Image 01 Image 03

LIVE: Chauvin Trial Day 3 – More Cross-Examination of Hostile Firefighter

LIVE: Chauvin Trial Day 3 – More Cross-Examination of Hostile Firefighter

Welcome to our LIVE coverage of the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, over the in-custody death of George Floyd.  I’ll be live blogging the court’s proceedings all day in real-time!

For those who may not know, I’m Attorney Andrew F. Branca, an internationally-recognized expert in use-of-force law, providing daily real-time legal analysis of the Chauvin trial’s proceedings as a guest commentator for Legal Insurrection, as well as over at my own blog, Law of Self Defense.

Today’s court proceedings continue with the state prosecutors presenting their case in chief, with the day starting with the in-progress cross-examination of hostile firefighter Genevieve Hansen by the defense.

You may recall that the cross of Hansen was paused yesterday afternoon, after Judge Cahill felt obliged to clear the jury from the court room and scold Hansen on the record for her hostility and argumentativeness to the defense on cross. During that scolding, Hansen elected to get argumentative with Judge Cahill himself, which probably was less well received than she might have anticipated.

For your viewing pleasure, that scolding is presented here:

Here’s live video of the today’s court’s proceedings:

We are using a new live blogging software. If you encounter any problems, post in the regular comment section to this post.

Here’s today’s live blogging, updated in real time throughout the day:

Enjoy the show!


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Attorney Andrew F. Branca’s legal practice has specialized exclusively in use-of-force law for thirty years.  Andrew provides use-of-force legal consultancy services to attorneys across the country, as well as near-daily use-of-force law insight, expertise, and education to lawyers and non-lawyers alike in the form of blog posts, video, and podcasts, through the Law of Self Defense Membership service.  If this kind of content is of interest to you, try out our two-week Membership trial for a mere 99 cents, with a 200% no-question- asked money-back guarantee, here:  Law of Self Defense Membership Trial.

[Featured image is a screen capture from the live video of this trial, <em>Minnesota v. Chauvin</em>.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Loving the commentary!

    Mike Wilson in reply to Sozo86. | March 31, 2021 at 6:42 pm

    That ridiculous, weepy acting performance by mr white glasses was bordering on the absurd. Zero sincerity, 100% fake manufactured tears. Repulsive behavior.

“During that scolding, Hansen elected to get argumentative with Judge Cahill himself, which probably was less well received than she might have anticipated.”

You have my official vote for understatement of the year award.

    MattMusson in reply to Edwardson. | March 31, 2021 at 1:22 pm

    In case you have never been on a jury, anytime they are going to say some important fact about what occurred, they make the Jury get up and go out of the room. Then, lawyers and the Judge argue about how little of the Truth the Jury will be allowed to hear.

The Packetman | March 31, 2021 at 10:34 am

Heh … Ms Hansen looks to have been thoroughly ‘instructed’ as to correct courtroom behavior!

Thank you for providing this coverage on LI. Been following this blog since the Trayvon travesty which you covered here. Created a profile to point out/ ask a question. At the 1 hr 22 minute mark of yesterdays testimony the “MMA expert” claimed that someone can be rendered unconcious and then jump up and start fighting again. Isn’t that significant? I’ve seen no discussion on that. Also’ the woman who was questioned about her cell phone claimed she was taking pics of a relative with the AG. Shouldn’t the AG be aware of the cell phone violation? Thanks again; I told myself I wasn’t going to get trapped into watching this trial but here I am staring at an emblem again. First comment, sorry it’s so long.

She should not have been allowed to wear her uniform to court. This is a blatant attempt to paint her as an “expert” of some kind and try and give her credibility even though her entire testimony is completely based in her feelings. I’m curious as to whether her agency has a policy vis a vis wearing of uniforms while testifying in court outside of being called as an expert witness.

    alaskabob in reply to Gunner75. | March 31, 2021 at 10:55 am

    Woke white female Karen with a badge. The optics are a sign of the city’s roll in directing a verdict. Let me rephrase….The State’s Party is directing the verdict.

