evidence specifically to contradict it.

It is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent. Right now it looks like there is a very solid case the overdose and overall illness is what did him in.

All "innocent until proven guilty" means is you get your trial before your conviction and sentencing, rather than being summarily convicted without a trial and having to sue for release (and in the course of that, prove your innocence).

It does not extend one iota further than that in any way whatsoever.

There is no evidence to support the idea that it was drugs (literally no overdose; you're lying there) or underlying illness that killed Floyd. Both autopsies confirm his death was homicide via asphyxiation. There's no exculpatory evidence to be had, at all. Even if we want to consider the CO argument, holding someone down in car exhaust until they die of CO poisoning is a cool theory, still murder.

But I get it. You're gonna defend the white cop murdering the black man no matter the facts of the case.

[Themius]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...raint-77084151



That's a good thing. You don't introduce new evidence in the middle of a court proceeding, all evidence has to be introduced before proceedings in my understanding. It protects scumbags and innocent people all the same, as innocence is presumed.

The court isn't there to make you feel good, even when it's working as intended as it is in this instance.

- - - Updated - - -



This is what confuses me. I'd imagine all this autopsy information is entered as evidence, including blood oxygen/carbon monoxide levels, so this shouldn't be "new". The only thing I can imagine is somehow this specific data wasn't entered with everything else and the judge is simply saying you can't introduce super late evidence, since usually evidence is introduced early so each team has time to prepare around it and it can be presented to the jury or whatever.

I know they don't allow, "Your Honor, we have SURPRISE EVIDENCE!" at the last minute, and this appears to be an extension of that.

Doesn't this issue hinge on them finding this particular thing late after listening to the testimony? The judge doesn't think they were being malicious over it. Also perhaps the reason it was late is just that it was an afterthought since it's kind of bogus...

This is part of what annoys me about court systems, the disregard to evidence because of technicalities about it or just procedure. Like not allowing video evidence of an act to be admissible. The end worry here as it pertains to justice (if say someone was like 'well it seems plausible and we don't exactly know what Floyd's levels were") meanwhile the evidence of his levels can't be included... doesn't seem right at all.

Also, the fuck are you talking about the court isn't there to make you feel good? Have you not seen a single post of mine on the topics of revenge and justice and what the court system should be?

[Edge-]

I understand the rule, but it's supposed to be a "both sides provide their evidence and witness lists, and you can only introduce something new with a good reason".

1> The defense team got to blindside the prosecution with this because they literally have no evidence that speaks to it. It's literally a fantasy what-if they invented, based on nothing.
2> Being blind-sided by such a horseshit move is exactly what should justify allowing new evidence specifically to contradict it.

I'm not finding anything about this not being already introduced evidence/testimony, honestly. No objections from the prosecution in the same way the defense objected to having the CO tests introduced as evidence, which leads me to believe they may have screwed up. I'm not defending the CO argument, it's garbage, but this seems to be above board.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't this issue hinge on them finding this particular thing late after listening to the testimony? The judge doesn't think they were being malicious over it. Also perhaps the reason it was late is just that it was an afterthought since it's kind of bogus...

I imagine if this was not already introduced in discovery then the prosecution could have similarly objected. That they didn't leads me to believe they screwed up in presenting their evidence at the same time.

This is part of what annoys me about court systems, the disregard to evidence because of technicalities about it or just procedure.

Procedure is kinda super important in court, and necessary for any attempt at fairness.

The end worry here as it pertains to justice (if say someone was like 'well it seems plausible and we don't exactly know what Floyd's levels were") meanwhile the evidence of his levels can't be included... doesn't seem right at all.

It has to be a fair process to all involved, including the defense, even if you don't like the defendant.

Also, the fuck are you talking about the court isn't there to make you feel good? Have you not seen a single post of mine on the topics of revenge and justice and what the court system should be?

The court is in the pursuit of "blind justice", not "justice" as one subjectively determines it. It's not here to make us feel good.

[Themius]

I'm not finding anything about this not being already introduced evidence/testimony, honestly. No objections from the prosecution in the same way the defense objected to having the CO tests introduced as evidence, which leads me to believe they may have screwed up. I'm not defending the CO argument, it's garbage, but this seems to be above board.

- - - Updated - - -



I imagine if this was not already introduced in discovery then the prosecution could have similarly objected. That they didn't leads me to believe they screwed up in presenting their evidence at the same time.



Procedure is kinda super important in court, and necessary for any attempt at fairness.



It has to be a fair process to all involved, including the defense, even if you don't like the defendant.



The court is in the pursuit of "blind justice", not "justice" as one subjectively determines it. It's not here to make us feel good.

This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit... perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating

“You had your shot you can’t now show objective fact to disprove the fantasy the defence created”

[Edge-]

This isn’t subjective. The exclusion of objective facts because of a procedure is bullshit...

Again, it may be, but there's a reason for it.

Allowing "surprise evidence" late into the trial, without going through another round of discovery or whatever method of introducing it is necessary, has the possibility to throw countless trials into disarray. I'm not gonna argue courts are fair, we know they're not, even if they're supposed to be. But rules like this are put in place with the goal of that fairness for the prosecution and defense.

perhaps we would have more time to dedicate if we weren’t mass incarcerating

Mass incarceration is an entirely unrelated problem to rules around discovery and introducing evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not remotely happy with this situation. And I'd love to know if the prosecution simply fucked up and we can get mad at them for such an oversight, because right now there's nothing indicating that the defense witness said anything that wasn't a part of the discovery process.

[PACOX]

Higher duty leading to higher sentences can get tricky and snowball fast. I'm not a fan of that idea.

And yet we live in a system where certain job titles come with immunities, implicit or explicit.