Derek Chauvin Trial – Prosecution Problems Ignored or Misrepresented In Mainstream Media
(Open Thread) There are very significant prosecution evidentiary problems ignored or misrepresented in the mainstream media. which will lead to an even larger explosion of violence if there is a not guilty verdict.
The comments to our coverage have been (mostly) informative, reflecting that readers are really on top of the issues. We don’t often do an ‘Open Thread’ just opening things up for reader comments, but we are now that we are (close) to done with the prosecution case, and likely to start hearing from defense witnesses next week.
I’m not making any predictions. I think the verdict could go either way at this stage, and if I had to put a wager on the table, it’s more likely that there will be a guilty finding on at least one of the counts. There is sufficient evidence, particularly after the prosecution medical expert witnesses, for a jury to find guilt, if the jury believes the prosecution witnesses and discounts whatever contrary experts the defense brings. The 9-minute video is still very powerful evidence. Conversely, there also is enough in dispute for a finding of reasonable doubt.
The jurors also know that the city and much of the nation will explode if there is a ‘not guilty’ verdict, and that they will be doxxed and their lives ruined.
What I can say with confidence is that as with the George Zimmerman trial, the public is being misinformed by the mainstream media that this is an open-and-shut case, and if Chauvin is found not guilty it’s because of systemic racism in society and the judicial system.
For example, the widely accepted narrative that Chauvin kept his ‘knee on the neck’ for 9 minutes has been thoroughly debunked by the prosecution’s own witnesses and the body cams. There was pressure by Chauvin’s knee, but it was not continuously on the neck, and was mostly on the back and shoulders, according to prosecution medical witness testimony. Recognizing this evidentiary problem, the prosecution case has shifted from the initial several trial days of claiming that pressure from the knee to the corotid artery cut off blood flow to the brain causing loss of oxygen and inability to breathe, a claim rejected by the prosecution’s own medical experts, to a broader claim that Floyd being restrained while handcuffed in the prone position with pressure from multiple officers impaired his ability to inhale.
There are very significant evidentiary problems ignored or misrepresented in the mainstream media as to (1) cause of death, (2) whether Chauvin caused the death, (3) whether the force used by Chauvin was unlawful, and for some counts, (4) Chauvin’s intent. People who only read the mainstream media coverage of the case are ignorant of these issues.
A good example of media malfeasance is an article I stumbled upon at WaPo with this headline, Chauvin’s attorney argues Floyd saying, ‘I can’t breathe,’ was a form of resisting arrest, which started with this opening paragraph:
Testimony in the trial of Derek Chauvin continued Wednesday with the former officer’s defense team arguing that George Floyd saying, “I can’t breathe,” while police attempted to load him into the squad car was a form of resisting arrest.
That makes the defense seem absurd and laughable, something that should not be taken seriously from an evidentiary view. Except that’s not what Chauvin’s attorney said in questioning the MPD use of force trainer. As the article text (if you read deep down) makes clear, the context was testimony elicited that officers need to consider a person’s other actions in judging whether a suspect saying ‘I can’t breathe’ is legitimate, and that if the suspect is otherwise “actively resisting arrest,” that statement may not be credible:
“If somebody is saying, ‘I can’t breathe,’ and they’re passing out and they’re not resisting, that’s one form of an analysis, right, because the actions of the suspect are consistent with the verbal utterances he’s making, right?” Nelson asked.
“Other times and in this particular case, when Mr. Floyd was initially saying that he couldn’t breathe, he was actively resisting arrest initially when he was in the back seat of the vehicle, right?” he continued.
The admission by the MPD officer was significant in the defense showing that the use of force was reasonable. But WaPo readers would not know that, certainly not the majority who read only the headline and opening paragraph. That is just a small example of how the media distorts the case and the trial to fit its narrative. This distorted narrative will lead to an even larger explosion of violence if there is a not guilty verdict.
To catch up on our daily coverage, here are the links:
- Chauvin Trial Day 1 Wrap-Up: Opening Arguments & Three State Witnesses
- Chauvin Trial Day 2 Wrap-Up: State Focused on Feelings, Judge Scolds Firefighter
- Chauvin Trial Day 3 Wrap-Up: Floyd Was “High” with Foam Around His Mouth
- Chauvin Trial BREAKING: “Mama” Was George Floyd’s Nickname For His Drug-Sharing Girlfriend
- Chauvin Trial Day 4 Wrap-Up: Another Poor Day for Prosecution, Advantage Defense
- Chauvin Trial Day 5 Wrap-Up: Poorly Informed Witnesses Provide State with Poorly Informed Opinions
- Chauvin Trial Week One Analysis: State Offers Abbreviated Versions of Video Evidence
- Chauvin Trial Day 6 Wrap-Up: Chief Says Neck Restraint Not Trained, But Does It Matter?
- Chauvin Trial Day 7 Wrap-Up: a horrible day for the prosecution
- Chauvin Trial Day 8 Wrap-Up: “I Ate Too Many Drugs” Video May Be Game-Changer
- Chauvin Trial Day 9 Wrap-Up: Medical Experts Resuscitate Prosecution Case
- LIVE: Chauvin Trial Day 10 – Forensic Pathologist and Medical Examiner Day
Andrew Branca will have more of his excellent analysis in the days ahead, but for now, the floor is yours.
UPDATE 9 p.m.:
The more I think about it, the greater the alternative theories as to what stopped Floyd’s breathing (and caused his death) presented by prosecution witnesses (pressure on carotid artery versus positional asphyxiation) seem to be a problem for the prosecution that in and of itself could be argued to create reasonable doubt. It could be used effectively in closing.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I still believe a hung jury is the best Chauvin can hope for with a jury full of lefty Minneapolis residents. If that happens the jurors who voted for conviction will doxx those who didn’t.
Chauvin has two strikes, at least, against his chances of a fair trial. First, the jury pool was filled with ACAB types. Second, if the jury doesn’t convict him on all counts and recommend drawing and quartering, every juror’s life will be destroyed. As you say, those who voted to acquit will be “outed” and life as they knew it is over.
I don’t know if I would have the courage to sit on that jury if I hadn’t already made up my mind to vote guilty on all charges.
“As you say, those who voted to acquit will be “outed” and life as they knew it is over..”
And that is how totalitarians have taken over countries in the past and will take over this country if we don’t come up with an effective strategy to fight them.
I’m not sure the USA can be saved anymore.
Further to my comment, here is a speech by Frederick Douglass entitled “Plea for Freedom of Speech in Boston”.
It is just as applicable today as it was in 1860. Natural rights have a funny way of being like that. Timeless.
https://lawliberty.org/frederick-douglass-plea-for-freedom-of-speech-in-boston/
Self Medication is a Timeless Natural Right.
That’s one of the reason’s I left and moved to a 99.99% white country that had lived 45 years under the jackboot of Communism and in no way wants to go back. And, as our former PM said “We have no mosques in Slovakia, nor will we ever have”.
The Right of Self Medication is timelessness
Self Medication is a Natural Right. Self Defense is a Natural Right.
I wish I could join you, but, that part of the world doesn’t like my kind.
I sometimes think about repatriating to Slovakia, from whence my ancestors immigrated.
I wish I was young enough to join you. I’d do it in a instant.
This is, in part, why the defense should ask the judge to dismiss the charges once the prosecution ends its presentation, and why the defense should also ask the judge for a directed verdict before the jury is charged. The judge has to know what will happen to jurors who vote “not guilty.” If the judge can see that “not guilty” verdicts from individual jurors are likely (by the prosecution’s failure to give sufficient evidence to support the charges), he may act to protect them by keeping them from having to expose themselves to the threat. Of course, the judge will have to be a brave man and a hero, because he will be taking the threat upon himself.
Has morality and courage deserted every one of us?
A person who leaves their morality behind must live with their conscience for the remainder of their life and face their Lord upon death.
It won’t be the jurors who doxx the other jurors, it will be the media and their violent leftwing stormtroopers will be making house calls
I wonder if, say, MSNBC or AP or especially CNN, have people set up to follow the jurors home after they are released? Qith cameras and relay gear of course.
“I still believe a hung jury …”
Kamala Harris just got excited.
Perhaps maybe a mistrial also because of the latest rioting in Minneapolis. But you are right about the fate of the jurors.
Considering the recent rioting in Minneapolis, maybe a mistrial.
“…which will lead to an even larger explosion of mostly peaceful violence if there is a not guilty verdict.”
Big Brother approved edit.
Perhaps the next round of violence will be met by more popular resistance than took place in 2020. The reason for restraint in not falling for the left’s provocations during the political campaign no longer exists.
As it turned out, there probably should not have been restraint.
Fat chance on more popular resistance. The mayor of Mpls is a BLM sympathizer so when they riot either way, he will wobble on calling in the National Guard. Tim Walz isn’t much better, so who knows what he will do. Stores, clinics, pharmacies and other businesses in Minneapolis are preparing for armageddon by installing steel doors if they can afford it and boarding up with thick wood if they can’t. We who live here know what is coming whether there is a conviction or not. Nothing short of 1st degree murder conviction and the death penalty will mollify them. As an older white suburbanite, I hope they are content to burn the downtown areas in Mpls and Saint Paul and they don’t look further afield for places to burn, loot and murder.
The people who get their news from headlines can be expected to be misinformed. I’m more worried about the people on social media and other forums that are watching the trial daily and outright refuse to absorb the defense’s arguments. Or admit to not paying attention because Nelson frustrates them. I wonder why…
Any opposition or disagreement with the left orthodoxy is considered illegitimate and hateful.
Of course the prosecution, in any case, SHOULD be seriously ahead at this point,
Steve mcintyre at climate audit . org runs a twitter feed on numerous subjects which are always informative.
the comment that he made was the the effect that one of the methods that covid kills is the build up of fluid in the lungs so that oxygen can not get through the alveoli.
. It occurs when the tiny air sacs (alveoli) within the lung become deflated or possibly filled with alveolar fluid.
In this case the fentanyl overdose caused a huge increase in fluid, which effectively drowned Floyd.
I could not tell from the live commentary whether nelson addressed this on cross
The other question was whether the discussion with Baker can up in cross where the prosecution and baker met (via zoom?) discussed the toxicology report which occurred two or three days after the original autopsy report was issued with the cause of death ‘homicide”
I thought everyone who died WITH Covid is deemed to die OF Covid?
That is correct, except when there is some racial grift to be had.
Dr Baker testified that because CPR was administered on George Floyd he couldn’t tell if the fluid buildup in the lungs was a result of fentanyl intoxication or due to resuscitation attempts.
Rocinante – thanks
Was there any additional testimony regarding the issuance of the death by homicide before the toxicology report, and the subsequent zoom meeting where there was an acknowledgment that it would have been a typical overdose?
He clarified what “homicide” means in medical terms. It simply means the actions of other people were involved in the death, not that they caused the death. If someone dies of heart failure while struggling with police as they attempt to load him into the squad car, that death would be a homicide in medical terms. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what homicide means in the context of this medical report. The stress on his heart from the struggle with police caused his heart to fail–that is a homicide because the actions of others played a role in the death.
Thank you for bringing this up. To put it more simply; “Homicide” means that a person was involved and/or responsible for the death of another person. It does not mean that the “Homicide” was unjust (such as in self defense) and it does not mean that it was murder. To have a Murder you must have a Homicide, not the other way around.
If GF died of a drug overdose, that’s a homicide too, with his dealer on the hook. Which is why he made himself scarce and threatened to “plead the 5th” if forced to testify.
Your homicide thread is important. The similarities here with the Freddie Gray matter Baltimore some years back are many. The similarities don’t just include the principals in the case, they also include the nature, quality, and ‘intent’ of the disgraceful individuals occupying so many positions everywhere in government today. Many commenters have expressed concern for doxxings, outright uprisings, and in NavyMustang’s case, the survival of the nation. regardless of the verdict. It’s hard to disagree.
That’s reasonable doubt, so the jury will use it to convict.
I wonder if Chauvin’’s knee caused floyd’s arterial blockage. .
Could there also be the possibility of Floyd exhibiting the onset and fatal effects of Flash Pulmonary Edema? Foaming at the mouth, extreme mental status changes, and voicing air hunger. Fentanyl, methamphetamines, compromised cardiac function, hypertension, and adrenaline rush are all contributors to FPE and he had all factors leading to his death.
