-->
@Danielle
I love you.
policeman in george floyd case should probably be found innocent
Posts
Total:
259
-->
@ILikePie5
How much you wanna bet he walks or there’s a hung jury?
$250. My partner and I have an agreement that we won't spend more than that without discussing it with the other first since I'm saving to extend my maternity leave. Otherwise I would probably bet more. I honestly believe he will be convicted of at least third degree murder.
609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.
I think the case for second degree murder is strong too. It really just comes down to the causation argument for all charges, and I can't see anyone disregarding what we all see with our own eyes when we watch that footage. Unlike every other cop trial, ALL THE COPS TESTIFYING agree that Chauvin was 100% wrong. You never see that happen. I would be surprised if he walks. If you're serious I will legitimately bet you $250.
-->
@ILikePie5
Wait, how old are you? lol
I rescind until I find out more.
I would bet the cop walks, based on what I have seen of that trial.
Though I don't think he should, based on the evidence.
-->
@Danielle
@Greyparrot
I think the case for second degree murder is strong too. It really just comes down to the causation argument for all charges, and I can't see anyone disregarding what we all see with our own eyes when we watch that footage. Unlike every other cop trial, ALL THE COPS TESTIFYING agree that Chauvin was 100% wrong. You never see that happen. I would be surprised if he walks. If you're serious I will legitimately bet you $250.
Well you also have to consider whether the actions Chauvin took were justifiable. And based on CX, they pretty much were. I’ll take them apart 1 by 1.
Lt. Mercil
Indeed, when asked if he himself had ever disbelieved a suspect’s claim of a medical emergency as an apparent effort to avoid arrest, Mercil answered that he personally had done so.
Nelson once again had the state’s witness concede that under the MPD critical decision-making model the officer must consider a wide breadth of factors beyond just the suspect, including the officer himself, his partners, any bystanders—especially angry or threatening bystanders.
When asked if additional use-of-force factors included if the suspect was believed to be on drugs, and whether being on drugs could give a suspect exceptionally great strength, Mercil agreed to both statements.
When asked if Mercil trained officers that a suspect who had become unconscious could regain consciousness, get back into the fight, and perhaps even be more aggressive than previously, Mercil responded that he did.
As noted above, Nelson also explored with Mercil whether there were circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an officer to maintain a neck restraint for a substantial period of time, and Mercil conceded that there were.
Sometimes to maintain the neck restraint for however long it took EMS to arrive, asked Nelson? Mercil answered that he, personally, had maintained restraint on suspects for the duration required for EMS to arrive.
On the issue of providing timely medical care, an issue the state pushes with particular energy, Nelson had Mercil agree that while MPD policy is to provide care as soon as possible, that must take into consideration the safety of the scene, and that the MPD policy actually requires that it first be safe for the officer to provide care before the officer has the duty to provide that care.
Indeed, factors such as whether a suspect had just been fighting with the officers was huge in determining whether an officer could reasonably provide care—especially if that “care” would be chest compressions requiring the suspect to have their handcuffs removed. Mercil answered in the affirmative.
Later, on re-direct, Schleiter would attempt to diminish the damage of this bit of testimony by asking Mercil if bystanders merely taking videos would constitute a reason to not provide care. The answer, of course, was no.
But that merely provided Nelson with the lay-up opportunity on re-cross to ask whether a mob shouting insults and outright threats would constitute such a reason—and that was conduct of the mob in this event—and the answer to that, of course, was yes.
Similarly, Nelson hit back on the state’s emphasis on the whole “recovery position” narrative in the context of hypothetical positional asphyxia. Might there be circumstances that would prevent putting a suspect in a recovery position? Mercil answered that there were.
It was after Nelson was done with cross that Schleiter attempted to salvage something from this train wreck for the prosecution by showing a still photo of the bystanders, pointing to some holding phones, and asking if people taking videos was a good enough reason to maintain a restraint. Mercil answered that video taking by bystanders was not a sufficient reason.
That’s when on re-cross Nelson pulled up the exact same photo that Schleiter had just used, and pointed out that in the picture MMA Williams was clearly being physically restrained from advancing on the officers by the arm of another bystander pulling him back.
