Day 4 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz_BwDvd6Cw

Very important day for both sides of the case, but the prosecution called some critical witnesses which helped their case out by a landslide. If you're keeping score, the prosecution definitely came on top as the winner today.

So one of the issues that I saw, and everyone else basically, was that Chauvin did not check for a pulse nor did he start chest compressions when Floyd was unresponsive. Realistically, this was about 2-3 minutes until Floyd's final movement and until the ambulance arrived. The prosecution had paramedics testify today, the same paramedics that took Floyd and put him into the ambulance.

They each testified that they arrived on scene with the officers still restraining Floyd, and that the officers didn't move until the stretcher was on the ground. One paramedic testified that the officers were of "help" to him when loading on Floyd onto the stretcher. The other paramedic was more scornful it seems like, seeming to imply that chest compressions should have started before they even arrived on scene. And hey, it is absolutely true. You don't have a pulse, you start chest compressions.

The defense angle here is that Chauvin was focused on the crowd, and because the crowd deemed itself to be a threat, that was a focus over giving medical help/chest compressions. Not the best argument (in fact, terrible), but is it perhaps reasonable? Maybe? Look back to the transcript of the body worn camera.

You hear Alexander Kueng "I don't feel a pulse." Chauvin is looking at the crowd while they're yelling, looks to Kueng and says "Huh?". Kueng does not repeat himself, and Chauvin continues looking at the crowd. So it might have been a miscommunication here which is why chest compressions were not started.

Could you say that Chauvin was negligent because he did not do chest compressions? Yes, I think you could. Is it important to consider outside factors? Sure -- you look at the fact that they called for code 3 response, which means stepping up paramedics and getting them to the scene ASAP. So medical care was inbound. You also have to take into account an aggressive crowd and what role that had in diverting any attention of the officers. The defense made the argument when questioning one of the witnesses, a former police sgt. on Chauvin's shift, that other threats/dangers have a higher priority than providing medical aid. Not the greatest argument, again, but we all knew this would be the hardest hump to get over for the defense. Another argument the defense made is that drug users who are unconscious can begin to fight with police after they regain consciousness, a question Eric Nelson asked of the police sgt. to which he confirmed.

I think the most groundbreaking thing we learned today is from Floyd's girlfriend Courtney Ross. She acted as a spark of life witness, basically speaking on their relationship. The point of a spark of life witness is to basically humanize the victim, and attach a face/personality to him. Overall, I think it was relatively successful. But uncovered in the prosecution's questioning is that both Ross and Floyd suffered from a prolonged drug addiction. The defense cross examined the witness, and it did not go well for the state.

We learned extremely important things here. One is that Morries Hall was a passenger in Floyd's vehicle at the time of the incident. He was Floyd's source for fentanyl and other drugs. Hall basically lied to the police during the time of the incident and gave police a false name because he had warrants, and we know Hall is not going to testify because he doesn't want to incriminate himself. What we also learned is that Floyd in March of 2020 was hospitalized due to a drug overdose with a hospital stay lasting at least 5 days (11 days according to Eric Nelson). To investigators, Ross told them that Floyd had a foamy white substance running from his mouth as she took him to the hospital during Floyd's drug overdose. Floyd also had a foamy white substance running from his mouth during his May 25th arrest, confirmed by multiple witnesses. This is a huge fact that no one knew prior to today, and of course, the defense capitalized. Another sort small revelation is that Floyd had his girlfriend saved under the name "Mama" in his phone. This might put into context that Floyd was saying "Mama I love you" in reference to his girlfriend, and not his actual mother. Not like that matters in the grand scheme of things though.

Lot of good things learned today.

Link the studies? I think the younger folks today are all depressed because they use a lot of social media. It's toxic for your mentality.

Maybe conservatives use less social media or watch less TV news? It's easier to be happy when you don't know about all the terrible things going on in the world. Maybe it's a strong tie to their families?

