Floyd-Chauvin Case - what's your thought on the outcome
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
I haven’t seen a man taking a beating like this since Rodney king.
The guy in the car took the fifth today.
Chavin will not be acquitted on all charges.....the optics in this case are a big problem for his defense.
Agreed. The homicide charges should fail but the lesser charges are the problem for the defense.
the only argument I can see for the prosecution regarding a homicide is Chauvin prevented the meth-head from receiving potentially life-saving medical treatment. The science we are all supposed to trust is inconclusive regarding his death (overdose or choked).
of course everyone’s minds are made up on both sides.
Wrong about what? I asked a few questions and? you think it's rabies? coke and mentos? stick to bad courthouse reporting
Yep. Innocent and unassuming questions, I’m sure.
Weasel. Can’t say I expected anything more.
Would you expect anything different from a guy who’s been hiding for a year in his basement while wearing 3 masks because he is afraid of going outside?
I didnt think moe could look more stupid but in this thread moe said hold my beer.
Chauvin stands a good chance of escaping most, if not all, of the most serious charges against him. That is, assuming the rest of the trial continues like its been going and the defense actually has a strong case in their pocket.
However, Chauvin's in real trouble when the next trial begins. You can bet if the outcome isn't to the prosecution's liking (or maybe even if it is), a civil case for violating Floyd's civil rights will be filed. With a much lower standard for guilt, Chauvin could actually end up losing everything.
However, Chauvin's in real trouble when the next trial begins. You can bet if the outcome isn't to the prosecution's liking (or maybe even if it is), a civil case for violating Floyd's civil rights will be filed. With a much lower standard for guilt, Chauvin could actually end up losing everything.
I would not say prejudicial. The videos show what happened and imho are compelling. That being said, the intake of drugs voluntarily by Floyd is compelling too and complicates the problems the officers faced. Still, with the amount of time they had and several officers on the scene, they probably should have been able to transport him. Specially when he complained of issues breathing. He was a very big guy though and I would not want to have to personally move him when he was not cooperating. This is going to be an interesting decision and I’m glad the facts are coming out.
You know what is really mazing?
The trial is about to start its 5th day and there has not been a single fact presented so far suggesting racism was involved.
How many of the people who burned down and looted minneapolis have faced a trial? We know racism was involved there. That is amazing.
He's a cop. He doesn't have much for them to get. No Plaintiff's attorney wants his money. It is the City with deep pockets they want. Besides, Chauvin lost everything already. His legal fees are well into 6 figures. On a police officer's pay, his assets are wiped out. He will never work in law enforcement again either.
Look at what happened to Officer Wilson, the former Ferguson officer to took out the trash, Mike Brown. He was exonerated and despite doing nothing wrong, lost everything. Proof that false claims of racism are just as damaging as racism itself.
Day 4 testimony - again the State seems to be helping the defense with it's witnesses and questioning:
Ross - Floyd's girlfriend
Ross - Floyd's girlfriend
- Ross's nickname is 'mama' and is listed in Floyd's cell phone as 'mama'. Remember the emotional response from Floyd supporters that he cried for 'mama' when in custody. Turns out it may not have been his mom, but rather his girlfriend and fellow drug user.
- She testified that what Floyd took on the day he died was the same pills he took weeks prior and that it caused the same responses (stomach pain, etc.). She also testified that it gave him a lot of energy. Just plain fetanyl won't do this. It goes to showing that he had more than just fetanyl in his body - methamphetamine.
- Was in the car with Floyd and decided to take the 5th. Since he was the guy that more than likely sold the drugs to Floyd, he could be accountable for his death. No one wants to talk about that thought do they?
- Testified that EMTs get more training than MPD do. Meaning MPD would probably wait for better trained EMTs to arrive instead of attempting to provide first aid - especially when they had crowd control issues.
- First call was a Code 2 (non-emergency medical call) and the code 3 (emergency medical call, lights and sirens) was only about a minute and a half. So much for MPD taking their time to get experts on the scene.
- He and his partner decided to 'load and scoop' Floyd because of the crowd
- Bravender also agreed that he’d told earlier investigators that when he arrived on scene Floyd was on his left side. This is important because the state is in part arguing that Floyd died of positional asphyxia because he was kept prone on his stomach, and should instead have been in the “recovery position.” Well, the recovery position is to be up on one side of the body, and the left side suits this purpose just fine. Thus Bravender’s description placed Floyd in precisely the recovery position the state argues was appropriate.
