George Floyd / Chauvin trial starts monday

Not all area are same wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/06/us/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-day-7/index.html

A Minneapolis Police use-of-force training instructor testified Tuesday that Derek Chauvin's kneeling on George Floyd's neck is not a trained neck restraint tactic.

"We don't train leg-neck restraints with officers in service, and as far as I know, we never have," Lt. Johnny Mercil said.

While neck restraints may be allowed on suspects actively resisting, they are not to be done with the knee and they would not be authorized on a suspect who is handcuffed and under control, he said. Officers are taught to only use force that is proportional to the threat.

and what did the Defense come back with?

That's racist, Chauvin is not allowed representation. Make sure everything you read is from a government approved news source.

He "seems unable" because he is legally unable. He is allowed to ask leading questions during cross, that's it.

When it's time for him to call his witnesses (which hasn't happened yet) he has an opportunity to present his points from their perspective.

ya..... wrote:

Not all area are same wrote:

and what did the Defense come back with?

That's racist, Chauvin is not allowed representation. Make sure everything you read is from a government approved news source.

Yeah, the media coverage of this trial is almost as bad as the initial coverage of this trial.

Are you related to that twit ArmsgtrongBivs? Nelson is not "legally unable" to raise points in Chauvin's favor on cross. Some of the best points can be raised on cross. Cases are often one on cross-examination. Nelson is losing opportunities here with his open questions and his apparent fear of the witnesses. He doesn't seem to understand what cross-examination is. He should be doing a lot better than he is.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Not all areas are the same wrote:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/541788-percentage-that-thinks-george-floyd-death-was-murder-down-more

Opinuons aren't facts. Except to Chauvin apologists.

I find it shocking that 36% of black Americans DON'T believe that Chauvin murdered George Floyd. (The statistic given in the article is that 64% DO view it as a murder.)

I raise this point simply to note that Armstronglivs is arguing against what a significant minority of black Americans believe.

I happen to think that third-degree murder is what he committed. But even I'm forced to acknowledge the fact that not everybody see it this way. And we would be wrong to presume that everybody who sees it differently than Armstronglivs and I see it can fairly be called a racist--unless you're willing to call those 36% of black respondents racists--which I'm clearly not.

uh oh

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-day-7-wrap-up-a-horrible-day-for-the-prosecution/

But of course the article is dated March 5. So it's entirely possible that the trial itself, and all the evidence that has been adduced, have shifted the balance yet again in terms of who believes Chauvin is guilty of what.

KudzuRunner wrote:

I find it shocking that 36% of black Americans DON'T believe that Chauvin murdered George Floyd. (The statistic given in the article is that 64% DO view it as a murder.)

After people like Larry Elder and Candace Owens shared the full video footage showing GF resisting going in the police vehicle and resisting when placed on the ground, I believe a large percent of their followers swing with facts, and not emotions.

These guys also have a lot of followers-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsokuK0gLoc

I just came across the following analysis of yesterday's testimony on Legal Insurrection, a right wing site. I'd urge everybody to read the long (!) analysis of Johnny Mercil's testimony, which LI views as catastrophic for the prosecution.

I've already made clear that I think we're looking at third-degree murder. But this analysis ALMOST gives me pause. And so, intellectual honesty requires that I share it, for general discussion.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-day-7-wrap-up-a-horrible-day-for-the-prosecution/

Hah! Didn't realize that it had just been shared. Uh oh! indeed.

KudzuRunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Opinuons aren't facts. Except to Chauvin apologists.

I find it shocking that 36% of black Americans DON'T believe that Chauvin murdered George Floyd. (The statistic given in the article is that 64% DO view it as a murder.)

Speaking of race, has the prosecution even once so far implied that Chauvin committed the crimes he's charged with because he's a racist? I keep expecting a Mark Fuhrman moment, but we haven't even seen a hint of it. Very strange prosecution tactic. You are less likely to convict without a motive - jurors want to know why - and the allegation of racism is today's all purpose motive for everything.

I haven't followed the trial closely, so I can't answer your question. But no, in his opening statement, the prosecutor, an African American man of notably even temperament, specifically told the jury that they should NOT treat this case as, in effect, a symptom of a larger American race problem, but should listen to the evidence and the case the state presented and judge it on the merits.

We may safely assume that if there was any overt evidence for Chauvin being a racist, as there is, for example, in the case of Ahmaud Arbery's killers, it would be all over the news, and the prosecution would surely use it. (N-word texts, etc.) But I don't believe there is any evidence of that sort. I'm sure Armstronglivs would know.

There is, of course, the overhanging sense among many that Chauvin simply wouldn't have treated a white male perp of similar size and behavior (i.e., resisting arrest a few minutes earlier) in the same way, and that that presumed differential, in and of itself, is a manifestation of racist predisposition and intent. I'm somewhat persuaded by this. As I've argued earlier, this feels to me like so-called depraved-heart murder: somebody (Chauvin) whose behavior evidence such callous disregard for human life that even if he didn't premeditate Floyd's death when he first set that knee on his neck, he is responsible for that death.