Floyd did have foaming at the mouth. But don’t tell that to the left, because they need racism to have killed Floyd.
Most people who end up on a forensic pathologist’s table have at least some pulmonary edema. Here’s why — and it makes sense if you think about it. The left side of the heart pumps blood from the lungs to the rest of the body. That’s a lot of work, and the muscles on the left side of the heart are bigger and more developed than on the right side of the heart. The right side of the heart just has to pump blood returning from the body up to the lungs. Easy peasy, unless there’s something else going on like pulmonary hypertension. It’s not much work, and the right side of the heart is less muscular. At autopsy, for instance, the left wall thickness tends to run a little over 1 cm while the right wall thickness tends to run around 0.3 cm.
Unless you die a very sudden death, the process of dying means that your heart is becoming less efficient. As you might expect, the left side of the heart, since it’s doing so much more work, tends to fail a little faster than the right side of the heart. That means that the right side is still pumping blood into the lungs while the left side isn’t as efficient at getting blood out of the lungs.
That creates increased pressure in the vasculature of the lungs, which results in leakage of fluid into alveoli, which is pulmonary edema. How much this happens depends on the length of the perimortem period — long it takes to die. So, for instance, in opioid/opiate deaths which often take a bit of time, pulmonary edema is often prominent. In methamphetamine deaths, which are often sudden cardiac deaths, it is often present but patchy and can be absent. CPR makes it worse. But, in general, pulmonary edema in postmortem examinations, unless it is florid, is fairly nonspecific in terms of diagnosis.
As I understand it (albeit from Drive-by-Media sources) there are two autopsies.
One might be telling the truth
I have to disagree with Mr. Jacobson’s second paragraph. There isn’t sufficient evidence, medical or otherwise, to convict Chauvin on any of the charges. The medical “experts” Tobin and Smock, who did not actually do any autopsy and were basically giving their opinions, were contradicted the next day by Baker, who did the autopsy, and the substance expert Thomas. Also, that 9 minute video was deceptively edited and the police cams give fuller context to the actual events that happened that day. If anything, there is sufficient evidence to not convict Chauvin.
However, the jury and the city is being held hostage by the immoral Left and will be under intense and immense pressure to deliver injustice. If the follow through with injustice it does not bode well for our society as a whole.
Mr. Jacobson said “if”.
The prosecution is saying enough words to give cover, but not justification, for a guilty verdict on one or more charges.
Will mr. Branca be doing a video? BTW, Mr Jacobson does an excellent job here summarizing case to date:
“Recognizing this evidentiary problem, the prosecution case has shifted from the initial several trial days of claiming that pressure from the knee to the corotid artery cut off blood flow to the brain causing loss of oxygen and inability to breathe, a claim rejected by the prosecution’s own medical experts, to a broader claim that Floyd being restrained while handcuffed in the prone position with pressure from multiple officers impaired his ability to inhale.
There are very significant evidentiary problems ignored or misrepresented in the mainstream media as to (1) cause of death, (2) whether Chauvin caused the death, (3) whether the force used by Chauvin was unlawful, and for some counts, (4) Chauvin’s intent. People who only read the mainstream media coverage of the case are ignorant of these issues.”
If the prosecution team had to shift their theories, they never had a case to begin with and should never have convicted any of the officers. What a waste of money and time. Hence a weakness in our judiciary system that needed to be addressed. What the heck is a ‘speedy and fair” trial when the defendants lost their livelihood, lifetime savings, reputation, etc., when cases and charges make no sense at all? And they even went to the grand jury with their lack of evidence!!!!
“Shift their theories”? Have they even presented a cohesive theory yet, because I haven’t heard one, other than “Death by Racism”.
Merely an attempt to placate the rioters. Huge F.
Will mr. Branca be doing a video?
possibly 30 years ago but I’m afraid Mr Branca’s Speedo days are a thing of the past
What kind of video are you thinking of? Never mind.
“Cause of Death” is not the same as “Manner of Death”. The concept of “periprocedural” may also be of interest. This may provide some clarity: “Hanzlick 2006: Cause of Death and the Death Certificate” https://www.health.state.mn.us/people/vitalrecords/physician-me/docs/capcodbook.pdf
I have only followed the case here, simply observing the headlines in MSM. The difference is very striking.
IMO, nothing less than the death penalty would satisfy the BLM/anarchists. Obviously that isn’t on the table. At best the prosecution has delivered a an alternate theory for the cause of death than overdose/complications of health. The defense has yet to present its own case.
So even if the jury ignores all the conflicting statements from the prosecutions witnesses and the presentation by the defense due to intimidation and votes to convict the cities will still burn. Just like a City whose team WINS not loses but WINS a sports championship it won’t be enough and some level of scripted mayhem will erupt.
Chauvin was a cop with a not so spotless record, but everything about this case screams “sacrifice him on the altar of the narrative, or you’ll regret it.”
And yes, no matter the outcome there will be riots, because there’s not much difference between anger and jubilation when it comes to people who like to burn things. But if he’s acquitted, expect another year of it.
The mainstream media is irresponsibly inflating expectations among the very people who took a torch to American cities for months. This is a lynching trial. Guilt or innocence is immaterial. Give the mob what it wants, and it will only hurt you a little bit. Withhold what it wants from it, and people will be looking back on the summer of 2020 as the good old days.
WHERE’S FOX NEWS ?
This seems like a perfect case to highlight low media misleads people. There should be a story on this every week. The mainstream media want riots. The Marxists want chaos. The Chinese and Russians want a Balkanized America. (Diversity didn’t work out so well in Yugoslavia).
The media wants click-bait. Nothing generates clicks as much as race-baiting. The media are willing accomplices in the destruction of America.
“Where’s Fox News?”
What is so different about Fox News? They are no longer what everyone thought they were.
Faux News is Drive-by-Media
It virtually always has been. Just with smaller-caliber guns and better music on the loud radio.
In fairness, they once were exactly where everyone thought they were, but then they changed hands.
“changed hands”
I see what you did there.
Fox News is covering the Trial live each day in full with no ads. I have used Fox News an/or The Sun sites each day to watch the Trial in full.
Re Fox News: I’m surprised. Especially since it was given to the Murdoch children to play with.
This trial is radioactive poop. Fox isn’t going to touch it. Chauvin is an unlikeable defendant, and MANY Republicans swallowed the “8 minutes and 46 seconds” narrative. Trey Gowdy even said, based on the video alone, that he would be able to successfully prosecute Chauvin for 1st degree murder. “There’s plenty of time in the space of almost nine minutes to form an intent to kill.”
Republican politicians did the same. Everyone jumped to conclusions, including Fox hosts, guests and contributors. They were tripping over each other to prove they weren’t racists by declaring Chauvin a murderer. It was an election year, after all.
I doubt any of them want to admit now that they over-egged the custard. At the same time, there are members of congress demanding cable providers explain why they carry Fox News. Tucker Carlson is transitioning to subscription-based Fox Nation because even though Tucker Carlson Tonight is the most watched prime time news show in the country, advertisers have become mysteriously allergic to him.
It’s an impossible situation for them.
This should have NEVER been brought to trial. But the inner city justice system in the US is now a political toy and is irrevocably broken.
After a hung jury, the State via the DOJ will apply tremendous pressure on Chauvin to plead to something significant but less than what he is currently
charged with, while dismissing the current charges
Reportedly, Chauvin offered to plead to 3rd Degree Manslaughter at the beginning, but only if the feds agreed to not pursue civil rights charges. The federal AG at the time refused.
sounds like BS put out by the MN AG
Chauvin would rather do a dime in a state lockup than a Fed rap in a Fed prison
yeah, right
Did the video for Day 10 include Nelson’s recross after Blackwell’s redirect? It seemed to stop when the Judge called for a 15 minute break. Very frustrating.
Will Baker be recalled on Monday or is he done?
During every trial when the State goes you are swayed, then the defense comes up and it all changes. For me it is very simple.
Floyd did his drug addict job.
Chauvin did his cop job.
Alpha News reported yesterday the BLM mob outside courthouse blocking traffic. Drivers must honk to show they are down with the cause; otherwise u-turn.
https://alphanewsmn.com/blm-activists-block-traffic-outside-courthouse-force-people-to-honk-were-not-gonna-let-you-through/
A few of them turned into bumper ornaments would stop that nonsense. I am sure, though, that the MPD stepped in and reopened the streets for safe and efficient traffic flow. Didn’t they?
Park Rangers with bullhorns arrived, to shout “Don’t feed the animals!”
And allowed by the hack politician police chief, of course.
I cannot wait for Minneapolis to get even more of what it voted for.
Because of the problems with the blog, I tuned into ABC’s live coverage. They were practically giddy, declaring the trial over. There was no way the defense was going to be able to overcome the expert testimony of Tobin and Isenschmit. The game is over, they assured the listeners.
Media creates a false impression, and that then drives completely unjustified rage. Media needs to be held accountable.
Ok. So I certainly have a belief that an innocent man should not go to jail. I am a huge proponent of law and order. And I have some problems with qualified immunity … that said …
Until the police start acting like servants (many do) and not power hungry Stasi (too many do) they get my limited support.
As for the many good ones, they continue to work in departments where their supervisors (SGTs and LTs) and their CEOs (Chiefs) and their colleagues (DAs and State Attorneys) and their politicians (Mayors and Governors) will simply hang them out to dry. They will prosecute to appease, they will settle for millions of dollars during your jury selection, and they will refuse to allow you to police when the rioting begins.
But let’s be honest. These are the rules of the game and police signed up to play. They keep coming to work knowing their lives and freedoms and money and family are at risk. Yet, they stay and play the game.
I would NEVER be a police officer in a major liberal city NOR stay silent about it to anyone I cared for. Police are playing a rigged game, know they are doing so, so I have little sympathy.
Too harsh?
“Too harsh?”. Maybe not. I grew up in Los Angeles in the days of Chief Parker, and a Sheriff’s Department under Peter Pitchess. Full disclosure: I have never been arrested.
I trust policeabout about as far as I can throw a refrigerator. A college sticker in the back window of your dar was an invitation for a traffic stop. Every “civilian” is – in their eyes – to be watched.
Police used to be there to maintain peace and order. They walked a beat, or in some areas patrolled via car or motorcycle, but, they knew the locals, and who “didn’t belong”. Then, they evolved from peace officers to law enforcement. That is when the “civilian” nonsense got going. Now, we are all suspects. With so many laws on the books, they can bust you for something.
My default stance with police is to be on my guard. They ask me what time it is, I will reply “my watch says…” not “It’s…”. Why? Because if his watch is different, I am “lying to a police officer.” No, that is not an exaggeration.
As for their lack of doing anything: Abby Hoffman had it wrong back in 1968. The police are not pigs. He should have picked “dog”. Dogs are loyal to those who feed them (write the paycheck) and give them a place to live (qualifed immunity). “Sit”, “stay”. The dog will do it. “Stand down!” The policeman does it. “Arrest the person defending their lives and livelihood!” (heels click) yessir!”
Yes. There are good ones. But, how can you tell?
A problem is that the cop can lie to you–is in fact trained to do so. You cannot lie to him.
Everyone should watch James Duane’s “Never talk to the police” about every six months. Duane’s lecture is disturbing enough, but the cop he has on at the end is makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up..
Google it.
It used to be parents told their children, “The policeman is your friend.” Since my generation, many of us told our kids (I have none, I refer to friends and contemporaries), “Say nothing more than ‘I want to talk with my parents, and I want a layeer’ then keep your mouth SHUT!”
A shipmate of mine was given that old routine of, “You don’t need a lawyer if you didn’t do anything wrong.”. His answer was to the effect it is precisely BECAUSE he did nothing wrong he was not saying anything without advice of counsel. Why give them the opportunity to jam you into a perjury trap?
It has reached a point where I don’t think I could serve on a jury because I’d be fairly suure that a) the cop is lying, b) the drugs were planted, c) the weapon is a throw-down, and d) the crime lab works for the same people the cops (and the judge) do.
