George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

Whatley wrote:

Cher.....said she would have gotten invloved. A lot of people would have got physically involved, it was real obvious this cop was getting carried away.

Be cool with clown talk and why not register coward?

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you lift. Check the BMI charts for your stats and come back to me

That aside, you made my point for me. Everyone and their mother says they would have stepped in. They wouldn’t have. And it would not have gone well for you physically or legally.

According to a BMI chart Bo Jackson and Herschel Walker were, obese.

All Mr. Oympians are obese.

So much for that silliness.

Stop with the ridiculous BS guy, hell yes there are tons of us out there who would have stepped in cops or no cops. You really have to be told this, really?

I can see you are a waste of time guy so, wander around in fantasyland, it's you.

Chauvin is a cop no other cops will lie for, what does that tel you my man?

I find a pencil less sympathetic picture than you do. The team does none of the obvious things to protect the life of George Floyd until after the fire fighter tells them they have to multiple times. They never appear to think to engage in lifesaving measures even after it becomes clear that he has no pulse. Also, why would you hold him at that point?

If you find no pulse and choose to keep a knee on the neck instead of do CPR I don’t see how that can be seen as less than manslaughter.

Does anybody want to justify keeping the knee on the neck after they found no pulse?

pupil3142 wrote:

About the 6th or 7th thing DC is recorded as saying on one of the bodycam trasnscripits, very early on is;

Derek Chauvin: We'll hold him until EMS shows

Does that statement seem so unreasonable?

From the same transcript, the EMT guys never mentioned checking a pulse or vitals on the street to the cops (ie they didnt). they simply put gf in the vehicle and drove off. the transcript makes clear that Offcrs Keung, Lane and Chauvin had absolutely no idea - they were talking about his personal possessions and looking after the car. Very calm. went back to the shop to talk about the $20 bill. Definitely not the actions of murderers, afaik. Not even apparently puping adrenalin so much.

its the axon body 3 transcript;

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Exhibit407072020.pdf

Its annoying that it doesnt include timestamps for every line.

When the crowd said he wasn’t breathing and lane said he was. He probably wasn’t, but certainly before 18:00 they should have been off him and doing CPR.

And the calmness I find rather damning. They found no pulse, what do they think that means? To me the calmness speaks to callous disregard.

pupil3142 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I'll go with the police witnesses who said it shouldn't have been used.

why do you want to lose this argument again?

we have already said that the witness showed the knee restraint was possible and could be used, and we agree it should be removed at some point. the point is when; and you cant answer that precisely, noone can. and lets not have the trite nonsense of 'before death' becasue, again - please give a time on the video, under the knee when death occurs.

The Minneapolis police chief, Medaria Arradondo, told the Derek Chauvin murder trial on Monday that he “vehemently disagrees” that there was any justification for the former police officer to keep his knee on George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes.

Arradondo said on the sixth day of the trial that Chauvin’s treatment of the 46-year-old Black man breached regulations and showed a disregard “for the sanctity of life”.

“Once Mr Floyd had stopped resisting, and certainly once he was in distress and trying to verbalise that, that should have stopped,” he said.

The police chief said that while it might have been reasonable to use a certain level of force “to get him under control in the first few seconds”, Chauvin’s subsequent actions did not meet the standard of “objectively reasonable force”.

“To continue to apply that level of force to a person proned-out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy,” he said.

Not all areas are the same wrote:

comedyre1i3f 3 wrote:

George likely had a severe episode of Supraventricular tachycardia. He had all of the risk factors: enlarged heart, COVID, habitual use of stimulants (cocaine, methamphetamine, caffeine and nicotine) and a severely stressful event and a number of the symptoms (trouble breathing, complaint of chest, heart issues prior to being restrained). Combined with the ingestion of a horse dose of fentanyl, it was a fatal combination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqcUSCHd4NM

"revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation."

That must be why armstonglivs has been so quiet this afternoon!

He also found no evidence consistent with either a heart attack or a drug overdose. I'd say the knee on the neck wins out there.

Muldoonie wrote:

The defense lawyer Nelson is ineffectual. Maybe he went to the same law school as Armstrong. He’s going up against some biased witnesses, but he should be able to score more basic points than he has.

