Watched all the closing statements and will hand it to Chauvin's lawyers that they are good but it does feel like they are making the most out of a weak hand. I was impressed with the defense' argument regarding what a reasonable officer might do but that has been directly countered by the LEO who testified against Chauvin. What they did do is give LEO Lane some very good grounds for acquittal since a lot of what they pointed out was Lane and not Chauvin showing concern for Floyd. Their weakest arguments were the CO and possible cancer. Those really felt like they were throwing things up to see what sticks and were unreasonable doubts. I think it weakened their case to even bring them up. The one part that really got my attention and out of my seat though was that keeping Floyd in the "prone" position wasn't harmful. This is the one area that I can really speak with expertise having done the technique in question. Use of the prone position is allowed but it is only for a limited amount of time which was stated repeatedly by both Chauvin's superiors and MPD procedure. The studies on it didn't address how long it was put on or questions of oxygen. Further the biggest question to me was why did Chauvin first put Floyd into the recovery position and then switch to the prone position and keep him there, even over the concerns of Lane? That never was answered by the defense. The prosecution did a good job restating the evidence and batting down the defense. In the rebuttal though they seemed to get too far ahead of themselves and even before listening to the defense's objection did feel that they were mocking the defense. Finally the debate over the statements by Rep. Maxine Waters and TV shows that referenced this case are very problematic. I think once protests started over the killing of Wright and the jury wasn't sequestered that was going to give a chance for appeal and with the latest stuff I think an appeal if Chauvin is found guilty is guaranteed.
Turley is jumping the gun, which I guess is a problem with live tweeting. Judge Cahill didn't grant a mistrial and didn't think that Water's comments could overturn the case but that it might be grounds for appeal.
I loved when the prosecutor made a mockery of the defense saying their logic in keeping a knee to his neck even when no pulse was detected was they were concerned that a guy with no pulse was going to come back to life and rampage the city....lol
Find it interesting that the jurors are asked to rely on their memory to decide the case, and there is no transcript for them to refer to. That seems a bit antiquated when we all know memory is shotty at best. Will it be ok, probably, but if u don't have every tool available it's more difficult.
The judge looks a lot like that killer in the movie where the killer sniffs a lot and uses his senses to smell victims.
My prediction is 3rd degree manslaughter and is what I think what a correct verdict would be. We can't read the mind of Chauvin if he intended to kill Floyd but 5 entire minutes on someone's neck while they are motionless is not "restraining a resisting Individual" anymore. It's telling that Chauvin was willing to do a plea deal for man slaughter.
Did you mean 3rd Degree Murder? I too think the 3rd degree murder charge is the most likely but 2nd degree is still possible.
I'm glad Jerry Blackwell made the final arguments for the prosecution. He's really good. These were his best arguments in my mind. "Why is it necessary to continue applying deadly restraint to a man who is defenseless, who is handcuffed, who is not resisting, who is not breathing, who doesn't have a pulse?" he asked the jury. "You can believe your eyes, ladies and gentlemen. It was what you thought it was. It was what you saw. It was homicide." Blackwell said the duty before them "really isn't that complicated in what it is you have to decide with respect to excessive use of force and the issue of causation." "It's so simple," he said, "that a child could understand it." Blackwell then reminded the jury of the 9-year-old witness who was present the day Floyd was killed and who was among the first to testify in the three-week-long trial. "Get off of him," the child was heard saying in one of the bystander videos shown in court. Blackwell insisted, if a child could grasp that Chauvin was applying an excessive use of force on Floyd's body, then the jurors should reach the same conclusion. Next Blackwell moved on to taking apart the defense argument that the bystanders and the risk they allegedly posed distracted Chauvin from properly caring for Floyd in the final moments of his life. "At all relevant times here, there were five grown men police officers" at the scene, Blackwell noted. Each had access to a radio to call for additional assistance, but he said, "You didn't hear any evidence about any call for backup at all." Showing an image of Chauvin, both of his hands in his pockets and kneeling on Floyd, Blackwell said the jury will ultimately decide whether the officer was truly fearful in the moment or not. "He had the bullets, the guns, the Mace that he threatened the bystanders with. He had backup. He had the badge. He had all of it. And what was there to be afraid of, here particularly, at this scene?" "There were three high school juniors there, and a second-grader who was going to the store to get candy. There was a high school senior who was taking her cousin to the store. A first responder on the scene and there was Donald Williams, who wanted nothing more than to try to intervene to try to save Mr. Floyd's life." "So this wasn't the face of fear," Blackwell said, referring to Chauvin. "You've seen what the face of fear and worry look like that day at that time." Then he flashed a still image of a frightened Floyd behind the wheel of the SUV he was driving that day. The barrel of a gun looms in the foreground as Floyd's left hand is raised in the air. https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-...rebuttal-to-chauvin-defense-closing-arguments