Funny that you say that, because I do watch that video every few months, and regularly remind my friends to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Unfortunately, I have to agree. As a strong supporter for Law and Order, I would no longer “assist” the police. I am now the guy who will not answer questions nor offer ID unless arrester (not if detained and certainly not if requested). Other than offereing a pleasantry in passing, I cannot be confident in a cop treating me with respect and dignity. Worse is that I have zero faith in the system not to pursue something for political purposes. Disclaimer: I have never been arrested. I am a retired Federal LE Agent. I have broken innumerable non violent crimes.
Before I retired, I did extensive fieldwork in rural areas. Folks all knew one another. After two encounters in restaurants of “who are you what are you doing here let’s see some ID” due to nothing more than an unfamiliar (and distinctive) face and obvious rental car, I did the following. At mealtime, the resturant with the cop car(s) or slick-backs in the parking lot was bypassed in favor of the one that was not. If it was the only one, I’d grab something at the market and zap it in the hotel room microwave. I kept silverware in my kit just for that purpose.
Didn’t The Supremes rule that we must provide ID to the cops when demanded?
As the mother of a Highway Patrolman, I wish people could see the abominable trash police officers have to deal with. I don’t know how one avoids getting jaded.
No doubt. But, whatever the reason, we who are just ordinary people have to deal with the result.
Grizz – re: your remark about dogs – read “The Nazi Seizure of Power” for a grassroots explanation of how the local police, among other Good Germans, were co-opted by, and became enforcers for, the new regime.
Ordinary Men… often referenced by Jordan Peterson.
Police ARE civilians. Some of them forget that.
I agree with Grizz about not trusting policemen. If Floyd were on trial and Chauvin were testifying against him, and I were a juror, I’d start out with a skeptical attitude to Chauvin’s testimony, simply because he’s a cop and cops are notorious for perjury. Of course he could convince me he was telling the truth, but my initial bias would be against him.
But in this case Chauvin is the defendant, which means the evidence has to be interpreted in the light most favorable to him. The fact that he’s a cop doesn’t change that.
As for the general “ACAB” and “BLM” campaign, my problem with it is that the stats just don’t bear it out. Cops simply aren’t gunning for black people. Black people who are not committing crimes (or even ones who are but who don’t resist arrest) are at no more risk of being shot by a policeman than white people are. And the fact that so many black people and their relatives (including, apparently, Senator Scott and Justice Barrrett) seem to believe otherwise is tragic.
A case in point supporting your last paragraph: As far as I know, NONE of Rodney King’s passengers were shot or beaten. Why? Because they did nothing to bring it on.
The University of Washington did a study on this very thing. They put civilians, cops and military personnel through a police training simulator. All three groups were more hesitant to shoot armed black suspects than armed whites or hispanics, and less likely to mistakenly shoot an unarmed black suspect than a white or hispanic one.
Field data also suggests that while cops are more likely to use force on black suspects than on white ones, they are less likely to use lethal force on the black suspect.
Taken alone, the field data could imply a bias against black suspects. If you expect black suspects to routinely present serious resistance, you’re better safe than sorry if you use non-lethal force early in an encounter, perhaps even when its justification is ambiguous or nonexistent. If your perception of white suspects is that they’ll typically be compliant, you might end up surprised and have to (or feel you have to) shoot.
BUT, in conjunction with the UofW study, the implication is that cops know the shooting (justified or otherwise) of a black suspect will be more closely scrutinized, and that this intuition has been internalized by civilians. OR that there is a general social consensus that blacks are a victimized group, deserving of greater sympathy and leeway. Or both.
Either way, the stats do not indicate a bias wherein cops of any race are more likely to use lethal force on black suspects. Just the opposite.
You’re getting into the defund the police argument. And I think it’s a good idea. Police are mostly crime historians. Courts go easy on malum in se (wrong in itself) crime, and are harsh on malum prohibitum (wrong by statute) crime.
Police are controlled by politicians. Most major cities are controlled by proto marxists. This is who runs the police department. That is why in cities like DC they will arrest and prosecute abortion protestors for writing chalk messages on the sidewalk. But they will not even arrest, let alone prosecute, people for violent riots which destroy property (save for one particular event).
Two cases: The “insurrection” of Jan 6. Every person in the vicinity is being charged and prosecuted to the hilt. Those who were far more disruptive at Trump’s Jan 2017 inauguration? Charges dismissed.
Not a fan of defunding per se but I can see the logic in streamlining policing – only funded sufficient to do what is necessary. And what should be necessary is less laws that criminalize behaviour that has no victim.
I understand your hesitation. But, what activities do you think Marxist cities will find necessary? Have you seen any government budgets lately? I’m sure they will find plenty of money for speed enforcement and social justice activities. But they will find little for patrol activities. I think that because it is already how it is.
Cops mostly show up to a crime after the fact. If you live in a state with decent gun laws you can protect yourself. If you don’t live in such a state you can’t protect yourself. But that is true regardless of whether or not you have police.
As to cops showing up after the fact to document crime you don’t need armed men for that. You could have unarmed agents.
I’m quite serious when I say conservatives should embrace defunding the police. They should agree and amplify. They should come up with a thorough plan. It is in their best interest.
You do make a compelling point. Not sure I am buying it yet, but your presentation is insightful and interesting. My biggest hang up is the “Marxist Cities”. I doubt that if they followed your idea (which the will not) that they would reorient policing as you describe. “Corruption = Power + Money” and I don’t see them giving up either power or money if it cannot be leveraged for more Corruption.
Have to reply to my own comment, but this is to MiklRngr.
Yeah I don’t see the cities actually carrying through with defunding. It is just rhetoric. Since the cities themselves are mostly Marxist controlled that isn’t going to change. They need police to enforce their leftist policies.
What needs to happen is at the state and federal level conservatives need to stop promoting the police. They need to stop giving them “weapons of wars” (equipment etc). They need to stop pushing money down to local police. And they need to end civil forfeiture which is atrocious.
I watched NYC police become hollowed-out report writers during the Lindsay era, which continued for years until Britton under Dinkins but especially Giuliani instituted broken-window policing. Those who commit small crimes include those who commit large crimes. Now DeBlasio and the crazy-prog city council and state legislators have abandoned the streets to the thugs. I’m happy to be thousands of miles away from that now, although I can drive to SF for the same experience.
Too many conservatives still buy into the law and order trope.
When police were peace officers I’d have agreed.
Now, they generate revenue, run interference for government pets, and make sure the drunken son or high daughter of the town “pillars of the community ” get home safe and sound while you or I get.stopped for the ever-popular broken tail light.
Or, sitting at the side of the road scanning license plates. They’d serve us better by being on a beat and knowing the people they are alleged to serve. But, that would require getting out of their car.
I would only point out that you’re painting with a broad-brush. I live in a suburban township. Our cops are great. Even though our governor issued a mask-mandate, our police chief said, ‘Nope,, we’re not enforcing that crap.’ Our county sheriffs are also great. But, if you head into our urban area with city cops, it’s Bizarro-world where law-abiding citizens are brow-beaten and crooks are coddled.
I agree about city cops, though my experience with them was about 50 years ago. I had a friend, black, who was being harassed by a local prosecutor and city mayor to drive black support for their reelection.
They caught him in an after hours joint, then indicted him, claiming it was his operation. It was not and he was not convicted.
It is a complex story, but the bottom line was he decided to take over gambling, followed by drugs. He cut off all bribes and then fought in court. Wrong choices, in the end he spent a very long time in jail.
I worked with police and prosecutors for over a decade, fighting a specific kind of fraud. That work included major economic crime investigations with state and federal prosecutors, FBI and FTC.
That mostly end after 9-11, in that there was much less interest after that.
I directed a group of people which varied from a few dozen to nearly two hundred, who gathered evidence, and we supplied compressive data about specific people and companies on request to law enforcement.
All my experiences with those people were good.
At the local level, I have occasionally come in contact with a crabby cop, but I keep in mind that they have bad days, and I always treat them with respect. I have never had an interaction go bad.
Julie DiCaro, an editor for Deadspin, said after the Boulder shooting that she was “extremely tired of people’s live depending on whether a white man with an AR-15 is having a good day or not.”
My equivalent feelings about cops should be just as valid.
(In fact, even more so, since the Boulder shooter turned out not to be a white man, but for the purposes of this comparison, I’ll just stipulate it.)
In this case, there is no doubt that Derek Chauvin was completely within the bounds, that his actions were reasonable and that this is another BS black campaign to carve out special treatment.
Floyd was a low life and he died as a direct result of his own actions.
This shit has to stop.
Defunding the police is a bad idea because no matter how bad the police are, they do the basic job of keeping ordinary non-political crime lower than it would otherwise be. Without them we’d all be murdered in our beds, or robbed on the streets. We depend on the police for basic safety, so we have to support them no matter how much we criticize them at the same time.
Rabbi Hanina the Deputy High Priest lived in the 1st century CE, under Roman rule, compared to which every US police force looks like a paragon of civil liberties. He ended up dying as one of the Ten Martyrs. And yet he said “Pray for the kingdom’s welfare, for if not for their fear of it people would swallow each other alive”. The Romans kept the peace. They stopped people from being murdered and robbed by random criminals. And that was more important than the fact that they murdered and robbed people, including, ultimately, him. On the balance, he said, people are safer with them than without them, so we must pray for them.
There isn’t a cop sitting outside my house every night. The reason I don’t get murdered in my sleep has almost nothing to do with police. Police mostly show up after a crime has occurred.
I said defund the police. I didn’t say get rid of sheriffs (but maybe that is a good idea too). Counties at least tend to be less marxist compared to cities.
People can always hire their own security. In fact that is exactly what they do when they have a real security issue. No one with options simply relies on the police.
Bring back private prosecutions. Part of the problem now is the whole incestuous relationship between politicians, courts, prosecutors, and police.
The reason you don’t get murdered in your sleep is because of the police; the criminals are afraid of being caught. Without that fear they would do whatever they liked. That fear doesn’t depend on having a car parked outside every house; it depends on their general record of arresting criminals. When, as in Baltimore or Minneapolis, they stop doing their job, criminals become bolder.
What’s a sheriff? As far as I know they repossess property and evict tenants, and have no role in law enforcement. Maybe it’s different where you live.
Hiring your own security?! What are you, rich?! Most people can’t afford that. The police are our security.
Private prosecutions, like in the 18th century?! That’s your solution?! The problem isn’t prosecuting criminals, it’s catching them in the first place.
To add to this, criminals also fear armed potential victims. Funny how we don’t see antifa and BLM rioting in states with strong #2a laws. There’s a reason they want to disarm law-abiding Americans, and it has nothing to do with “gun violence” since law-abiding gun-owners do not engage in criminal activity (until the left makes us all criminals for simply owning a gun).
Crimes involving guns typically occur in blue states and cities that disarm or cripple its law-abiding citizens. The stricter the gun control, in other words, the vaster the playing field for criminals who are . . . freaking criminals and don’t abide by any laws, let alone gun control laws.
But as we all know, criminals are not the target of gun restrictions, we are. We need to be impotent in the face of the leftist black bloc and BLM enforcement arm because as it stands, when they try to wreak their burning, looting, and murdering havoc outside leftist-run urban enclaves, they get their asses handed to them and are run out of town. (the vids of this are numerous and heartening)
“Until the police start acting like servants (many do) and not power hungry Stasi (too many do) they get my limited support.”
Precisely.
For a while I taught at a college that had a Criminal Justice program. People that wanted to be cops. I became good friends with the head of that department. He and I agreed that most/nearly all of the CJ students had no business with a gun and a badge. Not that they were psychos, likely mass murderers, etc. Just that they had no business with the mostly unrestrained power that goes with that gun and badge. Truck drivers, carpenters, mechanics–even school teachers–fine. But not cops.
He had a long history in law enforcement. He said the vast majority of those we were uncomfortable with would never see police academy. They would be screened out in the recruiting process. But–some were going to get through.
The number one thing that police should be taught is Constitutional Law with the strongest emphasis on the Bill of Rights. Too many police feel entitled to subservience to their own personal whims. How many videos do we see on 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment audits do we see where The officers have no clue about law or the department policy. Far too many applicants are getting thru the academies and they are poorly trained to boot. We have too many laws (most are unnecessary) and coddle criminals (making violence more likely) creating a high risk occupation involving too many tasks. Less laws, less coddling, less police but greater quality. There … all solved!
