“Thug” in this context is a racial slur, and has no place in IMHO.
It’s kind of interesting to me that the precedent was set in a case of a murder of a police officer.
I agree with people that it probably isn’t great especially in a society that has locked so many innocent people up, but one standard should apply to everyone where that is court precedent, and if it’s a tool in their arsenal it’s negligent for the prosecution to not use it if it can help get a conviction for some of the charges.
How do you figure that?
Modnote: Take questions about moderation to ATMB or via PM (to the mod that you’re questioning). Do not question moderation in thread.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
Part of why they had him testify was to introduce that he and his brother used the term “hooping” to mean “playing basketball.” Apparently Floyd is on the recordings saying that he had been “hooping” earlier that day.
The defense had been trying to establish that “hooping” is slang for taking opioids intrarectally (which is why they keep asking the medical witnesses about that method of taking drugs). This presumably would bolster their claims that Floyd was high on lots of drugs.
Now the state undercuts that argument by saying it meant he had been playing basketball.
I know this sounds crazy, but it’s true.
Yes, if the defence is working the “he was a druggie” defence, then testimony about what he was like in everyday life seems relevant.
Not really. There are lawyers, doctors and stay at home moms that are druggies. The defense isn’t trying to establish his lifestyle they are going to say the drugs caused his death.
The defense has to show the dramatic change in Floyd shortly after arriving at Cups Food. It’s going to be hard without Morries Hall’s testimony. Hopefully the woman passenger will be cooperative and give testimony.
I’m not sure that Floyd’s drugged condition makes that much difference. Floyd would be alive if he had been coherent and cooperative. Chauvin wouldn’t have been called to that scene to aid the rookie officers. Obviously that doesn’t absolve Chauvin’s subsequent actions.
I’m curious to see if the defense continues to pursue the cardiac arrest defense. That seems to be discredited by multiple medical witnesses.
I know people who have had siblings or children who have died of overdoses after years of drug use. They don’t regard them as “druggies” like Those people in Boston, Lawrence, Brockton. Our brother/son/daughter was a nice kid who just lost their way a bit and died of a tragic accident.
We had a Black kid arrested near our high school in possession of opioids. He was a juvenile but his name (and town of residence) was all over social media as a dealer who was there to sell drugs. Later it transpired that he was there to BUY drugs from one of the nice students at the school. The name of the student was never released because he or she was a juvenile!
I’m not sure the first defense witness helped their case. Bottom line is a lot of people go completely bonkers when approached by police and they don’t end up dead. GF went completely bonkers with this other cop and lived.
Not sure where the defence is going here. They fought to have this evidence brought in and it went nowhere. They just showed that mr Floyd had a previous encounter with police a bit over a year ago and survived. I cannot see how this helped their case.
The judge ruled against having chauvin’s previous charges of over use of force brought in.
They need to introduce testimony about command voice. It’s taught in the military and police. It’s purpose needs to be explained to the jury. I noticed the police officer initially spoke to Floyd in a normal voice. He quickly switches to command voice when Floyd isn’t complying. It’s not anger or anything personal.
That’s definitely needs explanation to the jury.
My dad was a Master Sergeant. I’ve seen him give orders at work and then relax afterwards. He was never actually angry or out of control.
Officer Peter Chang must have a guardian angel. He’s so lucky they asked him to guard that car. That saved his career and maybe avoided prison time.
His cam footage of the two witnesses in the car was so revealing. Both initially felt Floyd was unwise to resist. I noticed Hill listened carefully to Officer Chang. Even asked, hey can I get something from my backpack? Chang just wanted him to turn so he could watch his hands.
That’s the way police interaction should work. Respect from both sides. Hill did use a fake ID, but he did it quietly. 
No theatrics, didn’t try running away. Even threw away his baggie without the cops noticing.
I missed this morning, but I’ve been reading what the defense witness testified to and what they showed.
I’m not sure I get it. It seems to show two things: (a) Other officers managed to deal with Floyd even in his drugged-up non-compliant state without him dying and (b) Floyd had been doing these drugs often enough and for long enough that it would be quite a coincidence if the first time it killed him happened to be the time he was placed prone with knee pressure for 9 minutes.
I’m not sure how either of these facts helps the defense.
I was just going to write the same thing. I don’t understand where the defence is going. It didn’t seem like the testimony from the Park Police officer was particularly valuable.
The defense got Hills testimony in front of the jury. That’s a plus.
I don’t see a full defense for Chauvin. His actions can’t be justified.
Use of force expert on the stand now. I believe the defence feels that this is where they can turn the trial.
The first few defence witnesses did not impress me. I did not see them helping mr chauvin.
I don’t think a mistrial is necessary. It would probably be a good idea for the judge to remind the jury that they are to consider the facts in the Chauvin/Floyd case only, and that they should ignore the Potter/Wright situation entirely when it comes to the case they’re hearing. If the defense insists, I suppose the judge could talk to each of the jurors to see whether they can remain impartial, and if any of them can’t, to replace them with alternate jurors (who, of course, would also have to be re-qualified). There would be a mistrial if they run out of alternate jurors.
I’m sure that all of the jurors had heard about the Chauvin/Floyd killing before the trial began. It had a huge amount of publicity. The judge must have asked each prospective juror what they’d seen in the news, and asked each one whether they could judge the case only on the evidence introduced in court. Those who couldn’t would have been excused for cause. So if the jurors have promised they would ignore the news with respect to the case they’re hearing, why wouldn’t they also promise they’d ignore the news with respect to anything else?
For those who think there should be a mistrial because of the publicity on the Potter/Wright killing: what does that say about the possibility of a new trial? Wouldn’t the jury pool be just as tainted as the existing jury?
Unless we want to go to all non-media watching/ reading juries (I’m thinking religions that have closed communities).
I can say, just from coworkers I have interacted with, many people don’t watch or read news. Even less now that many people have weather and traffic apps. They may only have a shallow knowledge of events.
This defense use-of-force expert – under (withering) cross-examination by the prosecution – is down to nothing but his BVDs, and I don’t see those lasting very long.
It’s really looking like a master class in cross-examination, IMHO.