Riots after Death of Man in Minneapolis Police Custody

[Gyfts]

Don't worry so much: if the sleep-spiracy matters, I'm sure the defense attorneys will act on it.

You guys continue to crack me up.

Hypothetical, what if a sleeping jury member caused Chauvin to get acquitted or a mistrial? Would you not be upset that a killer just got loose because someone was passed out being lazy? This goes both ways. Even if it's common, with how much is on the line, it's disrespectful. And let's take it further than that, if someone fell asleep during the trial, does a reasonable person expect this person to have been paying attention to everything presented? This case is extremely complicated, it's not cut and dry.

Yes, it is complicated. And juror fatigue is a relatively common issue among complex trials. And I have faith that the judge presiding over the case will make the appropriate decision regarding this matter, should he feel one is necessary.

Did you guys bother to find out what testimony was being missed when the juror was allegedly sleeping, when they were sleeping, or its better to just assume it was important to the defense? Like I mean look at this:

If a juror is sleeping, the burden is on the defense to bring this up in court as soon as it is noticed. If the junior is sleeping while testimony favorable to the defense is being given, it may be grounds for a mistrial, but it is up to the defense to bring this up. If they were sleeping today, it may be beneficial for the defense as you described the day as bad for the defense.

Sleeping during trial by a juror is apparently fairly common and this may be an attempt to get off the jury/get out of jury duty. The juror may be having second thoughts about their ability to be impartial after hearing some of the testimony and realizing just how weak a case the prosecution has.

This is 100% speculation. Let's be objective: Not a single part of it is based on fact. Instead, its a series of improbable events all occurring one after another in order to paint a reality that fits preconceived notions, however likely it is completely imaginary.

I feel like you and Quickseller/PrimeNumber7 (do we really have to pretend they're not the same person?) kind of rush to trip over common sense in order to be the first to cram a square block through a round hole. Meanwhile the square hole is just sitting there right next to it. I honestly don't get it.

I knew from the start it was during the prosecution's side of the case, but I don't know if it was during the direct or the cross examination because the courtroom reporter didn't say that part (well, they could've, I just don't remember reading it so correct me if I'm wrong). The point is the same.

Imagine - juror falls asleep during direct questioning of a state witness, but then they are awake for the cross examination. What's that do? That puts a bias in favor of the defense. And of course, the flip situation applies.

What is not common sense about what I said? Is it not unreasonable to ask a juror to stay awake for obvious reasons?

[Quickseller]

Can't imagine that judge not noticing or not doing anything about a sleeping juror.

It is not up to the judge to notice a sleeping juror. if opposing counsel does something that is not allowed per the rules of evidence, it is up to the other side to object, and if they do not raise the objection, the resulting testimony will be allowed.

If a juror is sleeping, the burden is on the defense to bring this up in court as soon as it is noticed. If the junior is sleeping while testimony favorable to the defense is being given, it may be grounds for a mistrial, but it is up to the defense to bring this up. If they were sleeping today, it may be beneficial for the defense as you described the day as bad for the defense.

Sleeping during trial by a juror is apparently fairly common and this may be an attempt to get off the jury/get out of jury duty. The juror may be having second thoughts about their ability to be impartial after hearing some of the testimony and realizing just how weak a case the prosecution has.

This is 100% speculation.

What exactly do you think I am speculating about? Be specific.

[suchmoon]

I knew from the start it was during the prosecution's side of the case, but I don't know if it was during the direct or the cross examination because the courtroom reporter didn't say that part (well, they could've, I just don't remember reading it so correct me if I'm wrong). The point is the same.

Imagine - juror falls asleep during direct questioning of a state witness, but then they are awake for the cross examination. What's that do? That puts a bias in favor of the defense. And of course, the flip situation applies.

What is not common sense about what I said? Is it not unreasonable to ask a juror to stay awake for obvious reasons?