Would the threat of imminent physical violence from bystanders be a sufficient reason to maintain restraint on a suspect? If the crowd is shouting that they’re going to slap the “F” out of you, that you’re a “p-word,” that you’re a bum, would that be sufficient to cause the officers to be alarmed about the prospect of imminent physical violence from the bystanders?
Yes, Mercil answered, it would.
Talk about utter disaster. There’s more though of course
Officer MacKenzie
Isn’t it true, Nelson asked MacKenzie, that you train officers to consider not just the suspect, but the totality of the scene? Yes, she replied.
Isn’t it true that police officers also have a competing duty of safety to themselves, their partners, to bystanders, that paramedics, for example, don’t have? To the point that if the scene is unsafe, if the officers haven’t already announced a code 4 “all safe,” that EMTs will stage a distance away until they are told safety has been achieved. Yes, MacKenzie replied.
And isn’t it true that the safety concern might come not from the suspect himself, but from angry bystanders? Indeed.
Isn’t it true, Nelson asked, that agonal breathing could be misinterpreted by officers as just breathing? Yes, answered MacKenzie. Would this be a more likely misinterpretation if the scene was noisy, disruptive, had the presence of a loud angry mob? It would, answered MacKenzie.
Nelson noted that one of the CPR training slides previously shown by Schlieter on direct questioning of MacKenzie had indicated that one of the reasons an officer could justifiably cease performing CPR was if the circumstances were not safe enough to allow continued CPR. Would this also mean that unsafe circumstances could justify not starting CPR in the first place, even where CPR would otherwise be warranted. Yes, answered MacKenzie.
Here Nelson began to ask again about the reasons that arriving paramedics might do a “load and scoot.” Why that approach, if the patient needs care?
One reason, MacKenzie answered, was that the patient might need immediate care that could only be provided at the hospital, such as emergency surgery.
Understood, replied Nelson, but might there be another reason?
Yes, answered MacKenzie. Unfortunately, and this might be hard to believe, she said, but there have been instances in which paramedics were attacked by an angry crowd. If that’s a concern, the paramedics might do a load and scoot purely for reasons of their safety.
Exactly as happened in the case of the paramedics arriving at the Floyd scene.
But then, in an effort to undercut Nelson’s characterization of the bystanders at the Floyd scene as constituting a hostile crowd, Schleiter asked MacKenzie for her definition of a hostile crowd.
Her answer: A growing contingent of people, yelling, being verbally abusive to those providing scene security, acting in manner that could interfere with care.
-->
@Danielle
ALL THE COPS TESTIFYING agree that Chauvin was 100% wrong.
How about the cops on the defense witness list? Oh, that's right. Haven't seen those cops yet. A trial isn't a popularity contest anyway, which is why the judge probably won't allow all 400 selected cops on the prosecutor's witness list to be heard.
-->
@ILikePie5
Prosecution has to be batting .900 to win a Murder conviction. This case isn't anywhere near that close. It's over.
-->
@Greyparrot
Prosecution has to be batting .900 to win a Murder conviction. This case isn't anywhere near that close. It's over.
Prosecution witnesses were so bad that the Defense told the court they wanted one of em to be their witness lmfao. It’s so obvious he should be acquitted.
-->
@ILikePie5
🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️
The fact you are not just defending what happened but laughing about it is sickening.
-->
@Greyparrot
🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️
😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
-->
@ILikePie5
You only have 11 juror emotes...
-->
@Greyparrot
You only have 11 juror emotes...
I try 🤷♂️
I think everyone had a bunch of ideas about what reality was, based on the media reporting early on.
The trial has made it pretty clear that folks did not have the whole picture.
The question now is whether the media knew about all this other stuff, and chose not to report it.
-->
@ILikePie5
All you did was cite the testimony elicited on cross, which was limited to generalities, possibilities, and what-ifs. None of it was relevant to the specific scenario at issue to which all police officers, training experts, and standards and practice experts all consistently testified that everything done by the officers from the time Floyd was cuffed in the prone position was inconsistent with training, protocols, standard practice and the law. Specifically they testified that there was no observable threat from the "crowd" which was compliant.