I have never been arrested, nor have I broken any laws other than a single minor traffic infraction. I also worked in a major cop shop for nearly 9 years. And I do not trust the police. As the mother of an officer says elsewhere here, the police deal with the scum of the earth – no doubt and it’s one reason I’d cite whenever anyone asked me why didn’t I apply for the work and get a commission. I have no patience with such people and don’t want them in my life in any capacity. Work sucks badly enough without those types being involved.
That said, here is something I wrote a few years ago about the subject of policing’s departure from it’s original goals and methods:
I believe this antagonism [between police and communities] derives from two major sources. The first is HOW police patrol neighborhoods. Many decades ago, cops patrolled on foot. The cops knew the people on the beat and the people knew the cops. Walking the beat allowed cops and communities to form social bonds and to develop mutual trust and respect. Patrolling by car has largely eliminated this process, alienating the police from the public, and vice versa.
The second source of the antagonism has its roots in the ultra-violent streets of the 1980s, when the drug wars (and the War on Drugs) started. At that time, police training and indoctrination had a major shift. Originally, most cops were dedicated to serving and protecting (still the motto of some PDs, most noticeably L.A.’s). But today they are indoctrinated in the belief that their primary objective is to go home safe to their families at the ends of their shifts. This mindset makes of the public deadly enemies of the police and the police engage the public as if at war. There is now no longer the building of trust and respect between police and community; instead there is a positive roadblock (police indoctrination) to those (now abandoned) goals.
Where are the government officials warning that any “peaceful protest” that becomes violent will be met with the same actions that followed the June 6th protests?
That is the National Guard will be deployed and people will be arrested and prosecuted.
How about a more direct approach? “Looters and arsonists will be shot on sight.” Then, follow through.
Last summer, with rampant rioting, looting and burning in the blue cities, I commented a few times that the solution was to shoot a few of the rioters — but only white ones. That might stop the riot in progress, and nobody could claim that it was discrimination against blacks.
That is giving the blackz yet another free pass.
Track the light of the molotov, and what is going to show up in your reticle is a pair of eyes in an otherwise completely black “militarized’ chador. And chances are extremely high that when you peel back that chador rind, the meat inside will be white. BLM may loot, but it is almost always Antifa who riots and burns.
I am fine with shooting rioters, regardless of race. It would be especially poetic to shoot those lighting a Molotov.
I read about a black man picking a lit Molotov that did not break, then throwing it such that he spilled burning gas on his own head and body, Another example of gross stupidity.
June 6? The government is not going to put out any warnings because protests will be primarily by Blacks and Blacks are privileged.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the national guard were called out Monday by Minnesota’s Tyrant. Wonder why it would be no surprise ; )
When the riots and looting do break out, the Harris administration will invoke the insurrection act. What happens after that is anyone’s guess. I believe it could be what takes the present cold civil war and turns it hot.
While any verdict is possible, I think both murder charges should be not-guilty based on the evidence, if I understand the elements that must be met. 2nd degree requires intent to commit felony assault. I don’t see how anyone can think Chauvin ‘intended’ to cause bodily harm to Floyd.
3rd degree murder really doesn’t fit the crime and is embroiled in its own legal matter on whether it is even an allowed charge. Also requires a ‘depraved’ mind. Just don’t see it.
Manslaughter is likely to stick I am afraid, not because the evidence supports it, but rather the jury will want to find Chauvin guilty of something and we have indeed had experts present evidence to support it if you believe them, which I don’t. Mind you, manslaughter still needs you to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Chauvin’s actions that killed Floyd.
For me, there are two giant hurdles the procecution just has not met to prove Chauvin is responsible. One is the 11 ng/ml of Fentanyl in George’s system. While that is not a guaranteed death sentence by any means, it is certainly an amount that often kills people. There was nothing found in the autopsy the counters a drug overdose conclusion. Instead the prosecution witnesses dismiss Fentynal based on spurious claims that his respiration was ‘normal’ and he didn’t enter a coma. But they claim this without factoring in all the other elements that could alter that.
The second, and perhaps even higher hurdle, is that while they say Floyd died solely from the restraint of the officers, Floyd cried out 7 times that he couldn’t breathe before he was on the ground! This is huge and they have not explained this away. Either Floyd was already suffering a medical problem restricting his breathing, which destroys the prosecutions case, or Floyd was lying to the officer’s. If he was lying, it seems unjust to expect the officers to suddenly realize that while on the ground George’s cries about not being able to breathe are true. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind.
So, that’s where I am at right now, but let’s not forget the defense hasn’t had their turn yet. Hopefully there own experts will have an impact on the jury.
I think the fentanyl testimony comparing levels of fentanyl in dead folks and DUI cases was interesting though not compelling. It certainly shows that 11ng is not necessarily 3+ times a lethal dose. Since I am not a trial lawyer I am unsure why Nelson did not tear this apart in cross. Something like “all people are different but 3ng has certainly been lethal for some.” “Which of these who died with 11ng or less died without any other reported impacts like extreme physical exertion or heart problems or arterial blockages?” Stuff like that. I came away from that testimony that you can live with 50ng of F in your system. .
I think that you have hit on the key point. The problem is the bias/impartiality of the jury. Each juror knows that a “not guilty” vote on any charge, but especially all charges, will result in personal jeopardy to each juror. There is no way that jurors voting not guilty will not be outed.
American justice is supposed to require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Medical testimony is that 3ng/ml is fatal at least in some cases. Ordinarily–that would pretty much be it. Prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the 11ng/ml present DIDN”T kill him. Chauvin did something to kill him.
In this case, the defense has to prove that it DID–because the jurors require overwhelming evidence of his not being guilty–as opposed to the standard of his being not guilty unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t know Chauvin, but I find his general demeanor very off-putting. But, being a jerk is not a crime. I think this case is the flip of the OJ case.
I followed Branca’s discussion of the individual jurors. I am not accusing any individual. Just that a not guilty vote requires a vast more courage than a guilty vote. That isn’t how it is supposed to be in the USA.
Jury tampering is the crime of unduly attempting to influence the composition and/or decisions of a jury during the course of a trial. It would seem that BLM and The Media are guilty.
“Just that a not guilty vote requires a vast more courage than a guilty vote. That isn’t how it is supposed to be in the USA.”
This is a huge problem, total subversion of justice on both side, where criminals are supposed to get special treatment if they are black, and the rest of society gets lynched if they are anything other than black.
Can the failure to render aid fit the second degree manslaughter? I don’t think the fear of the crowd excuse works at all. It seems to me Chauvin was stubbornly showing he wouldn’t take directions from Floyd’s hypeman. Let’s face it, we all wish he had tried CPR. They will want to convict him for that reckless negligence, I think.
the officers called ems right after floyd injured his face and left blood in the squad car, low priority call, they called back in and raised the priority of the call when was unresponsive. the key question now becomes, should have an officer uncuffed him and started cpr prior to the squad arriving. if i recall correctly, his last cpr certification presented to the jury vis mpd records was over two years ago.
based on the photo and video, how aware were the officers that he had stopped breathing completely or just passed out from the activity
You may well be correct that the jury will “split the baby” and pick the middle road of manslaughter. But that psychology doesn’t always hold—it’s what the prosecutors in Florida v. Zimmerman bet on, and they came up empty.
In the same vein, I’ve seen a lot of people comment that the racial composition of the jury—far more black than Hennepin County as a whole—will hurt Chauvin. Again, not sure about that.
First, Minneapolis is a very liberal city, one in which blacks may actually be more conservative on many issues than whites—drug use, for example.
Second, interracial psychology—particularly on a case that has (despite zero evidence of racial motive) been made to appear all about “racism”—is complicated. I can imagine that white liberals might be eager to show their black fellow jurors how sympathetic they are and insist on tossing Chauvin to the lions. I can also imagine that black jurors, in white company, might want to resist the stereotype that they’re an OJ-type jury who are “rooting for the home team”. And having more black jurors greatly increases the odds that some will have differing views—making it unclear to liberal whites which view best represents their “allyship”. Imagine one black juror passionately decrying the lawlessness and drug-related crime that has blighted their neighborhood—and insisting that Floyd had agency and free will but, through no fault of the police, made the wrong choices all the way up to the moment of his death.
Just my two cents.
I agree.
I have compared this to Zimmerman also. I thought Zimmerman would be hung and I was pleased when the not-guilty verdict came. Zimmerman seems a long time ago though, and while that was a political trial also, tensions have gotten so much worse since then. Here is hoping you are right and that Nelson presents a good enough case to sway the jury.
The Zimmerman case was only the start of bLM, stemming from J4t.
bLM is now effectively the law of the land.
“dismiss Fentynal based on spurious claims that his respiration was ‘normal’ and he didn’t enter a coma.”
He was tripping on meth when the police arrived, then (IMO) took all the fentanyl that was about to be found on him (or on his dealer, who was in the car with him). Meth causes hyperventilation, spasms, agitation and a rapid heartbeat. “I can’t breathe” might be entirely genuine in the context of what he was experiencing early in the encounter. Ask anyone who’s experienced a panic attack. You can breathe, but you feel like you can’t breathe enough.
Fentanyl causes the exact opposite of meth. It’s entirely possible that the meth prevented the fentanyl from doing what it does, until it flooded his system and then BAM.
No coma. No preamble. Not even blue fingernails or lips. Just very sudden cessation of breathing and an already weak heart that isn’t beating anymore. It’s possible that the stress of being arrested aggravated the effects of the two drugs, and put strain on his heart.
But you can’t expect the cops to know about his weak heart, and they did not know he had taken fentanyl. He was behaving almost the entire time as if he was tripping on meth. Even if they’d had naloxone on them, how would they have known to use it?
Floyd’s dealer has reportedly said he will not take the stand, and if he’s forced to, he’ll plead the fifth across the board. How much you want to bet he talked his customer into eating the evidence?
I think the defense still has work to do to make the case that the drugs were the main cause of death and that the restraint did not play a substantial role. Nelson keeps hitting on the idea Floyd was “hooping,” using drugs rectally, but that also could mean he had been playing basketball, which GF could have used to explain the foam. Unless he has more evidence of that–which he hasn’t shown, that seems a stretch for the jury to buy if the prosecution can show GF was playing basketball or that “hoopin” means basketball. I would think Nelson is smart enough to know hoopin could be basketball, so why is he doing this?
MSM said the jury will not buy the angry crowd theory. It is true the paramedics also delayed CPR due to the angry crowd, but due to the emotional testimony, the jury could still not accept that the officers did not do CPR or administer Narcan (which Nelson also has to explain) To me that is not manslaughter, but might be to the jury.
So I think it is still an uphill battle for the defense to bring in more “reasonable officer” testimony and evidence of drug overdose as cause of death.
They don’t have to prove that drugs were the main cause of death. The state has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Chauvin murdered Floyd – period.
Is the jury going to believe that a man suffering from pulmonary edema and COVID spent time that day playing basketball?
I don’t think he was actually playing basketball, but I do think that is what Floyd was referring to. Why would the guy admit to taking drugs anally when he was denying taking drugs. I agree with Samantha, he was just using basketball as an excuse for this foam around his mouth.
the state hasn’t brought anyone who knew what floyd was doing that day before he went to cup foods, until the state can produce a witness who was with floyd that day and testifies that floyd was indeed playing basketball, nelson can still float that method of drug use as a possible explaination. I have no idea if their any type of residual effects to the area after trying that method, it appears as of the ME did not do that as part of the autopsy report.
Basketball is is “shootin’ hoops”, or “playing hoops”, not “hoopin’”.
Hooping does not mean basketball in this case.
In fact, the transcript of the words spoken during the arrest shows that Floyd said he had been hoopin’ earlier in the day. On the street, hoopin’ refers to a viscerally disgusting manner of taking drugs. Floyd’s statement should be introduced as evidence by the defense – as an “admission against interest.”
It doesn’t matter what floyd SAID, ever. His rabid-dog foaming face and fluid-filled lungs tell us he had trouble breathing, and his blood tells us he ate too many drugs, or shoved them up his rectum.
