Would you care to explain how it is you think Harris can reach down and control the prosecution, defence, the witnesses and the jury? Or is this just something you heard on RW media?
That has nothing to do with whether the level of force used was warranted. Seems like every one of Chauvin's fellow officers are testifying that it was not warranted.
Oh my........Common sense, my friend.
Even though one fellow officer says it was excessive force, he said he could use MORE force to subdue him, a taser. A police officer has to make many decisions. Continue to restrain a suspect who previously resisted arrest, for fear of continued resistance if he releases hold. George Floyd was a bigger man and could still over power him if he stopped the restraint.
It can be the 80% contributing factor. If it wasn't THE factor then they will not get a verdict that they are going to be happy with.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.
That's not how Minnesota law works. It only needs to be a contributing factor to get a manslaughter verdict. Based on the testimony I heard today, I think there is strong evidence it was more than a contributing factor.If it wasn't THE factor then they will not get a verdict that they are going to be happy with.
If that's the BS the whites are selling, then the blacks are 100% justified in rioting if the jury acquits.It can be the 80% contributing factor. If it wasn't THE factor then they will not get a verdict that they are going to be happy with.
And to that I say if there are two different takes on what George Floyd said, it should be ignored by the jury.Chauvin Trial Day 8 Wrap-Up: “I Ate Too Many Drugs” Video May Be Game-Changer
Once again the defense weaponizes prosecution 'expert' witnesses against the prosecution case.legalinsurrection.com
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.
Your post makes no sense. If they truly feared for their safety they could have legally tasered him or used other restraint techniques legally available to them but instead of making that choice, Chauvin used an inappropriate hold that ultimately became the use of excessive force. You are going with information totally unrelated to this specific case and, like I said earlier, my worry is there is a "Linuxcooldude" on the jury.
Blacks, too, are sick of the divisive tactics of the Marxist left. I know I am. It hurts us more that it hurts you It causes people to resent us. And that is the whole goal. It’s not to help the black man. Why don’t you people see that?The facts don't matter to you, you mean. By the way, aren't you also black? I seem to recall you telling the forum that you are.
Or back and shoulder blades ...So, if you have taken too many drugs, it's OK for a police officer to kneel on your neck until you choke to death?
Cheerleading for a cop who killed a black guy.
My agenda? Manslaughter? You've got to be kidding. Every witness has basically testified the cops went overboard, way overboard. That's the evidence so far. The defense came up with the phrase I ate too many drugs, no witness before that point had said they heard any such thing from floyd.Race card duty noted. Many of us don't think the police are innocent, maybe not of murder, but more manslaughter. Sorry if evidence gets in the way of your agenda.
Your logic fails me. They didn't say they could use more than they did in totality They said they could have used certain legitimate restraint techniques instead of kneeling on his neck, but didn't. Leg restraints and tasers are examples of what they could have done instead of kneeling on his neck and keeping him prone.As the Prosecution's own witness said they could of used more force to subdue him, which makes the excessive force claimed by the same witness, contradictory.
no training, no thought processes, biased views based on .............So your training in forensic pathology was, when?
My words would be less kind but I have to watch my Ps and Qs, still his comments make some things all too obvious.I can't believe you OP Klattu and much less believe how unbelievably wrong you are that this hurts the prosecution.
First of all, Police have been trained to take people that have suffered a possible overdose to take them to the hospital for care to save their lives. The last thing a policeman should do with a person that has already been cuffed and under police control is to continue to use force. Drugged people cannot help themselves and it is the responsibility of a policeman to do what is best (medically speaking) to prevent the man's death from drugs.
There was no threat of personal harm to the policeman from Floyd.
To me, the fact that Floyd stated that he had eaten"too many drugs" is a negative for the defense as that means the policeman knew that he was drugged and didn't care about his health.
Klattu, you always surprise me in a negative way. You often appear to be non-thinking, no common sense, uncaring person. You are doing harm to yourself with these OP's. The only thing you are accomplishing with them, is making yourself look bad.
Common sense, my friend.
(De facto) President Harris has no doubt indirectly (in some ways that this nobody would not know) let the big boys (and girls) know that a "Not guilty" verdict would plunge the nation into rioting the likes of which would make last year's outrages look like child's play.
The judge, of course, does not want to be known as the judge who let the ex-cop go free. The jury, of course, are terrified of what would happen to them if they came back with "Not guilty."
Of course, the media would love rioting because (a) it would "sell papers" and (b) it would help to spread the mantra that certain folks are treated so badly in this country.
C'mon. We all know the verdict will be GUILTY! (And yet there will still be rioting -- out of joy, of course!)
LAFFRIOT
I know you're fraught with worry that Chauvin isn't going to get away with killing a black man.
My words would be less kind but I have to watch my Ps and Qs, still his comments make some things all too obvious.
nah, not worth my timeIt summer a time out frees up time for the garden, go for it!!!
Your logic fails me. They didn't say they could use more than they did in totality They said they could have used certain legitimate restraint techniques instead of kneeling on his neck, but didn't. Leg restraints and tasers are examples of what they could have done instead of kneeling on his neck and keeping him prone.
I agree that manslaughter is the most likely verdict. I just don't think that is going to be enough for the media, people, and whoever else would riot in the streets.That's not how Minnesota law works. It only needs to be a contributing factor to get a manslaughter verdict. Based on the testimony I heard today, I think there is strong evidence it was more than a contributing factor.
Not to worry. Convicted or not his days on this planet are numbered.
Someone inside or out will end his days.
I will cry for him just as much as I did when I heard of Jeffrey dahlmers death in prison...
nah, not worth my time
I mean , everyone's days are numbered but are you seriously calling for some sort of vigilante "justice" if the actual justice system doesn't go the way YOU think it should?
That is sad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?