    TheOldZombie in reply to Gunner75. | March 31, 2021 at 12:03 pm

    Most likely the people at her agency told her to wear that uniform or the mayors office told her to wear it as requested by the prosecution team. They are trying to up-sell her testimony from that of a witness to that of an expert witness.

      CashGap in reply to TheOldZombie. | March 31, 2021 at 2:30 pm

      Should have been required to dress as she did the day of the incident. That way she could be a witness and an exhibit, showing what the officers saw.

      steve_gosney in reply to TheOldZombie. | March 31, 2021 at 4:12 pm

      You said down below “I do think it’s a big deal in the sense that it hurts the states case because she was a bad witness. In my untrained legal opinion of course.” I love hearing how untrained legal opinions see things – please keep sharing! Those are the people that appear on juries you know.

    steve_gosney in reply to Gunner75. | March 31, 2021 at 2:51 pm

    Happens all the time in criminal court. She was on duty when she became a witness.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to steve_gosney. | March 31, 2021 at 3:37 pm

      Uhh, no she was not “on duty” when she became a witness. As should be obvious from her dress at the time, unless Low End Workout Chic has become a new Firefighter uniform.

        steve_gosney in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 31, 2021 at 3:48 pm

        Hmm – well not watching the trial live — relying on Andrew for his analysis — too much time to devote to this … IF she was not on duty when she was a witness, the defense should point out that she was not wearing the uniform when she witnessed the event and point out her choice to the jury. Other than that, I have seen off duty officers come to court in their uniform. Should not really be a big deal one way or the other,

          Gremlin1974 in reply to steve_gosney. | March 31, 2021 at 3:54 pm

          I really don’t have a problem with her being in uniform personally. If her department has some rules regarding the uniform equaling “representing the dept.” then that is between her and her superiors.

          When I was in the Army the rule was simple if you were acting in your role as a soldier the uniform is fine, if not and acting as a citizen then Civies. (Weddings and Funerals were always fine to wear uniform).

          TheOldZombie in reply to steve_gosney. | March 31, 2021 at 4:02 pm

          I don’t think the defense could point out her uniform to the jury. I do think they could have asked the judge about it if they thought it was a big deal. Maybe ask her to change into a non-uniform outfit since she wasn’t at the incident as a firefighter that day.

          I do think it’s a big deal in the sense that it hurts the states case because she was a bad witness. In my untrained legal opinion of course. 😀

          lurker9876 in reply to steve_gosney. | March 31, 2021 at 4:59 pm

          Nelson did ask Hansen about her clothes on May 25 and yesterday.

        Char Char Binks in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 31, 2021 at 4:45 pm

        Maybe she was on duty yesterday and today when she was a witness on the stand, or on duty just before and/or after. I don’t dismiss the possibility of shenanigans in this regard.

      Lanceman in reply to steve_gosney. | March 31, 2021 at 6:55 pm

      I take it that you’re a leftist.

      Seriously, what is wrong with you clowns? The utopia you seek is not possible with humans. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Johnny Weissmuller in reply to Gunner75. | March 31, 2021 at 7:36 pm

    The MMA expert is not an expert witness, but a bystander. Confusing, because the state was allowed to explore his expertise. The topic will be explored later. 2.) The AG is trying the case. Keith Ellison has never tried a case before but his career is on the line so he is watching. The photographer took a picture of her client, an 18 year old that court was protecting her identity but the photographer blurted her name to the judge.

      I never said he was an expert witness. What I said is he’s being put forth both by the press and the prosecution as an “MMA fighter” the implication being that he’s some sort of expert when it comes to grappling and as such his words have bearing on what he witnessed the Cops using to subdue Floyd. The reality is, he’s a fraud. Going to a gym and taking some MMA classes does not an MMA fighter make. Plus the fact that he claimed to have worked out with LE, Military and even CIA at his gym leads me to believe he is a complete buffoon and an utter bullshitter. He is the classic bystander inserting himself into a Law Enforcement event, running his mouth and stirring shit up.

this is riveting !!

Thought Hansen was Vindeman til looked bit closer and still wasn’t sure..