This article and its points are exactly how I found this website. I have been listening to the trial daily and see a lot of what I felt was poor performance on the part of the State. I literally googled “Chauvin Prosecution doing a bad job” and this site came up. I simply could not believe what the media was saying based on what I was hearing and putting myself in the place of a juror. I have appreciated the no BS analysis from this website and have started shutting of MSM during trial breaks because it was all seriously a bunch of fluff and pandering (even from my local fox news affiliate). I realize the large majority of America will not do their due diligence in seeking out the truth and that frankly is going to be a problem.
Lack of due diligence by Jane & Joe Doe is is a big problem.
There are scraps of sanity out there, but truckloads of groupthink frenzy.
For a frightening overview of what majority America is saying & thinking
about the trial, visit:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ChauvinTrial?src=hashtag_click
Speaking of BS. My only time actually serving on a jury was eye-opening. Contrary to what I thought I’d find (disinterested, lazy people without critical thinking skills), I found the other jurors to be engrossed in the proceedings, attentive, and serious about the work they were there to do. And I think most of them had fully-operational BS detectors. I don’t doubt that those detectors have been going off for some of the Chauvin jurors during the past week.
Under normal conditions, the outcome of a trial would depend on evidence but in this case we have a BLACK man who has been lauded as a national hero who died after being restrained by police, and whose death sparked national outrage. I emphasize BLACK because his death was seized by a corrupt BLACK activist/attorney who makes millions suing over black deaths and an army of BLACK activists led by the notorious “the Reverend” Al Sharpton, a black Pentacostal turned Baptist, who led the effort to convict Bernard Goetz in the court of political opinion then managed to get a judgement against him. Trayvon Martin’s death was fodder for the Marxists who started Black Lives Matter, a corrupt organization based on lies, as is most “black history” and everything else that has come out of so-called “African-American studies” since the field was established at Berkley in the mid-1960s and set off a wave of false teaching in American – and the world – academies. In short, even though he’s innocent, Derek Chauvin is going to be convicted, jailed and the key thrown away – and blacks are going to celebrate by rioting.
They will turn Floyd into another Emmett Till. Drug addict and criminal becomes national hero for dying in custody. Till, the story varies, but he was NOT lynched for “whistling at a white woman”. But, he features prominently in history just the same,
Exactly what Till did, or at least what his murderers believed he had done, is not clear; but even the worst version would not have justified more than a beating.
I have followed the trial pretty closely. Based on what I have seen to date, Derek Chauvin contributed to George Floyd’s death. After listening to much of the evidence from key witnesses, I do not know whether Derek Chauvin’s actions amounted to any criminal acts. ME Baker’s testimony seemed to leave open the clear possibility that George Floyd’s pre-existing medical conditions were significant contributors to his death. I am going to wait until the Prosecution’s case ends and the Defense has its turn before being more specific.
I appreciate Andrew Branca’s and Prof. Jacobson’s summaries and pointers.
I remain stunned and worried about the rush to judgement by so many and the lack of leadership from our political leaders around the importance of letting the judicial process work.
Oh, if we’re going to go for ‘contributed to GF’s death’ then you’ll need a much larger trial. The hostile crowd around the officers interfered with the arrest, gave the police good cause to think an angry mob was forming, slowed the ambulance response, kept the ambulance crew from administering aid until they had left the scene to a safe distance, etc… The other people in the car contributed through their actions, from selling GF the drugs to start with and not informing the police of his recent history of overdosing, etc… Then we have GF himself, who contributed to his own OD by taking a massive slug of drugs.
The meter started running the moment GF ate his stash.
Do you think Floyd’s breathing related problems began before Chauvin’s knee? It seems impossible to blame Chauvin’s questionable actions for something that occurred prior to him acting. His lack of actions after Floyd died will likely be hard to excuse to the jury’s satisfaction.
I don’t know too many trial lawyers, but one senior partner at a top Boston firm told me that with jury trials, if you think you have an iron clad case you will lose 30% of the time. Similarly, if you have a no win case, you still have a 30% chance of winning. In short, juries are unpredictable.
Juries are not just unpredictable, they don’t have to justify their decisions. They can convict an innocent man believing he’s innocent, or acquit a guilty one believing he’s guilty, and unless the judge or trial lawyers engaged in misconduct or made a mistake in law, there’s not a lot of room for appeal.
It’s why Jian Ghomeshi (you can google him) opted against a jury trial. 95% of Canadian media was reporting on his case in the exact same way Chauvin’s has been covered. Ghomeshi had evidence impeaching all three complaining witnesses on key details of their testimony that a jury would have been allowed to ignore without having to justify it.
A judge can’t get away with that. A judge has to explain how he came to his decision, and it had better be reasonable if he doesn’t want it overturned.
It’s 100% verified on audio/video that GF complained he was unable to breathe multiple times before he was ever proned out on the street.
So an unequivocal yes to your question.
The comparison of Trayvon Martin’s case to this one is interesting. The talking heads argued that George Zimmerman lost his right to protect his life because he didn’t obey the suggestions of a police dispatcher on the phone not to tail Mr. Martin.
The talking heads in this case are arguing that Mr. Floyd shouldn’t have been restrained when not obeying the lawful orders of a police officer engaged in his duty.
It is different, don’t you know?
Yes, and it wasn’t even true that Zimmerman disobeyed the dispatcher. She didn’t have authority to give him an order, “we don’t need you to do that” is not an order, and the 9-1-1 recording did not support the MSM’s assertion that he had ignored what she did say.
Dispatch was a man, not a woman. I think his preferred pronoun is “he”.
He did obey. He was walking back to his car when Trayvon and his Skittles jumped him.
I made the mistakes of listening to the commentary on the Washington
Post feed during a break. What I heard was astounding. The Soviet’s would be jealous to have so obsequious a media.
Based on the trial so far there is no evidence to support a finding of guilt on any charge beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought that the testimony of Dr. Tobin was the best for the state. He supplied a theory that explained how the officers are solely responsible for Floyd’s death.
But, Dr. Tobin’s testimony was also ridiculous. He had a model to determine how much force and where it was applied. But this is an invented, ad hoc model that has never been applied anywhere else. It is untested and untestable. Tobin said that the drug’s Floyd had in him and his health problems played no role in Floyd’s death. I find this incredible. Tobin’s confidence may be compelling to some. Or he may come off as a pompous academic.
I wished Nelson had found a way to better lessen the impact of that testimony. But, it was a difficult situation. It is hard to show up an academic who is completely self-assured and will invent anything to bolster his position.
I found the testimony of the medical examiners to be very interesting. The key was Nelson asking if they found Floyd dead in other circumstances, but with the same drug or health conditions, would they assign his death to the drugs or health conditions. The answer was yes. This shows that the assigning of death in Floyd’s case is not something clear cut at all. That to me is the place where reasonable doubt is unquestionably found.
you counter tobin will someone else with a similar backhround who can negates tobin’s theory
Chauvin had two knees, so each knee bore half his weight, right?
No. Elementary physics says that the sum of the forces on both legs equals your weight, and your center of gravity cannot be outside any of your supports, but can be completely over one. weight distribution is entirely arbitrary — I can easily kneel on the floor with both knees, one on a scale, and make the scale show any reading up to my weight. The prosecution has photos of Chauvin with his other leg entirely raised off the ground (very temporarily) and has been using them to good effect.
The prosecution’s medical experts did their studies, made their models, and came to their conclusions based on the presumed fact that Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck. The prosecution seems to have abandoned that theory, making the testimony of their own medical witnesses obsolete and irrelevant.
the toxicology report seems to be an item that can be agreed upon by all the “medical experts”–evidently the results of the report are not in dispute–why then not ask one of the “medical experts” how over 3X the lethal dose of fentanyl was present in floyd’s blood samples? isn’t that a textbook example of an overdose?–and, importantly, how did it get there? and, because of the overdose(unknown at the time), chauvin et al are now supposed to be practicing emergency medicine along with enforcing the law?
floyd killed himself
I am not a lawyer, but have read the proposed jury instructions from state and from defense. I don’t think murder 2, 3 are likely to stick. As to manslaughter… I think there’s plenty of argument to be had regarding the “superseding cause” thing. Ambulance took longer to get to Cup Foods than expected while officers had Mr. Floyd restrained. Ambulance moved three blocks away before beginning to work in earnest on resuscitating Mr. Floyd. Fire dept wasted 10 minutes+ of time in failing to meet up with the ambulance at their new location before progressing to hospital (which ordinarily should have been a 5 minute trip).
It’s going to be tough to get past the image of officers restraining an unconscious man for multiple minutes (regardless of the fact that we’ve ALREADY heard testimony about renewed violence when consciousness regained and the need to be prepared for such eventualities), but perhaps possible.
And this is all working on the presumption that jurors are willing to hear evidence in good faith and grant their own presumption of innocence to officers. I don’t think that discussion of possible externalities makes for a terribly interesting conversation.
If he’s convicted, it’s going to have catastrophic consequences going forward for policing.
This has been an ongoing issue and even the worst cops are not stupid. Yet (with very few notable exceptions), they keep on coming to work in these leftist cities where they know they will be sacrificed on the alter of social justice.
Chauvin being convicted will have no impact on policing. That is why the supervisors and managers and his own Chief of Police threw him under the bus.
THIS.
“The jurors also know that the city and much of the nation will explode if there is a ‘not guilty’ verdict, and that they will be doxxed and their lives ruined.”
I think, on the whole, from an evidentiary standpoint, for now, the facts favor Chauvin.
I am also convinced that he doesn’t get an acquittal on Murder 2, although it does seem like the state covered all bases to the point of double jeopardy. If that count is rendered as a not guilty verdict, last summer will look like Junior League stuff, and the jury knows it. Does lead to a question, though. If found not guilty of Murder 2 but found guilty of Murder 3, what becomes of the manslaughter charge?
Chauvin needs a detailed account of the complexity of the situation and how it reasonably guided his decisions moment by moment. Giant, strong, intoxicated, hysterical resisting detainee in the middle of a busy street in a bad neighborhood as night fell and an angry crowd gathered on a partying holiday weekend. If the cops stand up and Floyd resumes fighting? If angry MMA guy rushes them and takes a swing? If they take off the cuffs in a busy street? Any action other than “hold for EMS” brings in huge new risks. That’s the use of force question.
On the causation question, the coroner says the stress of the situation killed Floyd’s drugged, damaged, diseased heart, not Chauvin’s knee. Prosecutors must establish the unlawful period of restraint with the knee as the cause of death. They can’t do this. Baker’s 302 makes this clear. https://knowledgeisgood.net/2021/03/02/countdown-to-a-lynching/
Except for Baker, the State’s medical witnesses have been pretty damning in terms of cause of death, especially Tobin. It may be difficult for defense to counter. However, the defense has to emphasize that what really matters under the law is how Chauvin was trained and what his knowledge and experience was, not what armchair medical experts know or think they know with 20/20 hindsight and alleged expertise. And the State’s witnesses regarding police training were DEVASTATED by Nelson. And Nelson will continue to devastate the State’s claims about police training with the defense case. Tobin and others may make a good case for changing police training, but they shouldn’t make a good case of Chauvin’s guilt. It’s Nelson’s job to drive these points home and prick the conscience of any jurors inclined to convict.
I’m concerned about the two high level prosecution witnesses who apparently refused to be paid. Is this normal? Why the piling-on?
I think Chauvin was simply waiting for EMS, which took too long. And why wouldn’t you continue to “hold” a giant person (6’4”, 230 lbs per autopsy) who was on drugs and had been fighting cops? He was a dangerous person, that’s all.
there are 4 or 5 HPD booking sheets on GF that can be found online
all of them have him at 6′ 6″
the ME can’t even read a tape measure
seems about right
I simply can’t look past Mercil’s testimony which pretty much said “hold for EMS is acceptable”
I knew I had seen that hair before.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg0.etsystatic.com%2F005%2F0%2F5290753%2Fil_fullxfull.390501712_hbam.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
I think there is a knowledge and intent problem with the state’s case, even with the expert medical testimony as to cause of death. The state still needs to show that Chauvin knew of the heart problem and used that knowledge to intentionally cause death, which it has not done. This would be a better civil negligence case, but not a murder case.
Sadly the Democrats Propaganda Ministry gets to make the narrative, and they know what they are doing.
