• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bad day for the Prosecution in Chauvin trial

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative

Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.

What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.

No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.

Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.

Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m


Ka. Boom.

So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.

And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!

Amazing.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nelson asked if an officer placing a knee on the base of the neck across the shoulder blades was an appropriate use-of-force technique in the correct circumstances. Yes, answered Stiger.

In fact, you were trained that way, asked Nelson? Yes.

Nelson asked if the MPD training materials reviewed by Stiger suggested that officers should take particular care providing CPR, if doing so required removing handcuffs (as it would), because the training informed officers that the suspect may come to and be agitated and ready to fight? MPD training does teach that, Stiger answered.

In fact, you have had that same training yourself? Yes.

A suspect was passed out, came to, and fought you more, you’ve had that personal experience as police officer? Yes, answered Stiger.

I feel obliged to remind readers at this point that Stiger is the highly-paid use-of-force expert hired by the PROSECUTORS to assist them in CONVICTING Chauvin. He is NOT a defense witness. Though you’d be hard press to know that, based on his testimony on cross-examination.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
38,900
Reaction score
20,777
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We already know he had drugs in his system. That doesn't mean that the knee on the neck wasn't a contributing factor to his death.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
23,317
Reaction score
13,038
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Floyd died because of that stupid cop. End of story. Hope he rots in prison for the next 20 years minimum.

Drugs in his system means nothing. Rush Limbaugh probably died with drugs in his system too.

10’s of millions of Americans have drugs in their system at any given time and don’t die.

Floyd did not OD. To suggest as much is just plain stupid.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
144,000
Reaction score
47,231
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.

What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.

No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.

Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.

Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m


Ka. Boom.

So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.

And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!
lol...wrong you are again.

...under additional questioning by the prosecution, the agent backtracked, saying he now heard something different.

After listening to a longer recording than what had been played by the defense, the Reyerson said what Floyd was saying was actually, "I ain't do no drugs."

The reversal was a blow to the defense..
Man, you are batting well over a 1000 when it comes to starting threads of epic fails.
 

The AntiDonald

Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
Messages
4,997
Reaction score
2,832
Location
N. Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nelson asked if an officer placing a knee on the base of the neck across the shoulder blades was an appropriate use-of-force technique in the correct circumstances. Yes, answered Stiger.

In fact, you were trained that way, asked Nelson? Yes.

Nelson asked if the MPD training materials reviewed by Stiger suggested that officers should take particular care providing CPR, if doing so required removing handcuffs (as it would), because the training informed officers that the suspect may come to and be agitated and ready to fight? MPD training does teach that, Stiger answered.

In fact, you have had that same training yourself? Yes.

A suspect was passed out, came to, and fought you more, you’ve had that personal experience as police officer? Yes, answered Stiger.

I feel obliged to remind readers at this point that Stiger is the highly-paid use-of-force expert hired by the PROSECUTORS to assist them in CONVICTING Chauvin. He is NOT a defense witness. Though you’d be hard press to know that, based on his testimony on cross-examination.
One bad day for the prosecution and 7 bad days for the defense. So far, it's not looking good for the defense. Only time will tell.
 

Hypothetical

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
6,588
Reaction score
1,759
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Nelson asked if an officer placing a knee on the base of the neck across the shoulder blades was an appropriate use-of-force technique in the correct circumstances. Yes, answered Stiger.

In fact, you were trained that way, asked Nelson? Yes.

Nelson asked if the MPD training materials reviewed by Stiger suggested that officers should take particular care providing CPR, if doing so required removing handcuffs (as it would), because the training informed officers that the suspect may come to and be agitated and ready to fight? MPD training does teach that, Stiger answered.

In fact, you have had that same training yourself? Yes.

A suspect was passed out, came to, and fought you more, you’ve had that personal experience as police officer? Yes, answered Stiger.

I feel obliged to remind readers at this point that Stiger is the highly-paid use-of-force expert hired by the PROSECUTORS to assist them in CONVICTING Chauvin. He is NOT a defense witness. Though you’d be hard press to know that, based on his testimony on cross-examination.
I feel this is the part of police protocol that needs to change however... if they have the guy cuffed on the ground laying front down, there really is no need to put your knee on his neck when he is struggling to breathe.

not saying chauvin was guilty, thats for the jury to decide. just that they really need to take a look at this type of restraining someone if it is a standard thing.
 