Just had the chance to watch the video of Ms. Hansen’s testimony from yesterday, and haven’t read the synopsis of her testimony from today yet, but before I do, I wanted to offer this thought.

I don’t think she was being purposefully combative, although she seems to have an argumentative personality. If you watch her closely, however, I think what is going on is that the defense is painting a picture that she has never even considered, and you can watch the cognitive dissonance cast a pall across her face.

When confronted with strong evidence of an alternative reality to our deeply held convictions, we tend to get very confused and combative, as we try to hold onto our convictions.

Whether the jury sees it or not, the defense did a masterful job of getting her to question her own beliefs.

    bigskydoc in reply to bigskydoc. | March 31, 2021 at 11:15 am

    I wonder if the judge called a recess as much for her, as for the court.

    Midfiaudiophile in reply to bigskydoc. | March 31, 2021 at 12:32 pm

    I disagree.
    “Hansen: I don’t know if you’ve seen anyone killed, it’s upsetting.”

    “Nelson: You said you video taped because memory fallible.

    Hansen: Yes.

    Nelson: Stress makes that worse.

    Hansen: Absolutely, why it’s good it was taped. ”

    Hansen: Got quite angry when Floyd in ambulance, no point to reason with them anymore, they had just killed somebody.

    She went out of her way to insert snide jabs about Mr. Floyd’s cause of death and that jurors should focus on the videotape rather than any additional evidence numerous times. That’s not normal for someone who is just suffering cognitive dissonance, in my experience. Maybe argue with Nelson, but she was very aware of the presence of the jury.

Floyd was lingering around the store because he knew he was about to pass fake money

Midfiaudiophile | March 31, 2021 at 11:21 am

Frank: Did you have ID on you at that time?

Hansen: No, sir.

How is that even vaguely relevant? Nelson is arguing that the cops had no responsibility to let some random person claiming to be medical personnel examine the subject of their arrest attempt, Frank is trying to defend Hansen’s actions on-scene, which aren’t the subject of the jury trial.

Sooo, The witness (Martin) was the racist tool who, ‘cuz he wouldn’t eat a dirty $20, fingered our bro Floyd for the racist cops to come and kill? /s/ (So says my gangsta crew.)

If I were Martin, I’d be headed for the tall grass as soon as court is over.

@ Andrew. You said that is it for Hansen in this trial. Since there was no recross, could not the defense recall her later?

Now we know why the store called the police over a counterfeit bill since it would have docked twenty bucks out of a minimum waged employee.

    fogflyer in reply to lurker9876. | March 31, 2021 at 12:01 pm

    Which I am pretty sure is illegal.
    I don’t believe you can make an employee cover a counterfeit bill.

      lurker9876 in reply to fogflyer. | March 31, 2021 at 12:15 pm

      You may be correct but that was in Martin’s testimony. He also said that he offered to reimburse the manager with his own twenty bucks. I am wondering why the store manager kept going back to the Floyd group in the car. He must have a history with crime and incurred a huge loss over the fake money.

        lurker9876 in reply to lurker9876. | March 31, 2021 at 12:27 pm

        From the testimony:

        Nelson: Store policy, if you took bill, your responsibility deducted from pay.

        Martin: Correct.

        Nelson: Store tab, could use to buy stuff at store, deducted from salary?

      Midfiaudiophile in reply to fogflyer. | March 31, 2021 at 12:35 pm

      I worked retail for a while in college (Not in Minnesota and decades ago, for what it’s worth). One day, my drawer came up 10 dollars short because I had given change for a 20 rather than a 10. I immediately said that I regretted the mistake and offered to cover the shortfall out of my own wallet and was told that the store was unable to legally do that.

      I also got a 20 minute lecture on the topic of “It’s bad to make mistakes. You should try to avoid making mistakes, and never make mistakes intentionally”, but that’s beside the point.

      Joe-dallas in reply to fogflyer. | March 31, 2021 at 1:32 pm

      I agree that it is likely illegal, though I suspect fairly common practice in retail, especially in inner city environments. It was done at the retail clothing store I worked at in high school 30 years ago.