Well, they could go somewhere if people mass adopted BTC. Mainly into the garbage can. But realistically though, people will never fully adapt therefore they will always be a reliance on fiats. How are you going to convince a lower class income level citizen that lives paycheck to paycheck to ditch his savings account?

Side note, banks will open up a "crypto" branch soon enough, so we can expect them to dip their greedy hands into Bitcoin. But thankfully, they can't create BTC on a whim.

Day 3 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZMdt1RDGVE

More witness, of course. But the prosecution showed body camera videos from all of the officers involved and this shows that Floyd resisted arrest.

State also brought a witness that was an employee of the Cup foods grocery store where Floyd used the fake 20. In his testimony, he openly admitted that Floyd looked like he was high. They showed footage of the Cup foods store CCTV cameras and it showed Floyd was most definitely high. He was dancing, making weird body movements, and the employee said his speech was delayed.

Another witness was a bystander who was the first person to witness Floyd being taken into the patrol car. This was also the person that said Floyd would have a heart attack if he continued fighting. Surprisingly, no cross examination of this witness by the defense.

Last witness of the day was a Lt. MPD officer who basically gave testimony on the technical aspects of body cameras. He seemed to be an police IT expert.

All in all, much more boring day than yesterday, but more valuable information.

USA health sector is extremely regulated, and that regulation is what helps to contribute to higher prices.

It works very simply -- The US pays for all the R&D for any market drug or therapeutic because the company will sell it to the US market a huge mark up while other countries are quoted at a reasonable price. India is an unregulated mess where pharma companies go to manufacturer their drugs.

Day two -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lydujn8BEiE

Skip to hour 6:49 if you want to watch the biggest grilling of a witness on national TV you have ever seen.


Basic summary of day two - you had the state bring witnesses to the stand that were apart of the crowd that were forming while Floyd was being restrained.

So by virtue of that fact alone, you're probably going to get biased witnesses that still have emotional trauma from what they saw, hence why they are witnesses by the state.

Problem is, quite literally none of these witnesses were objective in nature to what they observed, but added a lot of additional commentary and speculation. This really drives the point that the prosecution is going for emotional appeal because the facts are not on their side. But that's okay -- it's a legitimate strategy and it's valid because their goal at the end of the day is to land a conviction.

Where I have issue is they literally called a 9 year old witness to the stand (thank god Eric Nelson, Chauvin defense attorney, did not cross examine this witness, not like he ever would), but realistically, what valid testimony can a 9 year old give? Is it not apparent that asking a 9 year old child what she saw Mr. Chauvin do to Mr. Floyd would not be useful?

Moving on to the SPICY cross examination on the EMT (time stamp above), basically one of the members of crowd that had formed onlooking Floyd and the officers was a firefighter. So, this firefighter is called as a witness by the state and she shows up in her EMT outfit (which to me is so absurd because it makes it look like she's giving expert testimony when she is not an expert, and she is not independent). Anyway, the prosecution attempt to do exactly this and ask this EMT about EMT protocols, checking pulses, how to save someone's life and such. One point the prosecution really tried to capitalize on was the fact that this EMT attempted to approach Floyd and the officers in order to help render aid. She, by her own testimony, was yelling at the officers to check Floyd's pulse and his condition. So the burden on the defense is now two fold -- you now have to convince the jury that his person is a biased witness that is unable to give expert testimony (btw this is kinda true), and you have to refute a rather larger allusion which is that Derek Chauvin had *no* regard for Floyd's life because he didn't allow an EMT to check for Floyd's pulse and render aid.

Obviously, any reasonable person can reason their way through why it'd be a bad idea to let an non-uniformed, self proclaimed EMT, interfere with a detainment, especially if she's part of a hostile crowd. But, Eric Nelson absolutely demolished this witness and she definitely lost her cool. She also was probably lying in some of her answers too. See above, I promise it's worth it to see an ass kicking of the witness.