Last edited:

Drowning Man

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
685
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And, yes...it needs to be highlighted again. The prosecution on redirect played a more complete clip of the audio and the witness stated from that, it sounded more like Floyd was saying that he didn't do any drugs.
 

Logician Man

Exception to the Rule
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
23,179
Reaction score
7,702
Location
Memory Lane
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Whether Floyd ate "too many drugs" will be/was determined by the ME/Coroner, regardless of what any witness testifies to what they 'think' they heard. The totality of the tapes and the medical experts' testimonies will determine his fate, as well as other expert LEO testimony regarding police department policy.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whether Floyd ate "too many drugs" will be/was determined by the ME/Coroner, regardless of what any witness testifies to what they 'think' they heard. The totality of the tapes and the medical experts' testimonies will determine his fate, as well as other expert LEO testimony regarding police department policy.
YEah -that's the way it works.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Another bad prosecution witness
"My favorite witness — and the media’s favorite, too! — was Genevieve Hansen, Feminist Hero. She appeared in court in her firefighter dress uniform and a belligerent mood — though not as belligerent as the day Floyd died, when she showed up in sweats and began shrieking at the officers.

The headlines are along the lines of “Firefighter: I Could Have Saved Floyd’s Life, But Police Wouldn’t Let Me.”

Yes, apparently, Genevieve would have invented a time machine, gone back, and stopped Floyd from ingesting three times the lethal dose of fentanyl. I take it back: Chubby girls make the best firefighters! (Don’t get snippy with me: It’s beyond outrageous that fire departments have abandoned all physical fitness requirements solely in order to hire more women.)

According to Genevieve, the police on the scene unaccountably refused to step aside and take direction from her, despite her full ONE YEAR of experience as a firefighter.

Genevieve was totally on top of the situation. In her statement to investigators shortly after the event, she described Floyd as a “small, slim man.” Floyd was at least 6-foot-4 and weighed 230 pounds. The largest police officer on the scene was Chauvin, coming in at 5-foot-9 and 140 pounds. Genevieve missed nothing!

Even in the calm setting of a courtroom, with no agitated bystanders yelling at her, here are the things Genevieve says she would have done to save Floyd’s life!

In order:

  1. “I would have requested additional help.”
  2. “I would have wanted someone to call 911.”
3. “I would have asked someone to run to the gas station and look for an AED [a defibrillator].

Why didn’t the officers think to call for medical backup??? Oh yeah, they already had. Twice. Starting about 10 minutes before Genevieve even showed up.

  1. “I would have checked his airway.”
  2. “I would have been worried about a spinal cord injury.”


Why didn’t the officers think to call for medical backup??? Oh yeah, they already had. Twice. Starting about 10 minutes before Genevieve even showed up.

  1. “I would have checked his airway.”
  2. “I would have been worried about a spinal cord injury.”


As we know from the autopsy, there was no problem with Floyd’s airway or spinal cord. (But, as long as you bring it up, his body did contain three times the lethal dose of fentanyl.)

  1. “I would have checked for a pulse.”


Eureka! Why didn’t — oh wait, the officers had done this, repeatedly, as several bystander witnesses had already confirmed.

By now, Floyd was dead. That’s when she would have started chest compressions.

So Genevieve, the state’s star witness on what the cops did wrong, testified that she would have done pretty much everything the officers did. But she would have been a lot bossier about it.

As much as Genevieve’s one year with the fire department made her an expert on when a police officer should begin chest compressions, the Minneapolis Police Department’s own experts directly contradicted her this week. These were, again, prosecution witnesses."
 

Logician Man

Exception to the Rule
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
23,179
Reaction score
7,702
Location
Memory Lane
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
YEah -that's the way it works.
At least in theory, assuming the 'entire' jury is fair and impartial, and actually dispenses juris prudence, according the letter of the law. ;)
 

armycowboy

The Dark Lord
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
5,704
Reaction score
4,386
Location
Corpus Christi, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.

What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.

No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.

Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.

Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m


Ka. Boom.

So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.

And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!

Amazing.
Cheerleading for a cop who killed a black guy.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,385
Reaction score
14,392
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Then Nelson scored what many may perceive to be an important point, albeit I’m rather ambivalent about this one. Nelson played a short piece of video in which Floyd is prone on the street, and speaking in his muttering fashion.

What’s Floyd saying there, asked Nelson? Is he saying “I ate too many drugs”? Stiger answers he can’t tell.