      Char Char Binks in reply to fogflyer. | March 31, 2021 at 3:12 pm

      But is it illegal for Muslim immigrants in Minneapolistan?

    Lanceman in reply to lurker9876. | March 31, 2021 at 6:59 pm

    Counterfeiting is a Federal crime.

      steve_gosney in reply to Lanceman. | March 31, 2021 at 7:21 pm

      Never pursued by the Feds unless it is big $$$

        Char Char Binks in reply to steve_gosney. | March 31, 2021 at 8:06 pm

        And we’ll never know how much money (or “money”) was involved, since it was never investigated, and never will be, but the estate of george floyd was valued at $27M.

The Packetman | March 31, 2021 at 12:07 pm

Is it just me or are these states’ witnesses having problems with any question the answer to which is not ‘correct’?

The thing that stands out to me at this point, is that Floyd had many opportunities to put a stop to the process, and avoid having any interaction with law enforcement.

Pass a bad bill in my locale, and it’s call 911 immediately with no further interaction with the suspect. Police will come and it will be an arrest without question.

    REDACTED in reply to SField. | March 31, 2021 at 12:52 pm

    opportunities ??

    we don’t need no stinkin opportunities

    Gold Hat Floyd

      lurker9876 in reply to REDACTED. | March 31, 2021 at 1:07 pm

      Yes and he would’ve gotten away with it because of the drugs in his car. Floyd kept saying, “Why is this happening?” or whatever.

      SField in reply to REDACTED. | March 31, 2021 at 1:15 pm

      LOL! Love that film.

      Anyway, It was surprising how much slack the store manager/owner cut Floyd. Go out and talk to him, twice. There’s no such niceties around here.

Prosecutor seems to re-direct every time just to get the last word in.. without saying anything really. Is this a winning strategy?

What a waste of Belfrey’s testimony. He had nothing to add and did not help the prosecution’s case.

I love how it’s a dozen lawyers for the persecution vs. one for the defence. It’s like a royal rumble and they are all tag-teaming against one guy.

    lurker9876 in reply to BillyHW. | March 31, 2021 at 1:13 pm

    Yeah…so the city paid 27 million dollars to the Floyd family while paying a lot of money to the entire prosecution team???? BTW, that 27 million payout happened just after US Congress passed their “Biden-laden” COVID bill.

    Chopper96 in reply to BillyHW. | March 31, 2021 at 6:27 pm

    Well the defence lawyer is good. I have no idea about the prosecution team because I just skip over their propoganda and BS to get to the next defence questioning part.
    It’s not like I will miss anything the prosecution will have to say, it’s all the same BS the MSM have been saying about this incident.

I’m fascinated that, after passing a fake bill, and being confronted on it, they just stayed parked there, instead of driving off. Just like it is such a common experience for them that they don’t feel compelled to leave the situation.

    SField in reply to bigskydoc. | March 31, 2021 at 1:46 pm

    I was thinking the same thing.

    One would think, that hey, we got away with it for now, but we’d better leave, and leave right now. Yet, they just sat there. They didn’t think there would be any consequences for their actions, or they were too intoxicated to care.

    Laser Beam in reply to bigskydoc. | March 31, 2021 at 1:58 pm

    The passengers were worried cops were en route, and repeatedly sought to wake up George Floyd from his drug stupor and get him to drive away.

      lurker9876 in reply to Laser Beam. | March 31, 2021 at 2:06 pm

      Except Frank tried to sell the picture that Floyd was NOT asleep in the car. He was hoping the jury would not see the contradictions to the statements made by their witnesses.

“Pulled my phone out, called mom told her not to come downstairs [they lived above Cup Foods], began to record.”

He told his mom to stay away. This is admirable and something that anyone would do for family in a similar circumstance. He knew that crowd was turning dangerous.

Wish the defense would have done more to highlight this. Do they feel they may have so much evidence of the danger that the officers were in, that they feel no need? Or did the Defense just miss this opportunity that got dropped into their lap?

