Not all areas are the same wrote:
Armstronglivs,
Have you watched the entire trial this morning?
I see you responded to others but didn't answer this question?
Not all areas are the same wrote:
Armstronglivs,
Have you watched the entire trial this morning?
I see you responded to others but didn't answer this question?
Yikes, this witness looks troubling - and sounds high!
It seems the defence strategy with this witness Jenna Scurry is to say; you saw a definite struggle in the squadcar - rocking backwards and forwards - so you called the seargeant.
By the time the seargeant arived - GF was on the ground, so the incident was no longer a 'use of force', but a 'takedown'.
Supervisors arent needed for a takedown.
The seargeant turned up anyhow, later.
hmmm.
Next witness, i wont give her name, is not looking promising. Doesnt know what state she grew up in, doesnt know where in that state, is unemployed, had a weird job, doesnt know what screen to look at, doesnt know buildings across the street from where she worked,
pupil3142 wrote:
It seems the defence strategy with this witness Jenna Scurry is to say; you saw a definite struggle in the squadcar - rocking backwards and forwards - so you called the seargeant.
By the time the seargeant arived - GF was on the ground, so the incident was no longer a 'use of force', but a 'takedown'.
Supervisors arent needed for a takedown.
The seargeant turned up anyhow, later.
hmmm.
Next witness, i wont give her name, is not looking promising. Doesnt know what state she grew up in, doesnt know where in that state, is unemployed, had a weird job, doesnt know what screen to look at, doesnt know buildings across the street from where she worked,
yes, she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
yes, she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
She doesn't need to be. It's day 1. She's a foundational witness. Her job is to just lay the foundation for the 'star' witnesses that will come later. She's just corroborating some basic facts of the case. She clearly is not motivated to promote any personal political agenda.
Not all areas are the same wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
It seems the defence strategy with this witness Jenna Scurry is to say; you saw a definite struggle in the squadcar - rocking backwards and forwards - so you called the seargeant.
By the time the seargeant arived - GF was on the ground, so the incident was no longer a 'use of force', but a 'takedown'.
Supervisors arent needed for a takedown.
The seargeant turned up anyhow, later.
hmmm.
Next witness, i wont give her name, is not looking promising. Doesnt know what state she grew up in, doesnt know where in that state, is unemployed, had a weird job, doesnt know what screen to look at, doesnt know buildings across the street from where she worked,
yes, she isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
aaargh, i cant take any more. she seems to be an armstronglivs spoon. Both lawyers are leading her fiendishly, but i think everyone is so fed up with her stupidity they dont mind and just want it over.
Do you remember what happened? not really.
There is a transcript of your comments at the time and you were given that before the trial, did you read it? No.
Would it refresh your memory if you looked at it now? Not really.
Well, witness #3 was everything #2 wasn't. Curbside view with a background in wrestling and MMA, working as a bouncer, an understanding of chokeholds. The white jurors will trust him since he wore went fishing with his son right before he went to the corner store and witnessed the murder. What more could you ask for in a witness?
These witnesses are pretty pointless. The jurors don't need to rely on witness's impressions of what happened when they can see it unfold for themselves from multiple camera angles. The medical experts and the police training and use of force experts will be interesting. After opening statements finished today was a waste of time.
Saw the prosecutor lay out his case and was impressed by his clarity, even tone, and by the evidence of the video with witness commentary.
The guy used language and phrasing that was completely understandable and reasonable. A model of objective case development.
Democrats are disgusting pieces of trash.
Hopefully you aren’t on the jury.
pupil3142 wrote:
Do you remember what happened? not really.
There is a transcript of your comments at the time and you were given that before the trial, did you read it? No.
Would it refresh your memory if you looked at it now? Not really.
I didn't see any of it. Are these the actual answers given by the witness? If so, I hope the prosecution has better options or their case is toast. Sounds like a hostile witness.
I'd forgotten just how wrong and barbaric all that was, seeing it again has me thinking how can anyone not throw the book at Chauvin, you simply cannot treat another human being like that. Yes Floyd was scum, buy it just doesn't matter. This isn't about that.
Hopefully common sense prevailS here and Chauvin gets convicted for what it was, murder, All this ....it was drugs....is weak, try a knee to the neck for nine minutes for no reason at all.
Would be cool to toss Chavin on the ground and stick a knee in his neck for nine minutes, yep, just for the hell of it.
I could not watch it again, so horrible seeing him beg for mercy handcuffed saying I can't breathe and the Policeman kept his knee on, whether or not he actually died of drugs it was sad.
It is time to punish someone who deserves it, Chauvin needs to spend the rest of his days in prison. That was murder and only a blind man wouldn't see it. After a minute with the big guy totally under control you get off him. to do what Chauvin did was wrong and he needs to pay for it.
yowza!! wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
Do you remember what happened? not really.
There is a transcript of your comments at the time and you were given that before the trial, did you read it? No.
Would it refresh your memory if you looked at it now? Not really.
I didn't see any of it. Are these the actual answers given by the witness? If so, I hope the prosecution has better options or their case is toast. Sounds like a hostile witness.
to be honest, i dont think it mattered how awful she was as a witness, they just wanted to get her cell phone video evidence introduced and lined up with the security camera. she was little more than a camera operator.
They took 7 or 8 of her video snaps and spliced it into the security camera to get a very good long view of the whole thing, called exhibit 9.
exhibit 9 is fascinating.
Whatley wrote:
I'd forgotten just how wrong and barbaric all that was, seeing it again has me thinking how can anyone not throw the book at Chauvin, you simply cannot treat another human being like that. Yes Floyd was scum, buy it just doesn't matter. This isn't about that.
Hopefully common sense prevailS here and Chauvin gets convicted for what it was, murder, All this ....it was drugs....is weak, try a knee to the neck for nine minutes for no reason at all.
Would be cool to toss Chavin on the ground and stick a knee in his neck for nine minutes, yep, just for the hell of it.
I'm hoping they do that with one of the jurors, or all of the jurors, after the same training he was given is provided to them. Then it would be great to have Chauvin use the knee restraint on the jurors and tell his version of the situation while performing the knee restraint to prove that that technique can be done for longer than 10 minutes without causing even a bruise.
Whatley wrote:
It is time to punish someone who deserves it, Chauvin needs to spend the rest of his days in prison. That was murder and only a blind man wouldn't see it. After a minute with the big guy totally under control you get off him. to do what Chauvin did was wrong and he needs to pay for it.
For the sake of Minneapolis it would be good if that happened, but the fact that GF resisted going in the police car, was drugged up, ingested more drugs when the police arrived, had pre-existing medical conditions, and the fact that ambulance when to the wrong location and because of that was slow to arrive at the correct location seems like more than enough reasonable doubt to hang up the jury. Plus you have an autopsy with no neck bruising, and a knee restraint training manual that shows he did what he was trained to do.
yowza!! wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
Do you remember what happened? not really.
There is a transcript of your comments at the time and you were given that before the trial, did you read it? No.
Would it refresh your memory if you looked at it now? Not really.
I didn't see any of it. Are these the actual answers given by the witness? If so, I hope the prosecution has better options or their case is toast. Sounds like a hostile witness.
Yes! She was terrible, but I think was involved because she had another cell phone video that hits the emotions button again.
douglas burke wrote:
I could not watch it again, so horrible seeing him beg for mercy handcuffed saying I can't breathe and the Policeman kept his knee on, whether or not he actually died of drugs it was sad.
You better steer clear of the video of Tony Timpa. It is worse, and the guy did not even commit a crime. Called the cops on himself because he didn't have his medication and was afraid he was going to lose control.