It's going bad for the prosecution

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
2,259
4,891
1
The testimony is certainly not a distraction.
The autopsy report by the city examiner is only one piece of evidence and he isn't Moses bringing the 10 commandments to the people.
The jurors will have weigh all the evidence to decide what killed Floyd and if the Chavin is responsible at least in part for his death and if he acted maliciously or recklessly.
You are acting that it is a done deal that Floyd died of a drug overdose but the prosecution has brought compelling evidence this isn't the case.
Re the autopsy, follow the science, Jeff. Clinical facts count more than the spasmodic emotions that your team has been selling.

The prosecution's evidence is only compelling to those like you who have a political or ideological reason to find it compelling. You and your friends bought into the narrative on Day One and aren't psychologically or intellectually equipped at this late date to let it go.

To everyone else, however, it should raise reasonable doubt. The only question is whether politics, ideology, and fear will trump reason, facts, and science. Chauvin's fate rests on the answer to that question, which is why he's likely screwed.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
Re the autopsy, follow the science, Jeff. Clinical facts count more than the spasmodic emotions that your team has been selling.

The prosecution's evidence is only compelling to those like you who have a political or ideological reason to find it compelling. You and your friends bought into the narrative on Day One and aren't psychologically or intellectually equipped at this late date to let it go.

To everyone else, however, it should raise reasonable doubt. The only question is whether politics, ideology, and fear will trump reason, facts, and science. Chauvin's fate rests on the answer to that question, which is why he's likely screwed.
He's a chimp . The witness for the state today admitted that he did potentially die from an overdose. That should be what we call reasonable doubt .
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjbankos and psuted

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
7,455
2,976
1
Re the autopsy, follow the science, Jeff. Clinical facts count more than the spasmodic emotions that your team has been selling.

The prosecution's evidence is only compelling to those like you who have a political or ideological reason to find it compelling. You and your friends bought into the narrative on Day One and aren't psychologically or intellectually equipped at this late date to let it go.

To everyone else, however, it should raise reasonable doubt. The only question is whether politics, ideology, and fear will trump reason, facts, and science. Chauvin's fate rests on the answer to that question, which is why he's likely screwed.
No you are the one who is putting politics into the equation.
And if you know anything about autopsies, they are a doctor's opinion.
Doctors often disagree.
And the medical examiner is likely a salaried employee of the city.
If you think they are the foremost experts in their field because they are employed by local government you are probably a communist.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
No you are the one who is putting politics into the equation.
And if you know anything about autopsies, they are a doctor's opinion.
Doctors often disagree.
And the medical examiner is likely a salaried employee of the city.
If you think they are the foremost experts in their field because they are employed by local government you are probably a communist.
You're just dumb.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
53,884
26,891
1
No you are the one who is putting politics into the equation.
And if you know anything about autopsies, they are a doctor's opinion.
Doctors often disagree.
And the medical examiner is likely a salaried employee of the city.
If you think they are the foremost experts in their field because they are employed by local government you are probably a communist.
1) One problem is that the people testifying are often paid to testify and they only get the job if they support the preferred narrative.
2) It seems to me that if more than one expert testifies against the prosecution's narrative that could be sufficient reasonable doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gjbankos

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
7,256
9,363
1
I read Andrew McCarthy's summary of what a pulmonary expert testified to in recent testimony. Expert stated that what killed Floyd was compression the chest for 5 minutes and not compression on the neck. Chest compression while on ground made it impossible for him to breath. He even identified the precise moment of death.

"Chillingly, Dr. Tobin identified the precise moment when he could detect “the moment the life goes out of [Floyd’s] body.” It happened just after one of Floyd’s legs jutted out wildly, a telltale sign of anoxic seizure. “There’s a flickering and then it disappears,” Tobin remarked as, on the video screen, jurors saw death’s gaze fall over Floyd’s face."

Unless Tobin's testimony is strongly rebutted and particularly his testimony about the significance of one of Floyd's leg's jerking suddenly, then in my mind the guilt of Chauvin is scientifically established. The drugs in his system don't mean a whole lot if this is what happened.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
1) One problem is that the people testifying are often paid to testify and they only get the job if they support the preferred narrative.
2) It seems to me that if more than one expert testifies against the prosecution's narrative that could be sufficient reasonable doubt.
Guys like Jeff do not even look to see what happened on cross examination. The medical examiner contradicted herself in certain ways on cross examination. As did the experts, however defense is only allowed a certain narrow line of questioning.
The experts did admit that fentanyl kills due to respiratory depression and stopping you from breathing. One expert when asked if it's one of the ways it kills answered it THE way it kills . He was very emphatic.
The ME testified that there was no evidence of pressure wounds from the officer , that if Floyd was just found dead at home she would say an OD killed him but maintained the hold did. She seemed to ignore the presence of meth in his system and focused on how the fentanyl ODs cause a sluggish response.
Remember, the defense hasn't even presented their case yet. Tim Pool quoted an article by Andrew Branca at legalinsurrection.com about today's events . I linked his video earlier.
You see I do have facts, Jeff is too stupid to understand them though. Or even look for them.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
I read Andrew McCarthy's summary of what a pulmonary expert testified to in recent testimony. Expert stated that what killed Floyd was compression the chest for 5 minutes and not compression on the neck. Chest compression while on ground made it impossible for him to breath. He even identified the precise moment of death.

"Chillingly, Dr. Tobin identified the precise moment when he could detect “the moment the life goes out of [Floyd’s] body.” It happened just after one of Floyd’s legs jutted out wildly, a telltale sign of anoxic seizure. “There’s a flickering and then it disappears,” Tobin remarked as, on the video screen, jurors saw death’s gaze fall over Floyd’s face."

Unless Tobin's testimony is strongly rebutted and particularly his testimony about the significance of one of Floyd's leg's jerking suddenly, then in my mind the guilt of Chauvin is scientifically established. The drugs in his system don't mean a whole lot if this is what happened.
In the cross examination the doctor stated that fentanyl kills by suppression of the respiratory system . This was in response to the defense attorney asking if it's one way it kills. He answered it the way it kills. As in the only way.
Being that Stephen Crowder handled 9 minutes I'm going to guess they will have a rebuttal for his testimony.
One person they are saying they will use is the state's use of force expert. It's not negligence or malicious if they're doing it as they are trained. Officers can use various methods that can result in death because they're tasked to arrest.
This man already stated Chauvin chose lessor force , and said he would have been allowed to use the taser or physical blows to restrain the suspect in this situation.
It's why one data point doesn't matter. They're going to rebut his testimony with their own experts, because as you know they didn't start their defense yet.
 

BicyclePete

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
13,913
7,379
1
Yeah, I get all that. But you and I both know that these Trump Cultists see everything through deeply tinted red glasses, and even video evidence is not enough to convince them. #ALTERNATIVEFACTS! I have zero interest in wasting my time debating over something that everyone can see for themselves on videotape.
And I see you as seeing the world through bleeding heart glasses where the white man is bad and we need to help the black man, because he's not capable of doing it himself. Kinda like voter ID.

Race Card Bear. You deserve that name.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
7,256
9,363
1
It's not negligence or malicious if they're doing it as they are trained. Officers can use various methods that can result in death because they're tasked to arrest.
The problem is that they have to be trained to let up when someone is on the verge of dying. During the 5 minutes when Floyd was alive ,towards the end, he was going limp. They should know to stop at that point. Also, holding Floyd down for 4 minutes after he died can't be correct legal procedure.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
13,563
17,072
1
If I'm a juror, the problem with Tobin's testimony was it was too clean. It was all said in absolutes like it was some simple math problem where you just plug in a few numbers and get a bulletproof answer

The defense tried to get him to say there's no way you could be that sure of something without knowing the variables, but Tobin was pretty firm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
The problem is that they have to be trained to let up when someone is on the verge of dying. During the 5 minutes when Floyd was alive ,towards the end, he was going limp. They should know to stop at that point. Also, holding Floyd down for 4 minutes after he died can't be correct legal procedure.
I doubt it is but taking in account other things might still be enough to meet the reasonable doubt stage.
Did you see the expert on use of force talk about rendering first after the crowd was properly controlled ? The medical expert will not be familiar with circumstances in why they still might be restraining the suspect . It's the totality of the evidence that will convict or acquit.
I've been watching videos by Andrew Branca, a self defense attorney.

This gentleman has mentioned a day like today is how trials normally look as the prosecution lays out their case, and their best day yet. He's mentioned how they weren't having good days until today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUCYCLING

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
The problem is that they have to be trained to let up when someone is on the verge of dying. During the 5 minutes when Floyd was alive ,towards the end, he was going limp. They should know to stop at that point. Also, holding Floyd down for 4 minutes after he died can't be correct legal procedure.
Later in the video the attorney lays out why he believes Smock's dismissal of excitable deletion was disingenuous. He cherry picked different parts of the video of his behavior while ignoring examples that might point to it.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
43,042
18,466
1
and yet in your post above you seem quite certain in your analysis!
There is no certainty in a trial. They have really damning video evidence here, but trials frequently go in a direction no one could have anticipated. The jury could nullify the whole prosecution if it saw fit to do so. I think Chauvin will be convicted of Murder 3 (which sounds a lot like Voluntary Manslaughter to me), but I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it.
 
