Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

MeMen2_MoRi_

He should of charged $1000 an hour for the brilliant job he did, alas the world got to see him do it for free.

Poor Nelsen he must of been missing Murdoch yesterday.

All_in_Flynn

penny piper wrote: »

You should really read what you post first

Why did you delete your response to me?

bazermc

Is there any estimate of how long more the prosecution will take to present their case?

penny piper

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Why did you delete your response to me?

What was your question

bazermc

bazermc wrote: »

Is there any estimate of how long more the prosecution will take to present their case?

Think entire trial is expected to take about 4 weeks.

All_in_Flynn

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

I've just watch the entire testimony of Dr Tobin. I'm not sure how anyone can describe the comments he was making as 'general'. It was about as scientific and measured as you could probably get. He pinpointed the exact time George died.

In my opinion that was a massively damaging witness for the defence. He gave Eric Nelson a really difficult time. I've said it previously but the defence are going to have to come up with evidence that the cause of death was something else. They are in a deep hole here.

penny piper wrote: »

What was your question

Lol - you responded to the first post above saying you agreed with me and that Nelson had a poor time but then deleted it a couple of hours later. I asked why did you delete it?

penny piper

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Lol - you responded to the first post above saying you agreed with me and that Nelson had a poor time but then deleted it a couple of hours later. I asked why did you delete it?

Sorry I honestly don't know why..... I do agree with your post.

BorneTobyWilde

Toe Bean
It's pronounced Toe Bean

Biker79

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

After seeing some of that doctor's testimony I decided to have a look to see how certain people here would try and spin it in Chauvin's favour. The thread had been so inactive it was nearly gone onto the second page of the forum!

His testimony was impressive, no doubt. If what he says is true...then it leaves Chauvin in a difficult position.

However, the central points of the incident remain unchallenged and support the defense.

- Floyd was a violent criminal, engaging in criminal activity, high on drugs ( possibly having deliberately overdosed to sabotage arrest ), and resisting all reasonable efforts by the police to engage in normal procedures.

- Floyd already had form with overdosing as a strategy to avoid being arrested.

- The remarks about the incident are made with the benefit of hindsight, whereas, the police had to deal with the situation without knowing how things were going to go. Like the youtube video linked earlier, things can get out of hand quickly. The uncertainty of this cannot be appreciated in hindsight and by watching video footage.

None of that justifies police deliberately causing serious harm/ death to someone, obviously. But it does explain why, after almost an hour of cajoling, decisive action has to be taken. When the suspect is high and and physically strong, you need to be firm. With a crowd gathering, who knows what could happen - they need to take control and show authority.

That to me is a reasonable explanation of why things happened the way they did. It doesn't make sense that Chauvin had intended to harm Floyd, but he did intend, I would say..to show authority and bring the situation to a conclusion.

And that amounts to reasonable doubt.







-

cheezums

Dr Martin Tobin's testimony was powerful.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Biker79 wrote: »

His testimony was impressive, no doubt. If what he says is true...then it leaves Chauvin in a difficult position.

However, the central points of the incident remain unchallenged and support the defense.

- Floyd was a violent criminal, engaging in criminal activity, high on drugs ( possibly having deliberately overdosed to sabotage arrest ), and resisting all reasonable efforts by the police to engage in normal procedures.

- Floyd already had form with overdosing as a strategy to avoid being arrested.

- The remarks about the incident are made with the benefit of hindsight, whereas, the police had to deal with the situation without knowing how things were going to go. Like the youtube video linked earlier, things can get out of hand quickly. The uncertainty of this cannot be appreciated in hindsight and by watching video footage.

None of that justifies police deliberately causing serious harm/ death to someone, obviously. But it does explain why, after almost an hour of cajoling, decisive action has to be taken. When the suspect is high and and physically strong, you need to be firm. With a crowd gathering, who knows what could happen - they need to take control and show authority.

That to me is a reasonable explanation of why things happened the way they did. It doesn't make sense that Chauvin had intended to harm Floyd, but he did intend, I would say..to show authority and bring the situation to a conclusion.

And that amounts to reasonable doubt.







-

All this shows that you can reasonably make a case for cops losing the run of themselves because they had become fed up of the situation.

They had gotten control of the situation by getting him on the ground. He dies beneath them, his pulse is checked and for another 2 plus minutes just stay in the position of using force and authority against a dead man.

Biker79

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

All this shows that you can reasonably make a case for cops losing the run of themselves because they had become fed up of the situation.

They had gotten control of the situation by getting him on the ground. He dies beneath them, his pulse is checked and for another 2 plus minutes just stay in the position of using force and authority against a dead man.

Your hyperbolic tone doesn't make your points more credible.

bazermc

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Think entire trial is expected to take about 4 weeks.

So possibly early next prosecution will wrap up and defence will start. That should be interesting who exactly they will call.

cheezums

Biker79 wrote: »

His testimony was impressive, no doubt. If what he says is true...then it leaves Chauvin in a difficult position.

However, the central points of the incident remain unchallenged and support the defense.

