Is there a different clip where she says that? This one she talks about what she would have done, and then says she wasn't allowed to do that and then says how that made her feel. I didn't get to watch the trial, because I was at work, so I did not see her testimony beyond this clip. Yes, not being an omniscient being, I have to rely on what I can see and the thoughts I can generate based on that. No one knows what Chauvin's intentions were besides Chauvin. Plenty of people have said what they were as if they know, but I don't have access to his thoughts. Being neither Chauvin nor Floyd, I cannot feel the amount of pressure he was applying to Floyd's neck. Not being from the future, I don't know for certain what evidence the defense will present, or the prosecution for that matter. Maybe the rest of you have superpowers, but not me. All I can provide are my thoughts based on my experience and training.
It doesn't take superpowers to see a guy not moving, not struggling, no sign of life in his body for minutes, with some twisted cop continuing to shove a knee in his neck for some sick reason. Even after the ambulance arrived he kept that knee shoved in what appeared to be a dead man's neck as they checked him until he had to move so they could transport his limp body off.
You keep on bringing up bruising to the neck yet it has been explained multiple times why that wouldn't be the case. If you choose to ignore that that's to you but then there really isn't anything to discuss or debate. Further petechia, as a type of bleeding bruising, wouldn't show up either. I've been passed out before by these type of chokes and have never had petechia.
The problem with that is that yes we don't know what is exactly in people's mind but if we take that as a defense then we could never convict someone of murder unless they confessed. My understanding of "intent" is that it doesn't take telepathy to prove that but looking at what actions they did. For example if I don't invite a coworker to my house for a BBQ while I invite the rest of the office there is a reasonable assumption that I don't like that coworker. In this case yes we don't know what Chauvin thought exactly (although the defense might put him on the stand) and that is one reason why I think 2nd degree murder might be hard to prove. That said that he acted with a "depraved mind" per the 3rd degree murder is based upon how his actions went along with regard for Floyd's life. In the conviction of Noor there wasn't a debate about whether he wanted to kill Justine Damond but whether his actions showed a depraved mind that he wasn't concerned about her life. This is where it's important to note that: 1. The technique used has a risk. 2. It was put on for an excessive amount of time. 3. MPD are trained in how to properly execute it and to use a recovery position which Chauvin did not do. 4. Other LEO on scene and the MFD firefighter expressed concern about Floyd's condition that Chauvin ignored. These are facts and while the defense might muddy it up by bringing up things like "no bruising on the neck" that has been countered not only here but already on the stand. Another note since you're moving to that you don't know the amount of pressure Chauvin used. While yes we didn't have scale or a pressure pad to measure but this is easy. This technique is effective not because the person applying it has to put a lot of pressure but because their own bodyweight does most of the work. Again an easy way to see how this works is to lie chest down on your driveway and have an adult sit on your upper back. Then try to breathe normally.
My own opinion, and yes I admit to bias, is that the only defense argument that could potentially acquit is that the amount of Fentenyl in his system killed Floyd. That does require a leap that Chauvin's actions weren't that consequential and that ME drew a questionable conclusion. The arguments about how dangerous or not the technique used on Floyd I think have been countered but it is still possible the defense find there own use of force expert, likely a retired LEO, to argue that the technique isn't that dangerous.
I spoke with my son last night. In particular I asked what the defense was trying to accomplish by bringing in "prior bad acts". He said while it wouldn't do much (if anything) for Chauvin's defense, they will try to paint Floyd as a bad guy to influence jurors. Also, he expects the defense to talk about training and while the training certainly doesn't advise the length of time Chauvin was on his neck, the 'expert' will offer that one will lose track of time due to all the other circumstances. Note that he doesn't think any of that would absolve Chauvin, but that it could put a bit of doubt in at least one juror's mind. And, of course they will argue the drug defense even though 'going to die anyway' is not a justification for what Chauvin did. The law is such that even if you take 1 second away from someone's life, it is still murder. One of the things he is most concerned about is if Chauvin gets convicted only on the 3rd degree charge. If for some reason the case gets appealed and it is determined that the 3rd degree charge should not have been reinstated, Chauvin walks as double jeopardy applies to the other two charges that he was acquitted on.
Yes I think the defense is setting up an argument that Chauvin wasn't aware of how much time was passing and is why they keep on bringing up the crowd and specifically asked the question of the firefighter if she could do her job with a crowd. They will try to argue that Chauvin lost track of time and was distracted by the crowd so he couldn't check on Floyd's safety. I think this is countered by that other LEO at the scene were expressing concerns. No matter what Chauvin is convicted on, if he is, I expect him to appeal.