Last edited:

PSUCYCLING

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2009
169
336
1
Was not a good day for the defense.
"Tobin also said the high blood level of carbon dioxide measured in the hospital emergency room can be explained by the fact that Floyd was not breathing for nearly 10 minutes before paramedics began artificial respiration, as opposed to his breathing being suppressed by fentanyl."
"The doctor explained that just because Floyd was talking and shown moving on video, it doesn’t mean he was breathing adequately. He said a leg movement seen in the video was involuntary. And he said a person can continue to speak until the airway narrows to 15%, after which "you are in deep trouble."
"Officers can be heard on video telling Floyd that if he can talk, he can breathe.
On cross-examination, Nelson pressed Tobin on that common misconception, pointing to earlier testimony that Minneapolis officers are trained that if people can speak, they can breathe."




I wouldn’t be so sure that it wasn‘t a good day for the defense. The prosecution for once didn’t have a bad day - they presented their witnesses, and defense wasn’t able to flip them to defense witness on cross exam. That is normal. I can definitely see defense presenting their own witness that eviscerates Tobin’s testimony sinc
If I'm a juror, the problem with Tobin's testimony was it was too clean. It was all said in absolutes like it was some simple math problem where you just plug in a few numbers and get a bulletproof answer

The defense tried to get him to say there's no way you could be that sure of something without knowing the variables, but Tobin was pretty firm.

This. Tobin‘s testimony on the surface was compelling, but at the end of the day, may not withstand much scrutiny. I would expect the defense to call their own witness to refute his conclusions. Nelson was out of his element a bit - he’s an artist when it comes to use of force discussions. I think he is waiting to present his own expert.

- he never examined the body!
- his conclusions were based on watching cell phone video
- his calculations were based on estimates, with no knowledge of Chauvin‘s weight or weight of his gear
- it looks like he had a conclusion and worked backwards from there
- all it was was a theory based on 2nd hand observations and assumptions
- biggest issue was he submitted his exhibits the evening before his testimony. Was it because he is not real savvy about rules of evidence or did he sandbag? This definitely opens up grounds for appeal. I can also see defense submitting a motion this weekend to have his testimony struck from the record because of this.

So far, the prosecution has been focusing solely on the hold, and not the totality of circumstance. They also have not focused on an exact cause of death as their witnesses have offered multiple explanations that go out of their way to dismiss his drug use and underlying health conditions as contributing factors.

I expect the defense to focus on:
- that type of restraint is common, and lower down on the use of force continuum. Maybe some statistics on the hold will be presented vs tasing which Chauvin was authorized to use in the circumstances

- Chauvin had no way of knowing about GF’s health issues

- his health and drug use turned what is a normally survivable situation deadly

- the crowd played into making the situation worse

This by no means a slam dunk for either side. Anyone who thinks either way doesn’t know what they are talking about
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
7,455
2,976
1
I wouldn’t be so sure that it wasn‘t a good day for the defense. The prosecution for once didn’t have a bad day - they presented their witnesses, and defense wasn’t able to flip them to defense witness on cross exam. That is normal. I can definitely see defense presenting their own witness that eviscerates Tobin’s testimony sinc


This. Tobin‘s testimony on the surface was compelling, but at the end of the day, may not withstand much scrutiny. I would expect the defense to call their own witness to refute his conclusions. Nelson was out of his element a bit - he’s an artist when it comes to use of force discussions. I think he is waiting to present his own expert.

- he never examined the body!
- his conclusions were based on watching cell phone video
- his calculations were based on estimates, with no knowledge of Chauvin‘s weight or weight of his gear
- it looks like he had a conclusion and worked backwards from there
- all it was was a theory based on 2nd hand observations and assumptions
- biggest issue was he submitted his exhibits the evening before his testimony. Was it because he is not real savvy about rules of evidence or did he sandbag? This definitely opens up grounds for appeal. I can also see defense submitting a motion this weekend to have his testimony struck from the record because of this.

So far, the prosecution has been focusing solely on the hold, and not the totality of circumstance. They also have not focused on an exact cause of death as their witnesses have offered multiple explanations that go out of their way to dismiss his drug use and underlying health conditions as contributing factors.