Well geez, so he wanted to buy skittles and ice tea?/s

    MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | March 31, 2021 at 2:11 pm

    biggest fear is they will bring in fake ear witnesses. Thought they are going to put the 9 year old up to it.

Seems like everyone was “recording” on the cell phones.

Is that normal for so many people first thought to start to record an event any event. Almost like second nature for that crowd.

Personally I would need some prompting from someone to tell me to record an event. Its certainly not second nature to me.

    MarkSmith in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 31, 2021 at 2:19 pm

    It is normal. If you start checking out other arrest videos, you would see that. Also, you would see that “I Can’t Breath” is the standard chant. Then the crowd is told to say the same thing. I wish they could call this out as a classic move to discredit the police.

    Watch what this women says at 7;13.

    Deception is standard procedure that way too many people fall for.

      Dathurtz in reply to MarkSmith. | March 31, 2021 at 3:20 pm

      Thankfully, I have only had to restrain a few people in the course of my work. They all said they couldn’t breathe. Even with no chest compression and no neck compression. The first time it scared me because we have to be so careful not to hurt a kid we are restraining because I didn’t yet understand how those words get said regardless of their truth.

      FOAF in reply to MarkSmith. | March 31, 2021 at 4:55 pm

      Geez, that was the neighborhood I grew up in! Four blocks from the hospital where I was born. It was *very* different back then.

      Midfiaudiophile in reply to MarkSmith. | March 31, 2021 at 5:33 pm

      Also worth noting, the bystander claiming to be a policeman as well, at about 7:55.

      If he was, I think it’s likely that he would understand that quickly and decisively subduing the subject with more people than “needed” is the best course of action for everyone’s safety.

    bigskydoc in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 31, 2021 at 2:20 pm

    In this day and age, yes. The first thing most of us reach for when something unusual is happening is our phones. Mostly to document it for our social media. Maybe for the daily outrage. Maybe for the likes. Maybe get lucky and capture something that makes us money or fame. It is the world we live in. Even in my quiet little corner.

      Joe-dallas in reply to bigskydoc. | March 31, 2021 at 3:51 pm

      bigsky- I realize the recording is more common these days, though seems to greatly exceed the natural instinct even for the younger generation

      the other thing I noticed was the large number of security camera’s in the area.

    hrhdhd in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 31, 2021 at 4:15 pm

    The urge to record is getting ridiculous. There’s video from the Southwest plane that had to make an emergency landing (had a hole in the side of the plane; one passenger killed). Made me laugh that no one had the oxygen mask on correctly. But they had the presence of mind to whip out their phones and record! 🙄

Colonel Travis | March 31, 2021 at 2:29 pm

The guy in the white glasses. I just can’t stop looking at his white glasses. It’s so distracting.

In the bodycam just played, you can hear the officers discussing the restraint they are going to use, call it a “hobble.”

Wow, foaming of the mouth – Prosecutor just made the case for the defense:

If someone has overdosed on a stimulant drug, such as cocaine, methamphetamine, Ritalin, Adderall, or ecstasy, they may exhibit some or all of the following symptoms4,5:

Difficulty breathing
Increased body temperature
Chest pain
Disorientation or confusion
Nausea and vomiting
Foaming at the mouth

If a person has overdosed on a depressant drug, such as methadone, heroin, morphine, or fentanyl, they may display the following symptoms4,5:

Cessation of breath or very shallow breathing
Gurgling sounds
Blue lips or fingers
Slow or erratic pulse
Limp body

Drug overdose

When someone consumes more drugs or toxins than their body can process, they may experience an overdose.

A severe overdose may lead to seizures, which can cause drooling or salvia to pool in the mouth and be pushed through clenched teeth and lips.

People with severe overdoses may also experience heart attacks and pulmonary edema (PE), where fluid leaks into the lungs, both of which are associated with frothing from the mouth.

When the heart and lungs are not working properly, fluid builds up around both organs and cells are starved of oxygen.

Are we absolutely sure that her real name isn’t Karen?

I’m gonna take a nap

wake when someone has some real evidence to provide

feelings is a terrible song and a lousy trial strategy

Char Char Binks | March 31, 2021 at 3:29 pm

What can the judge do about all the weeping theatrics in the stand?

