MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #11 - Chauvin Trial Day 8

[ilovewings]

I don't think it matters whether GF uttered those words. It only matters that Nelson can keep repeating the phrase so it gets embedded in the jury's brain.

you are correct!!!!!

 

[turaj]

I'm unsure if they did at that time. But Lane said it, which means to me that he at least thought they should?

Lane seems to be the smartest one there, hes the only one that questioned if they should move GF.... but that is JMO.

agree Lane the smartest one in the bunch....if you listen to his BCA interview it comes across loud and clear that had he been left to deal with the situation it would have been just another call on May 25th

 

[CrimeAway]

OT: ABC news live on YouTube is discussing Tiger Woods

 

[Weki]

State is being very methodical. They are anticipating all the arguments defense will put on in their case in chief and have already put on through cross examination. They have the burden and politically the state of MN wants a conviction in this case to bring some legal and political closure to this incident, I would imagine.

I think as someone who thinks this was a totally unjustified use of force it’s frustrating to watch the focus on these minute details. But again we know there will be 1 or 2 jurors who are gonna eat up the defense arguments.

 

[wasnt_me]

Ultimately MOO. GF is not a saint. He initially resisted arrest. He took drugs. Those drugs may have contributed to his death (I await testimony). But those facts do not excuse the actions of Chauvin IMO. He had a duty of care. He had a chance to save a man's life. He chose not, deliberately and knowingly. Not only did he not act. But his excessive use of force possibly (and probably) contributed to GF deteriorating health and ultimate death. MOO.

Agreed.

I see it like this...they all suspected he was on something. So that suspicion alone means they should have been taking percautions for his health and listening to what he said instead of "yeah, yeah, yeahing" him. DC has no excuse because Rookie Lang asked at least once, maybe twice, to roll Floyd over. DC had to consider giving GF this minimal relief and DENIED him. How does the jury ignore stuff like that?

If people think he was putting on about not breathing, fine, disregard that. Focus on when he was NOT talking and NOT moving, but DC was NOT checking or acting -- even after his fellow officers said there was no pulse. Failure to act right there is critical.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Reyerson: Deputy Chief Erick Fors notified me of a video that surfaced on Facebook.

Reyerson says he got to 38th & Chicago approx. 2-3 a.m. on May 26, 2020. By that point, the crime scene team were already there.

Judge Cahill says they'll take a lunch break and will return by 1:15 p.m.

https://twitter.com/anavilastra/status/1379847132937588742?s=21

 

[ilovewings]

State is being very methodical. They are anticipating all the arguments defense will put on in their case in chief and have already put on through cross examination. They have the burden and politically the state of MN wants a conviction in this case to bring some legal and political closure to this incident, I would imagine.

I think as someone who thinks this was a totally unjustified use of force it’s frustrating to watch the focus on these minute details. But again we know there will be 1 or 2 jurors who are gonna eat up the defense arguments.

I totally agree with you. You can never predict what a jury will do and what they are thinking. I have attended several trials when I worked in medical risk management for hospitals. We took few cases to trial: lost some, won some, but speaking with jurors was always surprising as to why they voted one way or another. They would bring up some subject or topic that you didn't even think was important, but to that juror it swayed them one way or the other.

 

[ElizaKate]

Agreed.

I see it like this...they all suspected he was on something. So that suspicion alone means they should have been taking percautions for his health and listening to what he said instead of "yeah, yeah, yeahing" him. DC has no excuse because Rookie Lang asked at least once, maybe twice, to roll Floyd over. DC had to consider giving GF this minimal relief and DENIED him. How does the jury ignore stuff like that?

If people thinks he was putting on about not breathing, fine, disregard that. Focus on when he was NOT talking and NOT moving, but DC was NOT checking or acting -- even after his fellow officers said there was no pulse. Failure to act right there is critical.

BBM - SPOT ON!

 

[JerseyGirl]

LAPD Sergeant Jody Stiger, a prosecution expert in tactics and de-escalation training, testified that Chauvin used deadly force against Floyd. Stiger testified he believed no force was necessary once Floyd was handcuffed, on the ground and no longer resisting.

Stiger testified Tuesday that in his view, officers used excessive force against Floyd during the fatal May 2020 arrest.

"My opinion was the force was excessive," Stiger said.

Stiger told prosecutors he did not believe the crowd of onlookers to pose a threat to officers during the fatal arrest, "because they were merely filming, and most of it was their concern for Mr. Floyd." Defense attorney Eric Nelson has attempted to portray the crowd as unruly.