You can't even consider external threats when deciding the level of force to apply to a person in custody (i.e., a perceived threat from a third person yelling at you cannot be justification for using force on a suspect, continuing force on a suspect, or increasing force on a suspect). You can only consider the threat that the person in custody posed, if any. So all that matters is whether Floyd was passively resisting, actively resisting, or actively aggressive at the time the force was applied. All officers who testified said he wasn’t even passively resisting once he was prone and handcuffed on the ground.
Your emphasis on care is misplaced, though I suppose the fact that you’re focused on it suggests the prosecution is doing a good job. It is obvious that the testimony on this point was only brought forth for its emotional impact, insofar that it highlights the inhumanity and indecency of the officers. The only inquiries relevant to whether Chauvin is guilty of second degree murder are:
1) Was Chauvin and the other officers’ use of force improper (i.e., was it inconsistent with law, policy, and standard practice for the officers to kneel on a suspect's neck and chest while holding down his legs, after he was restrained and in the prone position) and/or or was Chauvin’s continued kneeling on Floyd’s neck for the full 9+ minutes improper
2) Did chauvin’s wrongful conduct cause Floyd’s death
I maintain issue #1 is pretty cut and dry, so the only way the defense can win is if they somehow convince a jury member(s) that Floyd was going to overdose regardless. I doubt that will happen.
-->
@Greyparrot
How about the cops on the defense witness list? Oh, that's right. Haven't seen those cops yet. A trial isn't a popularity contest anyway, which is why the judge probably won't allow all 400 selected cops on the prosecutor's witness list to be heard.
The jury might reach the wrong conclusion, but Chauvin's guilt is clear. He might walk given society's profound unwillingness to ever convict a cop under seemingly any circumstance, but this is the first police case where I've felt confident there could be a guilty verdict. The evidence is pretty staggering, and regardless of your feelings your legal analysis throughout this entire thread (along with Pie's) has been absolute garbage. No offense.
As far as cops testifying that Chauvin's force was justified in his defense -- I highly doubt that will happen. There may be an ex cop "expert" who might say something along those lines (doubtful), but I would bet money that no current cop comes forward and says what Chauvin did was justifiable given it goes against every single protocol and training practice. They would be stupid to testify against what is pretty straight forward policy, and the video can't even back up claims of Floyd being an alleged threat. He was handcuffed and lying prone on the ground. The officers were supposed to turn him on his side; not have three people continue kneeling on his body for nearly 10 minutes.
-->
@RationalMadman
I agree.
-->
@Danielle
All you did was cite the testimony elicited on cross, which was limited to generalities, possibilities, and what-ifs.
That’s false lol. The questions were tailored specifically to the George Floyd situation.
None of it was relevant to the specific scenario at issue to which all police officers, training experts, and standards and practice experts all consistently testified that everything done by the officers from the time Floyd was cuffed in the prone position was inconsistent with training, protocols, standard practice and the law.
Again they testified that in a complete vaccum considering zero context of the situation. The defense every CX brought up the context and asked the question again. Which is better? With context or without?
Specifically they testified that there was no observable threat from the "crowd" which was compliant.
This was obviously false if you bothered to read what I sent you. They clearly testified that bystanders threatening physical harm to the officers and yelling obscenities constitutes a dangerous situation. Hell even the ambulance once it came immediately took him in and went a block away cause the situation was risky.
You can't even consider external threats when deciding the level of force to apply to a person in custody (i.e., a perceived threat from a third person yelling at you cannot be justification for using force on a suspect, continuing force on a suspect, or increasing force on a suspect).
Yes you can and officers are trained to consider their surroundings. The officers clearly said this when they testified and documents even show they’re taught to consider risk from crowds.
You can only consider the threat that the person in custody posed, if any.
This is definitely false. Watch the actual CX lol or read what I sent you, cause you clearly didn’t bother to.
So all that matters is whether Floyd was passively resisting, actively resisting, or actively aggressive at the time the force was applied. All officers who testified said he wasn’t even passively resisting once he was prone and handcuffed on the ground.
