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

[CrimeAway]

There’s a big difference between justification and explanation in my opinion. Nothing can justify what he did. There may, however, be things that would explain why he made the decisions he did.

Edited for emphasis.

DC's behavior is very difficult, if not impossible to JUSTIFY, IMO, but I agree that it *may* be explainable.

I also think that in exploring whether DC's actions were justifiable or explainable, the court has sought to give him due process.

In watching the trial, it has become apparent to me, that there is a huge gulf between the experiences, perceptions and understanding and attitude of:
1) the general public
2) those with experience of the criminal justice system who don't want to be detained
3) various elements of law enforcement
4) the media, and their choice in what they present and how.

I think we have to start bridging these gaps.

All MOO.

 

[Bobbywoo]

I half expect Brodd to walk by Chauvin and say "good kill man!" while giving him a fist bump.
I feel like I need a long hot shower to get all the ick off me.

 

[MadMcGoo]

That's true, but the witness and video evidence shows Chauvin's knee on his neck for over nine minutes. Even if the defense proved (by those still shots) that he lifted or moved his knee a few seconds (four or five different times,) it would still be around nine minutes that he had his knee on Floyd's neck.

I don’t disagree. I guess my main question at this point is why? I’ll refer back to a post about the Graham v. Connor discussion. I personally am not convinced (as of this point in the trial) it was done maliciously or sadistically.

1. 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.

 

[Shaddow]

As soon as GF stopped breathing and had NO pulse...they should have turned him over and started CPR. PERIOD. They purposely didn't and it wasn't because GF might be a threat if he "woke" up. IMO
There is NO excuse that could possibly justify this. They are suppose to preserve life. They Did Not!

 

[MadMcGoo]

DC's behavior is very difficult, if not impossible to JUSTIFY, IMO, but I agree that it *may* be explainable.

I also think that in exploring whether DC's actions were justifiable or explainable, the court has sought to give him due process.

In watching the trial, it has become apparent to me, that there is a huge gulf between the experiences, perceptions and understanding and attitude of:
1) the general public
2) those with experience of the criminal justice system who don't want to be detained
3) various elements of law enforcement
4) the media, and their choice in what they present and how.

I think we have to start bridging these gaps.

All MOO.

I agree.

 

[GarAndTeed]

A tad OT....I had some heavy duty oral surgery this morning and need to pick up four prescriptions for pain and infection but can't drag myself away from this cross examination.

Bless your heart. I'm going to be having the same (major oral surgery) soon; mouth pain is the worst. Take care of yourself and feel better soon <hugs>

 

[GarAndTeed]

uggh uggh uggh Well he's perfectly compliant now isn't he Mr. Dodd? Resting comfortably. Sheesh I cannot even.

I have to stop watching this. And yet here I sit, getting more and more outraged.

I know- I keep having crying spells.

 

[kaen]

As soon as GF stopped breathing and had NO pulse...they should have turned him over and started CPR. PERIOD. They purposely didn't and it wasn't because GF might be a threat if he "woke" up. IMO
There is NO excuse that could possibly justify this. They are suppose to preserve life. They Did Not!

Key phrase agreed to by defense witness: duty of care. It has been about this since day 1. They provided no care, even after the newbies were asking about it AND Mr. Floyd was unconscious. At the moment where they gave him no care, Mr. Floyd's fate was sealed, either death or serious brain and/or organ damage based on lack of oxygen. Chauvin made the call to not provide care AND he was in the best position to determine lack of consciousness and lack of resisting.

 

[mickey2942]

It looks like the only person who can explain/justify Chauvin's actions is Chauvin, himself.

Catch-22.

 

[BUF]

If interested...

https://twitter.com/AnaViLastra/status/1382081774902153220

Here’s another look of the courtroom. Prosecutors on the left, defense on the right. The pool reporters (1 for print, 1 for broadcast) are against the back wall. #DerekChauvinTrial

 

[ElizaKate]

DC's behavior is very difficult, if not impossible to JUSTIFY, IMO, but I agree that it *may* be explainable.

I also think that in exploring whether DC's actions were justifiable or explainable, the court has sought to give him due process.

In watching the trial, it has become apparent to me, that there is a huge gulf between the experiences, perceptions and understanding and attitude of:
1) the general public
2) those with experience of the criminal justice system who don't want to be detained
3) various elements of law enforcement
4) the media, and their choice in what they present and how.

I think we have to start bridging these gaps.

All MOO.

I agree.

Anyone's actions can be explained though. "I killed my pregnant wife and children, because I wanted a new life with my lover" - it's an explanation, but that person's still guilty.

If there are any explanations in this case that reduce Chauvin's culpability I haven't heard them - and I came here to hear them.

 

[MTW2011]

I understand this is Nelson’s job.. but I don’t see how he can stand there with a good conscience (is that the right word? I’m drawing a blank I’m so mad) and actually believe that what his client did was okay. I really don’t. I’m not trying to bash counsel or witness.. but this is just ridiculously obsurd.

That's a thought I've had with multiple trials I've found that most defense attorneys don't always hold the view that their client didn't do the alleged crime and they're innocent but more they want to focus on getting a fair trial, making sure the Prosecution proves their case,etc. Nelson may believe Chauvin didn't commit murder or manslaughter but he's trying to put on a good defense I think that's all there is to it. His personal feelings are supposed to be kept out of it. On Dateline and 20/20 episodes I've seen some Defense attorneys interview and say "well I'm not saying I agree with my client, I'm just relaying that to the jury" (something to the effect of that).

