MN - George Floyd, 46, died in police custody, Minneapolis, 25 May 2020 #15 - Chauvin Trial Day 12

[MsBetsy]

I don’t know why they didn’t react to their concerns. I imagine the crowd was distracting, but not so distracting that it should have prevented anyone from focusing on GF.

Yes, that's what the officers said who testified so far. I think it was Zimmerman who said the suspect should be the primary focus. Now we'll have to see what the others say. I think they will have a hard time convincing the jury that they were a significant threat. The bystanders who did step into the street got right back on the sidewalk when they were warned, as far as I could tell.

Which attorney was it that publicly asked, if the bystanders were so concerned, why didn't they try to save Floyd themselves? Does anybody remember that comment? It was one of the other officer's attorneys.

 

[MadMcGoo]

agreed, however, she was not his girlfriend, she was his ex, she was more concerned about what she had been caught up in and pronouncing her own innocence of wrongdoing that day than what was happening with GF. She was much more focused on explaining that she was just getting a ride, she was not "the one" and just wanted to get the heck away from the scene.

In other words, she wasn't worried about advocating for GF, she was advocating for herself and trying to avoid whatever legal issue's were unfolding for GF. JMO

Oh I agree. She was concerned about herself above anything. If he were that afraid to get into the back of a squad car, and I knew about it, I’d like to think I would speak up. But I also hope I never have to find out what I’d do.

 

[bluebird69]

Re the second witness today, the retired emt(2019 incident). I believe she stated she was told by GF about meds he had been prescribed for high BP, which he was not taking. Has this been brought up in the trial as to whether this was still the case? As in was he on BP drugs prescribed by a gp and/or not using these. Sorry i find myself zoning out sometimes with the repetition of the experts testimony

 

[wasnt_me]

IMO I don't think they are going for OD'ing. I think they are going with the effects of the drugs on his heart/body in that situation. The prosecution during their case, spent a lot of time trying to say that GF was not lethargic like someone "should be" on fentanyl.

So SH's reluctant testimony shows, he was lethargic.

I want to know more about fentanyl/meth combo.

I think the defense is going for any and everything like spaghetti on a wall.

 

[MsBetsy]

Did Mr. Floyd state he was claustrophobic during the 2019 incident ??

I think he did. The prosecution wanted a psychologist to testify about some of Floyd's issues with anxiety, etc, but the judge didn't allow it. Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

IMO I don't think they are going for OD'ing. I think they are going with the effects of the drugs on his heart/body in that situation. The prosecution during their case, spent a lot of time trying to say that GF was not lethargic like someone "should be" on fentanyl.

So SH's reluctant testimony shows, he was lethargic.

I want to know more about fentanyl/meth combo.

I think the side effects of meth or any stimulant would counteract the drowsiness but the medical experts agree that he had low levels of meth in his system.

I think the point the prosecution is trying to make is that Floyd showed no signs of an overdose at any time during his arrest.

I don't think it matters if the jury believes the drugs and his medical problems contributed to his death as long as they believe the neck kneeling for nine minutes was a substantial causal factor.

The defense would have to prove that either an overdose and/or his heart problems were the actual cause of death.
Imo

 

[ilovewings]

Nelson's only defense at this point is to convince jury that GF had a history of being addicted to drugs and died of an OD. Nelson has to establish a foundation and build upon it one brick at a time. He only needs to convince one juror.

As Joey Jackson just said- these incidents in 2019 clearly show Mr. Floyd lived through that contact with police. The police didn't put a knee on his neck. So this incident shows Floyd was addicted to drugs- Over a period of time he developed a tolerance to a high level of opiods---

I recall investigating a case of a fairly healthy 70 year old man who had a hip replacement- he came through the surgery just fine- however, the following day he was given injections of Dilaudid for pain control: He die Review of the medical records and other documents revealed he actually got too much Dilauid (that was not ordered), by mistake. It was enough however to result in his death. What I learned was that this man was considered opiate naieve -- Therefore it would not take much to actually cause severe respiratory depression and death. The opposite of Floyd who apparently had an enormous tolerance to opioids. Good luck to Nelson in trying to prove these drugs caused his death.