Finally, the most effective witness testimony of the day would be the state's witness and the prosecution questioning the witness here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMj85jIK_AM

Just my personal thoughts, I definitely feel for this person. She didn't ask to be in the situation and yes, it is traumatic to watch in person what happened to Floyd if you don't understand the procedures or the greater context. But this is effective because it draws emotions, and emotions are the way you will get a conviction. So prosecution succeeded here and this was one of the highlights of the day.

Eric Nelson asked all the jurors about this concern during jury selection about whether they feared for their safety and were inclined to vote one way or another. Everyone that was selected said no so I'm actually not too worried about this. But, if they get doxed and harassed/threatened I wonder what happens then? An alternate comes in?

Anyway, you have 12 jurors total and the prosecution needs 12 people all to vote guilty. That's already feels like an uphill battle because how are you gonna get 12 people to agree on this case that is so controversial with so much grey area?
 

It's trial time!

I've been following this lawyers write ups which are very informative (although biased)

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/03/chauvin-trial-day-1-wrap-up-opening-arguments-three-state-witnesses/

Here is the full video from today's opening arguments and witness testimony of 3 witnesses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2RSdD12k8E


Trial is expected to take about 4 weeks considering there are nearly 400 witnesses.

My thoughts on the opening arguments (which are highlighted above in the link in case you don't want to watch the long video) - Lot of emotional rhetoric on the side of the prosecution and some blatant falsehoods. The point of contention in this case is really the cause of death. Whether Floyd died of asphyxia or not. The autopsy report does not show evidence asphyxia, and in fact, the original criminal complaint had openly said this - https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6933246/Derek-Chauvin-Complaint.pdf


However, the prosecution stated that Floyd did die of asphyxia, therefore the burden of proof will be on them.


Moving over to the defense - Eric Nelson, the defense attorney of Chauvin, got outclassed. The delivery of the prosecution was extremely smooth and very convincing though (because let's face it, emotional rhetoric works). So all in all, I think Eric Nelson, Chauvin defense attorney, "lost" in regards to the opening arguments because Eric Nelson immediately began his opening statement on the aspect focusing on reasonable doubt. This basically gives the impression that your client is already guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It was only 10 minutes in when Eric Nelson began talking about fentanyl and underlying conditions, but he seemed not to drill the point rather just glancing over the fact. One main rebuke that stood out to me in the opening statement (and this is a huge piece of evidence that was misrepresented by the prosecution) -- Floyd had no anatomical evidence of asphyxia, no bruising, contusions, nothing. Therefore, the prosecution in their opening statement tried to argue that because Floyd was bleeding from the nose while on the ground, that it demonstrates a large pressure of Chauvin onto Floyd causing his nose to bleed due to contact with the pavement. However, Eric Nelson dispelled this notion because Floyd banged his head against the plexiglass in the squad car while resisting arrest which caused the bloody nose. And this is evident by the blood found within the squad car. So now, the pathway to argue asphyxia due to large pressure by Chauvin's knee is a bit more limited. I don't know how many people in the jury would've picked up on this in the initial arguments because it seemed like another point that Eric Nelson brushed over (his delivery seemed a bit too fast tbh).

If I knew nothing about this case and used just the testimony from today's presentation by both the prosecution and the defense, I would undoubtedly be leaning towards a "guilty" verdict. But obviously, this is the first day.

Working from home killed productivity tbh.

I get that it's great working from home and not having to commute, but if I owned any office related business, in what way can you verify that work is actually getting done without literally having to babysit employees and monitor their every move? I know companies will install tracking software on business computers, and I would hate to be using something like that at home.

I agree banking is a scam because you really have no control over your money. It's all a virtual creation with no backing that gets transferred over and over. But the government is heavily involved in the creation of this digital money. Look at the US stimulus money, you basically have a bunch of politicians telling the fed to print money that gets deposited into people's accounts with no after thought. All because it benefits politicians and their reelection campaign.

NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...

NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter

Honestly, the strategy begins to unravel once you appear to be cognitively declining as President and you have someone as vile as Kamala Harris waiting to be put in place. But wouldn't it be ironic if the US's first women President would not even have been elected   

NAID isn't making anything off these vaccines, and since it's not like the US is lacking in vaccines. If you're elderly, you can get a vaccine in almost any developed country today. AstraZeneca probably tried to either manipulate data or put out data that was false/old by accident, so they'll be stopped at the door if they try to get authorization in the US. I just find it weird the NAID would publicly comment, makes me believe these data "errors" might not have been accidental (keep in mind, if you're a business, you get big bucks for an FDA authorization bc your vaccine will be rolled out to millions all paid for by the government).

And how many people can get by on a casual heroin or oxycodone dose every now and then? There is no moderate use.

If you're at the point that you use opioids "recreationally", you have a problem and you need help. Plenty of documentaries of drug users you can see, they're miserable. It never starts out with anyone wanting to be a heroin junkie, it's always casual use that turns into an abhorrent addiction.

Well, can anyone say they're surprised? The food prices can be explained due to the supply chain issues, but that's just temporary. The bigger discussion should be on inflation because printing money and massive spending basically props up an economy while the real effects will come in 3-4 years from now. When the US hands out unconditional checks and makes everyone in the middle and lower class 1,400 dollars richer, no one gets richer. You reduce the purchasing power because EVERYTHING will increase in price, not just food.

Joe Biden had his first press conference today, you can make up your mind if you think he is slow or not or whether he has dementia - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5CPTxij6YE

Answer probably is no, but he looks tired every time he speaks, slurs his speech, forgets his train of thought numerous times, and doesn't make much sense sometimes while rambling on. His mental cognition is not well, to put it short.

But focusing more on the substance, which is a bit off track, border policy was a main focus of the press - https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/1375164353121488901

You know you fucked up when even CNN is criticizing you. The fact is, this is a Biden created crisis because he is focusing on open borders because democrats want illegal immigrants to have a pathway to citizenship so they become voters. Democrats realize they are losing the center to republicans and they need to compensate. It's quite slimy what they're doing really.

Meh, this is kinda going overboard.

Anyone in the position to use Bitcoin probably already enjoys human rights that some people don't have...particularly muslims in concentration camps over in China. It's not like BTC is going to save the world. It provides economic freedom and decentralization, "human rights" has nothing to do with it. And no, I don't consider economic freedoms to be a "human right", more like a basic liberty.

You can expect BTC's price to literally sky rocket with countries like the US spending record amounts of money.

It's rumored that Joe Biden is releasing a 2-3 TRILLION dollar "infrastructure" plan on top of the 1.9 trillion dollar spending bill already proposed. The USD will crash within everyone's life time, because it will happen soon. This sort of spending for the world's largest economy by GDP is not sustainable, so it isn't unreasonable to think 60k is just the beginning because you have to understand...for every bill printed, you are borrowing the money to pay back at a later time plus inflation.

60k will seem like child's play.

I guess the only part I miss about Trump is the media cycle has been pretty boring. And unfortunately to our journalists, they no longer can base their news cycle on whatever Trump tweets, they actually have to do some investigating and reporting.

The tone of the media is pretty different though, because it seems they would hardly cover Joe Biden prior to the election, but now that the stakes are lower, they feel inclined to actually objectively cover the administration.

NAID accuses AstraZeneca of potentially including outdated information on their US trials vaccine testing. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/niaid-statement-astrazeneca-vaccine

This is not normal, and this also means AstraZeneca will not be a vaccine offered to Americans if it turns out they manipulated clinical trial data. I believe Pfizer/BioNTech, J&J, and Moderna(?) are the major players for the vaccine at the moment, and AstraZeneca only had a 80 percent effectiveness which is below the others.