I don't think you can possibly control whether jurors are paying attention to one part of the trial or another even if they're not visibly asleep. It's 50:50 defense's and prosecution's fault for picking inattentive jurors and/or - I can't believe I'm agreeing with Quick7 here - not bringing the matter up with the judge. I don't get why you're so upset about this specific issue... I mean if the defense lawyer is shit and doesn't know or take advantage of details like this, that's a much bigger problem for Chauvin than just a sleeping juror.

[Gyfts]

Defense just rest their case, meaning that all the evidence has been presented. Jury will listen to closing arguments on Monday and then deliberate. Trial is essentially over.

My personal thoughts on the defense "star" witness, Dr. Fowler by the defense.

WaPo, Pathologist testifies for Derek Chauvin defense there were too many conflicting factors to call George Floyd’s death a homicide -https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/14/derek-chauvin-trial-2/.

On Dr. Fowler's credibility, he served as the Chief medical examiner for Maryland for a number of years (so basically what Dr. Baker does), and has served as a forensic pathologist for decades. Dr. Fowler saved the defense after the miserable performance yesterday by defensive tactics experts Mr. Bodd.

I highly recommend anyone that has doubts of the cause of death watch Dr. Fowler's testimony because it almost completely corroborates what Dr. Baker was able to testify about Floyd's cause of death. There is one major difference which I will get into in a sec.

But not only did Dr. Fowler corroborate Dr. Baker's findings, Dr. Fowler covers at least a dozen research papers examining positional asphyxia and in custody deaths. Bottom line according to Dr. Fowler, in custody deaths of positional asphyxia are exceedingly rare to almost nonexistent because the pressure required by someone to asphyxiate a normal person is about 225 pounds of pressure, barring other factors. Most striking studies to me was a use of force review/analysis of a jurisdiction (forgot what area this was) where *over 1000 uses of the prone restraint technique** were used and not one had resulted in a positional asphyxia death. Not one.

You'll also remember Dr. Thomas was asked about a Canada study where the maximal restraint technique was used in real world police interactions, not just a simulation study using some gym mats and people kneeling on each other to collect a participation check. Thousands of prone positional restraints were analyzed out of over 1 million police interactions, no significant clinical deviations were found from these real world police interactions compared to the stimulated interactions. This disputes the prosecution's point that you need to throw out these simulated studies because they aren't real world. What was Dr. Thomas's reaction to this Canadian study where not a single in custody death was reported from the maximal restraint technique? She had nothing to say, no rebuttal, see this 2 minute clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtXTG6_qmjs

Mr. Blackwell on cross examination did refute a couple of the studies regarding the pressure put on someone during the maximal restraint technique, saying that all the studies Dr. Fowler mentioned did not include a knee to the back of the neck, and furthermore did not include restraint being held for 9+ minutes. Dr. Fowler reluctantly agreed. I also kind of agree as well. I tried looking, no studies were done on an individual that was being restrained, hand cuffed, and held down on concrete for over 9 minutes. So it's possible that throws in some variable factors into the mix when we start looking at studies.

Worth noting on redirect, Nelson pointed out that one of the studies *did in fact* examine restraint being held for over 9 minutes, and refreshed Dr. Fowler's memory by presenting him the study. So Mr. Blackwell was wrong.

Just a note on the whole homicide thing, see this slide presented by Dr. Fowler - https://i.imgur.com/ZoEpNF9.png. This slide is taken from https://www.thename.org/ guidelines of death classifications. Just to be clear, homicide in the medical sense is not homicide in the legal sense.

That being said, Dr. Fowler classified Floyd's death as undetermined because there were so many contributing factors involved, it is hard to pinpoint what exactly would have caused Floyd to experience cardiac arrhythmia (all cardiac arrhythmia means is your heart stops working). Meaning was it the drugs? Methamphetamine acting as a vasoconstrictor and stimulant increasing heart rate (both something the defense and state witnesses have corroborated)? Fentanyl causing a potential depression in respiration rate? His heart condition which had coronary artery blockage of near 90 percent in one artery, which Dr. Baker testified could cause sudden death. Was it having an enlarged heart which would require his heart to work harder under stress? Or was it a combination of all these factors creating a recipe for disaster following subdual, restraint, and neck compression by law enforcement? Whatever you think the answer is, we have gone so far from positional asphyxia due to Chauvin's neck which was the original point of contention.

Today, the state recalled Dr. Tobin to refute some portions of Dr. Fowler's testimony. The rebuke was extremely ineffective, lasting a mere few minutes.

All in all after listening to everything? Should be an acquittal. There is reasonable doubt that is painted all over this case and almost an infinite number of holes the prosecution left on the table. But I'm not sure if the jury will agree.

[nutildah]

If a juror is sleeping, the burden is on the defense to bring this up in court as soon as it is noticed. If the junior is sleeping while testimony favorable to the defense is being given, it may be grounds for a mistrial, but it is up to the defense to bring this up. If they were sleeping today, it may be beneficial for the defense as you described the day as bad for the defense.

Sleeping during trial by a juror is apparently fairly common and this may be an attempt to get off the jury/get out of jury duty. The juror may be having second thoughts about their ability to be impartial after hearing some of the testimony and realizing just how weak a case the prosecution has.

This is 100% speculation.

What exactly do you think I am speculating about? Be specific.

OK, let's break it down. You started each sentence in the first paragraph with the word "If". So you're already assuming certain conditions are present in order to make a point. In your second paragraph you use the word "may" in both sentences -- again, you don't know if these things are true or not. You didn't actually supply any evidence whatsoever, which is why your post is 100% speculation.

Also, it's not entirely honest to post in the same thread using two different accounts. Because you insist one of them is not yours, it appears as if you are attempting to bolster credibility for your previously espoused viewpoints by introducing a different account that shares them. If it were hilariousandco and hilariousetc posting in the same thread, I wouldn't mind so much.


I really don't know how the trial will turn out, but I am for due process. Trying to put myself in the shoes of the jurors, just for the exercise: on one hand, you don't want to sentence a man to prison if it turns out he didn't actually do anything wrong; on the other hand, you don't want to cause riots by letting a guilty man off scott-free. How do you handle the gray area between technically legal and common sense?

Maybe he'll get some kind of mid-level sentence. Who knows.

One interesting tidbit I heard on the Adam Carolla podcast (see, if I was truly a big lib I wouldn't have listened to his show for the last decade) was that Mark Geragos, a LA trial lawyer, claimed that the defense must have thought they did a good job as they motioned to sequester the jury, three days ago. According to Geragos, if the defense thought they were losing, they would have motioned for acquittal.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/banfield/attorney-mark-geragos-discusses-the-defenses-opening-in-day-12-of-chauvin-trial/

Well, two days later, guess what happened? The defense motioned for acquittal, and it was denied, obviously.

https://kstp.com/news/defense-continues-presenting-case-april-14-2021-derek-chauvin-trial/6074716/

Not sure what changed between now and then but something tells me you won't catch Geragos doing a 180 here.

[Gyfts]

I really don't know how the trial will turn out, but I am for due process. Trying to put myself in the shoes of the jurors, just for the exercise: on one hand, you don't want to sentence a man to prison if it turns out he didn't actually do anything wrong; on the other hand, you don't want to cause riots by letting a guilty man off scott-free. How do you handle the gray area between technically legal and common sense?

Maybe he'll get some kind of mid-level sentence. Who knows.

One interesting tidbit I heard on the Adam Carolla podcast (see, if I was truly a big lib I wouldn't have listened to his show for the last decade) was that Mark Geragos, a LA trial lawyer, claimed that the defense must have thought they did a good job as they motioned to sequester the jury, three days ago. According to Geragos, if the defense thought they were losing, they would have motioned for acquittal.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/banfield/attorney-mark-geragos-discusses-the-defenses-opening-in-day-12-of-chauvin-trial/

Well, two days later, guess what happened? The defense motioned for acquittal, and it was denied, obviously.

https://kstp.com/news/defense-continues-presenting-case-april-14-2021-derek-chauvin-trial/6074716/

Not sure what changed between now and then but something tells me you won't catch Geragos doing a 180 here.