I can't believe I missed this fact and it has not been brought up more. Why was Floyd being arrested in the 1st place for a counterfiet bill? Why is it assumed that he was the one countefeiting the money and was not just using a bill he gotten from another place? How did they know the bill was actually counterfeit? I was listening to former prosecuters and they said he should have been issued a citation and the case turned over to detectives. This is what the owner said usually happens in this case. Cup Foods owner Mahmoud Abumayyaleh questioned whether Floyd even knew he used a counterfeit, in a statement posted on Facebook Sunday. He told TRT, a Turkish public broadcast service, that normally officers ask a few questions about counterfeits, "put it in a bag and take it." So the officer had already pulled his weapon when he knocked on the window tpo question Floyd over a alleged fake bill. And from what I read they do not even know if the bill was actually fake. https://www.sctimes.com/story/news/...th-minneapolis-counterfeit-police/5310999002/
I had heard about that months before. I heard an interview with one of the owners of Cup Foods and he said that usually in these type of cases an LEO shows up they hand over the counterfeit money and any other evidence they have and that's usually it. In most cases the person who used the counterfeit money isn't usually around for the LEO to apprehend or even talk to.
Even if they are there in Minny its a misdemeanor for anything under 1,000. So it really irrelevant if he was there or not and especially troubling that they officer had his gun drawn before even talking to him. In Minnesota, penalties for knowingly passing or offering fake currency depend on the face value of the currency or the amount of property or services the person attempted to obtain. If the face value or property or services sought are less than $1,000, the crime is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year's jail time. The maximum sentence is a 20-year felony for a crime involving knowingly offering fake currency with a face value of more than $35,000 or seeking more than $35,000 in property or services. (Minn. Stat. § 609.632 (2020).)
You look to the totality of the circumstances to try to prove intent. Intent is proven by circumstantial evidence unless there is a statement of intent. Where circumstantial evidence observed can reasonably lead to multiple conclusions, and any of those conclusions point to an innocence, the jury is required to accept the conclusion(s) that point to innocence. There are many other things to consider when trying to determine his intent. Had Chauvin used the same technique before in a similar manner in similar situations that had more positive outcome, showing that he expected it to be safe to do the same thing again? Did he review anything that led him to believe he was restraining Floyd properly? Did Chauvin actually ignore the concerns expressed, or did he make a determination that those concerns were either unwarranted, or outweighed by other factors? Both he and one of the other officers talked about Floyd being on something, and one of them mentioned possibly PCP. Did he have other interactions with suspects on PCP that led him to believe they could be especially dangerous? His statement to the guy on the sidewalk before he knew the outcome was that Floyd was a sizeable guy that was on something. That seems to indicate that he felt it would be dangerous to release the restraint until he could be transferred to the gurney. I would be very surprised if the defense does not raise all of this. That would be a substantial amount of pressure, the full weight of an adult on my back. That is totally non-responsive to the question of how much pressure Chauvin was applying. In other words, we don't know how much of his body weight he was putting onto that leg and how much on the other leg. We know he was not restricting blood flow enough to cause any visible or occult tissue injuries or to cause Floyd to lose consciousness for more than 5 minutes. Everyone is assuming that he put on enough pressure to cause Floyd's death. I will ask my question again since no one has answered it: How would the evidence look different if Chauvin was not affecting blood flow at all and Floyd died of a heart attack incident to drug overdose and the stress/adrenaline of struggling with the police?
Your question is moot since multiple entities concluded that Floyd's death was due to Chauvin's knee on his neck. Why do you continue to ignore that crucial piece of evidence? He did not die due to a drug overdose or a heart attack or stress so what's the point of answering the question?