People have to view this trial as what it is, a justification to use racism and BLM as thugs for wholly political purposes. It serves no other purpose. Once you realize that, the legal maneuvers are simply for show.
This is being driven by outside forces, not the criminal justice system. For justice to prevail, the defense has to convince nine people that Chauvin was not responsible for Floyd’s death and obtain an acquittal. As the decision making process is being tainted and driven by the application of fear, from outside sources, this will be impossible. The best can be hoped for, short of a miracle, is a hung jury. And, there a very strong traditions of allowing jury verdicts to stand, without strong evidence of direct illegal influence of a juror.
For that reason, I still believe that it would have been a better strategic move to request a bench trial. After all, it is always easier to hide one’s actions in a crowd. Standing alone, facing the forces of history, it is harder to improperly influence a person.
As to the trial itself, there has never been sufficient evidence that Chauvin’s actions caused the death of Floyd or that they were in any way illegal or improper.. Technically, the evidenciary portion of the trial never existed.
But, the purpose of the trial still exists, regardless of the verdict. It is to justify the violence done in Floyd’s name. It is almost impossible, given the climate that Chauvin will be acquitted. He is most likely to end up with a hung jury. This can be spun as not exonerating Chauvin and further evidence that systemic racism exists. A conviction, even without sufficient evidenciary grounds, will be used the same way. This was never about Chauvin or justice for Floyd and all about advancing an an anti-American agenda.
Nine?! An acquittal takes twelve.
This trial is sad to watch. It’s nothing more than a political appeasement to people who want anarchy.
I am really surprised that Chauvin only has Nelson to represent him. Yes, there appears to be two other lawyers present, but it’s Nelson doing the heavy lifting.
Since the knee on the back and neck was department policy at the time, this case should never have been brought.
That said, Nelson has done a commendable job so far. Not perfect, but we’re all speaking from the advantage of hindsight. Legally, (I’m not a lawyer, I just play one in my mind), I think Nelson has introduced enough doubt for an acquittal, but I think the jury will cave to pressure and find him guilty of 3rd degree homicide. Frankly, I think the best he can hope for is a hung jury.
Nelson is indeed the only defense lawyer speaking in court; I have read that the woman seated behind him taking notes is also a lawyer, but only recently admitted to practice, so little experience. The man seated to Nelson’s side across the plexiglass is the defendant.
I agree Nelson is doing a good job, as his cross examinations are focused, using brief “tyes/no” questions, and a friendly non-histrionic demeanor. He has also made clear that, while the defense does not have the burden to prove anything, there is a lot of reasonable doubt around (1) whether the force used was in fact lawful and (2) whether the drugs and health comorbidities were the cause of death rather than any actions of the defendant. Still, the actions of the defendant need only be a contributing factor for at least one of the lesser charges to lead to a conviction.
I read that Nelson has a team of 6 or 12 lawyers but they are in a support room. My guess would be to protect their identities.
I wonder why the jury is not worried about being doxxed, and half of the country burning down if they convict an innocent man?
If we are not a nation of laws, but a mob ruled country – why is it only one side understands this?!
Love this website. I think Nelson is a young “Columbo” on cross….big contrast to the high profile prosecution. Clearly GF death was multi factorial: over exertion, heart disease, fentanyl and/while in restraints. Honestly Nelson proved that the crowd was a big distraction to police. The crowd was very threatening and diverted the attention of police at the same moment Floyd went into medical distress. None of the charges against Chauvin are a proper remedy for this. We are humans and make errors.
His advantage is that he’s likable. Prosecution? Not so much. I can’t even watch the female attorney when she’s on.
I’m not the smartest doctor out there, but it is clear to me that the prosecution is saying GF died of hypoxia, i.e., his blood did deliver enough oxygen to his tissue to support life. I think the defense should approach it in this way.
1) Hypoxia can occur at any chain of respiration. a) The lungs cannot move because the chest wall is impeded either mechanically or neurologically. b) The lungs can move, but air is blocked from going through the mouth to the trachea to the bronchi to the bronchioles to the alveoli. c) The air gets to the lungs, but it cannot be absorbed into the blood stream because of edema (fluid standing between the air sac and the blood vessel. d) The blood is unable to deliver the oxygen to the tissue because of anemia or carbon monoxide poisoning (not a concern in this trial).
2) Defense should point out that the prosecution has suggested a) and b), but has not addressed c).
3) For a), DC’s weight would have to have been on GF’s thorax and would have had to been sufficient to keep GF’s chest wall from moving. Is this what the prosecution is suggesting? Then the knee on the neck is evidence against this. Also, DC’s weight is low enough to make this unlikely. Also against a) being the cause of hypoxia is the fact that GF was talking and he was complaining of respiratory distress before DC got on top of him. I would have expected gasping sentences when DC was on top of him worse than before as well.
4a) For b) to have been the mechanism of asphyxia, one would have expected to see damage to the trachea. The trachea is a semi-rigid structure that does not collapse easily. If someone chokes from upper airway causes, it is almost always from a foreign body being lodged in the upper airway, not upper airway collapse. When a person is “choked” and dies, they are killed by strangulation which is collapsing the jugulars so that blood cannot flow out of the head and thus oxygenated blood cannot flow into the head. Strangulation is not suggested except by blood choke guy, and there is no pathologic finding consistent with this as a cause of death. So if DC’s knee impeded air from going through GF’s upper airway, the knee would have had to be placed on the neck in a way that caused the trachea/larynx to collapse which would have been seen on autopsy.
4b) The alveoli could have been filled with fluid and protein so the air could not have gotten to the final stop before being transferred to the blood. COVID could have caused this. Maybe fentanyl or CPR could have caused this, but I’m not sure the mechanism. Like I said, I’m not the smartest doctor. Anyway, DC didn’t cause this. The pathologist should be asked if there was fluid in the alveoli or in the interstitial space between the alveoli and the capillaries.
5) The other cause of hypoxia would have been that there was an oxygen transfer problem in the lungs themselves. If you have too much fluid, the oxygen cannot go from the alveoli to the blood stream. This would fit with several pieces of evidence. First, GF was complaining of respiratory distress before he was placed under DC. His lungs were edematous. He was moving air to talk, but experiencing air hunger. He had heart disease and hypertension.
6) So prosecution, which one are you claiming? a), b), or c). Settle on one. Depending on which it is, how did DC cause this and where is the science to support it? And if they say a) or b), how can they exclude c).
That’s what I’d want my expert to establish if I was DC (which I am VERY glad I am not).
Did I miss the day 10 wrap up?
Andrew had another commitment and Prof. filled in yesterday, I’m sure Prof. is a busy guy and couldn’t do everything like Andrew does. I’m a member at Andrew’s law of self defense site and sometimes I think – how the heck does he do all this? He is a dedicated man.
I’m at a bit of a loss here—it seems there are two serious, if not fatal contradictions in the state’s case:
First, it’s clear that Chauvin’s actions “could” have contributed to Floyd’s death. But even if they “likely” contributed to his death—how does that meet the test of reasonable doubt?
In other words, it’s obvious that he “could” have died from heart failure or OD alone—indeed, the state’s witnesses testified that, absent police involvement, they would have confidently stated he did of one or the other.
That seems a gigantic contradiction: both that he could easily have solely of OD or heart failure—but that there’s no chance he did,
That might make sense if he’d been shot—or, indeed, had suffered some life-threatening injury. But he didn’t. The state elicited testimony about physical evidence that challenges the possibility of heart attack or OD—but again, if there’s physical evidence he didn’t die from either, why have they testified that they would have asserted he did in the absence of police?
Second: if his lawful arrest and lawful restraint contributed to his death—that’s not murder. The testimony seems to be that it was continuing the restraint past the point of resistance that makes it murder/manslaughter…
Which leads to the second major contradiction: Tobin testified that Floyd died 5 minutes into the restraint—at virtually the same point he stopped resisting. If true, then it’s obviously not possible that Chauvin murdered him in the last 5 minutes—staying on him might be used to show depravity of heart or something else, but it could not have been the unlawful taking of life.
Anyone have some insight into those two apparent contradictions?
If there is a guilty verdict, things will get much worse in a big way. Criminals will be emboldened and rightly so. Overwhelming pressure and physical violence by cops on resisting and violent suspects will result in career ending assessments or prosecution.
If you live in a liberal hell hole where the SJW are already destroying all public safety, you know exactly what I’m talking about. Real Estate in the areas away from Seattle and Portland are going through the roof right now. No one wants to live there and now that telework has made living there optional, people are getting the hell out. The people that still do live there are nuts and can no longer be outvoted by sane people. It’s a death spiral for urban areas which will only accelerate.
This never should have come to trial. Note to cops, find another career or find a jurisdiction far from liberal hell holes, the safety of people who will throw YOUR life under the bus for their virtue is not worth it.
Passed by about 100 heavily armed black militants Penn Ave N & 36th Street N in Minneapolis. They fly the green red black Afro American flag. Not sure if it is freedom fighters or NFAC..
Things is gettin’ serious. Did you get a pic? Go public with this.
I live just outside the previous riot zone. I hope the militants and rioters come just a little bit farther this time. Then they can learn how many of us with AR-15s, shotguns and handguns are waiting for them. And how trained we are. 100 heavily armed black militants will go to zero living black militants in a flash. Many of us have had enough and we are itching for a fight:
And there won’t be any police to arrest you, or them.
No, no, no. The despair of this entire situation is that the police will be there, working against their own interests, to track you down and apprehend you, because their Marxist masters so decree.
America will die a little deader because an outbreak of sheeple showed up where no one expected it — in the police department.
You may be right, henry, but I always look on the bright side side of life.
It seems to me that most did not understand the pathologist’s cause of death. (I am referring to Dr Baker who actually did the autopsy). As he wrote the death certificate and testified, there were four contributing factors to Floyd’s death. First was Floyd’s atherosclerosis (clogged arteries), second was his hypertensive disease (enlarged heart), third were the drugs meth and fentanyl (both of which affect heart functioning), and last was the stress of the arrest and hold. By stress, the pathologist means the body’s physiological reactions to the event of releasing particular chemicals (hormones) that have stimulating effects to the heart which includes Adrenaline, Cortisol, and Norepinephrine. The police arrest and hold was the last factor and the straw that broke the camel’s back so to speak. It was the point where the already failing heart could take no more and stopped. Also, the homicide as the pathologist uses it is a medical term, not a legal one. It means that death involved a human action in the event, not that the human who took the action would necessarily be guilty of murder or manslaughter.
Nelson also got the pathologist to admit that he had not considered arrhythmia failure. dysfunction due to little understanding of that. It is another possible cause of death for Floyd.
Nelson seemed to understand all of this. I expect him to present a cardiology expert witness who will clarify it.
Also understand, that asphyxiation does not just occur when breathing is restricted. In atherosclerosis, the clogged arteries (which also occur in the brain) prevent the tissues from absorbing oxygen. Thus when Floyd was complaining of not being able to breath, I think that may well have been the reason, not problems with respiration.
There won’t be any police.
A few months back, I awoke to someone breaking into my car in the driveway. I called 911 and I told the 911 dispatcher I was armed and going outside. She simply said. “Sir, please just make sure you put your weapons down when police arrive.”
I quickly threw on my level 4 plate carrier, slung my AR over my shoulder, grabbed my KSG shotgun (15 rounds of 00 buckshot always loaded), clipped on my belt with my sidearm, and was outside in under 30 secs. The bad guy or guys were gone but my car doors were left open. Note: I grab the AR in case I need to shoot at a distance as a shotgun has a very short effective range).
So police knew there was an incident involving weapons and they didn’t show for over 20 mins. And all they did was drive up and down street once and left, never leaving their car.
We are on our own to defend ourselves.
Sorry, I meant to reply to previous comment but I don’t see any way to delete or edit a comment.
Also, I wanted to note a couple tactical things just for completeness. I don’t just take the AR because of over-penetration issues – ie., I am responsible for every round that leaves my weapon and I don’t want rounds going into a neighbors house. There is even over-penetration issues with a shotgun and 00 (I would go to #4 buckshot if I could find any). I have worked out my firing positions and safe firing lines (as well as retreat and advance paths) but it’s just generally safer with the KSG. And I don’t just go with my pistol because they are inherently inaccurate in a high stress situation and they just don’t have the same stopping power as a shotgun.