I thought it was usual to ask for an acquittal? People were saying that everybody expected it, that it was just procedural.

But I thought the defense was going to be a lot longer than it was. Maybe they thought they did a good job with Dr. Fowler, I thought they did, and figured they'd end on a high note instead of risking collapse like with their witness Barry Brodd.

Regardless, godspeed to the jurors.

[PrimeNumber7]

Just to be clear, homicide in the medical sense is not homicide in the legal sense.

I think the term "homicide" in a medical sense is a poor choice of words because it is often used by propagandists who conflate the two meanings. It would be more appropriate to describe these types of deaths as "caused by a person who is not the deceased". 

All in all after listening to everything? Should be an acquittal. There is reasonable doubt that is painted all over this case and almost an infinite number of holes the prosecution left on the table. But I'm not sure if the jury will agree.

It appears that even nutildah agrees with you.

The fact that the video taken by the bystander was allowed to circulate and go viral last summer, while the police department did not release additional footage showing Chauvin's knee on Floyd's shoulder is probably grounds for an appeal if Chauvin is found guilty. Whoever made the decision to not release the additional footage is also probably guilty of the manslaughter of the dozens of people who died in the resulting riots.

I thought it was usual to ask for an acquittal? People were saying that everybody expected it, that it was just procedural.
 

I think it is very common for the defense to ask for an acquittal after the prosecution rests their case.

I really don't know how the trial will turn out, but I am for due process. Trying to put myself in the shoes of the jurors, just for the exercise: on one hand, you don't want to sentence a man to prison if it turns out he didn't actually do anything wrong; on the other hand, you don't want to cause riots by letting a guilty man off scott-free. How do you handle the gray area between technically legal and common sense?

Something that is technically legal, is legal. Period. If you don't like it, change the law. Hold the politicians accountable. There are plenty of laws passed by Democrats they should be held accountable for.

[TwitchySeal]

All in all after listening to everything? Should be an acquittal. There is reasonable doubt that is painted all over this case and almost an infinite number of holes the prosecution left on the table. But I'm not sure if the jury will agree.

It appears that even nutildah agrees with you.

The fact that the video taken by the bystander was allowed to circulate and go viral last summer, while the police department did not release additional footage showing Chauvin's knee on Floyd's shoulder is probably grounds for an appeal if Chauvin is found guilty. Whoever made the decision to not release the additional footage is also probably guilty of the manslaughter of the dozens of people who died in the resulting riots.

Who do you think should've stopped the video from circulating.  And how?

Think about the implications of citizens not being able to share footage of police.  This wasn't some magical camera or edited footage.  People saw what actually happened.

Do you not see a knee on his neck?

[Gyfts]

Judge Cahill under some controversy for suggesting that if convicted, Chauvin has some grounds for appeal over Maxine Waters' comments about being more "confrontational"  if they do not get a murder conviction. Cahill called her comments abhorrent and said that he'd wish elected officials would stop talking about the case. https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/judge-blasts-us-rep-maxine-waters-abhorrent-comments-about-chauvin-trial-2021-04-19/

Imagine, Derek Chauvin convicted and Maxine Waters is Chauvin's get out of jail free card.

[TwitchySeal]

Can't imagine that judge not noticing or not doing anything about a sleeping juror.

It is not up to the judge to notice a sleeping juror. if opposing counsel does something that is not allowed per the rules of evidence, it is up to the other side to object, and if they do not raise the objection, the resulting testimony will be allowed.

Wasn't saying it was the judges responsibility.  Just saying if it did happen, I would be surprised if the judge didn't notice it and pause the trial to sort things out with the juror before moving on rather than wait for one of the lawyers to bring it to the courts attention.

[PrimeNumber7]

All in all after listening to everything? Should be an acquittal. There is reasonable doubt that is painted all over this case and almost an infinite number of holes the prosecution left on the table. But I'm not sure if the jury will agree.

It appears that even nutildah agrees with you.

