George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[19QOS19]

Not able to watch but is the argument that George Floyd was trained in wrestling/MMA or something?

No. The witness is trained in MMA (actually fought professionally) so the prosecution was basically trying to show that a trained MMA fighter knew it was a blood choke hold Chauvan was carrying out and the danger involved. They went a helluva long way around to get to that point though.

[pandarilla]

I don't really understand why there's so much time being spent on witnesses here.

Surely the numerous videos show exactly what happened?

The defence will presumably be arguing that the police acted reasonably but their actions are clear for all to see.

Is it needed to trawl through every witness, including why they were going to the shops???

[Rugster]

Just tried to watch is it adjourned for lunch?

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, 101 said:

In America can the jury up it and say they find him guilty of 1st degree murder?

Hope so as law officers get life without parole if found guilty of 1st degree in Minnesota

I'm pretty sure they can't and 1st degree has to be pre-meditated so it's basically off the table because he couldn't have planned to have been called out to that incident before it happened. Not an expert in US law or anything but that's my understanding.

[pandarilla]

Just tried to watch is it adjourned for lunch?

Aye.

Judge is being a bit of a dick about the witnesses opinions.

[19QOS19]

I can't wait to here this cock's testimony and his justification for remaining on his neck when the guy is passed out. My guess is he'll give it the "I thought he was kidding".

[101]

1 hour ago, 19QOS19 said:

I can't wait to here this cock's testimony and his justification for remaining on his neck when the guy is passed out. My guess is he'll give it the "I thought he was kidding".

When will he be on?

[19QOS19]

When will he be on?

I don't know. I wonder if there is somewhere where you can see who and when people will be called?

Not sure who the defence are going to call. How can you defend that?

[101]

1 minute ago, 19QOS19 said:

I don't know. I wonder if there is somewhere where you can see who and when people will be called?

Not sure who the defence are going to call. How can you defend that?

They will call folk that say he's a nice guy and it's not in his character to kill folk.

[19QOS19]

That's two days in a row the judge has dismissed the Jury during the defenses cross examination. The firefighter did well there I thought but he rung her right out and harshly I thought. She said numerous times she couldn't recall her testimony and yet he kept asking her questions on it, only natural she gets a bit pissed off.

[carpetmonster]

5 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

I'm pretty sure they can't and 1st degree has to be pre-meditated so it's basically off the table because he couldn't have planned to have been called out to that incident before it happened. Not an expert in US law or anything but that's my understanding.

You’re right; the charges set by the prosecuting authority have to be stuck to, they can be downgraded but not upped and the manslaughter charge is in there also: I would imagine in this case Keith Ellison (Minnesota Attorney General) would be very conscious of overcharging Chauvin and potentially giving the defence an opportunity to milk that. It’s possible the Jason Van Dyke case in Chicago would be fresh in the mind - the events of that case suggest Van Dyke showed up to the incident determined that he was going to shoot Laquan McDonald, and he was convicted of second degree murder, rather than the first degree he was charged with.  Ellison does seem to be going very much by the book - https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2020/06/five-takeaways-from-ellisons-decision-to-prosecute-the-three-other-ex-mpd-officers-add-2nd-degree-murder-charge-against-chauvin/

[hk blues]

18 hours ago, Ross. said:

I have zero doubts that he knew what he was doing.

The lawyers will muddy the waters as much as possible though. How many other officers have kneeled on how many other people while arresting/detaining them and how many of those people did not die? Was it possible the drugs in the boys system played a part in him dying? Did the heart attack he had do it? Absolutely everything that can create any doubt on the issue will be shouted from the rooftops.

Which brings us back to my original post! It's not about disputing what we all saw (or even believe Chauvin intended) , but about throwing  as much mud as possible in the hope enough sticks.  I think that's why they went for 2nd and 3rd degree murder, knowing there would be enough mud to defeat 1st degree.  

As an aside, this case has attracted worldwide interest but isn't by any means an outlier in the US.  Anyone who has been through a US airport will know how those with the smallest amount of power behave so we can only imagine what goes on in less public and much more volatile situations.  

[hk blues]

11 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

I can't wait to here this cock's testimony and his justification for remaining on his neck when the guy is passed out. My guess is he'll give it the "I thought he was kidding".

His lawyer doesn't really need to prove anything,  just muddy the waters as much as possible to cast enough doubt in the minds of the jury who are easily swayed in general.  I'm sure they will make  a lot of how much was going on around Chauvin which led him to lose track of time (hey, time flies when you're having fun after all).  It will be interesting to see what Chauvin's superiors say when on the stand i.e. was he really acting with procedures?  If he was, the case against him looks a lot less solid and it would suggest the police department should be in the dock rather than Chauvin.  

[19QOS19]

His lawyer doesn't really need to prove anything,  just muddy the waters as much as possible to cast enough doubt in the minds of the jury who are easily swayed in general.  I'm sure they will make  a lot of how much was going on around Chauvin which led him to lose track of time (hey, time flies when you're having fun after all[emoji57]).  It will be interesting to see what Chauvin's superiors say when on the stand i.e. was he really acting with procedures?  If he was, the case against him looks a lot less solid and it would suggest the police department should be in the dock rather than Chauvin.  

They've said "former" police officers in regards to both Chauvin and the guy containing the crowd. I haven't paid much attention up until now but have they been sacked or did they quit? If it's the former it could harm Chauvin's case (with any luck) and the testimony of the superiors might be what finishes him off. I'm very much in the mindset of you though that their testimony is what helps him. I really hope that doesn't turn our to be the case.