The open ended questions on cross are just ridiculous. You never give a witness a chance to explain anything on cross. The only answer you should permit is “yes” or “no.”

Speaking from your vast experience in the courtroom, counselor? Oh, yeah - you aren't legally-trained, are you?

Whatley wrote:

According to a BMI chart Bo Jackson and Herschel Walker were, obese.

All Mr. Oympians are obese.

So much for that silliness.

Stop with the ridiculous BS guy, hell yes there are tons of us out there who would have stepped in cops or no cops. You really have to be told this, really?

I can see you are a waste of time guy so, wander around in fantasyland, it's you.

I take away my benefit of the doubt. You are just obese. Probably never lifted a day in your life. So much for that silliness.

If so many of you are heroes agains the evil cops, then how come not a single person there stepped in? Why not go for frontier justice too at this point if you are such a big bada$$. Go drag DC out and punish him yourself. You are all talk. Many out there like you. Tell Cher I said hi.

Do you really expect the chief to go against the opinion of the city?

He wants to keep his job and will throw one officer under the bus to do it.

Questions from yesterday.

How did Arondondo not get more closely scrutinised, or was it just not reported?

from bbc;

"That is, in no way, shape or form, by policy, is not part of our training, and is certainly not part of our ethics and our values."

Mr Arradondo also noted it would be rare for officers to take into custody a suspect accused of passing a counterfeit bill, as Mr Floyd was.

The police chief said "talking your way out of a situation" was always better than using force, adding that officers may seek the "community's help" when available.

Its as if Nelson is just taking all this on the chin and not bothering to challenge it. Arondondo is responsible. he is reponsible for the procedures, for the training and for his officiers. he is the chiief of police. how can these people avoid responsibility by mealy mouthed comments about 'ethics and values'. its actions that count, and if DC was wrong, the Arondodndo should be shouldering responsibility. Instead he is getting votes.

Why did nelson not challenge why he was in the squad car? it was the counterfeit, plus the drugged up behaviour leading to investigating possible further crimes. Later transcripts show many forged bills. Forgery is ignored by police in us now?

'Ask community help?' Send for a social worker? Why did Nelson not challenge it?

The medical bloke. Now i know this is common, but someone needs to explain. when did he die? Was he flatlined under DC knee, or during the car ride, admission or 30 minutes later? At what point did his body stop respiring and his heart stop pumping ? How do you die of aspyxiation during mechanical ventilation? Have you seen the video of the CPR machine. Holy cow, you dont die of lack of ventilatory system with that puppy going - its shocking. So really my question is - did he flatline all the way from DC knee to 30 minutes in hospital? Did anyone, anyone take his vitals when on the ground? the camera 3 trasnscript doesnt show this?

Or was the cpr / ventilator kept going until it was obvious GF wasnt going to respond - at which point then- his body 'died' due to asphyxiation? As i have said, why is there no clarity to this? Brain death occurs normally due to either massive trauma, or lack of o2 to brain cells - often caused by asphyxiation. But surely we should know whetehr the lack of o2 was caused by heart not pumping oxygenated blood, or lungs not oxyenating blood? one or the other? why is this so difficult for modern medicine?

Did Nelson not challenge any of this narrative - even if just to clarify that modern medicine doesnt bother which such niceties????????

again, i am clearly not a doctor or a lawyer, but i think they are reasonable questions. and i am really not interested or likely to reply anymore to internet trolls claiming to be lawyers. I dont claim to be what i am not. i m just asking questions and exploring the hypothesis.

Not either a medic or lawyer but I've survived two cardiac arrests so will offer what I do know or recall from the hearing. You can't tell just with your finger which kind of cardiac arrest someone is in, you need equipment like an AED or ECG to do that. It could be a 'shockable rhythm' like Ventricular fibrillation which is what I had, then they can zap you and have a chance of restarting the heart. There are two types of SCA which aren't shockable, aystole or PEA. Key from the hearing is that the patient was flitting between those two states. But they couldn't determine that until in the ambulance and hooked up. PEA isn't shockable but they give it a go in the ambulance anyway. At the end of the hospital treatment I think he said he was still in PEA but it was on and off, I think most of the time he was in asytole (commonly referred to as flatlining ie no trace of electrical activity). At that point, 30 min in hospital and another 30 min with the paremedics and out of tricks he called it as a lost cause and declared him officially dead. The question of when he actually died is probably a complex medical-legal issue. He seems to have stopped breathing by the roadside but what his heart status was right then we will never know, could have been asystole or maybe it was shockable if they had got to him straight away with say an AED.