The key term there is “reasonably”. Yes a lot of different conclusions can be reached and most are speculative and don’t match the facts. I’m sure the defense will bring this up but we know that MPD training and SOP is that this technique is not to be put on indefinitely and that a suspect once restrained should be put in a recovery position which Floyd never was. That policy had been in effect since 2014 when MPD had to settle in a similar case. The training of that though has been there longer. That Chauvin didn’t follow that procedure or his training is more indication that he acted with callous indifference towards Floyd’s welfare. That’s why 3rd degree murder is likely. Also if the defense wants to use Chauvin’s pst experience consider that opens up Chauvin’s history to the prosecution. Chauvin’s already has a history of complaints Regarding use of force against him which would certainly harm a defense that he is simply a good cop who made a mistake. And how do we know Chauvin didn’t reduce his mass or was levitating? We can see in the video Chauvin has his weight forward most of the time on Floyd and even adjust his knee to put it more securely on him. This supported by witness testimony from a witness also knowledgeable in the technique. Further just basic human anatomy makes it hard to balance on one knee with the other knee down. We know that Chauvin was affecting the blood flow because that is what the technique does. Cutting off the blood flow leads eventually to unconsciousness and Floyd does go unconscious. That is the reasonable conclusion. The argument you’re making would be akin to saying I saw someone smother someone with a pillow. That person died but how do we know being smothered by a pillow actually killed him and not say they died of some other cause? Smothering by a pillow doesn’t cause physical damage to the airways or blood supply to the brain? We know it because the reasonable and logical conclusion of smothering someone with a pillow is unconsciousness followed by death.
That is the exact question I am asking. What evidence would look different if he was not cutting off blood flow? Assume, arguendo, that Floyd fell unconscious and died because he had a massive overdose of fentanyl. How would the evidence appear different? The video would look exactly the same. The statements of witnesses would be exactly the same. The autopsy report would be exactly the same. In what way does this evidence not match the facts? Repeating the purpose of the technique, the opinion of the doctors, or the opinion of the mixed martial artist does not answer my question. Second question: What facts, if any, do you observe that would support the conclusion that Chauvin did not want Floyd to die (ie cared about his life/did not have a depraved heart), even if you believe they are outweighed by other facts?
Why would we assume Floyd fell unconscious and died because of an overdose? He was actively conscious and talking until Chauvin was kneeling on his neck and multiple people wanted to render him aid. The evidence is that he was never in danger until he was taken down and had a person kneeling on his neck. Even if we want to believe he just"fell" unconscious Chauvin never rendered aid which is still manslaughter since he continued to kneel on his neck. Your question continues to be bullshit and has no bearing on the case.
For the sake of the argument, so the next point would be addressed. That is what arguendo means. He was actively conscious until he died while having a massive amount of fentanyl in his system as well. How would the evidence look different if being taken down and having a person kneeling on his neck was assumed not to have harmed him, but he still died because of a massive amount of fentanyl in his system. My question goes to the heart of the case, and for that reason no one will answer it.
Except again that would be like saying "I saw someone put the pillow on his face and then a few minutes later that person died. How would it be different if the person didn't die from getting smothered by a pillow?' The question is strained because we actually saw the pillow. Barring something specific showing that the person died of something else the logical and reasonable conclusion is that the person died from being smothered with a pillow. This is the situation we have here. You're playing a speculative game that if Floyd actually died of something else and yes he had fentanyl in his system. He also had Chauvin with his knee on his neck for nine minutes. While you can argue that we don't see bruising on Floyd's neck, which again that isn't necessary, the evidence is that we see Chauvin's knee on Floyd. To argue that Floyd actually OD'ed there has to be some specific evidence that that was the cause of the death and as noted the ME didn't. In other words for this argument to win you actually have to ignore what Chauvin did and just presume that Floyd would've died anyway. Two problems with that.: 1. Everyone saw what Chauvin did. 2. Even if Floyd was going to die from an OD there's no evidence to say that he dies at the moment Chauvin is on him. This is the argument that Bobrek has brought up that it doesn't matter if Floyd would've died later. We know for a fact he died while Chauvin was on him. You keep on saying that the purpose of the technique, doctors opinions and other experts doesn't answer your question because you're refusing to follow the evidence. At that point you could argue that an invisible alien actually killed Floyd and how would we know because we couldn't see the alien. You're doing the it's impossible to disprove a negative. That he ignored the concerns of other LEO on the scene and a fire fighter on the scene. That he acted against his training and MPD operating procedure that is specifically in there to avoid a suspect suffering serious harm from this technique.
Except here you're making another assumption that the technique didn't harm Floyd. Again speculation that is countered by expert testimony. It's already answered. You're just refusing to acknowledge evidence. Now let me ask you. What evidence do you have that he actually died of a fentanyl OD. What testimony Let me ask you a question now. Granted Floyd had a lot of fentenyl in his system. What evidence is there that at the precise period of time that Chauvin was on top of him that he would've died from an OD? Can you show that based upon the amount he ingested, his metabolism, preexisting conditions that it would so happen that he would die at the moment that Chauvin had his knee him and not say 5 minutes, an hour or even never from that dosage?