He doesn’t have to be. Each officer testified that officers have to consider what happened previously, currently, and possible after. They even testified that numerous suspects fake consciousness or physical ailments and some even come back to consciousness with crazy strength - clearly a fear considering 2 cops had trouble over Floyd and Floyd was massive compared to the officers
Your emphasis on care is misplaced, though I suppose the fact that you’re focused on it suggests the prosecution is doing a good job. It is obvious that the testimony on this point was only brought forth for its emotional impact, insofar that it highlights the inhumanity and indecency of the officers. The only inquiries relevant to whether Chauvin is guilty of second degree murder are:1) Was Chauvin and the other officers’ use of force improper (i.e., was it inconsistent with law, policy, and standard practice for the officers to kneel on a suspect's neck and chest while holding down his legs, after he was restrained and in the prone position) and/or or was Chauvin’s continued kneeling on Floyd’s neck for the full 9+ minutes improper2) Did chauvin’s wrongful conduct cause Floyd’s deathI maintain issue #1 is pretty cut and dry, so the only way the defense can win is if they somehow convince a jury member(s) that Floyd was going to overdose regardless. I doubt that will happen.
You’re not considering qualified immunity. All the defense has to do is prove was the actions done by Chauvin were reasonable. All the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. The burden of proof isn’t on the defense. It’s on the prosecution to prove without a doubt.
Plus once again you clearly didn’t bother reading the article or the text I sent you. Maybe read it and then get back to me.
-->
@ILikePie5
Derek Chauvin and his two fellow Minneapolis police officers who pinned a handcuffed George Floyd to the ground and remained on top of him until he became unresponsive had restricted his breathing so severely that it was almost “as if a surgeon had gone in and removed” Floyd’s lung, according to testimony Thursday at Chauvin's murder trial.
Testifying for the state, Dr. Martin Tobin, a physician who specializes in pulmonology and critical care medicine, put into sharp relief the impact that the restraint on Floyd had on his ability to breathe. Tobin is not connected to the case but was asked by the state to review Floyd’s medical records and footage of the May 25, 2020, incident.
Testifying for the state, Dr. Martin Tobin, a physician who specializes in pulmonology and critical care medicine, put into sharp relief the impact that the restraint on Floyd had on his ability to breathe. Tobin is not connected to the case but was asked by the state to review Floyd’s medical records and footage of the May 25, 2020, incident.
-->
@ILikePie5
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense has already debunked many elements and they only needed to debunk one. The prosecution has no chance of convicting Chauvin on selected testimony alone with select cops declaring Chauvinbad. Murder 2 and 3 are completely off the table at this point.
Let's now talk about the Manslaughter charge since that's all that is left.
-->
@FLRW
Derek Chauvin and his two fellow Minneapolis police officers who pinned a handcuffed George Floyd to the ground and remained on top of him until he became unresponsive had restricted his breathing so severely that it was almost “as if a surgeon had gone in and removed” Floyd’s lung, according to testimony Thursday at Chauvin's murder trial.Testifying for the state, Dr. Martin Tobin, a physician who specializes in pulmonology and critical care medicine, put into sharp relief the impact that the restraint on Floyd had on his ability to breathe. Tobin is not connected to the case but was asked by the state to review Floyd’s medical records and footage of the May 25, 2020, incident.
The defense medical expert hasn’t come yet lol. They’ll say the complete opposite of what this guy said lmfao
-->
@ILikePie5
The defense medical expert hasn’t come yet lol. They’ll say the complete opposite of what this guy said lmfao
Not only is there no autopsy evidence of strangulation, but the video shown today also shows that the knee was barely touching his neck most of the time not even touching his neck, consistent with the autopsy evidence. And where his knee actually was on the upper part of Floyd's back for the most part, no evidence of bruising was noted in the autopsy report. The defense hasn't even started to point this out.
Mind you Chauvin is 5'9 140 pounds. It's highly unlikely he could even physically do what the prosecution claims he did to a person much larger than him (6'4, 223 pounds.)
-->
@Greyparrot
Not only is there no autopsy evidence of strangulation, but the video shown today also shows that the knee was barely touching his neck most of the time not even touching his neck, consistent with the autopsy evidence. And where his knee actually was on the upper part of Floyd's back for the most part, no evidence of bruising was noted in the autopsy report. The defense hasn't even started to point this out.
Numbers can be manipulated however someone wants. It’s why the subjective testimony is what it generally comes down to
-->
@ILikePie5
Numbers can be manipulated however someone wants.
What numbers? The only evidence in the autopsy report states:
No life-threatening injuries identified
A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae
B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal
structures
C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries
D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other
than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column
injuries, or visceral injuries
E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and
lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks
negative for occult trauma
negative...for occult (hidden) trauma...