The fact that the video taken by the bystander was allowed to circulate and go viral last summer, while the police department did not release additional footage showing Chauvin's knee on Floyd's shoulder is probably grounds for an appeal if Chauvin is found guilty. Whoever made the decision to not release the additional footage is also probably guilty of the manslaughter of the dozens of people who died in the resulting riots.

Who do you think should've stopped the video from circulating.  And how?

Think about the implications of citizens not being able to share footage of police.  This wasn't some magical camera or edited footage.  People saw what actually happened.

The big tech companies routinely restrict the circulation of videos and posts. They can also attack a warning that it is misleading, or is lacking context.

All in all after listening to everything? Should be an acquittal. There is reasonable doubt that is painted all over this case and almost an infinite number of holes the prosecution left on the table. But I'm not sure if the jury will agree.

It appears that even nutildah agrees with you.

Not in the slightest. I wasn't at the trial, I'm not a juror; I accordingly and appropriately hold no convictions on the outcome of this case.

If anything I think it has been blatantly apparent to millions since Day One that, at the very least, Chauvin was directly responsible for Floyd's death through his actions. I'm sure it was unintentional, but there's no sane reason to keep your knee on somebody's neck or even upper extremities for three and a half minutes after they took their last breath.

Watching the video in May made me believe that Chauvin killedmurdered Floyd. However after additional information was made public, such as Floyd's drug levels in his system when he died, and his history of health problems, along with the fact that Floyd was saying that he cannot breathe while he was in the police car, and more recently, that Chauvin did not have his knee on Floyd's neck the entire ~9 minutes.

Imagine, Derek Chauvin convicted and Maxine Waters is Chauvin's get out of jail free card.

This is probably what Waters wants. Chauvin getting off would help Waters and her fellow Democrats push their talking points. There was a segment on Tucker Carlson Tonight last night that talked about Waters' decades-long history of promoting the use of mob violence.

The jury has reached a verdict, and it should be read in the next 10 minutes. Some are saying that such a quick verdict is not beneficial to the defense. I would expect riots regardless of the outcome.

Edit: he was found guilty on all charges

[TwitchySeal]

Guilty on all counts.

Good.

[Tzupy]

This verdict confirms that the justice system is racist against white people. The murderer of Ashli Babbitt walks away, because he's Black.
George Floyd died because he ingested too much Fentanyl, had pre-existing conditions, and resisted arrest, but the white police officer is convicted of a non-existant murder.

[Gyfts]

Guilty on all counts? On to appeals.

10 hours of deliberations, think that might have been less than OJ's trial, Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman? I guess they really were sure. Boiled down to watching the video and seeing a handcuffed man crying out for his mother and saying he can't breathe it seems. Closing arguments were leaning in that direction, appeal to emotions was the best approach. It worked.

[TwitchySeal]

Boiled down to watching the video and seeing a handcuffed man crying out for his mother and saying he can't breathe it seems.

And dying.  You left out the dying part.

[Gyfts]

Boiled down to watching the video and seeing a handcuffed man crying out for his mother and saying he can't breathe it seems.

And dying.  You left out the dying part.

Yes, he died, of course. The question is how did he die, and what exact role Chauvin had in Floyd's death. The murder charges don't even make sense within the context of this case. 3rd degree murder was at one point thrown out, so it's not just me saying this - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/derek-chauvin-third-degree-murder.html

I thought the trial should have moved to some place else. It's on to appeals. And 10 hours of deliberations for a case like this? Really?

[PrimeNumber7]

Watching the video in May made me believe that Chauvin killedmurdered Floyd. However after additional information was made public, such as Floyd's drug levels in his system when he died, and his history of health problems, along with the fact that Floyd was saying that he cannot breathe while he was in the police car, and more recently, that Chauvin did not have his knee on Floyd's neck the entire ~9 minutes.

Except, as any rational person was trying to explain to you since the beginning, none of this "additional information" was relevant in reaching a verdict.

I disagree. If Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe prior to being put on the ground, a reasonable person might not give similar statements much weight when he is put on the ground. Floyd having 3x the lethal amount of drugs in his system is relevant....how would one expect someone to survive after having that level of fentanyl in his system?

