George Floyd death / Derek Chauvin trial - Sidebar week 3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chauvin is going to be found guilty of one of the charges and rightly so. I hate the guy and hate power tripping cops. IMHO it's manslaughter because the circumstances never seem to rise beyond it. However, between yesterday and today it feels like the state has lost their momentum. I don't think it will matter in the end but I am very disappointed in how the state has handled their presentation. It could have been much better.
 
Tom_Servo said:
Chauvin is going to be found guilty of one of the charges and rightly so. I hate the guy and hate power tripping cops. IMHO it's manslaughter because the circumstances never seem to rise beyond it. However, between yesterday and today it feels like the state has lost their momentum. I don't think it will matter in the end but I am very disappointed in how the state has handled their presentation. It could have been much better.
Click to expand...
I'm totally the opposite.I feel strongly that they proved 2nd degree murder.
 
Tom_Servo said:
Chauvin is going to be found guilty of one of the charges and rightly so. I hate the guy and hate power tripping cops. IMHO it's manslaughter because the circumstances never seem to rise beyond it. However, between yesterday and today it feels like the state has lost their momentum. I don't think it will matter in the end but I am very disappointed in how the state has handled their presentation. It could have been much better.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what you think the State did wrong today? I think the early witnesses.. they are what they are. But the expert on force guy? You don't think the State did a good job?

(I personally don't think they did spectacular, I think they did what they could with him, but I'm trying to wait until the end of testimony and jury instructions to decide what I think)
 
missy1974 said:
Just reading this now MsBetsy... but Chauvin says "huh" << doesn't that indicate that he didn't hear the "he doesn't have a pulse"? I didn't know that it was Chauvin that said "huh".

It's like my when I talk to my husband, when he tunes me out and says "huh" (I took it as a huh? as in a question)

but then Keung says 'he was feeling for a pulse', doesn't repeat what Lane actually said.
Click to expand...
Chauvin knew he checked his pulse, so I would think he would want to know the answer, especially since Floyd had already stopped breathing. If he didn't hear him the first time he could have asked again.

He also had his hand around Floyd's wrist so he could have checked it himself at any time. Imo
 
missy1974 said:
I'm curious what you think the State did wrong today? I think the early witnesses.. they are what they are. But the expert on force guy? You don't think the State did a good job?

(I personally don't think they did spectacular, I think they did what they could with him, but I'm trying to wait until the end of testimony and jury instructions to decide what I think)
Click to expand...

I don't think they did anything wrong. I just feel the momentum was stymied and they should have presented the witnesses in a more compelling order. The comments I've seen from observers indicate the jury has been snoozing or nodding off. That enough indicates they're presentation could have been better.
 
Tom_Servo said:
I don't think they did anything wrong. I just feel the momentum was stymied and they should have presented the witnesses in a more compelling order. The comments I've seen from observers indicate the jury has been snoozing or nodding off. That enough indicates they're presentation could have been better.
Click to expand...

I think that you made some good points.
IMO, the state lost some momentum with the sheer number of witnesses that they called. I read that it was 33 (!), but since I don't have the source to hand, take that as MOO.

I felt myself zoning out at times.
 
CrimeAway said:
I think that you made some good points.
IMO, the state lost some momentum with the sheer number of witnesses that they called. I read that it was 33 (!), but since I don't have the source to hand, take that as MOO.

I felt myself zoning out at times.
Click to expand...

Many times it seems the prosecution ends up presenting excessive witness commentary and boring testimony in high profile cases like this. Not sure why but there are many cases you can point to where the majority of public opinion is guilty and the prosecution lost. Many seem to talk themselves out of guilty verdicts. Present the darn facts and get out!
 
Tom_Servo said:
Many times it seems the prosecution ends up presenting excessive witness commentary and boring testimony in high profile cases like this. Not sure why but there are many cases you can point to where the majority of public opinion is guilty and the prosecution lost. Many seem to talk themselves out of guilty verdicts. Present the darn facts and get out!
Click to expand...

I feel that they hammer the points home repetitively because not everyone catches everything the first time around.

Plus they need to show that the evidence is not one person's opinion, it is the opinion of a broad sample of people ... EMTs, multiple police officers, chief of police, forensic pathologists, doctors, public observers, dispatch personnel, medical and use of force experts.

If the prosecution didn't use a broad range of multiple witnesses, I can hear people saying already "yeah but that is just one person's opinion".
 
So, I don't want to disparage any individual witnesses in this case, but did it strike anyone as odd, that at least 2 witnesses seemed to be under the influence on the stand?

Is that something that would normally be addressed? I have a great deal of sympathy for those who struggle with substance abuse.

Would they be counselled about trying to portray a sober appearance at trial (even if they had to perhaps use a small amount to avoid withdrawal)? I don't require ever seeing this before, so I am genuinely curious.
 