- Floyd was a violent criminal, engaging in criminal activity, high on drugs ( possibly having deliberately overdosed to sabotage arrest ), and resisting all reasonable efforts by the police to engage in normal procedures.

- Floyd already had form with overdosing as a strategy to avoid being arrested.

- The remarks about the incident are made with the benefit of hindsight, whereas, the police had to deal with the situation without knowing how things were going to go. Like the youtube video linked earlier, things can get out of hand quickly. The uncertainty of this cannot be appreciated in hindsight and by watching video footage.

None of that justifies police deliberately causing serious harm/ death to someone, obviously. But it does explain why, after almost an hour of cajoling, decisive action has to be taken. When the suspect is high and and physically strong, you need to be firm. With a crowd gathering, who knows what could happen - they need to take control and show authority.

That to me is a reasonable explanation of why things happened the way they did. It doesn't make sense that Chauvin had intended to harm Floyd, but he did intend, I would say..to show authority and bring the situation to a conclusion.

And that amounts to reasonable doubt.







-

whether or not he needed to be restrained, whether he was high or not, and what his past criminal history was is irrelevant tbh. it's the manner and technique of restraint that is in question.

the fact is that the cop caused him die by putting the full weight of his body on his neck against the road.

to what degree of murder that constitutes in Minnesota law I don't know.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

All this shows that you can reasonably make a case for cops losing the run of themselves because they had become fed up of the situation.

They had gotten control of the situation by getting him on the ground. He dies beneath them, his pulse is checked and for another 2 plus minutes just stay in the position of using force and authority against a dead man.

I can't see how you could make a case the way you are describing at all..
Nobody knows what they would do in the same situation...

All these experts are just pointing out imo is that ..the way police use handcuffs/prone position can be dangerous to use unless you have no underlying medical conditions. How is a police officer suppose to know if someone he's about to arrest has an underlying medical condition.?

I have to admit it looks very bad when the prosecution lawyer when he belittles Nelson's questions....and Nelson doesn't seem to object enough. Nelson comes across as very unprofessional at times ...the way he keeps rummaging through all his note books.

I thought DR.thomas was vague in some of her questioning at the same time Nelson still needs to up his game...

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

His testimony was impressive, no doubt. If what he says is true...then it leaves Chauvin in a difficult position.

However, the central points of the incident remain unchallenged and support the defense.

- Floyd was a violent criminal, engaging in criminal activity, high on drugs ( possibly having deliberately overdosed to sabotage arrest ), and resisting all reasonable efforts by the police to engage in normal procedures.

- Floyd already had form with overdosing as a strategy to avoid being arrested.

- The remarks about the incident are made with the benefit of hindsight, whereas, the police had to deal with the situation without knowing how things were going to go. Like the youtube video linked earlier, things can get out of hand quickly. The uncertainty of this cannot be appreciated in hindsight and by watching video footage.

None of that justifies police deliberately causing serious harm/ death to someone, obviously. But it does explain why, after almost an hour of cajoling, decisive action has to be taken. When the suspect is high and and physically strong, you need to be firm. With a crowd gathering, who knows what could happen - they need to take control and show authority.

That to me is a reasonable explanation of why things happened the way they did. It doesn't make sense that Chauvin had intended to harm Floyd, but he did intend, I would say..to show authority and bring the situation to a conclusion.

And that amounts to reasonable doubt.







-

Nobody is saying he intended harm and that's not the intent of the prosecution. That his negligence led to the death of Chauvin is. He continued to kneel on a handcuffed man who had lost consciousness for a number of minutes...

MeMen2_MoRi_

Biker79 wrote: »

Your hyperbolic tone doesn't make your points more credible.

Hyperbolic tone?

Stating facts, the crucial one that most who are putting up a defence for chauvin and the others will not touch with a badge pole.

THREE COPS SAT A TOP OF A DEAD MAN FOR OVER THREE MINUTES, TWO PLUS OF THEM AFTER A COP FOUND NO PULSE.

MeMen2_MoRi_

penny piper wrote: »

I can't see how you could make a case the way you are describing at all..
Nobody knows what they would do in the same situation...

All these "experts" are just pointing out imo is that ..the way police use handcuffs/prone position can be dangerous to use unless you have no underlying medical conditions. How is a police officer suppose to know if someone he's about to arrest has an underlying medical condition.?

I have to admit it looks very bad when the prosecution lawyer when he belittles Nelson's questions....and Nelson doesn't seem to object enough.

I thought DR.thomas was vague in some of her questioning at the same time Nelson still needs to up his game...

"Experts" I stopped reading after that.

penny piper

MeMen2_MoRi_ wrote: »

"Experts" I stopped reading after that.

No problem .. I'll remove " "

Biker79

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying he intended harm and that's not the intent of the prosecution. That his negligence led to the death of Chauvin is. He continued to kneel on a handcuffed man who had lost consciousness for a number of minutes...

And I'm making the point that this was a sad outcome of what were exceptionally difficult circumstances.

You might say, circumstances that police can never be fully trained in - situations in which some of them are killed if they make a wrong decision.

Which is not their doing! These are situations created by criminals.

