Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Vanoi]

No, both of you are missing how juries work. You act as if the prosecution isn't perfect they won't get a conviction but they don't have to be just like the defense doesn't have to be perfect to cast doubt about Floyd's death.

The very fact the first autopsy was labeled as a homicide puts a dent in the defense's strategy to cast doubt on Floyd's death in the first place.

Ignore at your will but I'll bet both Cope and Ponti right now the defense won't win their case.

[Pontifex Maximus]

That is an interesting and totally incorrect explanation of how the burden of proof works.

So, what do I get if you're wrong?

[Vanoi]

That is an interesting and totally incorrect explanation of how the burden of proof works.

So, what do I get if you're wrong?

Burden of proof? You are plain out ignoring an entire autopsy. Don't talk to me about burden of proof.

Don't post in D&D for two years. That's a good bet?

[enoch]

Winner gets to choose amongst my alts on HEX. Or loser admits they were wrong. (Not a genuine offer, everyone knows enoch is the alt).

Some real positive thinking anyone will be posting here in 2 years but Ponti and me.

[Lifthrasir]

Gentlemen, I'd like to remind you the basic rule : attack the post, not the poster. Avoid personal references and stay on topic. Thank you for your understanding.

[Infidel144]

The prosecution seems to have had a better day with its experts yesterday. The defense lawyer did not make as much headway in cross as he had in the prior days. He also looks to be getting tired/exhausted.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The state's own witness on use of force testified that he has done exactly what Chauvin did on at least one occasion and it did not result in death. Reasonable doubt is piling up. It is raining reasonable doubt right now.

[PointOfViewGun]

The state's own witness on use of force testified that he has done exactly what Chauvin did on at least one occasion and it did not result in death. Reasonable doubt is piling up. It is raining reasonable doubt right now.

Johnny Mercil? He said that he had his knee to a person's neck who was hand-cuffed and on the ground for over 9 minutes with multiple officers standing by with a good portion of those +9 minutes the person was unconscious?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Pretty much yes, not sure it was Mercil or the other guy though.

[enoch]

Technically he said the move when used correctly does not cause death. He also did not in any way shape or form say the circumstances were ones where he would have used it. The evidence of guilt is piling up. It is raining guilt right now.

However, if I am wrong and Chauvin isn’t convicted of causing Floyd’s death, I have already decided to blame the jury and continue to claim I am right.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I have no idea what the outcome is going to be

[PointOfViewGun]

Pretty much yes, not sure it was Mercil or the other guy though.

Can't find anywhere in his testimony that is remotely similar to that. Many of Mercil's statements makes it highly unlikely as well as such a case would go against what he described as appropriate use of force. You're gonna have to do better than vaguely putting words in people's mouths.

[Cope]

The state's own witness on use of force testified that he has done exactly what Chauvin did on at least one occasion and it did not result in death. Reasonable doubt is piling up. It is raining reasonable doubt right now.

Baker's testimony (the pathologist who carried out the autopsy), added weight to the second-degree manslaughter charge. Baker contradicted the other medical witnesses who claimed that Floyd died from positional/mechanical asphyxia (which would have supported the murder allegations), and argued that the stress of the encounter caused Floyd's compromised heart to fail. He maintained his finding that the death was a homicide but that Floyd's heart disease, hypertension and drug use were significant contributing factors.

The weakness of Baker's testimony (from the prosecution's perspective) is that he did not indicate why he prioritized the police intervention as the primary cause, particularly given the lack of physical evidence of trauma.

[Cope]

I believe you're referring to an exchange between Mercil and Nelson in which Mercil admitted that sometimes a suspect needs to be restrained for extended periods, and that just because a suspect appears to have stopped resisting doesn't mean he/she won't begin doing so again. This testimony occurred immediately after Mercil admitted that there was evidence to suggest that Chauvin's knee/shin was across Floyd's back or shoulder blades rather than his neck for at least portions of the incident.

This is the testimony:

NELSON: Now you’ve talked about holding a person in the prone position after they have stopped resisting, do you recall talking about that?

MERCIL: Yes sir.

NELSON: And, are there circumstances in your career where you have had to use your body weight to hold a suspect down for longer periods of time than say two or three seconds?

MERCIL: Yes sir.

NELSON: And are there times where you have had to use your body weight to hold a suspect down for ten minutes?

MERCIL: I'm not sure if Ive ever held someone down for ten minutes, I don’t have a recollection.

NELSON: Is it possible?

MERCIL: Yes it is possible.

NELSON: And there are circumstances that an officer has to take into consideration in terms of continuing to use their body weight regardless of whether the person is resisting or not resisting right?

MERCIL: Um, can you reprhase that?

NELSON: Sure. Sometimes an officer has called for EMS, correct?

MERCIL: That’s correct.

NELSON: And sometimes an officer may hold a person using their body weight to restrain them awaiting the arrival of EMS, correct?

MERCIL: Yes sir.

NELSON: You’ve done that yourself?

MERCIL: I have.

NELSON: And sometimes you…or is it fair to say that you’ve had to train officers to use their body weight to continuing holding them until EMS arrives?

MERCIL: As long as needed to control them, yes.

...

NELSON: Situations are rapidly evolving, correct?

MERCIL: That is correct.

NELSON: And sometimes just because a incident is ten minutes long or twenty minutes long, that doesn’t mean that it can’t instantaneously change?

MERCIL: That’s correct.

NELSON: What may not be a threat one second, can be a threat the next?

MERCIL: Correct.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Also interesting. A much more compelling performance than the race grifters did.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yup, seen that part which is vastly different than what Pontifex Maximus claimed. Specifically, they're talking about about using body weight to hold someone which is different from neck restraints. When they talked about neck restraints specifically the outcome was different:



2 conditions are named; would you hold somebody in neck restraint after the person is rendered unconscious and till what point you'd keep doing that. Mercil testified that you could keep your arm around a person's neck till other officers arrived but not too long to wait for the EMS. Chauvin already had a bunch of other officers nearby with Floyd laying there unconscious for a long period of time.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Called it.

[Cope]

Also interesting. A much more compelling performance than the race grifters did.

The theory of mechanical and/or positional asphyxia has been damaged by the testimony of Baker and the publication of body-cam footage offering differing perspectives on the restraint. If one assumed that Floyd was a physiologically healthy person (which his physique suggested), then the m/p asphyxia explanation was the only one that made sense, since there was no other reason why a healthy person would die under those circumstances. We now know that Floyd was not in good health and that, to paraphrase Baker, the incident with the MPD "tipped him over the limit".

[Forward Observer]

Here's an interesting commentary by an NYC criminal defense lawyer who is covering the Chauvin trial for CNN HLN a local branch of CNN news.

I should note that she is appearing on Ben Shapiro's show and regardless of what you think about him as a conservative pundit, he also graduated Cum Laude from Harvard law school. Of course criminal law was not his area of study, but he still has a leg up on understanding legal processes over most hosts of such shows. She deals with the problems the prosecution is going have eliminating reasonable doubt



Cheers

[Pontifex Maximus]

Seems like pretty balanced analysis to me.