Not for someone who isn't on trial. If Floyd hadn't been murdered and faced trial, that would be relevant to sentencing, setting bail, etc. However it isn't relevant for the victim of a homicide. This is why people get upset. A man is murdered but then the victim is the one put on trial.
Unfortunately this is the mindset of an average US law enforcement officer. Keep in mind that internal cop polling showed 85% of cops voted for Trump. They are extremely culturally right wing in general. Look at the rhetoric of police union presidents around the country who arf voted in by their peers.
I haven't been following closely, but the DA office was smart to include third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. If they were only going after second degree murder, it is easily within the realm of possibility that a competent defense attorney could get a not guilty on that one. I could see it being possible that he's guilty of the third degree murder and/or manslaughter and not guilty on the second degree.
So, I am guessing Chauvin's long and extensive history of 17 prior complaints about violence including choking incidents are fair game in the trial? Complaints that included choking?
Actually, I agree that it would be allowed in the trial. Chauvin is actually on trial. Showing a pattern of behavior from him would be relevant since he's on trial for murder.
Yes that third degree murder charge is critical. If I had to put money on it I would say Chauvin get's convicted on third degree murder. The second degree murder is possible but it's going to be very hard to prove intent. The "depraved mind" that Chauvin didn't really care whether Floyd lived or died I think is more in line especially given that Lane raised concerns about Floyd's welfare that Chauvin dismissed or ignored.
The defense argument is that Floyd died of cardiac arrhythmia and that the drugs played in his death. They are arguing that they were fearful of Floyd's large size and that they were afraid and felt threatened by the crowd that was gathered around the incident. Both prosecution and defense are stating that this trial has no bearing on any other LE incidents nor should it be considered politically.
So it's the Big Black Man defense. I don't see what the crowd had to with the restraint and that video shows they did not feel threatened.
Chauvin had agreed to plead guilty to 3rd degree murder and serve 10+ years. It needed federal approval. AG Barr refused to sign off because he said it was too light.
I understand that your only argument is that Chauvin's knee was on George Floyd's neck. I am looking at the totality of the circumstances. Yes, everyone knows Chauvin knee/Floyd neck. No one is glossing over anything. That is just not the entirety of the case. George Floyd is having no difficulty talking in a clear and understandable (if very rapid) manner. That would seem to indicate that his airway is clear and he is not having difficulty breathing. He also was conscious and talking for several minutes in the same position, which would indicate no blood choke is being applied, because if it was you would expect him to pass out in seconds. There was another officer that was on or near Floyd's back. We do not know if it was that officer compressing Floyd's chest who caused his death. That is what happened to Tony Timpa. There was no extensive bruising to Floyd's neck, which you would expect to see in a choking/strangulation case, in fact the autopsy report indicated: III. No life-threatening injuries identified A. No facial, oral mucosal, or conjunctival petechiae B. No injuries of anterior muscles of neck or laryngeal structures C. No scalp soft tissue, skull, or brain injuries D. No chest wall soft tissue injuries, rib fractures (other than a single rib fracture from CPR), vertebral column injuries, or visceral injuries E. Incision and subcutaneous dissection of posterior and lateral neck, shoulders, back, flanks, and buttocks negative for occult trauma When your blood vessels to the head are blocked, it tends to create petechiae (small burst blood vessels under the skin, usually visible on the face and in the eyes). So the evidence you would look for in an autopsy to make a determination that a knee on the neck specifically is what caused death is not there. So no, I am not ignoring or glossing over Chauvin having his knee on Floyd's neck. I am just not at all convinced that is what killed him. I think there are at least two other things that could have killed him, which to me is more than enough for reasonable doubt.
You keep on ignoring the 5 minutes where he applied pressure to his neck while being completely MOTIONLESS with zero tension in any part of his body indicating a desire to resist while bystanders were begging to check his vitals.
The entire argument is that Chauvin was on his neck I don't need anything else or the prosecution. You just keep trying ton ignore what the coroner has already said. Why does that not convince you? You are obviously so hell bent on Chauvin being innocent and keep ignoring actual evidence and video.
Did not know a 911 person also had an issue with Chauvin and called a supervisor too watch in real time. https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-...-911-dispatcher-testifies-something-was-wrong Scurry testified that despite several years of experience handling emergency calls, she became concerned when her monitors showed the responding officers, including Chauvin, kneeling on top of Floyd, pinning him to the ground. She initially believed the screen had frozen, then realized that was not the case, she told the court. "My instincts were telling me that something was wrong. Something wasn't right," Scurry, who had a view of the interior of the squad car from which Floyd was dragged, said. "It was an extended period of time. ... They hadn't told me if they needed more resources." She added: "I don't know if they had to use force or not. They got something out of the back of the squad, and all of them sat on this man. So I don't know if they needed to or not, but they haven't said anything to me yet." After watching the live video feed for several minutes, Scurry called the sergeant in charge of the officers, saying, "I don't want to be a snitch," then reported what she was seeing on her screen. When asked, she said she'd never done anything like that before. To the defense, Scurry noted that either Chauvin or another officer, Tou Thao, called for a faster ambulance response.
It's easy to defend murder when you ignore the whole murder part on camera. It's obvious. I mean besides the murder, it was some textbook policing if I do say so myself.