- When asked by the prosecution if it wasn’t true that sometimes police officers used more force than the circumstances called for, Pleoger answered in the affirmative.
- Conversely, when asked by the defense if it wasn’t true that sometimes police officers were compelled by circumstances to use more force than might otherwise be the case, Ploeger again answered in the affirmative.
DR. BRADFORD WANKHEDE LANGENFELD (ED Doc)
It's funny if you listen/watch some news coverage on this trial, you hear the prosecution questions and answers quoted. Very little coverage of the defense questions and answers. Is it the media being lazy or are they trying to set the narrative?
It's a simple question - was Floyd's death caused by the knee to the neck or by the drugs in his system?
- Floyd was DOA to ED
- Made sure to emphasize the importance of initiating prompt care in cases of cardiac arrest, again hitting on the possible criminal liability claim of failure to provide timely medical care.
- Every minute CPR is delayed in a case of cardiac arrest means a 10-15% decrease in survival of the patient.
- Dr. Langenfeld had no information about Floyd’s apparent ingestion of a lethal dose of fentanyl/methamphetamine cocktail
- Why didn’t Langenfeld know that Floyd had likely overdosed on drugs? Well, arguably because the paramedics didn’t tell him. Why didn’t the paramedics tell him? Because they themselves had probably not gotten that information from the officers on scene. Why didn’t the paramedics get the information from the officers on scene? Likely because the angry and threatening crowd compelled the paramedics to do a “load and scoot” to vacate the area of danger promptly, very much limiting the opportunity to exchange information with the officers.
- Langenfeld himself confirmed today, the means by which fentanyl kills its victims is by suppression of respiration. That’s just another form of asphyxiation. And we have actual toxicology results to support the fentanyl levels. There’s literally zero evidence of how much pressure the 140-pound Chauvin might have been applying, or not, to the neck of the 230-pound Floyd.
- On cross-examination when asked if a fentanyl, methamphetamine, or a combination of the two could cause the hypoxia observed by Dr. Landenberg. The answer was, of course, “yes.”
- Touching upon the state’s apparent line of argument that Floyd’s long history of opioid abuse meant he was somehow immune to fatal overdose, Nelson explicitly asked Landenberg if a history of abuse meant fentanyl can’t kill someone. The answer was, of course, “no.”
- Chief read aloud specific highlighted portions of that policy manual.
- the portion of every single use of force policy that made the policy conditional on circumstances—when safe to do so, as circumstances allow, when consistent with safety, when reasonably possible—was left unhighlighted, and thus unrecited by Chief Arradondo.
- One option for de-escalation was that an officer could call for back-up. Well, Keung and Lane got back-up, in the form of Chauvin and Thau.
Another option was to use verbal commands to de-escalate. Well, Lane did that on his initial approach to Floyd sitting in the passenger seat of the SUV, and to which Floyd was non-compliant—SHOW ME YOUR HANDS! Nope—and then forcibly resistant.
Other options were the use of barriers—you mean like using a squad car as a barrier?—and containing the threat—you mean like physically restraining the threat? - Addarondo to conceded that his expertise on MPD use-of-force was at the policy level, and not at the tactical hands-on training level. He could speak to what MPD policy might allow or prohibit, but his knowledge of how the officers were actually trained or what they were obliged to do on the street in carrying out their duties was not a topic on which he could claim great knowledge.
- On cross-examination, Addarondo read aloud the portions of policy that Schleiter had skipped, and it was all the portions that made the policies conditional. For example, that the force used by officers must be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time force is used.
- When asked, Addarondo whether it was true that all MPD policies relevant to use-of-force, to EMS response, to medical treatment, whatever, all of them are by their explicit language situationally dependent, Addarondo was obliged to answer “Yes, I would agree with that.”
- Addarondo agreed that just because a suspect was handcuffed did not mean they were no longer a threat to officers, others, or themselves. Indeed, Addarondo explicitly agreed that a handcuffed suspect could still be a threat to officers by kicking, biting, spitting, or other means.