In his 18 years on the MPD, Chauvin had approximately one complaint for excessive force per year. That's being excluded from the trial. But it suggests a guy with a problem.

I missed that in the opening statement. So you think that "we won't talk about race" - i.e., lets-talk-about-it-by-saying-we-are-not-talking-about-it is where the prosecution wants to go with that? And then let the "overhanging sense among many" work its effect? I don't get that as a tactic. I think the prosecution should go all out on Chauvin is a racist. I don't see where they stand to lose on putting it up front every day. Certainly all the mainstream media commentators are saying it every night. It's critical to establish motive. I'm wondering if there is something we don't know about preventing the prosecution from raising it more directly every day.

Not all area are same wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/06/us/derek-chauvin-trial-george-floyd-day-7/index.html

A Minneapolis Police use-of-force training instructor testified Tuesday that Derek Chauvin's kneeling on George Floyd's neck is not a trained neck restraint tactic.

"We don't train leg-neck restraints with officers in service, and as far as I know, we never have," Lt. Johnny Mercil said.

While neck restraints may be allowed on suspects actively resisting, they are not to be done with the knee and they would not be authorized on a suspect who is handcuffed and under control, he said. Officers are taught to only use force that is proportional to the threat.

and what did the Defense come back with?

Nothing that changes that.

The racial dimension to the killing of Floyd is what led to the nationwide protests last year. It is not a claim that Chauvin was motivated by racial sentiments but that the killing represented centuries of white oppression of black Americans and the abuse of police power in particular. Many black Americans identify with that experience - and so Floyd's death caused widespread outrage.

The trial itself is not about that. The aim of the prosecution is to simply prove that Chauvin unlawfully killed Floyd. I believe they can do that and the evidence so far presented goes inexorably towards establishing that objective. The defence argument that Chauvin was simply doing his job has been refuted by the police evidence that not only did he fail to do what he was trained to do, he went against his training and did what he wasn't supposed to do.

The only area left for the defence is to try to show on the basis of the medical evidence that it was the drugs and Floyd's underlying medical condition that killed him and not the police actions. That will be uphill because the presence of lethal drugs alone doesn't establish the fact of an overdose. Further, none of the medics concluded he had overdosed or suffered a heart attack, and the two autopsies both concluded homicide. Prior to the trial a raft of medical experts said they do not believe he overdosed. The prosecution will present evidence supporting that. That leaves Chauvin as the primary cause of Floyd's death. I doubt that the defence will be able to change that.

KudzuRunner wrote:

I just came across the following analysis of yesterday's testimony on Legal Insurrection, a right wing site. I'd urge everybody to read the long (!) analysis of Johnny Mercil's testimony, which LI views as catastrophic for the prosecution.

I've already made clear that I think we're looking at third-degree murder. But this analysis ALMOST gives me pause. And so, intellectual honesty requires that I share it, for general discussion.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-day-7-wrap-up-a-horrible-day-for-the-prosecution/

I cant say i like that website. The commentator seems to take a childish delight in everything, and this only serves to undermine his credibility. Its a shame because the content appears good, yet presented in such a way i would be embarassed to use it. You say yourself that it is a right wing site.

For me, this is what this case is about - the deranged spoutings of the media and others. Why is it so difficult in this modern age to find a balanced, independent, authoritative source of information? And yes, in my posts it may look like i am one sided, but this is only because that side gets so little pubiclity. I am trying to find the balance and exploring why this is so hard for the media and people.

For the record, i am thinking that second degree manslaughter is going to be the 'highest' case for the prosecution, but i think even that will start to look shaky when the defense start calling witnesses. we shall see.

Stiger, a paid expert witness who has been a use-of-force trainer with the LAPD, said he never saw Chauvin ease up in his use of force, even as Floyd appeared to be in “distress” and ultimately stopped moving. He reiterated his view that officers initially responded with “reasonable force” when Floyd resisted as they struggled to place him inside a squad car.

But Stiger said the force should have stopped once Floyd was on the ground and not resisting. When Chauvin continued to pin Floyd to the ground, Stiger said, it turned into “deadly force.”

“At the time of restraint period, Mr. Floyd is not resisting. He was in the prone position,” Stiger told jurors. “He was handcuffed. He was not attempting to evade. He was not attempting to resist.”

The pressure of Chauvin’s body weight — estimated by another witness to be about 140 pounds along with 40 pounds of police equipment, including body armor — would have put Floyd at risk of “positional asphyxia,” a danger that is mentioned in most police training, Stiger said.

Floyd was already at risk for potential breathing problems because he was handcuffed and facedown on the ground, Stiger testified. “When you add body weight to that, it just increases the possibility of death,” he said.

---‐--‐------------

The kernel of the prosecution case, reinforced by numerous police experts. The use of force by Chauvin was unreasonable. That is homicide. The defence can't refute it.