Nelson could think Chauvin killed this guy but still tries his best to put on a good defense. He did call out the State in his Motions, more than once, and issues they did with late Discovery, totally unorganized Discovery, etc. Very specific stuff and he brought his receipts, I'm not sure if it's been discussed much here but I actually agreed with his arguments in the Motions because it really did look like the State was not making it easier for him to have access to, or be able to comb through thousands and thousands of pages easily. All of that leads to me think he's just serious about ensuring the State proves their burden and that his client gets a fair trial. I think it'll be interesting the day some jurors find out that Chauvin initially agreed to 3rd degree and a prison term but that was rescinded and/or DOJ and Barr didn't accept that.

 

[Bobbywoo]

Here's an older video when he testified as use of force expert in Justin Van Dyke trial , who was ultimately convicted last year of second-degree murder for shooting McDonald 16 times:
Defense Expert Barry Brodd.mp4 from Andrew Branca on Vimeo

Good find!

 

[magnolia]

I'm not sure this guy was worth $11,400 for the Defense

I respectively disagree.

I dunno about y’all.. but I’m getting more and more and more ticked off with this! Someone complying would be RESTING COMFORTABLY on the pavement in the prone position!!! No the H E DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS i would not be!

If Mr. Floyd had abdominal obesity, I might agree.

A fit person, such as Mr. Floyd, would be able to relax in a prone position on the pavement without any discomfort. IMO

 

[MsBetsy]

There’s a big difference between justification and explanation in my opinion. Nothing can justify what he did. There may, however, be things that would explain why he made the decisions he did.

Edited for emphasis.

I'm sure some of his actions are explainable, there's just not a "reasonable" explanation for what he did, especially if he intended to hurt Floyd, or if he knew he was causing pain and suffering. If what the owner of the nightclub said is true, that he was especially aggressive on African American nights or was "afraid" of black people, that's not a reasonable explanation either. That's just being prejudiced.

 

[GarAndTeed]

My cat was watching with me; I asked her how she thought the "expert" was doing, and she slunk out of the room with her tail between her legs...

 

[Boodles]

I don’t disagree. I guess my main question at this point is why? I’ll refer back to a post about the Graham v. Connor discussion. I personally am not convinced (as of this point in the trial) it was done maliciously or sadistically.

1. 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.

Why? Because he could. Because the crowd was begging him to stop. Because he was on a vengeful power trip. Because he showed everyone, the “crowd” and his colleagues, what a big, tough, in-charge man he is. Because he IS sadistic. Because he is lacking an iota of compassion or consideration for the life of another human being.

He’s a sick man. I believe he’s not sorry at all, except that he got caught committing murder.

 

[Kaley Smith]

All the training (or experience) in the world won’t prepare you for every situation, unfortunately. Every situation is different; the individual, the crowd, the circumstances, everything. When you become complacent, you open yourself up for trouble. It would be complacent (IMO) to become comfortable around people video recording an incident. Maybe 99% of the time nothing bad happens. I don’t want to take the chance of experiencing that 1%.

I might have tuned out what the crowd was yelling, but been alert by the fact that they were yelling. It’s hard for me to speak to that, I wasn’t there.

T

So far I don't see or hear the agressive mob that caused Chauvin to commit murder.

Exactly. There were 4 other armed officers on scene. I highly doubt Chauvin was worried about his safety. He was perched very casually on Floyd and looked to be rather enjoying his position of power.

I don’t disagree. I guess my main question at this point is why? I’ll refer back to a post about the Graham v. Connor discussion. I personally am not convinced (as of this point in the trial) it was done maliciously or sadistically.

1. 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.

Chauvin's body language and 'uh ha' responses to Floyd's pleas for relief suggest he rather enjoyed inflicting pain. One of the bystanders said as much. He certainly lacked empathy. Makes me cringe.

 

[Factoria]

ICYMI: A short clip from Exhibit 43 (I believe this is Keung's BWC footage) is shown to Defense 'expert witness', Barry Brodd. Shows GF lying prone, handcuffed, and restrained by 3 officers.

Schleicher: What is Mr. Floyd doing in that clip?
Brodd: He's becoming more compliant.
S: Well, is there any non-compliance you were able to see in that clip?
B: In this clip, no.
S: And, so, he's not exhibiting any non-compliance, and, based on your testimony, and your review and the plain video record in front of you, you see that the Defendant has NOT changed his position. Correct?
B: Correct.
S: He's still applying the same level of force that he did at the beginning of the restraint period. True?
B: That, I can't say.
S: He's still kneeling on Mr. Floyd. Correct?
B: Yes.
S: And, you're not contending that this was some sort of an 'accidental' position, right? He didn't fall down onto Mr. Floyd... He was purposefully kneeling on him.
B: Yes.
S: So, based on your view of the Defendant being on top of Mr. Floyd, up to this point ~ and beyond this point, the Defendant did not alter the level of force that he was using on Mr. Floyd, did he?
B: No
S: Even though Mr. Floyd, by this point, had become, as you put it, compliant. Fair?
B: More compliant, yes.
S: Well, what part of this is non-compliant?
B: So, I see his arm in a bent position in the picture that's posted.
S: ... Right....
B: And, you know, a compliant person would have both their hands in the small of their back, and just be resting comfortably... versus, like he's still moving around.
S: Did you say 'resting comfortably'?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
B: Or laying comfortably...
S: 'Resting comfortably'.... on the pavement?!?
B: Yes.
S: And at this point in time, when he's attempting to breathe, by shoving his shoulder into the pavement...
B: I was describing what signs of a perfectly compliant person would be.
S: So, attempting to breathe, while restrained, is being slightly non-compliant?!?
B: ....... no...
S: No.

 

[Legally Bland]

Sounds like the State are going to try impeach expert witness(es).