These witness didn’t know floyd, weren’t related to him, and wouldn’t have cared even slightly about him in life, but so many acted like he was their nearest and dearest.

Instead of treating teary witnesses like bereaved relatives, shouldn’t the judge tell them to knock off the dramatics, and quit sobbing like sissies over someone they never knew? Aren’t these emotional displays prejudicial?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Char Char Binks. | March 31, 2021 at 3:49 pm

    IANAL, but my guess would be nothing. The way a witness responds would be just as much a part of their Testimony as what they say. I am thinking the judge intervening in that would be something like “witness tampering”.

      Char Char Binks in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 31, 2021 at 4:28 pm

      I fear you are right.

      I could die on the courthouse stairs, and they’d step around me, and go about their business. They only care, or pretend to care, because floyd was black, and they can pin his death on a white man, all the better that Chauvin was a cop..

      If I were Nelson, I’d be exaggeratedly solicitous toward them, and express great sympathy for their loss, making it obviously mocking. Why not; if that turns off jurors more than these ridiculous histrionics, the cause would lost, anyway.

    Observer in reply to Char Char Binks. | March 31, 2021 at 6:00 pm

    People often act like idiots when the cameras are on them. These witnesses know that this trial is being watched by a lot of people. This is their chance to show the world how broken-hearted they are over the death of this man they never knew. Their sobs are signaling their phony virtue and “wokeness” to the world.

Was there really nothing for the defense to gain from a cross-examine? Shouldn’t the defense at least be asking most of these emotive witnesses whether they have police training or know how police are trained to deal with resistant suspects under the influence?? Shouldn’t the defense ask at least one question to signal to the jury how to view each witness?

    CashGap in reply to foospro86. | March 31, 2021 at 5:07 pm

    Declining to cross signals the jury that the defense found nothing harmful in that witnesses testimony, or even that the witnesses testimony has little relevance. Also, a witness who is not crossed has less “airtime” with the jury and is likely less memorable.

    Finally, defense is letting prosecutor stumble through their side of the case as quickly as possible. Then defense can STACK great testimony and evidence, take a LOT of airtime, and leave STRONG impression that they had QUITE a bit more than the state.

      foospro86 in reply to CashGap. | March 31, 2021 at 5:29 pm

      No juror would ever take it as a signal that the testimony was “too powerful” or “too effective” to rebut/impeach? Why not send a clear signal with one question? I understand the airtime and pace tactic; that’s why I suggested one and only one question.

Andrew Branca please comment

Noticed that Nelson is declining to cross exam several witnesses
Obvously good choice to decline cross of 9 year old girl

Thoughts on strategy of declining (and/or light cross examination of others)


    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 31, 2021 at 5:34 pm

    Defense should be using the opportunity to reiterate the case for the defense with a line of questioning such as:

    Are you aware the the police were on the scene due to a citizen call for service?
    Are you aware the deceased had lethal doses of illegal narcotics in his blood stream found at autopsy?
    Are you aware the police called for emergency medical assistance immediately upon removing the deceased from the police vehicle?
    Are you aware the police made a follow-up call for emergency medical assistance after X minutes after the initial call?
    Are you aware police department policy and training as per (cite the manual and/or policy) demands police officers restrain and immobilize persons in medical distress to have them avoid injuring themselves, and to sustain this restraint until emergency medical assistance arrives?
    Are you aware police department policy and training as per (cite the policy or manual) instructs officers to immobilize the head of a person held under restraint if that person is thrashing their head around to avoid injury to the person under restraint?
    Are you aware that, as per (citation) the police department gave training to the defendant to use the restraining technique employed by the defendant, and that such training explicitly states it is a non-lethal restraint?

    The intent is to demonstrate to the jury that what the witnesses saw was a police officer carrying out his duties as per his training and instruction.

I just love on other blogs how people are arguing that Floyd ingesting massive doses of fentanyl and meth isn’t really relevant. One person even going so far as to suggest that since the took “uppers” and “downers” they would “cancel each other out”.