- When asked if the bystander video made it appear that Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck, the Chief answered that it did appear to be located there.
When then asked if the body worn camera video made it appear that Chauvin’s knee was not on Floyd’s neck, but on Floyd’s shoulder blade, the Chief agreed that this also appeared to be the case.
It's funny if you listen/watch some news coverage on this trial, you hear the prosecution questions and answers quoted. Very little coverage of the defense questions and answers. Is it the media being lazy or are they trying to set the narrative?
It's a simple question - was Floyd's death caused by the knee to the neck or by the drugs in his system?
Is this a real question?
The fact that that’s the question I’m and of itself exonerates Chauvin. No one can say with definitive proof, George Floyd died as a result of Chauvin’s actions. If there is reasonable doubt, he’s innocent. Period.
That bullet point alone is the reason all homicide charges should fail. If medical examiners can't rule out an overdose, how could a juror rule it out beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution witness today (EMT) is totally fvcking the prosecution. The prosecution team is terrible.
They might be doing a dog and pony show. I have been involved in many cases where the prosecutors didn't believe in the case but brought the charges anyway. There are a variety of reasons why prosecutors might do that.
Chauvin will be found not guilty. Hopefully the retards that riot afterward end up on a backboard.
Day 7...the prosecution appears to get yet another beating by their own witnesses.
MPD SERGEANT KER YANG, CRISIS INTERVENTION TRAINING COORDINATOR
MPD OFFICER NICOLE MACKENZIE, MEDICAL SUPPORT COORDINATOR
MPD SERGEANT KER YANG, CRISIS INTERVENTION TRAINING COORDINATOR
- focused on crisis intervention policies of MPD, did little to advance any narrative of guilt for the state, especially after the defense on cross of Yang was able to get him to concede that all these policies were contingent on practicability and safety of the scene.
- As is common routine from the prosecution when doing direct on state’s witnesses who have any purported use-of-force expertise is to show them the photo of Chauvin apparently (but perhaps not actually) kneeling on Floyd’s neck and asking, “Is this an MPD trained neck restraint?” Invariably the answer is in the negative.
- That makes for a good headline, but in fact it’s not very informative on the actual issues of the case. Why? Because just because a technique may not be an “MPD trained” technique does not make it outside of policy, does not mean it was legally unjustified, and certainly does not mean it contributed to Floyd’s death—which is what the trial is supposed to be all about.
- Dangerous job, being a police officer? Yes. Are people generally unhappy about being arrested? Very rarely are they happy, Mercil answered. Do suspects frequently engage in a wide variety of behaviors to avoid arrest, including fighting, arguing, making excuses? Yes, they do, answered Mercil.
Indeed, when asked if he himself had ever disbelieved a suspect’s claim of a medical emergency as an apparent effort to avoid arrest, Mercil answered that he personally had done so.
All of this, of course, undercuts the part of the prosecution narrative that is relying on Floyd’s purported pleas and excuses about claustrophobia and anxiety and crying out for mama. Perhaps all of that is real—but a reasonable officer must also consider that maybe much of it is simply an effort to avoid arrest. - the use of pressure and body weight to restrain a suspect was adopted by the MPD because it was a lesser intensity of force than the prior practice of using strikes—either barehanded, or with batons, or even with weighted gloves—to compel compliance. Mercil concurred.
- Defense got Mercil to agree that if that suspect had been forcibly resisting the officer only moments before, that would be a factor weighing in favor of continuing to apply force even after apparent resistance had ceased.
- When asked if additional use-of-force factors included if the suspect was believed to be on drugs, and whether being on drugs could give a suspect exceptionally great strength, Mercil agreed to both statements.
- When asked if a carotid choke, or what MPD would refer to as an “unconscious neck restraint” required both of the carotid arteries to be compressed, Mercil answered that it did. So much for MMA expert Williams’ testimony to the contrary.
- Further, when asked how quickly unconsciousness occurred when a carotid choke was placed, Mercil answered “less than 10 seconds.” Clearly, then Floyd was not being subject to a carotid choke for the large majority of the 9 minutes or so Chauvin had his knee in place, and likely never during that period.
- When asked if Mercil trained officers that a suspect who had become unconscious could regain consciousness, get back into the fight, and perhaps even be more aggressive than previously, Mercil responded that he did.