I think the defense is going for any and everything like spaghetti on a wall.

The defense's task is much easier than the prosecution: The goal of the defense is to get one juror, just one (the more the better, but all he needs is one)- to get that mistrial. He is speaking to that one juror that will believe what he is selling. The prosecutor has to convince each and every juror- that is no easy task, especially in a case like this. To me it is obvious beyond words that Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck resulted in the death of Mr. Floyd.

 

[missy1974]

They are back... Barry Brodd, use of force expert.

 

[sds71]

@nytimes
: "In 2018,Brodd testified on behalf of Jason Van Dyke, a Chicago police officer who shot and killed 17-year-old Laquan McDonald, in 2014. Mr. Van Dyke shot Laquan, who was walking down the street while holding a knife, 16 times. He was convicted of murder in 2018."

 

[tlcya]

implication is that the state turned down Dodd's services because his opinion as an expert did not support their case. So he went to work for the defense.

In his opinion Chauvin's actions were justified

 

[missy1974]

Interesting that he reached out to the State first.

 

[tlcya]

Graham v. Connor being discussed

the factors the court upheld are as follows:

1. The need for the application of force;
2. The relationship between that need and the amount of force that was used;
3. The extent of the injury inflicted; and
4. Whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm

Graham v. Connor: Supreme Court Ruling on Police Use of Force

 

[JerseyGirl]

Barry Brodd is the defense’s first use of force expert witness.

Brodd: I felt that Derek Chauvin was justified...was acting with objective reasonableness following Minneapolis Police Department policy in current standards of law enforcement, and his interactions with Mr. Floyd.

https://twitter.com/anavilastra/status/1382038171794485249?s=21

Nelson is now asking Brodd about the Graham vs. Connor factors which set the standard on what a reasonable response is in use of force.

Brodd: So as you're reviewing an incident, such as this, you have to try to see it through the eyes of the officers on the scene. You know what factors were they dealing with, what circumstances, what was the suspect doing, what we're on lookers doing…

Brodd: So it's easier to sit and judge in an office on an officer's conduct. It's more of a challenge to again put yourself in officer shoes to try to make an evaluation, through what they're feeling, what they're sensing, the fear they have, and then make a determination.

Brodd is now explaining how he reviews cases to form his opinion on use of force.

https://twitter.com/anavilastra/status/1382039432581287941?s=21

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I'm not sure I was ever persuadable and I may be alone in this but Mr. Floyd could have been mainlining heroin in front of Chauvin and I still wouldn't believe it removed culpability from the officers involved.

JMO

15 likes at this time means you are not alone

 

[Weki]

So Brodd is essentially repeating all the things Nelson has been introducing through his questioning of state witnesses. No surprises. I have to imagine the jury is not going to be all that surprised by this testimony. IOW, not groundbreaking. And falls flat given the facts of the case. JMO

 

[missy1974]

So Brodd is essentially repeating all the things Nelson has been introducing through his questioning of state witnesses. No surprises. I have to imagine the jury is not going to be all that surprised by this testimony. IOW, not groundbreaking. And falls flat given the facts of the case. JMO

I think Nelson was able to get a lot of the States witnesses to agree to a lot of this too. BUT that isn't a good thing for the State IMO

 

[Katerz]

Well at least this witness wasn’t paid much to tell anything but the truth.

 

[MadMcGoo]

I think this witness is important. I hope jurors are listening attentively.

 

[Katerz]

If I’m getting tired of hearing the same thing over and over.. I wonder if the jury is as well.

 

[MsBetsy]

Well at least this witness wasn’t paid much to tell anything but the truth.

He just said he believes Floyd was still struggling with officers once he was in the prone position and it "appeared" that he kicked officer Lane. I wonder what he will say about Floyd's resistance during the next nine minutes he was restrained and if it was justified use of force.