All_in_Flynn

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is saying he intended harm and that's not the intent of the prosecution. That his negligence led to the death of Chauvin is. He continued to kneel on a handcuffed man who had lost consciousness for a number of minutes...

I'd agree that the man is on trial for negligence however part of me feels like he must have known what he was doing.

The bit last night when Dr Tobin shows when Chauvin lifts his foot off the ground to put his full weight onto George Floyd's neck just didn't sit right with me. He knew what he was doing in my opinion.

But he's not on trial for intent. It's for negligence of which to me, after hearing some of the testimony this past week, is pretty clear that he was completely negligent and is facing a huge battle to stay out of prison.

Biker79

Biker79 wrote: »

And I'm making the point that this was the sad income of what were exceptionally difficult circumstances.

You might say, circumstances that police can never be fully trained in - situations in which some of them are killed if they make a wrong decision.

Which is not their doing! These are situations created by criminals.

And I would say you're making substantial leaps to ignore negligence. Senior police officers have stated as much. The fact he had a history of doing it including to minors adds to the negligence angle. Also even criminals are entitled to a duty of care. Continuing to kneel on a person who has lost consciousness amounts to a failure imho.

BattleCorp

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

But he's not on trial for intent. It's for negligence of which to me, after hearing some of the testimony this past week, is pretty clear that he was completely negligent and is facing a huge battle to stay out of prison.

The jury might be swayed to believe that Chauvin was distracted by the hostile crowd etc. That might, just might, prove to be a mitigating factor and keep him out of jail..............in which case Minneapolis will burn.

He's fcuked either ways. He's a dead man walking unless he can disappear to an unihabited part of Leitrim for the rest of his life.

cheezums

Biker79 wrote: »

And I'm making the point that this was a sad income of what were exceptionally difficult circumstances.

You might say, circumstances that police can never be fully trained in - situations in which some of them are killed if they make a wrong decision.

Which is not their doing! These are situations created by criminals.

police can't be trained how to restrain someone without killing them??

All_in_Flynn

BattleCorp wrote: »

The jury might be swayed to believe that Chauvin was distracted by the hostile crowd etc. That might, just might, prove to be a mitigating factor and keep him out of jail..............in which case Minneapolis will burn.

He's fcuked either ways. He's a dead man walking unless he can disappear to an unihabited part of Leitrim for the rest of his life.

Yes they might, but after listening to the evidence, I think its fantasy stuff to blame this on the crowd who were shouting at the police to stop kneeling on the man's neck.

I will however accept the result of the trial whatever it may be.

BattleCorp

All_in_Flynn wrote: »

Yes they might, but after listening to the evidence, I think its fantasy stuff to blame this on the crowd who were shouting at the police to stop kneeling on the man's neck.

I will however accept the result of the trial whatever it may be.

Ah no. Are you not coming out for mostly peaceful but fiery protests? You should, you could do with a new pair of runners and a 65 inch TV.

briany

BattleCorp wrote: »

The jury might be swayed to believe that Chauvin was distracted by the hostile crowd etc. That might, just might, prove to be a mitigating factor and keep him out of jail..............in which case Minneapolis will burn.

He's fcuked either ways. He's a dead man walking unless he can disappear to an unihabited part of Leitrim for the rest of his life.

Being distracted by a crowd is no defence and I would expect the prosecution to absolutely dismantle it if offered as one. Chauvin had 3 other officers with him - two helping to hold Floyd down and one, Thao, I believe, standing alongside. If one officer, i.e. Chauvin, didn't notice Floyd going unconscious, you'd think at least one of the other two would notice something, and at least one did, because Floyd's unconsciousness as remarked upon on the video. Then you have Thao to help watch the onlookers.

That's not even to mention that any experienced beat cop would have performed arrests where there were other people causing hassle. They would have a good idea of how to deal with that pressure and what to concentrate on.

That's not to mention that being distracted would have to be far more than momentary. You'd need to be distracted for several minutes it required for Floyd to die.

That's not even to mention that Chauvin directly responded to Floyd's pleas. He knew Floyd was in distress, or at least that Floyd was claiming to be in distress. His best defence there is that he believed Floyd to be lying, not that he was distracted, but even that he thought Floyd was lying is dicey, and I suspect the prosecution would like to take a run at that.

BattleCorp

briany wrote: »

That's not even to mention that Chauvin directly responded to Floyd's pleas. He knew Floyd was in distress, or at least that Floyd was claiming to be in distress.

His best defence there is that he believed Floyd to be lying, not that he was distracted, but even that he thought Floyd was lying is dicey, and I suspect the prosecution would like to take a run at that.

I'd say the defence will make a big deal of Floyd claiming he couldn't breathe long before he was put on the ground.

Whether it'll be enough to help Chauvin, I don't know.

There's a long way to go before the end of it.

penny piper

Hannepin County Medical Officer doing a great job for the defense.....quickest questiong I've seen from the prosecution lawyer.

bazermc

penny piper wrote: »

Hannepin County Medical Officer doing a great job for the defense.....quickest questiong I've seen from the prosecution lawyer.

Isn’t it a case the prosecution lawyers weren’t too happy with the ME report so that is why they hired so many third party investigators.