Seems like one of their weaker arguments. The video footage and the testimony from bystanders aren't really helping with that. I think if there wasn't video footage, you could create this sort of story that there was a reasonable risk of danger but the video shows a crowd that was following instructions and staying away. I think it'll come down to the question of drug use and whether Floyd's use of drugs at the time justified the use of force and was responsible for his death (as opposed to asphyxiation). I think the defense has demonstrated in cross examination that the police guidelines around use of force have some exceptions and offers leeway to officers. So the question will be whether Floyd was in a state where it was reasonable for Chauvin to use that technique. Granted we haven't actually seen the defense yet so they might have some other plans but that's my initial read anyway. Go to youtube and type in floyd trial. Every news channel is streaming it.
Somebody brings up a plausible defense theory that is backed by reason and well explained and your response (as is typical for you when you disagree) is to just call them stupid and to tell them to shut up. People that do it show off their extreme ignorance. I know you wish it were the case, but this is not a slam dunk trial. It is filled with nuances.
Plausible defense theory? Lmao imagine someone who thinks the election was stolen calling somebody else ignorant u and him can both gtfo next
Sorry bro, but if you post something and put it out there, expect others to call you out for your lack of thought. This aint no safe space.
I think all of the video coverage of how he was acting before after being put all of this he had been in handcuffs Shows drug use had nothing to do with the use of force. If he was in a state they never should have taken him out of the vehicle. All of this has nothing to do with the fact they continued with the restraint after he had complied and after he became unconscious.
Yeah, anything that is counter to your point of view must be trolling. You are the paragon of all things justice. You rarely, if ever, contribute any critical thought to any subject matter. You are a simp and low info.
Floyd himself asked to be taken out of the vehicle and the defense will likely bring that up. They can argue that Floyd was acting strangely and they were trying to control him but the issue isn't that no force should have been used but how excessively it was used. The jury rules that say that Chauvin's actions doesn't have to be sole cause of the death but the substantial cause make it harder to argue for drugs but not impossible. I still think it will come down to whether the jury thinks it reasonable that Floyd did just happen to die of OD at that moment and Chauvin's knee had little to do with it.
I don't see it in this case, for reasons I mentioned above: lack of motive, the fact that the officers called for an ambulance, the demeanor of Chauvin, Chauvin's history, the initial contact between Floyd and the officers through when they were trying to get him in the car, Floyd's insistence on being placed on the ground. Evidence supporting intent to kill would be the length of time he restrained Floyd on the ground, failure to roll him into the "recovery position", refusal to allow on site EMT access to Floyd.
Here is the relevant part of Dr. Thomas' testimony on why he didn't feel that Floyd had died of a Fentanyl OD. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/04/09/chauvin-trial-george-floyd “This was not a sudden death. There was nothing sudden about his death. That’s what I would have expected if it was a cardiac arrhythmia,” she told the court, adding that it was also not the type of death seen in a fentanyl overdose, “where someone becomes very sleepy and then calmly stops breathing.”"
All of which showed how he was responsible for his death. The pulmonologist described every minute of him slowly dying in detail. He did nothing to try and revive him after no pulse. It didn't ever need to even get to that point to begin with. He didn't roll him over or start CPR. He just kept him pinned to the ground even with no pulse for minutes. He could have tried to save his life. Every minute waiting for EMTs was crucial in getting his heart beating again, and getting oxygen to his brain. He killed him. No doubt in my mind. Anyone with an ounce of brain in their head would have known that he was struggling to breathe. He didn't give a damn that the bystanders were panicking watching him slowly lose every bit of breath left, and screaming that he wasn't breathing. He never turned him to check on him. His intent certainly wasn't to save his life, by putting him in a position to ease his breathing, and get off his neck. Every expert so far has shown plenty of evidence to support that Chauvin caused his death.
Lest anyone forget the trial of Derek Chauvin has resumed. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/12/us/derek-chauvin-trial In their own words: ‘George Floyd did not die from a primary cardiac event and he did not die from a drug overdose.’ Yet another medical expert in the trial of the former officer Derek Chauvin testified that the condition of George Floyd’s heart and drug use did not contribute to his death, as the defense has claimed. Dr. Jonathan Rich, a cardiologist from Chicago, testified on Monday: After reviewing all the facts and evidence of the case, I can state with a high degree of medical certainty that George Floyd did not die from a primary cardiac event and he did not die from a drug overdose.
Judge Cahill is saying that he expects closing arguments could be Monday with defense wrapping up their case either Friday or Thursday with Friday off. Jury would then be sequestered starting Monday.