No worries, Nelson is happy to play it again for Stiger. And the jury.

Stiger is still unsure if that’s what Floyd was saying, and Nelson lets it go—but the jury has heard the suggestion.

Later in the day, with a different witness, BCA Special Agent Reyerson, whose testimony I won’t spend much time on because it was so boring, Nelson would play the same video, and ask the same question. This time, the witness will agree—yes, Reyerson answers, it sounds like “I ate too many drugs” to m


Ka. Boom.

So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.

And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time!

Amazing.
Legal Insurrection is definitely the "go-to" website for trial information. You can't trust what's reported by the mainstream news media.

.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
1,997
Reaction score
1,607
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't think this was as big a deal for the defence as others might, in fact, I think it may backfire on them. A police officer has a "duty of care" for someone in their custody. If they knew, by his admission, that Floyd had taken too many drugs they had a duty to render aid which most certainly does not involve kneeling on his neck even longer.

Besides which the jury will be replaying the tape for themselves during deliberations and can decide for themselves what was said. What this witness thinks he heard is totally irrelevant.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't think this was as big a deal for the defence as others might, in fact, I think it may backfire on them. A police officer has a "duty of care" for someone in their custody. If they knew, by his admission, that Floyd had taken too many drugs they had a duty to render aid which most certainly does not involve kneeling on his neck even longer.

Besides which the jury will be replaying the tape for themselves during deliberations and can decide for themselves what was said. What this witness thinks he heard is totally irrelevant.
Remember Mercil is a prosecution witness
"On the issue of providing timely medical care, an issue the state pushes with particular energy, Nelson had Mercil agree that while MPD policy is to provide care as soon as possible, that must take into consideration the safety of the scene, and that the MPD policy actually requires that it first be safe for the officer to provide care before the officer has the duty to provide that care."
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
By now Floyd was dead and Chavin still wouldn't take his knee off Floyd's neck.
wrong .


"...It was at this point that Nelson showed Mercil a series of photographs captured from the body worn camera of Officer Lane, and showing Chauvin’s knee on Floyd from the angle down Floyd’s proned body.

Photo 1: Where’s Chauvin’s leg in this image? On Floyd’s neck? Or on his shoulder blades and back. Mercil: Shoulder blades and back.

And in photo 2? Same. Photo 3? Same. Photo 4? Same.

This, of course, fundamentally undercuts the prosecution’s narrative of guilt that it was Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck that killed Floyd."

Maybe you should stop reading lw talking points and actually go by the evidence.
 
Last edited:

less right

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
1,642
Location
Northern Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
wrong .


"...It was at this point that Nelson showed Mercil a series of photographs captured from the body worn camera of Officer Lane, and showing Chauvin’s knee on Floyd from the angle down Floyd’s proned body.

Photo 1: Where’s Chauvin’s leg in this image? On Floyd’s neck? Or on his shoulder blades and back. Mercil: Shoulder blades and back.

And in photo 2? Same. Photo 3? Same. Photo 4? Same.

This, of course, fundamentally undercuts the prosecution’s narrative of guilt that it was Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck that killed Floyd."

Maybe you should stop reading lw talking points and actually go by the evidence.
How long was Floyd dead before Chauvin quit 'restraining' him?
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,751
Reaction score
3,775
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ouch. Poor KLATTU. Embarrassed again.

LAFFRIOT
DAILY CHUCKLE
As long as you say so!

( in reality , nothing of the sort happened but lefties love to hangout in fantasy land)
#LeftWING#Circle#JErk

"So damaging was this Reyerson testimony for the state that they actually re-called Reyerson as a witness for the sole reason of having him listen again, and give a different answer. Oh, now, says Reyerson the second, now it sounds like “I didn’t take no drugs.”

Well, OK. As I said, I’m ambivalent about Floyd’s statement on the merits, because I sure can’t understand what he’s actually saying. Although it must be said Nelson’s version will certainly appear reasonable to a jury that’s been exposed to the toxicology report on Floyd.

But in terms of legal strategy by the defense, this was brilliant. Not only did Nelson plant that seed in the jury’s mind that Floyd had eaten too many drugs and knew it, he got to play the audio for Stiger not once, but twice.


And then again a third time, for Reyerson.

And then the state itself played it for the jury a fourth time"


Now go wipe that egg off your face.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom