US Election
- Thread starter brb
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
They have an expert/doctor in the George Floyd trial, knows his shhite, all the science and physics about breathing and the lungs etc.
He said a 'healthy person' subject to what GF was subject to would of died. He can even tell the court the exact time of death from the video.
He said a 'healthy person' subject to what GF was subject to would of died. He can even tell the court the exact time of death from the video.
Yup.
He has explained everything in great detail and even shown the Jury loads of diagrams to explain the complexity of it all.
He went on to say, just because someone is talking does not mean they will be talking 5 seconds later. I remember from the trial one of the cops saying, possibly Chauvin, you must be ok because you are talking, or words to that effect.
They will have known about this testimony beforehand and will probably have another "expert" to say the complete opposite. I doubt it'll wash though but all they want is reasonable doubt.
Seems to be suggestions that the defence will be stupid to try and take him on, they would be better to play it from the angle, that the cop wouldn't know all this shhite and it wouldn't have been part of the training.
I was actually thinking when the expert was talking, why are these restraints not banned, so if I think like that, maybe that's what the defence needs to put to the Jury.
Yeh I agree, I think they may pose certain questions to explore other possibilities BUT they will need to be sure beforehand that the answer will be the one they want. But my point earlier will be that when the prosecution rests, and the defence calls their witnesses they will likely have a scientific expert to directly refute the testimony of this one and offer an opposing view.
If I were the defence, I'd go from the angle that if this hold is so deadly, why is it authorised for use. Some might argue that the hold used by Chauvin is not the hold that is trained, nor was it trained to be used in the circumstances that developed.
Was that before or after they had to tell Chauvin to take his knee off the bloke's neck
The defence has had a few good days, he's having an absolute shocker today. He's trying to run rings around intelligent people, big mistake, especially when he don't even understand half their terminology.
As I understand it, witnesses for the defence start tomorrow and should all be wrapped up by Friday. Which means on Monday next week, the legal teams put their version of events.
Some discussion around the Jury being allowed to go home, due to fears of civil unrest, but judge has waivered that idea for now. I think the fears arose from other events that have occurred within the US. I think from tomorrow the area will be placed into a curfew.
I struggle to see how defence can come up with anything that will change my opinion, but we'll see. For me it was cold blooded intentional murder, but what category that comes under for sentencing, I aint got a clue.
The only thing that is missing for me is a motive. I could attach a motive of racism, but I have nothing in Chauvin's known background as proof of that, other than his education and life was spent in at least a 70% white backround, but that does not inply racism but more the inequality of a social environment.
Future trials, Tao has lots to answer for as he had an all round view of events that were unfolding, that led to the death of George. As for the other two cops on George, I think they will be the more complicated trials as I can see lots of varying arguments of defence in their cases.
For now, for me Chauvin is going down, I just hope more it's 40 years rather than 10, only knows what was going through his head, and the only conclusion I can come to is he went full on depraved psycho. Was he trying to be the big man in front of the two new recruits to the team, who knows.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed after sentencing that Chauvin has history for police brutality.
Some discussion around the Jury being allowed to go home, due to fears of civil unrest, but judge has waivered that idea for now. I think the fears arose from other events that have occurred within the US. I think from tomorrow the area will be placed into a curfew.
I struggle to see how defence can come up with anything that will change my opinion, but we'll see. For me it was cold blooded intentional murder, but what category that comes under for sentencing, I aint got a clue.
The only thing that is missing for me is a motive. I could attach a motive of racism, but I have nothing in Chauvin's known background as proof of that, other than his education and life was spent in at least a 70% white backround, but that does not inply racism but more the inequality of a social environment.
Future trials, Tao has lots to answer for as he had an all round view of events that were unfolding, that led to the death of George. As for the other two cops on George, I think they will be the more complicated trials as I can see lots of varying arguments of defence in their cases.
For now, for me Chauvin is going down, I just hope more it's 40 years rather than 10, only knows what was going through his head, and the only conclusion I can come to is he went full on depraved psycho. Was he trying to be the big man in front of the two new recruits to the team, who knows.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's revealed after sentencing that Chauvin has history for police brutality.
Last edited:
It will be hard to prove racism as a motive unless he has history or there is evidence of him supporting far right thinking organisations.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that he is a narcissist with both sociopathic and psychopathic traits and that this was the ultimate power trip for him ... look at me, all powerful and not giving a **** what anybody thinks ... could he have been sure that what he was doing would kill GF? ... probably not ... but he must have known it was extreme force and that the guy was in incredible pain ... and where does that ultimately lead without restraint or any compassion? ... for me his total disregard for the outcome constitutes a murderous act.
Yeah, proving racism is going to be impossible and there has been no evidence to support anything of that nature.
Absolutely he was on a power trip, especially with two new cops in the team and all the psychopathic traits that followed. The problem we've got is I believe they need to prove he intended to kill George or knew he was killing him, otherwise he's only going to get the minimum sentence.
I see another young guy has been shot again by the cops, supposedly by mistake, they need to stop using weapons tazers/guns as the go to tool everytime. It seems it's always stop the person at all cost, regardless of the offence.
As I've said on here in the past if it's a misdemeanor, go and pick them up later. As was said in the GF trial, a fake $20 bill isn't even worth the cops time (not exact words).
My thoughts, all they had to do was ban GF from the shop until he paid the bill properly, afterall despite the witness statement the shop claimed they knew him as a regular customer. Therefore inconveniencing a local person until they pay their outstanding bill in full.
Edit. meant to say, there is a good bit of evidence in favour of one of the two other cops on the ground, when it comes to his trial. It showed him suggesting George need to be rolled on to his side...
Stoughton, the use-of-force expert, said the officers who subdued Floyd should have known he was not trying to attack them when he struggled and frantically said he was claustrophobic as they tried to put him in a squad car.
“I don’t see him presenting a threat of anything,” Stoughton said, adding that no reasonable officer would conclude otherwise.
Stoughton also pointed to instances when Chauvin should have been aware of Floyd’s growing distress: After one officer suggested rolling Floyd onto his side, Chauvin said no. The 19-year police veteran ignored bystanders who were shouting that Floyd was not responsive. And when another officer said Floyd didn’t have a pulse, Stoughton said, Chauvin’s response was “Huh.”
....
Chauvin is the leading officer of the other three, so they basically were over ruled by him saying no.
Last edited:
- Status