I don't know what the actual charges are that have been levied against him tbph. They showed the video of it all again, I think after seeing that, I just switched off, I know I shouldn't but my mind is already made up. There is no way I could sit on that jury, because I wouldn't be able to keep an open mind. Will say again though, prosecution guy is very clear. Don't envy the defence, must be a nightmare trying to defend that cop.
The defence banged on about his character and his substance use for ages but its not his character or substance use on trial is it? So is the cop gonna take the stand at some point does anyone know? Id like to know what he answer to this is "when Mr floyyd stopped screaming that he couldn't breath. And stopped struggling, and went limp under you knee, did you not notice any of that?" Id also like to hear how long he was on his neck after witnesses say he went limp and lifeless.
He’s going down for it, it’s merely a matter of whether they decide it was premeditated i.e. intentional.
Everything has to be raked up mate. That's why it's the defence, so yeah, any ill health or drug abuse, would have to part of the case. You might not like it, but that's how it works.
But how is his lifestyle important when the question is.. was this man killed by cops being too forceful? How is it relevant? If Mr floyyd was a security guard who played soccer on weekends would they spend 10mins chatting about that? He was allegedly high at the time. That's fine to then say he was hyped or overly strong or whatever but I don't see how him getting high a week before that matters?
They’re obvs going to claim that his drug use played a part in his death, and that his past meant that he needed to be restrained.
It's all relevant. The defence will want to prove it was his health or lifestyle, or any actions at the time, that contributed to his death. That's not my view, just saying how it will work.
@Sucky what's the first thing you do if the cops want to nick you, you get rid of whatever is on you. So let's say just for sake of scenario, he swallowed a stash (I'm not saying he did). The defence would want to prove it was part contributor to his death.
But how? Unless they're arguing as Tobes said that his death was more due to his health. Rather than a copper sitting his knee on a blokes neck for 10mins while he's screaming he can't breath. Yh it's weak af
Yeh i hear that mate, also could be argued they were trying to stop him swallowing anything with the knee on the neck but both are weak argument imo. Unless he has a history of bad health then its not even worth mentioning imo. Screams of trying to paint him as a junkie who's life wasn't worth much anyway to me.
It's not weak mate, might be to you and me, but the defence job is to convince the jury otherwise. This guy most know his job, otherwise he wouldn't be standing up there bro. It's just how convincing he can make it.
I have to say I've been in some pretty serious troubles with class As like on the edge of life and death owing people thousands, but I've never felt the need to go out and kneel on someone's neck until they suffocate. Fry him
Yeh man I'm not pretending I know how to lawyer or anything Im just sayin imo those arguments are easy to blow out of the water, unless as I said they have proof of previous bad health.
I've sat on Crown Jury's twice, two big cases for weeks on end...but American jurisdiction is probably different to our Crown.