Also, it sounds like a lot of gear to put on, but I always have it ready to go and I practice constantly so it’s super fast. And for the 5.11 plate carrier, you just throw it over your head and secure with two Velcro straps. One mistake I made – don’t forget to have footwear that is fast to slip on.
And given a huge increase of crime in my neighborhood, the gangs, and the $1 billion of damage that occurred walking distance from my house, I am going out prepared.
Wow!
Had you popped the perps, even with cause, your firearms would be confiscated “for evidence” and you’d never see them again. If those plates you were talking about were for a bullet-proof vest, there’d a a lot of questions asked. Even the number of firearms leaves your intentions open to question.
All this depends on the jurisdiction of course, but I wonder how it all would have turned out.
To the Friendly Grizzly,
The simple answer is that in about any scenario I would be completely screwed, especially in Hennepin County, Minnesota, which has one of the most corrupt prosecutorial and judicial systems in the country. MN law allows me to defend my property and myself with deadly force if either someone is committing a felony on my property or I believe I am in imminent harm. I have no duty to stay inside, and as I noted, I let the 911 operator know I was going out armed.
I wouldn’t shoot the bad guys simply for being in my car as I don’t have legal or ethical cause. But if they threatened me, drew on me, or tried to steal the car then I have cause.
It still wouldn’t matter though because they would still prosecute (same county as Floyd case). The law would not matter and the optics would not look good – going outside with level 4 armor (which will stop both pistol and rifle rounds) and a host of weapons.
But there is a group of us who have discussed it and we decided to protect our property and loved ones under the law and the demands of ethics regardless of the legal consequences. We will also move to defend each other as necessary,
We have had enough. We will not sacrifice our rights because we are afraid of corrupt liberal justice. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.
I think the media wants another riot, and is manipulating the story to at least have the racism angle ready to go.
My opinion on the trial is that the prosecution overcharged and doesn’t really have a case for the murder charges-the drug overdose evidence and conflicting testimony just seems to not meet the evidence standard. I do think they may get a manslaughter conviction but the prosecution doesn’t seem to be entering evidence for this-it feels like their split the baby charge.
I am interested to see how the trial goes but I think the media is salivating for another riot. This kind of riot makes for good news coverage from a money perspective. They also love the racist America narrative.
It may have reached a point for us good guys to consider taking out the media first during riots and other uprisings.
The prosecution quacks theory of a slow death from a fentanyl overdose seems contrary to medical science.
A majority of respondents who witnessed a suspected fentanyl overdose (75%) described symptoms as occurring rapidly, within seconds to minutes. Twenty-five percent reported witnessing or experiencing an overdose when fentanyl was insufflated (snorted), and the remainder reported the overdose always involved injecting fentanyl. Atypical overdose characteristics described by respondents during suspected fentanyl overdose included immediate blue discoloration of the lips (20%), gurgling sounds with breathing (16%), stiffening of the body or seizure-like activity (13%), foaming at the mouth (6%), and confusion or strange affect before unresponsiveness (6%). Seventy-five percent of respondents reported witnessing naloxone administration, administering naloxone themselves, or receiving naloxone to successfully reverse an opioid or fentanyl overdose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5657806/
While most participants had experienced previous opioid-related overdose, they characterized how fentanyl was markedly distinct in terms of: potency, and rapid onset. Ethnographic observations and participant narratives highlighted how fentanyl use and related overdoses had implications for frontline response, including: rapid onset, multiple concurrent overdoses, body and chest rigidity, and the need to administer larger doses of naloxone.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376871618307233
I’ve watched about 20% of this and the highlights of most of it withOUT the media’s help. I think the prosecution is somewhat weak even though the video evidence is what’s in everyone’s mind and it’s hard to ignore.
Nelson will be calling all of the former prosecution to testify (Mike Freeman et al) and that should be some very interesting testimony. IF Nelson can get jurors to think that Freeman pushed Baker to falsify or change information to benefit the prosecution, some jurors might become resilient enough to avoid falling into a guilty plea.
I think this is the OJ-type curveball no one is expecting.
I am cautiously optimistic: Pros…
+ Prosecution has been caught in multiple lies. Juror trust will be low
+ Prosecution has changed it’s theory multiple times. Juror trust ought be even lower
+ Multiple State Witnesses have been better as Defense witnesses.
+Some state witnesses just not believable- clearly testifying to grind and axe, rather than to illuminate the truth.
+Prosecution is not very like-able. That matters. Especially when trust is lost, lies, and a shifting premise,
+Nelson is doing a pretty good job of both forcing the state witnesses to make errors and running up the score on their unforced errors.
+Nelson’s consistency is apt to make him the more “believable” agent
+ State’s professional witnesses that assert it was Chauvin’s fault are all operating on hindsight 20/20.
+ Nelson hasn’t presented his side of the case yet. If his prep and cross of state’s witnesses in any barometer of his talent, I expect napalm to fall on the prosecutions case.
+ You can’t see this yet, but if you were to reconcile the contortions the state had to make to frame their case, ie- where they had to isolate every detail and twist and spin to shape the argument, I have very low expectations of how they will discredit defense witnesses.
+State was poorly prepared to anticipate cross on their witnesses. They seem like dumb-dumbs or SJW hubris that they don’t feel the need to prep and I’m guessing they are spending hours instead of weeks prepping to tear down defense witnesses.
+ I expect Nelson is good at building fences and limiting constrains so he will leave no room for the prosecution to dunk on his arguments the way the he did on theirs.
Here’s negatives I see.
– The prosecution was able to get a bunch of muppets to say “he done it”
– Jury is not seeing what LI readers see. They don’t have the benefit of Branca/Jacobsen breaking it down.
-Jury may not be sophisticated enough to smell bullshit and if they have made up their mind early, that’s hard to break.
-Long trial, by the time Nelson gets to the stand, Juror minds may be saturated and they may tune out.
-Can’t ignore the “world will burn” or SJW factors. Still how pissed are any of them that their world is burning because a stupid drug addict got high, passed a fake bill, resisted arrest and died of comorbidities? Dunno.
I wouldn’t worry about the police: it’s a local issue, and resolved easily (voting – except with ‘voting machines’) locally.
EXPLOSIVE: Investigators for Attorney DePerno Reportedly Discover Modem Chips Embedded in Michigan Voting System Computer Motherboards:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/explosive-investigators-attorney-deperno-discover-modem-chips-embedded-michigan-voting-system-computer-motherboards/
Worry more about American soliders being trained to turn their guns on us.
There have been comments that the jurors are likely to be harassed if they return the “wrong” verdict. While I suppose this is possible I am unaware of any cases where this has happened in the past. It doesn’t seem common in the US. Are there a lot of examples?
There are protesters in the streets promising to destroy everything if justice bus served.
It has happened several times in the past.
There’s no question the MSM’s wilful refusal to impartially report on the trial will have a ripple effect. If you look at Wikipedia – yes I know it’s biased but bear with me, the testimony section is summarising the prosecution’s case with cross only mentioned when there’s a response which further’s Chauvin’s apparent guilt. Calls for accuracy and impartiality aren’t ignored but outright challenged – Wikipedia approved ‘Reliable Sources’ only!!! It doesn’t matter if the MSM lie, that’s not our concern, only RS may be used.
As an aside, while the reporting here has been good, are trial transcripts available to the public? Would be interesting to see how badly the MSM are lying – also to see how Wikipedia responds if their ‘RS’ quotes are shown to be outright lies – there’s no question many of them are highly deceptive but that’s a greyer area.
Anyhow if Wikipedia is exclusively parroting the bias of the RS, how much more likely is it that those prone to violence in Democrat cities will also be parroting the MSM skew? If there’s no grounds for a not guilty verdict reported, and Chauvin gets off, then the only explanation will be systematic racism and injustice, despite the fact that the jury is disproportionately weighted against Chauvin.
As far as Wikipedia goes, it doesn’t matter whether the “reliable sources” are telling the truth; supposedly an encyclopædia’s job is to report what they say, without judging them, because that would be “original research”, which is forbidden. Also citing the trial transcript is forbidden because it’s a primary source, so any user’s presentation of what it says is “original research”. Wikipedia can only report what reliable secondary sources say about the primary sources.
Transcripts would be reliable (court) published sources IMHO not original research. Either way, primary sources can be used, can even be the best sources to use on Wikipedia.
In the off chance that editors object and say approved newspapers only, so long as the transcript disagrees with what ‘reliable sources’ are reporting, they’re demonstrably not reliable and there’s a serious problem. An issue for another day though.
It’s true that primary sources are allowed on WP, but with the following caveats:
And following that link yields:
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[c]
As the first quote says, the second quote is WP policy, and thus binding on all editors.
Does is it seem strange to anybody besides me that the title of Floyd’s autopsy is “CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION”? Shouldn’t Simply “Autopsy of George Floyd”?
Mr. Jacobson/Branca,
I had a couple questions about the process and elements in this criminal case. I have been involved in a couple of civil trials against gov’t officials (1983 cases) based on free speech and retaliation. I realize this is a state law case but given the standard is Graham v Connor (a 1983 case), I wanted to get your feedback.
1. So the gov’t is not responsible for the actions of its officials unless they are pursuing the gov’t policy (official capacity liability). Given MPD fired these officers immediately and denied they were following policy, MPD is clearly making a case there is no respondeat superior liability. So this brings up a couple of questions:
a. Why did Minneapolis settle with Floyd for $27M? If they are not defending these 4 officers’ actions, Minneapolis could only be liable if there was other fault by employees following policy. Would that imply that the settlement could actually be used to infer MPD was afraid Floyd’s family could show they were following policy?
b. A plaintiff can also hold a municipality liable if there was a custom or practice involving the illegal behavior. Certainly Chauvin likely used these methods on prior cases of force which were condoned by MPD. Wouldn’t that imply Chauvin was only doing what he was trained or the custom of MPD?
In any case, it makes no sense for Minneapolis to pay out $$ when they are arguing they had no official capacity liability in this trial. And it is silly to argue that $27M was the correct amount when compensatory damages could never amount to that much for Floyd (low income) and (at least in federal cases), punitive damages are only available for individual capacity claim. That settlement makes no sense to me and could only be used to help Chauvin.
2. The courts often remind us they are not an “advisory” body. So without an actual “controversy”, they cannot give opinions. This complicates this whole area. Generally, the frustrating part about 1983 cases is (i) the gov’t body avoids liability by saying the individual went rogue and didn’t follow policy like here, (ii) the individual avoids liability by not being “on notice” the behavior was a violation of rights, and (iii) the court doesn’t even have to determine whether the behavior violated rights if the official wasn’t on notice (qualified immunity). So the court never actually says “restraining a person in the prone position for > 2 min who says I can’t breathe can be grossly negligent”. For 1983 liability, this generally means officials can keep taking the action again and again until either (a) plaintiffs can prove official capacity liability as it doesn’t matter if officials knew it was illegal or not in that case or (b) the court will rule on the constitutionality of the behavior even if granting qualified immunity.
So here’s my question. Let’s assume Chauvin’s behavior was negligent and will be illegal going forward. By Minneapolis settling the civil case, no court opinion was issued. Thus, there is no court precedent to say this behavior will be illegal going forward. It seems like that is a shame as there should be some standard in this area that LE officials must follow. But doesn’t this mean Chauvin’s behavior had to be objectively reasonable given there was no precedent of it being illegal?
In other words, it doesn’t appear that any of the officers were aware of a case that made this prone restraint illegal. And just like there had to be a case that outlawed shooting petty criminals in the back for fleeing before an official could be held liable, isn’t that the same here? I mean, Chauvin would get qualified immunity under a civil 1983 case, right. The protections for defendants in criminal cases would have to be just as strong for the defendant in a civil case like Graham v Connor.
Does Minneapolis state law change the scrutiny for the objectively reasonable test? Is most of the media (and especially the MSM) missing this?
