I don't think they're claiming it was an MMA choke, rather they're using their knowledge of chokes to describe what they're seeing. I googled DW and you can see him in a fight tapping out from a choke hold (I found it uncomfortable viewing). He has personal experiences of this, plus training. I think his testimony will hold up.
Agree. IMO this guy knows what he’s talking about - if you’ve ever watched an MMA fight, these guys know exactly how to inflict damage...(I can’t watch MMA, WAY too brutal).
Again, even if they were to strike the “interpretive“ part from the record, Williams still gave a very powerful and clear eyewitness account through a personal lens - it was reinforced how in real time, he and others were saying to stop, that he was killing him, as it was happening, that this was clearly apparent to everyone - question is, why wasn’t it apparent to DC and the other cops?
GF was already very effectively restrained, and not a threat or danger to the officers or anyone else, that I’m seeing, so why...I am open and curious to hear thoughts as to how this can be interpreted differently.
I don’t think an objection to his expert witness status
would’ve held up, even if one were made. He is a professional fighter. This is what they do, this is what they know: how to severely hurt people.
—
This reminds me of my early days of martial arts101ETC: we are taught on day 1 that the skills we learn could hurt somebody, very seriously, and could be incapacitating, if not potentially lethal. Therefore, the mindset of this training is to keep in mind, not to use these maneuvers unless your life absolutely depends on it. This obviously doesn’t go along with pro fighting/sport fighting, but my point here is if there was no public threat, to officers or civilians, because he was effectively restrained, then why were lethal maneuvers implemented?
I am not seeing how there was any danger to LE (if there’s a part I missed please let me know); GF was already restrained and handcuffed and on the ground with several cops keeping him down, there was no strategic purpose for the knee on the neck, that I’m seeing. I’m open to hearing if there is any flaw or error in the logic/facts presented above.
IMO, the crux of the defenses case is drug addiction and it's effects on the human body, and overdose. More than likely there will be witness after witness testifying about them. And in saying that, the case will be like the 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' Did The knee on Mr Floyd's neck for nine minutes cause his breathing to stop? Or was it the presumed lethal dosing of Opiates and Stimulants ?
Here’s where we can look at it like a math equation - if you take one side of the equation out, can it stand alone? In other words, even if GF had zero drugs in his system, would and could the knee in the neck still kill him - meaning, one does not have to rely on the second half of the equation for the other to happen.