Topic: Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody - page 6. (Read 4455 times)

This is what I don't understand about the right... Why are they always the first to get outlandishly terrified over hypotheticals which exist only in their own minds. The hypotheticals are far from coming to fruition, yet the right's first instinct is to assume the worst and that any bit of change will lead to the destruction of society.

You don't know any of what you just said to be true. You just assume it all to be true in order to confirm your pre-existing biases. Why? Seems like the go-to move of somebody afraid to admit they are powerless.

Day 7 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2BljSyylIQ

Worth watching some of the highlights tbh. Maybe just skip through.

Defense is making a good case for reasonable doubt, but what I focused on today is Morries Hall. So Hall is Floyd's alleged fentanyl dealer. Guy that allegedly dumped a backpack from the car after Floyd was arrested, allegedly dumped something down a sewer drain as well, gave a fake name to police, and fled to Texas after Floyd had died -- all around swell guy really.

Well, they had a hearing about Hall invoking his 5th amendment right to avoid self incrimination. Basically, the defense would love Hall to testify because he could state that Floyd had ingested drugs prior to police approaching the side of his car. After all, semi-chewed pills were found in the police car with Floyd's DNA on them. So where did these semi-chewed pills come from? Why were they half chewed? One can only guess he swallowed them when he knew he got caught, but I guess only Hall can really say.

And IF it turns out the drugs killed Floyd, guess who catches the 3rd degree murder charge?

There's two POV's, mine and the jurors. So you ask me about the jurors, his testimony matters. But I'm waiting on some of the trainers at the MPD police academy to discuss the maximal restraint technique, the police chief hasn't been a patrol guy for years. This is the state's witness after all. And would you agree these trainers would be more valuable than the police chief? Chief serves a more administrative role.

Day 6 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyARhyjnNTM

I only watched the Dr.'s testimony because quite frankly, the Chief of police's testimony was worthless. Chief of police is a politician at that point, so there wasn't anything he said that was too much of value (that hadn't already been mentioned before).

But some important highlights from Dr. Langenfeld.

He originally speculated hypoxia which caused cardiac arrest. And hypoxia is often a result of asphyxiation. So it seems reasonable that asphyxia is what he was thinking of when Floyd came into the ER, and of course, the media latch onto this without listening to anything else he said. Sigh.

But, on the cross examination by Nelson, it was made clear that Dr. Langenfeld did not have any info on Floyd's drug ingestion. And how could he? The police never told the paramedics about drugs, paramedics never told the doc, so this had to have an effect on what his initial diagnosis was. And Dr. Langenfeld admitted that fentanyl would have an effect on breathing. It is used in the anesthesia after all.

Side note, Eric Nelson also showed some BWC and when EMS arrived on scene, it showed Chauvin's knee clearly on the upper back of Floyd, and not on the neck. He did a side-by-side comparison of the bystander footage, and the BWC that were time synced and it shows that the bystander video is a bit misleading and shows Chauvin's knee on the back of the neck, while the BWC angle shows his knee lower than that.

But, I have not closely look at the BWC enough to see if that was the case for the entire 9+ minutes. I doubt Chauvin's knee was even in angle for that entire period of time.

I don't think any reasonable adult needs any medical expertise to know that kneeling on someone's neck for more than a few minute or two could kill someone.  Especially if that person is screaming 'i can't breath, i'm going to die'.

Right. Anyways.

"Feds say far-right group coordinated attack on Minneapolis police precinct during protest"

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/522509-feds-say-far-right-group-coordinated-attack-on-minneapolis-police-precinct

I saw a few video clips of BLM and Boogaloo Boys actually conversing with each other and pretty much arriving at the same conclusion: government overreach is bad. Not sure that's applicable to what happened here, but it may be.

I didn't watch the trial live or otherwise, and I was not able to find any article talking about the ambulance driving away for 3 blocks. The articles I read say that the initial call was a "code 2" which means the ambulance did not use lights/sirens (it wasn't an "emergency"), but was later upgraded to a "code 3" which means lights/sirens were used (it was an "emergency").