I expect the defense to focus on:
- that type of restraint is common, and lower down on the use of force continuum. Maybe some statistics on the hold will be presented vs tasing which Chauvin was authorized to use in the circumstances

- Chauvin had no way of knowing about GF’s health issues

- his health and drug use turned what is a normally survivable situation deadly

- the crowd played into making the situation worse

This by no means a slam dunk for either side. Anyone who thinks either way doesn’t know what they are talking about
Jury trials are never a sure thing.
But the defense will have to overcome the fact that he held Floyd down for 9 minutes without checking to see if he was OK.
It would be different if he held him down for a minute or two and Floyd died but he held him down for 9 minutes.
It would not be an irrational conclusion that a lot of people would have died under those circumstances.
Is there another instance where a police officer used this restraint technique for this long without killing someone?
I think it could be reasonably argued that he acted recklessly to put him in this hold for as long as he did without checking on his welfare.
But you are right, the defense still gets to put on its case and a lot can happen.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
2,259
4,891
1
1. Derek Chauvin “has been treated like a mass murderer?” He killed one person. Who doesn’t know THAT, Jerry? That being said, he knelt on Floyd’s neck for nine and a half minutes, despite the fact that Floyd was face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back. Despite the fact that his fellow cops were telling him that they couldn’t detect a pulse in Floyd. Despite the arrival of paramedics
and their request that he get up off of Floyd.

The paramedics had to drag Chauvin off of Floyd. And your conclusion is that it amounted to nothing more than “ bad judgment?”

2. “Druggie criminal ne’er do well.”
LOL, Jerry. One of the more lamentable aspects of stories like this one is the tendency of people to either lionize or demonize both the victim and the cop. I have no interest in doing either. Floyd clearly WAS a petty criminal. His passing off a counterfeit $20 bill is what triggered this whole incident. But he did not deserve to be killed for it. I think the jury will come to the same conclusion.
1. Derek Chauvin “has been treated like a mass murderer?” He killed one person. Who doesn’t know THAT, Jerry? That being said, he knelt on Floyd’s neck for nine and a half minutes, despite the fact that Floyd was face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back. Despite the fact that his fellow cops were telling him that they couldn’t detect a pulse in Floyd. Despite the arrival of paramedics and their request that he get up off of Floyd. The paramedics had to drag Chauvin off of Floyd. And your conclusion is that it amounted to nothing more than “ bad judgment?”

Laf, your blithe statement that "he killed one person" is known as begging the question. The entire point of the trial is to determine whether 12 jurors unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that "he killed one person."

Floyd, a drug addict who was once taken to an emergency room for a narcotics overdose, had three times a lethal dose of Fentanyl (plus other drugs) in his system. The dictionary defines the word "lethal" as "sufficient to cause death." Again: SUFFICIENT TO CAUSE DEATH. Floyd had that level of Fentanyl times 3 in his system.

I'm not saying that Chauvin's conduct was above reproach by any means...even though it has to be viewed within the context of the extremely stressful environment of an intense physical struggle with a large man hopped up on drugs in the middle of a hostile, jeering crowd.

Still, despite the extenuating (for Chauvin) circumstances, were the officer's actions during the final, fatal minutes of Floyd's life reckless enough to rise to the level of a crime? Maybe. However, does the evidence so far raise reasonable doubt that the crime in question was murder as defined by the Minnesota statutes? Personally, I think so...and this is before the defense even puts on its case.

The question is whether the jurors will think so and, if they do, will they have the courage to deliver the corresponding judgment...under an imminent threat that the mob will burn down Minneapolis (and other cities) if it doesn't get the verdict it wants. That dark cloud under which the jury will deliberate is a travesty, Laf, but it's what your side has done to the principle of justice in America.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
There is almost a 7 min video on the web. I don’t blame the guy for being cautious.
Marc MacYoung is a use of force expert witness and has written books about that and self defense. He mentioned you shouldn't go commit crimes when you're high, then wait around and take more drugs.
There are professional criminals who look at crime as a job that they take seriously but most are like this guy, morons doing stupid crap.
People like floyd who make such bad decisions will usually compound them by making even worse decisions when facing arrest.
 

RGWhirly

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2017
2,802
2,943
1
Marc MacYoung is a use of force expert witness and has written books about that and self defense. He mentioned you shouldn't go commit crimes when you're high, then wait around and take more drugs.
There are professional criminals who look at crime as a job that they take seriously but most are like this guy, morons doing stupid crap.
People like floyd who make such bad decisions will usually compound them by making even worse decisions when facing arrest.
I’m talking about the Army LT.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
8,556
9,759
1
And I meant I don’t blame the LT for being cautious.
Oh ok , sorry I didn't know Chauvin's rank. What isn't often discussed is the size disparity. Chauvin is 5'9" and 140 lbs , Floyd was 6'5" snd 235. With Floyd's erratic behavior I also can see him being cautious .
 

RGWhirly

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2017
2,802
2,943
1
Oh ok , sorry I didn't know Chauvin's rank. What isn't often discussed is the size disparity. Chauvin is 5'9" and 140 lbs , Floyd was 6'5" snd 235. With Floyd's erratic behavior I also can see him being cautious .
🤦‍♂️ I am talking about The Army LT.