The only number in the report is ZERO 🤷♂️
-->
@ILikePie5
I am extremely busy and actually working in the field today so I can't respond to you line by line from my phone. But it's not true that the questions were tailored to George Floyd. It was a general line of questioning. The defense attorney never asked based on how THIS crowd was behaving, how a cop on scene could be distracted; he never asked based on how THIS crowd was behaving, a cop could have been fearful, and he never asked how George Floyd in particular was behaving once he was cuffed on the ground, how a cop could think that Floyd was being actively aggressive and that therefore kneeling on his neck was necessary. He didn't ask those things because he knew that the witness testimony in response would not be helpful.
Instead he cherry picked buzz words and phrases (talk about taking things out of context) and said "if someone was calling you a pussy, would that be sufficient to cause alarm" and started frantically pacing around for dramatic effect. He specifically never referenced THIS scene where someone was calling the cop a pussy, because every single cop thus far testified that none of the crowd's behavior on that particular day warranted Chauvin's response.
Everyone thus far testified that Floyd should have been turned on his side even given the actions of this particular crowd. Not a single witness said that people verbally threatening and yelling obscenities constitutes a dangerous situation. The witnesses said that you would be conscious of the crowd and be aware of them to ensure that their behavior did not escalate. They said it would be reason for the cop to "maintain restraint" on the suspect. Floyd was restrained when he was handcuffed and lying on the floor. Maintaining restraint is not the same as having multiple people kneeling on someone's neck and back.
No one said there was any reason to be fearful of the actual crowd in question. To the contrary, each expert agreed that the crowd was concerned and upset but complying and posed no threat. That's why the defense had to desperately resort to generalities and ask things like "And isn’t it true that the safety concern might come not from the suspect himself, but from angry bystanders?" He 100% avoided talking about this particular scenario in question.
Calling names is not a threat, and the crowd stayed on the curb. In fact, when officer Thao who was facing and monitoring the crowd yelled at them to get back and stay on the curb, they complied. They always complied. Again that's why the defense attorney cherry picked things that were said but did not ask about the scenario in question as it actually played out. He asked a compound question to which Mercil said yes regarding an officer being called a bum or something, but all witnesses repeatedly said that an agitated crowd would not justify increased force on the suspect.
Also, the crowd's behavior escalated when Floyd started to or did lose consciousness. Therefore (even if such analysis were permissible or consistent with protocol) the crowd's behavior could not be used to justify Chauvin's initial decision to kneel on Floyd's neck, nor his decision to remain kneeling on the neck for over 6 minutes before consciousness was lost.
Again, being fearful of the crowd (if justified) only justifies use of force on the crowd. You cannot use the actions of a third party to justify the LEVEL of force used on a suspect. You're literally making the insanely stupid argument that if you were under arrest and that I as a witness started yelling at the cop that he was a pussy, that would somehow justify the cop beating you or killing you because I was yelling obscenities while standing on the curb. I have no idea why you think that's valid. And if you think a cop has said that it's justifiable to increase the use of force on a suspect because a crowd started name calling, please specify that quote for me because I definitely missed it. I'm listening to the testimony on my phone cuz I'm not WHF this week, but I'm fairly certain you just made that up.
today a breathing expert testified that even a normal person would have died from the actions of of the policeman. and that the drugs didn't cause him to die. pretty much the nail in the coffin of his guilt. anyone who still is trying to justify his actions is clouded by politics and emotion.
-->
@ILikePie5
Did you know Chauvin wasn't the first officer on the scene? He got a priority one call saying a large 230-pound man was actively resisting arrest. He had full authority at that point to pull his taser upon exiting his police cruiser and immediately open fire.
This isn't something the media covered.
-->
@n8nrgmi
Not doing this as a gotcha, but because I don't understand courts of law that well.
But suppose the defense produce a different breathing expert, that states a normal person would not have died from the actions of of the policeman?
He had full authority at that point to pull his taser upon exiting his police cruiser and opening fire.
This is true and yet 100% irrelevant to Chauvin's guilt on the charges against him for aforementioned reasons.
Greyparrot lacks reading comprehension (or is too stubborn to acknowledge this has already been addressed).