SouthAussie said:
I feel that they hammer the points home repetitively because not everyone catches everything the first time around.

Plus they need to show that the evidence is not one person's opinion, it is the opinion of a broad sample of people ... EMTs, multiple police officers, chief of police, forensic pathologists, doctors, public observers, dispatch personnel, medical and use of force experts.
Click to expand...

If I was sitting on that jury and the prosecution kept up with repetitive evidence that matched previous witnesses testimony I'd be bored. We've seen that ten fold in this case. Same story told over and over again with different witnesses. It was enough after the first 4-5 witnesses. No need to beat the proverbial dead horse. I'd think the side presenting that point is insulting my intelligence. Like I didn't get it the first 10 times...puhleeze.
 
Mony Mony said:
Does anybody know who called EMS and who upgraded the call to a level 3? TIA.
Click to expand...


Thoa did the upgrade, it's in his BCA interview.

My notes:

20:21:35 123096 - 330 EMS CODE 3 [e.d. Code 3 = get here quick with lights and sirens. Verified by Thoa BCA interview it was he who updgraded it after asking Elaine is ambulance coming, she said Code 2 yes, and he upgraded to CODE 3 because of the environment that was occurring the the hostile crowd Timestamp in interview 1:12:35-→>and Thao stated NOT due to concern with GF

ETA my notes have also....


20:21:30 Trial Day 3 screenshot showing only 4 at the time on sidewalk (cashier, MMA guy, viral video girl and another I didn’t write in my notes)

20:21:39 Trial Day 3 testimony by Lt Rugel – Thao body cam – Seen on sidewalk at this time are two people #1) White shirt/jeans girl on sidewalk 2) Grey shirt/blue pants on sidewalk. No one else

So... they were going with angry crowd from the git go as it was called as a code 3
 
Tom_Servo said:
If I was sitting on that jury and the prosecution kept up with repetitive evidence that matched previous witnesses testimony I'd be bored. We've seen that ten fold in this case. Same story told over and over again with different witnesses. It was enough after the first 4-5 witnesses. No need to beat the proverbial dead horse. I'd think the side presenting that point is insulting my intelligence. Like I didn't get it the first 10 times...puhleeze.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have more intelligence than some of the jurors. I think allowances have to be made for those whose comprehension level is less, or who may be paying less attention, or may have biases that need to be overcome.
 
Tom_Servo said:
I don't think they did anything wrong. I just feel the momentum was stymied and they should have presented the witnesses in a more compelling order. The comments I've seen from observers indicate the jury has been snoozing or nodding off. That enough indicates they're presentation could have been better.
Click to expand...
It might be hard not to doze off when sitting down and listening to testimony about blood vessels, arteries and organ function for several hours. The only times we've heard they paid close attention was when Dr. Tobin was speaking and when Floyd's brother spoke. Hopefully there were other times. They must understand the policy for excessive force by now. They probably paid close attention to the video evidence as well.

I wonder how long they will be in deliberations. I hope it's not longer than a week.
 
MsBetsy said:
It might be hard not to doze off when sitting down and listening to testimony about blood vessels, arteries and organ function for several hours. The only times we've heard they paid close attention was when Dr. Tobin was speaking and when Floyd's brother spoke. Hopefully there were other times. They must understand the policy for excessive force by now. They probably paid close attention to the video evidence as well.

I wonder how long they will be in deliberations. I hope it's not longer than a week.
Click to expand...

I hope it is even quicker than that. Slam dunk.
 
I know the trial isn’t over and we haven’t heard jury instructions yet, but I’m curious…….

Has the state proven any of the following charges beyond a reasonable doubt?

Second-degree unintentional murder - Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation or causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim. (Second-degree murder is sentenced to up to 40 years in Minnesota)

Third-degree murder - A depraved-heart or mind murder, which places others in eminent danger of death and disregarding human life. (Third-degree murder is sentenced to up to 25 years in Minnesota)

Second-degree manslaughter - The person's culpable negligence when the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another. (Second-degree manslaughter is sentenced to up to 10 years or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both in Minnesota)

ETA: As of now, I'm going with Second-degree manslaughter. (subject to change)
 
Last edited:
Tom_Servo said:
If I was sitting on that jury and the prosecution kept up with repetitive evidence that matched previous witnesses testimony I'd be bored. We've seen that ten fold in this case. Same story told over and over again with different witnesses. It was enough after the first 4-5 witnesses. No need to beat the proverbial dead horse. I'd think the side presenting that point is insulting my intelligence. Like I didn't get it the first 10 times...puhleeze.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 139 more.
Total: 2,099 (members: 140, guests: 1,959)

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
1,959
Total visitors
2,099
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,452
Messages
18,109,001
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top