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.
The questions are purposely designed to be leading lol. The crowd was yelling obscenities, a man was being physically restrained. A person even approached an officer. The ambulance people also saw the area as a threat lol.
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.
Are you denying that people weren’t calling the cops pussies and other names. Are you denying that people were being held back? Are you denying that people were approaching officers? Cause all of this is categorically false.
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.
Yes they did lmfao. Literally watch the testimony.
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.
Actually that is maintaining restraint lol because it’s taught by MPD. There’s a picture about it too.
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.
So why did the ambulance not render aid right then and there? Because the surroundings were perceived as a threat. Nelson clearly emphasized this.
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.
Are you claiming there weren’t angry bystanders? Because there sure as hell were. There’s a picture of a guy being physically restrained. There’s video of a guy literally approaching one of the cops.
Calling names is not a threat, and the crowd stayed on the curb.
People approached the officers lol. They were yelling verbal threats and obscenities.
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.
After someone approached him lol. Mob mentality can really shift easily don’t you think?
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.
You have it backwards lol. The scenario was literally clear. There was a threat posed by the crowd.
“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.”
So who’s not talking about the full context? It’s very clear to me that you didn’t bother reading the article.
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.
It wasn’t an increased used of force. It was maintaining the restraint until EMS got there - something which Mercil conceded he had done in the past. So he should be arrested right?
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.
What? You admitted that tasing was justified and putting a knee to the neck was a lesser force that could be used. So his initial decision was definitely right per your own admission.
Maintaining the pressure was also talked about
“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.
It was the prosecution that didn’t talk about the context. Nelson brought the full context.
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.
That’s a false analogy. The restraint was already used. He didn’t escalate the use of force. He maintained it because of the perceived threat of both Floyd and the crowd.
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.
They didn’t increase the use of force lmao. And I never said they did. What the Defense asked was:
“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.”
There you have it. The state’s own witness saying a crowd doing all the things the crowd in the George Floyd situation were doing warrants maintaining the restraint. I never said escalate the use of force. And the Chauvin didn’t escalate force either.