Chauvin has long ago lost in the court of public opinion, and regardless of the outcome of the trial, will never work again. The same is probably true for his (ex)wife and his (ex)wife's kids. What the public thinks does not matter in a court of law. Ultimately if Chauvin was following procedures, he should be found not guilty under the eyes of the law.

Again, this really comes down to procedures. A Lutentiant for the PD is not going to have the medical expertise to know that putting a knee on a suspect's neck is "too much" or that it "can kill", and this should not have been allowed by the judge. The fact that this was allowed into testimony is probably grounds for a successful appeal by Chauvin for either ineffective counsel, or the judge allowing prejudiced testimony from an unqualified witness.

Even if the use of force was "too much", it boils down to if the excessive use of force was a contributing factor in Floyd's death.

Short day, wrapped up by lunch time - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4XNcAZaeSQ


Only had two witnesses today. MPD sgt who basically went over some administrative stuff about critical incidents (critical incident is defined as an event involving serious injury or death to an officer or suspect).

Last witness was current Lt. for the MPD. Suffice it to say, he was devastating for the defense today. Openly stated that the knee was too much force, should not have been held for as long as it did because it can kill, and that once Floyd was no longer resisting, it should have came up. Really tough for Eric Nelson to navigate out of that, and he wasn't really successful during the cross examination.

I wonder how someone under police custody could die! In this particular incident, i think the police officer was really being racist here aside from the fact that, he felt a particular anger towards the suspect, he was so focused on causing him pain to the extent that, he failed to notice how bad the suspect being restrained was hurting. He didn't feel he was bluffing, the officer knew he was in pain but, it was exactly the pain he was dishing out and was taking a great deal of pleasure dishing it.
I guess the protest which followed to a large extent would help to reduce the violence in the police department.

The key point to this whole exercise is that the plebs will either agree to equality of brutality without exception or zero brutality.It is not acceptable for a police officer to use this level of vindictive violence towards any person of any race,gender or creed.If I was walking past this officer at this particular time of the incident I would have challenged him but as you can see not one person did this.Plebs are too conditioned to understand they outnumber even the armies and it is their blind compliance that gives this free for all attitude among officers like Chauvin.If that was my kin underneath Chauvin's boot I can assure Mr Chauvin would have been met will righteous violence by my boots 

See, my issue here is that Chauvin probably was thinking about this to an extent so you're not wrong, but to me it's just tough for optics that the restraint was held and chest compressions weren't started. If the argument is that the crowd was angry and that diverted Chauvin's attention, then it surely seems like the paramedics were in the same mindset because they did a load and go, meaning they did not render aid right there on scene. They drove 3 blocks.

If the situation was as dire as the paramedics testified, shouldn't they have utilized all the resources they had on the scene instead of driving away 3 blocks which took away valuable time? So there's truth to your statement, but I just don't think the average person is going to think about that, so they'll listen to the sgt. who testified the knee should've come off.

But, it's also worth noting that the prosecution is on offense here. These are the state's witnesses. The defense surely will probably have someone testify about MPD policy in regards to angry crowds.

I didn't mention this above but the paramedics also testified, basically, that the cops don't even have the most basic EMT training. So the obvious question is -- Is it reasonable to believe that Chauvin should have recognized the medical severity of the situation and started compressions? The police had already stepped up medical, keep in mind. So who knows?

Again, I just don't feel today was a great day for the defense. It's hard to justify them not starting compressions so I can't defend them there. I can only speculate why Chauvin didn't, because the argument by the prosecution is that Chauvin didn't because he's a racist murderous piece of shit clearly. I tend to doubt that.


I agree.

If the procedure is to give priority to other threats, the defense argument would be that Chauvin was following procedures, and I think that is a pretty strong argument.