3. You might have mentioned this before, but the futility of Chauvin’s position seems to come into play here. If Dr. Tobin is correct, and shortly after Floyd stopped breathing he died because all the oxygen from lungs (reserve capacity) and blood were used up and his brain couldn’t function without oxygen, then even CPR would have been useless at that point because there was no oxygen to send to the brain. As I recall, that was around 8:25:20 pm. But Floyd was talking until just 45 seconds or so before his brain supposedly stopping. And Tobin testified that even doctors misunderstand the notion that if a person “can talk, they can breathe”. So if Chauvin would have been (i) justified in keeping an excited arrestee restrained on the ground as long as he was talking (one would assume his air is fine) in part because eliminating motion would make the arrestee less susceptible to excited delirium and (ii) nothing Chauvin did or did not do after 8:25:20 could have saved Floyd’s life without a breathing tube which they didn’t have, then it seems to me Chauvin’s actions couldn’t have been even negligent. One might say keeping the restraint on from 8:25:30 until the medics arrive around 8:29 is negligent, but the prosecution basically showed that was irrelevant to Floyd’s survival. Am I missing something here? Dr. Tobin certainly made a compelling case, but his exact time marks seem to have hurt their claim that Chauvin was objectively unreasonable in his actions.
Thanks and I am a big fan of the analysis in this case.
Quick note on the $27m payout: It was from a self-insurance fund held by the city, or if you want to be cynical, a big pile of tempting cash money the city council could not touch *unless* they paid it out in a claim. So any bets on how much of that $27m winds up back in the pockets of the city council members or their families?
I was almost convinced by Tobin and others testimony on asphyxia. But for the ME, I may have accepted that as the cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt. But unless they are willing to admit Floyd was lying, there’s nothing the prosecution has done to explain why he started complaining about breathing issues while the police attempted to subdue him. My impression from watching the video was he felt something happen in his chest while resisting being loaded into the car, and his death process continued on from there. Certainly his heart couldn’t effectively pump any longer and the neck restraint I’m sure accelerated the death, but I would need the prosecution to fit the fact that he complained of breathing issues in the car into their theory of cause of death.
It seemed to me that the exertion of the struggle while they attempted to load him into the car caused him to experience certain chest-related symptoms that marked the beginning of his death process.
I guess one point I was trying to make is that Dr. Tobin’s testimony is a 2-edged sword for the prosecution. If he is correct and the oxygen was gone shortly after he stopped breathing, then Chauvin couldn’t have been negligent for not administering NARCAN and not administering CPR. There are other justifications for why he did not (medics on the way, middle of road, etc.).
One issue for the defense in an overdose case is NARCAN was carried by police and very little negative effects. Thus, if they suspected Floyd may be overdosing, then why not administer the NARCAN? Why else would Floyd have passed out other than (i) lack of oxygen from not being able to breathe, (ii) drug overdose causing his heart/lungs to fail, or (iii) excited delirium?
I realize officers are not paramedics or doctors. But if an officer was asked what actions did he take when Floyd passed out based on what assumptions, how can the officers answer that consistently?
I read that Chauvin did not have NARCAN in his car. I also read that Chauvin did not take the training on NARCAN. Nelson did try to ask questions regarding Chauvin and NARCAN. It appeared to be a fairly new process to get all officers trained and equipped with NARCAN. If that is the case, what level of training did these officers get?
I am sure Nelson will clarify this.
Asphyxia means low oxygen, whatever the cause. It could be from choking, strangulation, pressure on the ribs, fentanyl, or a host of other causes.
Even if police subdual, including a knee on the “neck area”, contributed to his death, to whatever degree, it’s not against the law for police to arrest a suspect with probable cause. At least it wasn’t before floyd died.
No it does not. The correct term is hypoxia. The state experts are playing word games.
asphyxia noun
as·phyx·ia | as-ˈfik-sē-ə, əs-
Medical Definition of asphyxia
: a lack of oxygen or excess of carbon dioxide in the body that is usually caused by interruption of breathing and that causes unconsciousness
— compare SUFFOCATION
hypoxia noun
hyp·ox·ia | hi-ˈpäk-sē-ə , hī-
Definition of hypoxia
: a deficiency of oxygen reaching the tissues of the body
It was a mistake not to administer Narcan, but the truth of the matter is that Floyd’s behavior up until he was on the ground was inconsistent with someone experiencing an opioid overdose. He had way too much energy, too active, too resistant, too erratic. It is true those behaviors are not consistent with an opioid overdose.
I think it’s unlikely Floyd died of an opioid overdose. That doesn’t mean the fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system didn’t contribute to his death. I think the struggle with police while they were attempting to subdue him and put him in the squad car placed way too much stress on Floyd’s heart and it gave out. Simply put–the stress and adrenaline release from the exertion of resisting with police, combined with stimulatory effects of meth, the respiratory depressant effects of fent, the terrible, unhealthy heart, just was too much for him to handle and he died.
I don’t think he was asphyxiated by the police restraint or neck compression. I’m sure the neck compression accelerated his death, but given that he was struggling to breathe while already in the car, I think his death was a done deal already. The attempt by police to subdue him was the immediate cause of death, but in the context of his poor heart, the stress, the drugs, he just couldn’t handle it.
Respectfully I disagree. Floyd was on meth as well as fentanyl and the former may cause an adverse reaction. Thus had Chauvin used Narcan on Floyd, and he died, then Chauvin could be guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.
No way. Impossible. Not if he had a legitimate reason to believe he was overdosing on opioids. Narcan is extremely safe. There is no risk to giving someone narcan and an officer would not be punished for any extremely rare adverse reactions that happen.
I’ve only followed this page for a few days so may have missed any previous mention. The autopsy report has given details of the drugs in his system, but what about the contents of his stomach, if he had eaten too many drugs, would the stomach contents reveal drugs that had not yet absorbed into the blood system.
Woke up to news about SNL skirt disparaging the jury.
https://youtu.be/5H_ZdnvMJnE
So, I have a theory about why GF died. I’ve been thinking about it for several days and finally decided to post it. It has to do with the small tumor found in his abdomen – paraganglioma.
I’m not an expert on this although I do have some science and medical background -almost everything I’ve learned is from reading. If you are a doctor or have personal knowledge about paragangliomsas, then please correct any misinformation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/medgen/349380
https://pheopara.org/education/paraganglioma
Dr. Tobin described paragangliomas as the “10% tumor” – what he either didn’t know or simply failed to mention is that is only technically true. Most paragangliomas are found in the head and neck and are called parasympathetic paragangliomas. These do NOT secrete hormones like adrenalin and are simply incidental. However, most abdominal paragangliomas (like GF’s) are sympathetic paragangliomas and usually DO secrete hormones.
Additionally, these tumors do not seem to secrete hormones all the time, meaning that people with paragangliomas usually on secrete the hormones durings “spells” or “attacks” Things that precipitate a spell or attack are physical exertion, anxiety/stressful situations, changes in body position, caffeine, stimulants such as amphetamines or cocaine. Symptoms of an attack are hypertension, headaches, palpitations (racing heart), anxiety, flushing, nausea, dizziness, dyspnea (shortness of breath), among others – basically most of the symptoms are like having a “panic attack.” This could also look like agitated delerium??
It seems that fentanyl would likely counteract some of these effects – like any type of pain – headaches, abdominal pain, chest pain, etc.
So, if GF during his initial struggle (getting in the squad car) with the officers had an “attack” from his paraganglioma as well as having significant fentanyl and some meth in his system, he would feel extremely claustrophobic, feel short of breath, and have superhuman strength (from all the adrenaline). His heart would not be able to handle the extreme stress from the adrenaline and he could easily have a heart attack/cardiac arrest. He wouldn’t neccessarily feel chest pain or other common heart attack symptoms because he has fentanyl in his system. The officers would interpret this as “agitated delirium” and would continue restraint. At some point, his heart would simply stop because he couldn’t handle the adrenaline load with the fentanyl/meth in his system.
Essentially, every point the Prosecution made about why it couldn’t be a fentanyl overdose could easily be explained by the above. When the paramedics arrived, his pupils would be dilated because of the adrenaline.
Please feel free to dissect and blow my theory apart. I just think the combination of a paraganglioma dumping massive amounts of adrenaline in the body with the fentanyl/meth combo is the perfect storm for everything we see in the video and autopsy. In this case, restraint would have very little or nothing to do with his death. The only way to save him would have been for him to be in an ambulance or hospital when all this started.
Thoughts???
That seems very plausible. I’m not a medical expert, but to me the single most telling piece of evidence in the whole case is the repeated claims by Floyd that he couldn’t breathe while police struggled to load him into the squad car. The state had half a dozen medical experts on the stand, but not a single one addressed it or even attempted to provide some explanation for this behavior. To be fair, I can’t think of any explanation that would bolster their case. But Nelson I’m certain will make this a central part of the defense and the state will need to contend with it somehow.
When he started complaining that he couldn’t breathe in the squad car, I would imagine that if his hands weren’t cuffed, they would likely have made their way to his chest. It looks to me in that struggle there is a sudden moment where George Floyd recognizes something is seriously wrong and asks to be placed on the ground. I’m sure the adrenaline, meth, fent, stress triggered a cardiopulmonary arrest in that moment and he experienced the cardiopulmonary arrest as hampering his ability to breathe.
It was from that moment o , barring immediate medical intervention, George Floyd’s fate had been sealed and he was a walking dead man. Within a few minutes of the event, his heart stopped beating and his brain no longer received sufficient oxygen.
The fact that the prosecution glaringly omitted testimony on this fact shows me that they understand what happened and made the decision to bury it instead of be forced to deal with it. But when Nelson presents the defense, I all but guarantee every single medical expert will be asked about Floyd’s complaints about his inability to breathe while struggling with police. He will hammer on it and before long it will be an inescapable fact that George Floyd could not adequately get oxygen long before the prone position or neck compression.
The coincidence will be just too great. Floyd complained he couldn’t breathe no less than 7 times in the squad car, but the prosecution will ask the jury to disregard this fact and is arguing that his failure to get enough oxygen just minutes later was due to a wholly unrelated cause, totally separate from the breathing struggles he had just been describing. I find that incredible and if that doesn’t provide reasonable doubt then I don’t think anything can.
“Essentially, every point the Prosecution made about why it couldn’t be a fentanyl overdose could easily be explained by the above.”
Does the prosecution have this information and know that it’s an alternate explanation for the death of George Floyd? Is the prosecution’s contention (and the agreement they elicited from their expert medical witnesses), that GF did not die from a Fentanyl/meth overdose, accurate, but is being used as a red herring to keep other possibilities from the jury in order to lead them to the conclusion that there are no other explanations for GF’s death other than the actions of Officer Chauvin? Is the choice between drug overdose and human action a purposefully-limited false dichotomy?
Officer involved shooting. That will be sure to inflame tensions.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2021/04/11/bca-reporting-to-officer-involved-shooting-in-brooklyn-center/
The BLM’ers have already started to riot. They are now jumping on the MPD police cars. So will Arradondo throw these police officers under the bus?
Yes. Arradondo will.
Does anyone else notice the smoke screen tactics that Eric Nelson is deploying? For instance, did anyone notice when Eric Nelson questioned Dr. Tobin that he mentioned Wooden Chest Syndrome? A quick google search and you realise that this can only occur through intravenous administration of fentanyl.
So in essence, he just brought this up to put doubt into the jury’s mind even though it isn’t possible when administering fentanyl orally.
What about rectally?
It is dependent upon the speed of administration and thus the time it would take for fentanyl to reach the blood stream orally or rectally is not as fast as intravenous administration. And because of this the possibility of Wooden Chest Syndrome our side of intravenous administration is essentially zero as far as I can tell from reading studies.
It is dependent upon the speed of administration and thus the time it would take for fentanyl to reach the blood stream orally or rectally is not as fast as intravenous administration. And because of this the possibility of Wooden Chest Syndrome our side of intravenous administration is essentially zero as far as I can tell from reading studies.
Eric Nelson also mentions 4 times that partially consumed drugs were found in the backseat of squad car 320. How on earth does someone ingest drugs while handcuffed, while struggling with police and while yelling the entire time?
Why have the prosecution got another go?. They finished their evidence. This is not justice. It will be an old American style lynching
Why is this Judge bending over backwards to facilitate all of prosecution claims?
Mr Floyd was the instigator of his own death. Without the drugs injested, without the heart problems this would never of happened.
The threat of further rioting should not be part of whether a mans life can be ruined to appease the threats of extremists. America you should be ashamed. But then again you voted in a
Geriatric whimp,