So, it’s OK for the police to pull pepper spray on ordinary civilians who are filming them commit murder, as long as they can’t tell that they’re EMTs?
Of course not, and I hope you want honest debate instead of this silliness. You have a guy on the ground that you’ve been struggling with. You have a crowd of 10 to 15 people, some of whom have to be repeatedly ordered to stand back. Nobody is stopping anyone from filming; no pepper spray is being pulled, deployed, nor is anyone threatened in any way simply for filming. These people are calling the cops “bitches,” “pigs,” “motherfuckers,” etc. (which is all protected First Amendment speech, but nonetheless relevant for analysis of the perception of the officer); and nobody is threatened with pepper spray or anything else for hurling obscenities at the officers from feet away.
Then someone comes from behind you wearing street clothes, not presenting an EMT badge, but sticking a cell phone in your face, and you pull out (but don’t spray) your pepper mace and order her to the sidewalk where this “professional” person starts calling you a bitch.
Is it fair that you are later accused of pulling pepper mace on “an EMT”? Is it fair that when this professional person testifies against you, she is wearing her dress uniform as if the Mayor just gave her a Medal of Valor? I think if you watched her testimony, it is clear that she had an agenda, and did pretty poorly on cross examination.
Yes, of course it’s fair. If you don’t want people factually describing what you’re doing, don’t do it.
When testifying in court you are to wear your uniform. The defence mentioned it in the beginning of the questions.
A security camera across the street with a wide angle lens and no audio doesn’t really convey how threatening and potentially dangerous and violent the crowd was. This in an area very well known to be dangerous.
Does the 911 security camera footage show the entire incident? I’ve read the phone videos missed the first 5 mins of the struggle with Floyd.
Chauvin had a tough decision. He could have loosened his grip. But that might have restarted the struggle with Floyd. Further angering the crowd.
I’d like to hear testimony on Police training. How they’re taught to restrain someone that’s very agitated. Holding someone down isn’t easy. Especially when the individual is on drugs.
I’m still watching the testimony. I’m not sure what punishment will be appropriate for the officers.
So now it’s really the crowd’s fault? For putting Chauvin in a “tough” position? 100% unmitigated bullshit.
I agree with the second part of this (and maybe the first, I don’t really know what agenda she may have). She clearly was not well-coached on how to handle cross examination. That’s never an easy thing to do, but completely refusing to answer very simple questions like “did you say this to the investigators” comes off as petty and argumentative. It seems to me that her simply stating the facts and she saw them and being respectful to the defense attorney (who to be fair was treating her rather politely I thought) would have been a lot more effective for the prosecution.
It’s never a good look when the judge has to repeatedly tell you to answer the question and not add more information. The last time (right before the court adjourned) he even cleared the jury and dressed her down a bit. Then she started arguing with the judge.
Again, it doesn’t change the core facts she presented, but it does put her in a bit of a bad light re: how she may have interacted with the police that day if she can’t even be respectful to a judge in a courtroom.
There’s a lot of misinformation the media is repeating about potential sentences. It’s true that 40 / 25 /10 years are the theoretical max by law, but as a first offender in practice Chauvin wouldn’t get anywhere close to that. The prosecution seems to be trolling to get an upwards departure with all the sobbing minor witnesses, but the sentencing range for a first offender is 10.6-15 years for either the Unintentional 2nd Degree Murder or Third Degree Murder convictions, or 3.4-4.7 years for 2nd Degree Manslaughter.
Higher counts (1st Degree, 2nd Degree intentional) weren’t charged because they would require proof of intent to kill which the prosecution doesn’t think they can prove. 1st Degree Manslaughter was skipped because both sides agreed it doesn’t fit the facts of the case. It’s the classic. “grabbed my shotgun and shot my wife when I caught her in bed with the mailmen” type “Heat of Passion” scenario.
Convictions on multiple theories is possible but sentences will not stack.
Defending a case like this must be an attorney’s worst nightmare. I’d try this:
“Your honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is our intent to prove that our client suffered a Petit Mal and had no conscious awareness that he was slowly strangling a helpless suspect to death.”
Outside of something like that, I can’t see how he isn’t toast in the eyes of a jury.
a bit of a time out, a member of the jury felt ill.
I know how they feel, reading some of the justifications in this thread.
the juror that felt ill, has stated it was stress related; was having trouble sleeping, and was awake since 2ish this morning.
not much wiggle room in the jury as there are only 2 alternates.
Not that it in any way excuses what eventually happened to him, but did Floyd, in fact, try to pass a counterfeit $20 bill at Cup Foods? I can’t tell from the trial reports so far.
We don’t know. The bill was apparently counterfeit, but the clerk does not think that Floyd knew it was counterfeit.
wow, that video.
to me it looked like mr floyd had a panic/anxiety attack. that looked like distress not resistance.
There is something else about that that really makes me uncomfortable. I’m gonna spoiler it. Some people may be offended. So, don’t click if you don’t wanna know.
I swear it looks like that cop is rubbing one out with his left hand in his pocket. Yeesh! Almost like he was really enjoying that sadistic little game. I mean, what the hell?
A clarification, regarding the spoiler above, just in case…
Absolutely, IN NO WAY is this a lame attempt at a sick joke. No, really. The first time I saw that video, I thought to myself, “What the hell is this sick bastard doing? Is he getting himself off on killing this poor guy? What the hell is he doing with his left hand???” I’ve since seen other footage that it isn’t quite so clear what he’s doing, but the first one I saw it looked pretty obvious to me. Sick, sick, sick!
I’m curious, do you have a problem with the title of the thread? Serious question and not trying to be a dick.
That is exactly what I am interested in. Where is the knee actually placed? It’s pretty clear that it is not directly on the neck blocking the airway, but what exactly does it do? How do law enforcement professionals view the practice? When (if ever) is it appropriate?
The crowd certainly contributed to the situation. None of them knew what happened in the back of the patrol car, and the hostility and profanities only added to an already tense situation. I agree with aceplace57: What if you let Floyd up and he starts again and now you are fighting with fifteen people?
Last year, I would have agreed. The other videos put the incident in context and show that Floyd had started his “I can’t breathe” screed when his breathing was not arguably being stifled by any officer but
when being forced into the back of the car, and only a split second after having a conversation with the officers when pleading not to be placed under arrest.
Some of these accusations are outrageous, but this one takes the cake. Seriously?