[hk blues]

13 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

36 minutes ago, hk blues said:

His lawyer doesn't really need to prove anything,  just muddy the waters as much as possible to cast enough doubt in the minds of the jury who are easily swayed in general.  I'm sure they will make  a lot of how much was going on around Chauvin which led him to lose track of time (hey, time flies when you're having fun after all).  It will be interesting to see what Chauvin's superiors say when on the stand i.e. was he really acting with procedures?  If he was, the case against him looks a lot less solid and it would suggest the police department should be in the dock rather than Chauvin.  

They've said "former" police officers in regards to both Chauvin and the guy containing the crowd. I haven't paid much attention up until now but have they been sacked or did they quit? If it's the former it could harm Chauvin's case (with any luck) and the testimony of the superiors might be what finishes him off. I'm very much in the mindset of you though that their testimony is what helps him. I really hope that doesn't turn our to be the case.

They were all fired the day after the "incident". I don't think  that in itself will influence the verdict necessarily but it will probably make it less likely they will close ranks to protect him.  It may well come down to the black and white of the restraint policy and what it actually states.  His lawyer states he was following protocol but we know how that can be a loose interpretation. 

 

[Ralstonite]

42 minutes ago, hk blues said:

His lawyer doesn't really need to prove anything,  just muddy the waters as much as possible to cast enough doubt in the minds of the jury who are easily swayed in general.  I'm sure they will make  a lot of how much was going on around Chauvin which led him to lose track of time (hey, time flies when you're having fun after all).  It will be interesting to see what Chauvin's superiors say when on the stand i.e. was he really acting with procedures?  If he was, the case against him looks a lot less solid and it would suggest the police department should be in the dock rather than Chauvin.  

Allegedly there's a police training manual which shows the knee to the neck restraint technique:  https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7

If the guy was doing what he had be trained to do, then I cannot see how he can ever be convicted of murder. I doubt that he was supposed to utilise that technique for so long, and he may not have applied it correctly, however I suppose we will need to see the contents of the manual first.

My basic understanding of law is that mens rea needs to be established for murder charges, and I don't think the cop was trying to kill Floyd. If this training manual really exists I would imagine that's compelling evidence in his favour.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

4 minutes ago, Ralstonite said:

Allegedly there's a police training manual which shows the knee to the neck restraint technique:  https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7

If the guy was doing what he had be trained to do, then I cannot see how he can ever be convicted of murder. I doubt that he was supposed to utilise that technique for so long, and he may not have applied it correctly, however I suppose we will need to see the contents of the manual first.

My basic understanding of law is that mens rea needs to be established for murder charges, and I don't think the cop was trying to kill Floyd. If this training manual really exists I would imagine that's compelling evidence in his favour.

What is the defense argument likely to come down to? that it was an approved restraint and that the officer "reasonable believed" that Floyd was "at it" with his pleas of I can't breath and that the officer " reasonable believed " that Floyd would kick off if he released his restraint?  so even if that were true, do you just kill someone if their not behaving? I mean I know it's America but come on there were 4 of them and they had the cuffs on him

[101]

10 minutes ago, Ralstonite said:

Allegedly there's a police training manual which shows the knee to the neck restraint technique:  https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7

If the guy was doing what he had be trained to do, then I cannot see how he can ever be convicted of murder. I doubt that he was supposed to utilise that technique for so long, and he may not have applied it correctly, however I suppose we will need to see the contents of the manual first.

My basic understanding of law is that mens rea needs to be established for murder charges, and I don't think the cop was trying to kill Floyd. If this training manual really exists I would imagine that's compelling evidence in his favour.

I seem to remember at the time the technique was introduced after Israeli special forces did some training with police departments. Hopefully they bring a witness from the special forces who say it works perfectly when you are killing Palestinians and Nazis

[hk blues]

2 minutes ago, Ralstonite said:

Allegedly there's a police training manual which shows the knee to the neck restraint technique:  https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7

If the guy was doing what he had be trained to do, then I cannot see how he can ever be convicted of murder. I doubt that he was supposed to utilise that technique for so long, and he may not have applied it correctly, however I suppose we will need to see the contents of the manual first.

My basic understanding of law is that mens rea needs to be established for murder charges, and I don't think the cop was trying to kill Floyd. If this training manual really exists I would imagine that's compelling evidence in his favour.

I don't doubt he was carrying out the restraint as per the manual but the length of time has to be taken into account.  More than likely it say nothing in the manual about timing but then that brings it into the realms of reasonableness.  The jury will have to consider if Chauvin would have known the end result.  If we held someone's head under water for 8.5 minutes, or held them tightly by the throat for that length of time, we would expect someone to die so the same surely applies to the knee to the neck?  Of course, it's Chauvin's lawyers job to throw doubt upon that simple point.

[Ralstonite]

1 minute ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

What is the defense argument likely to come down to? that it was an approved restraint and that the officer "reasonable believed" that Floyd was "at it" with his pleas of I can't breath and that the officer " reasonable believed " that Floyd would kick off if he released his restraint?  so even if that were true, do you just kill someone if their not behaving? I mean I know it's America but come on there were 4 of them and they had the cuffs on him

I haven't watched the full, twenty minute video, but a friend of mine told me Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before the officer applied the restraint. If it was taught to cops, presumably it was considered non-lethal. If it wasn't considered non-lethal but was taught to cops anyway, then presumably deaths like Floyd's are considered acceptable in America. However, if Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before the restraint was applied, I would imagine the cop would believe him to be lying.