Also, on the day 2 video you posted, several minutes after the 6(hour):49(minute) part you mentioned, the EMT (who was off duty at the time) talked about "tunnel vision", which is something I think would favor the defense regarding why chest compressions had not started by Chauvin.


This supports the defense argument that Floyd died from a drug OD.

Day 4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz_BwDvd6Cw

Very important day for both sides of the case, but the prosecution called some critical witnesses which helped their case out by a landslide. If you're keeping score, the prosecution definitely came on top as the winner today.

So one of the issues that I saw, and everyone else basically, was that Chauvin did not check for a pulse nor did he start chest compressions when Floyd was unresponsive. Realistically, this was about 2-3 minutes until Floyd's final movement and until the ambulance arrived. The prosecution had paramedics testify today, the same paramedics that took Floyd and put him into the ambulance.

They each testified that they arrived on scene with the officers still restraining Floyd, and that the officers didn't move until the stretcher was on the ground. One paramedic testified that the officers were of "help" to him when loading on Floyd onto the stretcher. The other paramedic was more scornful it seems like, seeming to imply that chest compressions should have started before they even arrived on scene. And hey, it is absolutely true. You don't have a pulse, you start chest compressions.

The defense angle here is that Chauvin was focused on the crowd, and because the crowd deemed itself to be a threat, that was a focus over giving medical help/chest compressions. Not the best argument (in fact, terrible), but is it perhaps reasonable? Maybe? Look back to the transcript of the body worn camera.

You hear Alexander Kueng "I don't feel a pulse." Chauvin is looking at the crowd while they're yelling, looks to Kueng and says "Huh?". Kueng does not repeat himself, and Chauvin continues looking at the crowd. So it might have been a miscommunication here which is why chest compressions were not started.

Could you say that Chauvin was negligent because he did not do chest compressions? Yes, I think you could. Is it important to consider outside factors? Sure -- you look at the fact that they called for code 3 response, which means stepping up paramedics and getting them to the scene ASAP. So medical care was inbound. You also have to take into account an aggressive crowd and what role that had in diverting any attention of the officers. The defense made the argument when questioning one of the witnesses, a former police sgt. on Chauvin's shift, that other threats/dangers have a higher priority than providing medical aid. Not the greatest argument, again, but we all knew this would be the hardest hump to get over for the defense. Another argument the defense made is that drug users who are unconscious can begin to fight with police after they regain consciousness, a question Eric Nelson asked of the police sgt. to which he confirmed.

I think the most groundbreaking thing we learned today is from Floyd's girlfriend Courtney Ross. She acted as a spark of life witness, basically speaking on their relationship. The point of a spark of life witness is to basically humanize the victim, and attach a face/personality to him. Overall, I think it was relatively successful. But uncovered in the prosecution's questioning is that both Ross and Floyd suffered from a prolonged drug addiction. The defense cross examined the witness, and it did not go well for the state.

We learned extremely important things here. One is that Morries Hall was a passenger in Floyd's vehicle at the time of the incident. He was Floyd's source for fentanyl and other drugs. Hall basically lied to the police during the time of the incident and gave police a false name because he had warrants, and we know Hall is not going to testify because he doesn't want to incriminate himself. What we also learned is that Floyd in March of 2020 was hospitalized due to a drug overdose with a hospital stay lasting at least 5 days (11 days according to Eric Nelson). To investigators, Ross told them that Floyd had a foamy white substance running from his mouth as she took him to the hospital during Floyd's drug overdose. Floyd also had a foamy white substance running from his mouth during his May 25th arrest, confirmed by multiple witnesses. This is a huge fact that no one knew prior to today, and of course, the defense capitalized. Another sort small revelation is that Floyd had his girlfriend saved under the name "Mama" in his phone. This might put into context that Floyd was saying "Mama I love you" in reference to his girlfriend, and not his actual mother. Not like that matters in the grand scheme of things though.

Lot of good things learned today.

Day 3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZMdt1RDGVE

More witness, of course. But the prosecution showed body camera videos from all of the officers involved and this shows that Floyd resisted arrest.

