I dont think acquittal, but yeah, the jury may settle on manslaughter.
Before you get too deep into this, has any Pundit came to the same conclusion? That is one of the most watched pieces of video, short of the Zapruder film.
Although I’ve only been watching the trial sporadically, the take on it in my household is that the crowd was responsible.
But our take isn’t good for Chauvin.
We think the crowd triggered his macho oppositional defiance and that the reason he murdered Floyd largely came down to the fact that there was a crowd screaming “horrible things”, things like “You’re killing him,” “Let him up dude, he’s going to die!”
And at that point, there was no way a macho asshole like Chauvin could release his deadly hold on Floyd. Because that would be acquiescing to the “mob”, which was something he could never do. So his only alternative was murdering Floyd, otherwise it might look like he was giving in and/or admitting he was wrong.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Courteney Ross wasn’t the woman in the car parked outside Cup foods. That was Shawanda Hill, possibly another girlfriend. She has not testified yet.
I don’t find the crowd excuse to be very persuasive. “I didn’t notice the man I was kneeling on was dying because I was too distracted by the crowd yelling at me that he was dying.” 
Also the crowd wasn’t particularly unruly they were just (naturally) upset.
I do wonder however if the crowd may have inadvertently contributed to Floyd’s death in a reverse psychology sort of way. By begging/demanding that the officer take his knee off Floyd’s neck it may have triggered the officer’s need to more strongly assert his authority and not be seen as “giving in” even if it meant Floyd’s death.
While discussing this at work I theorized that chauvin had a superiority thing. He gives off the vibe that he is superior to all and that the lesser can not tell him what to do.
More superiority than testosterone.
That is exactly what I was trying to convey.
Thank you for clarifying this for me. I assumed Ross was a 1st hand witness to Floyd’s death. Hill will probably testify unless she takes the 5th like the other passenger.
One issue the prosecution is gonna have it the Motive. No one yet has any idea of Chauvin’s motive.
Yes, and did so much better than I did.
I usually skim the thread to make sure what I think is a unique perspective hasn’t already been covered but I must have missed your post.
We have plenty of ideas of his motive. Some of them might even be accurate. Probably more than one.
But why is it even relative? He’s being tried for what he did, not for why he did it. If it was because he was just plain racist, or because he knew Floyd personally and didn’t like him, or because he wanted to show the crowd who was boss, does any of those motives make him any more or less culpable?
I’m not sure the prosecution using as their one allowed “spark of life” witness the lady GF did narcotics with was a good idea as while it humanized him as intended, it also helped the defense two ways. It conveyed to the conservative jury members that GF was a druggie- the type of person you’re afraid of-, and the defense got out that that he had a “purple foam” from his mouth, the same thing that happened at the arrest, to make the logical jury members wonder if maybe he did die from the drugs.
They couldn’t find someone to say “GF was a nice guy” that hadn’t done drugs with him?
How can you reach this conclusion? Do you know Chauvin personally? It seems like you are projecting a pre-conceived notion onto him–indeed a ton of projecting. I mean, you may be correct, but I don’t think that you or I have enough information to make such an aggressive statement about him.
That is just a bunch of straw. AFAIK, there will be experts who will testify that this knee on the upper back (upper back, not neck) is an approved technique which hardly ever kills anyone. Further, the crowd was hostile, insulting, and profane while George Floyd was still speaking and breathing, so I think any police officer in that circumstance is not going to view the crowd as giving helpful advice, but as a potentially dangerous situation.
Therefore it is smart NOT to let George Floyd back up at that point and have a physical confrontation in your front and your rear. Keep control of the situation you have under control (Floyd) so you can monitor the potential flashpoint you have.
I mean, it wasn’t just Chauvin there. Is the State (and posters here) saying that all four officers are racist assholes who didn’t care if Floyd died? All four? Or is it more likely that as a part of their training, they understood the necessity of using the force that was used and keeping an eye out on a hostile crowd? And in doing so, a guy with a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, and a bad heart from 25 years of narcotics use tragically died?
As a criminal defense attorney, I have never heard of this type of witness. If you tried that around here, the State would have “opened the door” for evidence of Floyd’s poor character; maybe call the pregnant woman he robbed a while back.
Really most of these witnesses are irrelevant as there are several video tapes where the jury can actually see what is happening themselves. They don’t need these crowd witnesses to say " I saw a man on the ground saying he couldn’t breathe." Yeah, we know that; we have the best evidence on the videos.
First, this “spark of life” witness is apparently a novel thing, unique to Minnesota, so thank you for ignorance fought! It explains why this woman who was not present at the scene was testifying.
But, since the defense is going to harp on Floyd’s drug use, having the drug using girlfriend testify is a strategy to get “out in front” of that bad testimony by trying to preemptively address it.
The hope is, once the jury hears about how Floyd had drugs in his system, the reaction won’t be horror or disgust, but rather some more akin to, “yeah, we already knew he had a drug problem.”
And if they can score sympathy points - he was also a good dad, a kind man, and his drug use wasn’t necessarily his own fault - the more the better.
It always helps to sell a conviction if you can come up with a plausable motive as opposed to just trying to prove someone did something and we have no idea why they would. In particular it would be helpful for the top charge, where the jury must (theoretically) find guilt to the underlying felony- third degree assault- which requires intent, before finding that someone died as a result of that felony.
Juries like Motive. No motive, maybe he didnt mean to kill him, that means manslaughter, not murder in most cases.
And Investigators have combed all his social media, etc and no evidence Chauvin is racist. Thet doesnt mean he isnt, but hard to use that as a motive without some shred of evidence.
Agreed. And I’m sure that the defense has prepped Chauvin to the max and has made a determination about whether he will be a good witness. In my cases, I make it a point not to call the defendant unless I believe it is absolutely necessary to avoid a conviction. Lay defendants, unfortunately even if truthful, will not be able to wither a cross examination from a trained attorney.
But I think this is a unique situation. The jury needs to hear what Chauvin felt he was doing through this process and what his training and experience taught him was proper in that situation. If he can do that, and does so in a calm and articulate manner and with the proper level of emotion, I think he is acquitted.
This. The parade of witnesses all editorializing makes it feel like the prosecution knows they won’t win based purely on the facts and need the jury to feel outraged by Chauvin’s behavior vs determine the legality of what he did.
I watched David Pleoger, the precinct police sergeant testimony. He took the 911 dispatcher’s call, went to the scene, and started the excessive force investigation.
It was unusual because the officers involved were supposed to notify their sergeant by radio dispatch or direct cell phone. I’m not sure if the delay was long enough to be a procedural violation. But it’s something the jury will probably remember and consider.
There are exceptions when the sergeant doesn’t have to be directly notified. The exceptions were discussed at length in the testimony. The point was made that a handcuffed suspect that gets injured by an officer does require direct notification. Chauvin was a bit slow in notifying his sergeant that Floyd left that scene in an ambulance and without a pulse.
I think the prosecutor will raise this issue again and keep it in the jurors’ minds. That a concerned 911 operator made a direct call to the sergeant.