- Sometimes to maintain the neck restraint for however long it took EMS to arrive, asked Nelson? Mercil answered that he, personally, had maintained restraint on suspects for the duration required for EMS to arrive.
- Defense also again re-emphasized the reality that the officer involved in a use-of-force event must consider not just the suspect, but also the presence of an angry and growing mob observing what might well look like an ugly use of police force, and Mercil agreed that was the case.
- Mercil agreed 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.
- It was at this point that Defense 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. - Are there circumstances like those already discussed where would be appropriate to maintain presence of leg across shoulder blades and back in order to ensure control of the suspect? Yes, there are, Mercil answered. For as long as 10 minutes? It’s possible.
- Would the threat of imminent physical violence from bystanders be a sufficient reason to maintain restraint on a suspect? If the crowd is shouting that they’re going to slap the “F” out of you, that you’re a “p-word,” that you’re a bum, would that be sufficient to cause the officers to be alarmed about the prospect of imminent physical violence from the bystanders?
Yes, Mercil answered, it would.
MPD OFFICER NICOLE MACKENZIE, MEDICAL SUPPORT COORDINATOR
- Prosecution had MacKenzie testify about how officers had a duty of care to suspects, that Chauvin had CPR and other training that would qualify him to provide emergency care, and that such care must be provided by the officer even if an ambulance has already been called. This was all particularly the case if the suspect was unresponsive, if the suspect was in handcuffs, if the suspect was in the prone position, and so forth.
- Defense asked MacKenzie, that you train officers to consider not just the suspect, but the totality of the scene? Yes, she replied.
- Isn’t it true that police officers also have a competing duty of safety to themselves, their partners, to bystanders, that paramedics, for example, don’t have? To the point that if the scene is unsafe, if the officers haven’t already announced a code 4 “all safe,” that EMTs will stage a distance away until they are told safety has been achieved. Yes, MacKenzie replied.
- And isn’t it true that the safety concern might come not from the suspect himself, but from angry bystanders? Indeed.
- Isn’t it true, defense asked, that agonal breathing could be misinterpreted by officers as just breathing? Yes, answered MacKenzie. Would this be a more likely misinterpretation if the scene was noisy, disruptive, had the presence of a loud angry mob? It would, answered MacKenzie.
- Defense noted that one of the CPR training slides previously shown by Schlieter on direct questioning of MacKenzie had indicated that one of the reasons an officer could justifiably cease performing CPR was if the circumstances were not safe enough to allow continued CPR. Would this also mean that unsafe circumstances could justify not starting CPR in the first place, even where CPR would otherwise be warranted. Yes, answered MacKenzie.
- Defense began to ask again about the reasons that arriving paramedics might do a “load and scoot.” Why that approach, if the patient needs care?
One reason, MacKenzie answered, was that the patient might need immediate care that could only be provided at the hospital, such as emergency surgery.
Understood, replied Nelson, but might there be another reason?
Yes, answered MacKenzie. Unfortunately, and this might be hard to believe, she said, but there have been instances in which paramedics were attacked by an angry crowd. If that’s a concern, the paramedics might do a load and scoot purely for reasons of their safety. - Is one of the reasons the ambulance might do a load and scoot is not just the safety of the paramedics, but that the presence of an imminently threatening crowd would make it difficult or impossible for the paramedics to focus on providing proper care to their patient?
Yes, answered MacKenzie. - Prosecution then asked MacKenzie for her definition of a hostile crowd.
Her answer: A growing contingent of people, yelling, being verbally abusive to those providing scene security, acting in manner that could interfere with care. - Defense informed the court that he intended to recall MacKenzie as a defense witness for his own case in chief.
Something seems fishy. There is no reason for the prosecution to call either of these witnesses. Any evidence useful to the prosecution from them could have been obtained from its previous witnesses. It only serves to provide the defense the opportunity to further its points. Where are these recaps coming from Rog?
Last edited:
It's a shame if he's convicted. The reason for conviction would to appease the mob and to avoid rioting, justice be damned.
As I said, my bet is that charges were levied to stop the violence, purely political in nature, and the prosecutor is intentionally tanking this case. I don’t think anyone could be this bad at their job.