State also brought a witness that was an employee of the Cup foods grocery store where Floyd used the fake 20. In his testimony, he openly admitted that Floyd looked like he was high. They showed footage of the Cup foods store CCTV cameras and it showed Floyd was most definitely high. He was dancing, making weird body movements, and the employee said his speech was delayed.

Another witness was a bystander who was the first person to witness Floyd being taken into the patrol car. This was also the person that said Floyd would have a heart attack if he continued fighting. Surprisingly, no cross examination of this witness by the defense.

Last witness of the day was a Lt. MPD officer who basically gave testimony on the technical aspects of body cameras. He seemed to be an police IT expert.

All in all, much more boring day than yesterday, but more valuable information.

I am not sure if anything about the aftermath of Floyd's death will be allowed, but if so, the jurors will likely change their minds.

There might be alternates that are not part of the jury, but sit with the jury, and hears all the testimony and arguments. In the event that one of the jurors is dismissed, the alternate will take their place. If more jurors than alternates get dismissed, there will likely be a mistrial. I think if anyone were to contact any of the jurors, a mistrial would probably be declared.

You could say the same thing about an aquittial. If there is a hung jury, the prosecution would try again.

Will they leave out the part about Floyd saying he can't breathe before he was on the ground? The same plea he was making while he was on the ground? Will they leave out the part about that Floyd had lethal amounts of illegal drugs in his system when he died? Will they leave out the part about how the medical examiner said that if he had not seen the video of Floyd dying, he would have thought Floyd died from a drug OD?

This should have been objected to by the defense counsel, and not allowed to be entered into the record by the judge. If the defense counsel did not object, there may be a case for ineffective counsel if he is found guilty.

Day two -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lydujn8BEiE

Skip to hour 6:49 if you want to watch the biggest grilling of a witness on national TV you have ever seen.


Basic summary of day two - you had the state bring witnesses to the stand that were apart of the crowd that were forming while Floyd was being restrained.

So by virtue of that fact alone, you're probably going to get biased witnesses that still have emotional trauma from what they saw, hence why they are witnesses by the state.

Problem is, quite literally none of these witnesses were objective in nature to what they observed, but added a lot of additional commentary and speculation. This really drives the point that the prosecution is going for emotional appeal because the facts are not on their side. But that's okay -- it's a legitimate strategy and it's valid because their goal at the end of the day is to land a conviction.

Where I have issue is they literally called a 9 year old witness to the stand (thank god Eric Nelson, Chauvin defense attorney, did not cross examine this witness, not like he ever would), but realistically, what valid testimony can a 9 year old give? Is it not apparent that asking a 9 year old child what she saw Mr. Chauvin do to Mr. Floyd would not be useful?

Moving on to the SPICY cross examination on the EMT (time stamp above), basically one of the members of crowd that had formed onlooking Floyd and the officers was a firefighter. So, this firefighter is called as a witness by the state and she shows up in her EMT outfit (which to me is so absurd because it makes it look like she's giving expert testimony when she is not an expert, and she is not independent). Anyway, the prosecution attempt to do exactly this and ask this EMT about EMT protocols, checking pulses, how to save someone's life and such. One point the prosecution really tried to capitalize on was the fact that this EMT attempted to approach Floyd and the officers in order to help render aid. She, by her own testimony, was yelling at the officers to check Floyd's pulse and his condition. So the burden on the defense is now two fold -- you now have to convince the jury that his person is a biased witness that is unable to give expert testimony (btw this is kinda true), and you have to refute a rather larger allusion which is that Derek Chauvin had *no* regard for Floyd's life because he didn't allow an EMT to check for Floyd's pulse and render aid.

Obviously, any reasonable person can reason their way through why it'd be a bad idea to let an non-uniformed, self proclaimed EMT, interfere with a detainment, especially if she's part of a hostile crowd. But, Eric Nelson absolutely demolished this witness and she definitely lost her cool. She also was probably lying in some of her answers too. See above, I promise it's worth it to see an ass kicking of the witness.