Live Updates: State use-of-force investigator takes stand in Derek Chauvin trial

But on cross-examination by Nelson, Stiger acknowledged some of the name-calling and aggressive statements by the crowd could be perceived as a threat.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I heard that on the replay, although I think that the last word was difficult to make out.

IMO, Nelson is doing his job by asking questions. He is seeking to paint a picture of what the officers perceived and experienced from their, or specifically the defendant's point of view.

Remember, Graham vs. Connor states that the "reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight" (BBM).

Graham v. Connor - Wikipedia

IMO, you do not have to like the questions that Nelson asks, but I think he has a very good reason for asking them, in his role as defense counsel.

Exactly!

Thanks for pointing that out.

That Lane multiple times said to check pulse (they did) to turn him on his side x2 (they did not)

What a "reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 benefit of hindsight"

MOO that Lane did! And Lane and Keung got off of him after no pulse

 

[shotgun09]

The State's expert in the trial agreed that some things that are "awful" might still be "lawful." So, in other words...exactly what the defense has been stating! And this statement was made during the State's re-cross. Whoops!

 

[BUF]

Paul Blume
@PaulBlume_FOX9
·
2m
Courtroom pool reporter: "Practically all jurors taking notes when viewing pix of Chauvin applying pain inducing hold to Floyd’s hand"
Additionally, full jury said to be looking "attentively at pix of bystanders" during testimony abt how threatening crowd may have been for police

link: https://twitter.com/PaulBlume_FOX9



Not much tweeting going on - and real life calls....

@Chelly - if you are here - maybe you can take over Cathy's tweets - she isn't do much today!

^^^ this: Additionally, full jury said to be looking "attentively at pix of bystanders" during testimony abt how threatening crowd may have been for police

I think I would be looking attentively at that pix of bystanders as this cross was going on... yep, the small crowd of young and old bystanders concerned for what they were seeing.

They also heard from them. Smart move by the state to put voices to this photo as this crowd has been discussed over and over.

 

[wasnt_me]

The State's expert in the trial agreed that some things that are "awful" might still be "lawful." So, in other words...exactly what the defense has been stating! And this statement was made during the State's re-cross. Whoops!

I don't see how it has an effect when the evidence indicated that what DC did was unlawful. The jury will deliberate the facts and determine it despite catch phrases.

 

[MsBetsy]

What is that in a nutshell? Can you summarize please

The interview is over an hour long.

 

[wasnt_me]

The interview is over an hour long.

IKR?

Lang's is even more revealing, but it was just audio. I didn't see one for Keung yet.

 

[Cubby]

Oh I'm watching now.. if they aren't, they should be. JMO

So basically, this guy just confirmed that MMA guy could/should have been viewed as a threat, that he was exhibiting behaviour that an officer is trained to be viewed as a threat.

Ok.. is the State just not preparing these witnesses? Is Nelson just that good?

Just reading today. MMA guy might be a threat IF there was one officer. Is MMA really a threat by himself against four officers with guns?

On another note for those watching live, does it sound like Nelson is taking the jury for being unintelligent?

Back to reading....

 

[MsBetsy]

IKR?

Lang's is even more revealing, but it was just audio. I didn't see one for Keung yet.

I haven't heard Lane's interview yet, but I could tell just from listening to him in the ambulance that he knew their actions were wrong and may have contributed to Floyd's death. Thao's excuse was that it "wasn't his job," to notice Floyd was not breathing. Imo

 

[CrimeAway]

Any thoughts on why the prosecution chose to go with a use of force expert (Stinger) who had never testified in that capacity before?

 

[missy1974]

Just reading today. MMA guy might be a threat IF there was one officer. Is MMA really a threat by himself against four officers with guns?

On another note for those watching live, does it sound like Nelson is taking the jury for being unintelligent?

Back to reading....

Without going back to watch again, no, it was not qualified with IF there is one officer. It was asked of Stiger if officers are trained to watch for certain behaviour and if those behaviours are viewed as a threat and he agreed that they are.

As for your other question... IMO both the prosecution and the defense ask questions that seem like they are talking to 5 yr old jurors. It's just the way trials are, all part of the record, laying foundation, etc.

Again, JMO

 

[missy1974]

Any thoughts on why the prosecution chose to go with a use of force expert (Stinger) who had never testified in that capacity before?

Couldn't find anyone else that hadn't already been on some news station commenting about the incident?

JMO