Thanks for the interesting info - you're not from Glasgow are you? ;)

How deepluy was this cross xamined by Nelson and did he try to tease any coclusions from it? aplogies for asking, i didnt see the trial andhavent got yesterday's transcript.

pupil3142 wrote:

Thanks for the interesting info - you're not from Glasgow are you? ;)

How deepluy was this cross xamined by Nelson and did he try to tease any coclusions from it? aplogies for asking, i didnt see the trial andhavent got yesterday's transcript.

Towards the end of his testimony the ER medic ventured into possible/probable causes of the cardiac arrest, they went through a full list but naturally focussed on hypoxia/asphyxia and something drug related which from the trial POV are the two rival theories. There was a lot of focus on CO2 levels which were over double normal level and could have indicated a drug cause but the counterpoint of that appeared to be that the very length of time he'd been out may have accounted for it. So Nelson did try but not sure how much doubt he put into the jury's mind as the medic seemed more inclined to go for hypoxia, which implicates Chauvin.

I don’t think Nelson is a guru lawyer. He could have pressed the chief harder.

Nelson is definitely going with 'the crowd is partially to blame' scenario.

Not going to be a pretty look.

So officer safety, EMT on the way, volatile situatin = dont blink, dont let up.

crisis trajectory management, time and distance creation for de escalation.

as crisis increases, and intensity of crisis grows, risk to officer and others is greater? yes sir.

An officer must appear confident, calm, speak slowly and softly, avoid eye contact? yes sir.

It is extraordinary how hostile some of these witnesses are.

Nelson is definitely r=teasing this one out. i would love to see the transcript, because it is painfully slow.

pupil3142 wrote:

Nelson is definitely going with 'the crowd is partially to blame' scenario.

Not going to be a pretty look.

So officer safety, EMT on the way, volatile situatin = dont blink, dont let up.

crisis trajectory management, time and distance creation for de escalation.

as crisis increases, and intensity of crisis grows, risk to officer and others is greater? yes sir.

An officer must appear confident, calm, speak slowly and softly, avoid eye contact? yes sir.

It is extraordinary how hostile some of these witnesses are.

Nelson is definitely r=teasing this one out. i would love to see the transcript, because it is painfully slow.

I am surprised how hostile some of the witnesses are. The off duty fire fighter and mr. Williams especially. I would hope the jury takes notice.

yawn wrote:

pupil3142 wrote:

Nelson is definitely going with 'the crowd is partially to blame' scenario.

Not going to be a pretty look.

So officer safety, EMT on the way, volatile situatin = dont blink, dont let up.

crisis trajectory management, time and distance creation for de escalation.

as crisis increases, and intensity of crisis grows, risk to officer and others is greater? yes sir.

An officer must appear confident, calm, speak slowly and softly, avoid eye contact? yes sir.

It is extraordinary how hostile some of these witnesses are.

Nelson is definitely r=teasing this one out. i would love to see the transcript, because it is painfully slow.

I am surprised how hostile some of the witnesses are. The off duty fire fighter and mr. Williams especially. I would hope the jury takes notice.

The witnesses don't buy the defence conjecture. They are sticking to the facts. They aren't hostile. But they may seem so to the Chauvin apologists on this thread, who are hostile to the truth.

Armstronglivs wrote:

yawn wrote:

I am surprised how hostile some of the witnesses are. The off duty fire fighter and mr. Williams especially. I would hope the jury takes notice.

The witnesses don't buy the defence conjecture. They are sticking to the facts. They aren't hostile. But they may seem so to the Chauvin apologists on this thread, who are hostile to the truth.

So when Williams refuses to answer a yes/no question for the defense and The judge has everybody leave the room to reprimand Hansen, those witnesses were not hostile. You are the most biased person here. Look at the facts and not your emotions.