I finally just responded; “Suuuuurrrreee, Elvis and Michael Jackson were unavailable for comment.”

    “since the took “uppers” and “downers” they would “cancel each other out”.”

    There is nothing better for your health than a speedball (mix of heroin and cocaine).

    nacnud62 in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 31, 2021 at 5:44 pm

    Michael Jackson died of improper administration of propofol, a drug normally used in a hospital setting for short-term anesthesia. It was administered in Jackson’s home by a licensed physician who failed to properly monitor him.

To me, despite questioning Chauvin, it looked like MacMillan was still very friendly with Chauvin at the very end of the bodycam and surveillance video. I never heard the word “maggot” on the videos. Did he really say that at the time??

    BillyHW in reply to foospro86. | March 31, 2021 at 4:28 pm

    He completely lied on the stand to get street cred in his community. I hope the jury actually watches the video closely to catch what was actually said.

      Char Char Binks in reply to BillyHW. | March 31, 2021 at 4:37 pm

      There hasn’t been one witness yet who hasn’t either flat out lied or shaded the truth enough to amount to a lie. Everyone of them has been hostile, and not forthcoming, to some degree. in response to defense questioning. It’s strange that those who supposedly believe in their case, and their ability to prove it, feel the need to deceive for that end.

    Mike Wilson in reply to foospro86. | March 31, 2021 at 6:50 pm

    No, he did not. He lied on the stand. On the second video he CLEARLY says, “I’ve got nothing bad to say about you,” “I’ll keep respecting you,” and “go home safe to your family.”

Man Bun, should immediatly disqualify you from being a credible witness….and an actual man.

From the first bodycam played in full, looks like at least one of the 2 officers (at Floyd’s feet) stopped putting weight on Floyd when he went limp and clearly thought Floyd had passed out. Clearly speculating amongst themselves what kind of drugs he was on.

Why does the sound on the badgecam go out at regular intervals?

Clearly on the 2nd bodycam shown, the officer checks Floyd’s pulse, perhaps in response to the frustrated crowd who cannot see the officer do the check.

Hansen struck me as one of those Left wingers who are so sanctimoneous that they are unsufferably condescending. There was simply no humility shown to the judge in his courtroom. That was a DUMB play by the prosecution. I hope there was somebody who had a heart to heart conversation with her.

Thau fetched the hobble tie from the trunk of the squad car. Pocket was clearly labeled “hobble.”

What are hobbles? I know that hobbles are used to tie the horse’s feet down so wondering if hobbles are used to tie Floyd’s feet. What caused them to think about using hobbles?

    BillyHW in reply to lurker9876. | March 31, 2021 at 5:35 pm

    Did you not see him kicking the officer when they were trying to put him on the ground (after he had begged them to put him on the ground)?

Pretty clear that Floyd decided to make things as completely difficult on the officers as he possibly could. Not a great decision after also deciding to swallow a massive amount of drugs.

Midfiaudiophile | March 31, 2021 at 5:41 pm

I feel for Martin. Between the lines of his testimony, it seems like he was terrified of Mr. Floyd and would have happily accepted Monopoly money from him (and paid out of his own pocket) if it was less likely to lead to an adversarial confrontation.

I took one look at that photo and said “Democrat.”

What is that the broad is wearing around her neck? Participation or affirmative action medal? Firefighter, my hind end!

So the trial skips Thursday and resume Friday morning at what time?

Body cam footage from the initial attempt to put Floyd into the car showed Floyd to be quite vocal, strong, etc.

Based on Floyd’s level of physical activity, There is no way that I would have expected that Floyd would need emergency medical treatment within the next 10-12 minutes, much less die.

Midfiaudiophile | March 31, 2021 at 6:57 pm

I want to know what was in the audio of Belfrey and his fiancee that was so upsetting that even Prosecutor Frank decided it was irrelevant.

(I’m also curious why Nelson objected to Martin’s comment about “This is what we have to put up with” when he was discussing with Donald Williams. That comment only weakens Martin’s testimony by showing that his perception at the time was being informed by a strong anti-police bias, not strengthen it).