Finally, the most effective witness testimony of the day would be the state's witness and the prosecution questioning the witness here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMj85jIK_AM

Just my personal thoughts, I definitely feel for this person. She didn't ask to be in the situation and yes, it is traumatic to watch in person what happened to Floyd if you don't understand the procedures or the greater context. But this is effective because it draws emotions, and emotions are the way you will get a conviction. So prosecution succeeded here and this was one of the highlights of the day.

I wouldn't worry about the prosecution not presenting any evidence.  Pretty sure they'll play the video of the cop kneeling on the guys neck while he begged for his life then died and then show them the autopsy reports that concluded it was a homicide.

Eric Nelson asked all the jurors about this concern during jury selection about whether they feared for their safety and were inclined to vote one way or another. Everyone that was selected said no so I'm actually not too worried about this. But, if they get doxed and harassed/threatened I wonder what happens then? An alternate comes in?

Anyway, you have 12 jurors total and the prosecution needs 12 people all to vote guilty. That's already feels like an uphill battle because how are you gonna get 12 people to agree on this case that is so controversial with so much grey area?
 

I think the jurors will feel compelled to bring a guilty verdict, even if the prosecution doesn't present any evidence. Some probably fear for their family's safety. I don't doubt that left-wing media outlets have already doxed some of the jurors, and may have contacted them/their family for comment.

I would expect nationwide riots with a not-guilty verdict.

It's trial time!

I've been following this lawyers write ups which are very informative (although biased)

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/chauvin-trial-day-1-wrap-up-opening-arguments-three-state-witnesses/

Here is the full video from today's opening arguments and witness testimony of 3 witnesses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2RSdD12k8E


Trial is expected to take about 4 weeks considering there are nearly 400 witnesses.

My thoughts on the opening arguments (which are highlighted above in the link in case you don't want to watch the long video) - Lot of emotional rhetoric on the side of the prosecution and some blatant falsehoods. The point of contention in this case is really the cause of death. Whether Floyd died of asphyxia or not. The autopsy report does not show evidence asphyxia, and in fact, the original criminal complaint had openly said this - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf


However, the prosecution stated that Floyd did die of asphyxia, therefore the burden of proof will be on them.


Moving over to the defense - Eric Nelson, the defense attorney of Chauvin, got outclassed. The delivery of the prosecution was extremely smooth and very convincing though (because let's face it, emotional rhetoric works). So all in all, I think Eric Nelson, Chauvin defense attorney, "lost" in regards to the opening arguments because Eric Nelson immediately began his opening statement on the aspect focusing on reasonable doubt. This basically gives the impression that your client is already guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It was only 10 minutes in when Eric Nelson began talking about fentanyl and underlying conditions, but he seemed not to drill the point rather just glancing over the fact. One main rebuke that stood out to me in the opening statement (and this is a huge piece of evidence that was misrepresented by the prosecution) -- Floyd had no anatomical evidence of asphyxia, no bruising, contusions, nothing. Therefore, the prosecution in their opening statement tried to argue that because Floyd was bleeding from the nose while on the ground, that it demonstrates a large pressure of Chauvin onto Floyd causing his nose to bleed due to contact with the pavement. However, Eric Nelson dispelled this notion because Floyd banged his head against the plexiglass in the squad car while resisting arrest which caused the bloody nose. And this is evident by the blood found within the squad car. So now, the pathway to argue asphyxia due to large pressure by Chauvin's knee is a bit more limited. I don't know how many people in the jury would've picked up on this in the initial arguments because it seemed like another point that Eric Nelson brushed over (his delivery seemed a bit too fast tbh).

If I knew nothing about this case and used just the testimony from today's presentation by both the prosecution and the defense, I would undoubtedly be leaning towards a "guilty" verdict. But obviously, this is the first day.