Guilty on all counts? On to appeals.

I think the comments Waters made will have the verdict overturned. The prosecution will try the case again. Will he be convicted a second time? I don't know.

And 10 hours of deliberations for a case like this? Really?

This probably means the jurors did not need much convincing to reach their verdict. This could have meant the evidence was strong enough that they were willing to convict. Or it could have meant they were afraid of the outcome if they did not return a guilty verdict. It also could have meant one or more of the jurors was implying they would out anyone who did not vote to convict.

[TwitchySeal]

Of all the defenses I've heard for Chauvin, I think these two are among the most insincere:

If Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe prior to being put on the ground, a reasonable person might not give similar statements much weight when he is put on the ground

Floyd having 3x the lethal amount of drugs in his system is relevant....how would one expect someone to survive after having that level of fentanyl in his system?

We all know that "I can't breath" is what someone says when they're having trouble breathing or short of breath.  Trying to discredit the victim as a liar because he said he couldn't breath but didn't turn blue and pass out and somehow justifying sitting on top of him while he's screaming it and until he's dead is just dumb.

And we all know that the '3x the lethal amount' line does not take into account Flloyds size or tolerance and meanwhile you have multiple experts testifying that he did not die from an overdose.

[PrimeNumber7]

Of all the defenses I've heard for Chauvin, I think these two are among the most insincere:

If Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe prior to being put on the ground, a reasonable person might not give similar statements much weight when he is put on the ground

We all know that "I can't breath" is what someone says when they're having trouble breathing or short of breath.  Trying to discredit the victim as a liar because he said he couldn't breath but didn't turn blue and pass out and somehow justifying sitting on top of him while he's screaming it and until he's dead is just dumb.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I am saying that Floyd was saying he couldn't breathe before Chauvin was doing anything that would possibly interfere with Floyd's breathing. This means one of two things, 1) some factor other than Chauvin was causing Floyd to be unable to breathe, or 2) Chauvin had a reasonable reason to believe Floyd was not actually unable to breathe when making these cries.

Floyd having 3x the lethal amount of drugs in his system is relevant....how would one expect someone to survive after having that level of fentanyl in his system?

And we all know that the '3x the lethal amount' line does not take into account Flloyds size or tolerance and meanwhile you have multiple experts testifying that he did not die from an overdose.

The medical examiner said that if it had not been for the video, he would have believed Floyd died from an overdose. I am not even sure why medical examiners are looking at anything other than the body when making these kinds of determinations.

[franky1]

overdose is:
take the drug. go into a high instantly and slip into a coma.
yep thats how it works

its not
take a drug. and decide to go to a store and buy cigarettes and then walk to a car and sit in drivers seat
listen to some music while chatting to passengers, interact with cops, get out a car on his own feet and walk to the side walk. talked to the officers clearly and plead to not go into the back of the police car.
he was alert and pleading.. meaning it was not a drug induced overdose
https://youtu.be/VDd5GlrgvsE?t=162
as you can see.. clearly standing walking and talking. ..


...some people want to also argue that the claustrophobia thing is not real.
actually being in a front seat of your own car where you know you can open a door and be incontrol and you can see clearly out of the windscreen.. this is not the same as being handcuffed in a backseat where you cant open the back door and the windows are shut and tinted to not see clearly
and where the leg room of the back seat is restricted and a PVC+metal panel dividing the back/front means it can feel more like a prison/cage..(as police backseats are designed to feel like on purpose)

however the claustrophobia did not cause the death. it caused the need to remove him from the car.

being put onto the road should be to have a few seconds for the THREE officers to reposition themselves and at most put leg shackles on. maybe 30 seconds..

a knee in the back should not be something done for 9 minutes while cops just sit and do nothing.
a knee in the neck should not be something done for any minute while cops just sit and do nothing.

but lets say there was some vaguely stupid reason to knee the neck of someone for more then 30 seconds

a knee in the neck should not be continued when the person has gone silent
a knee in the neck should not be continued when someone is known to be unconscious
a knee in the neck should not be continued when an ambulance has been called
a knee in the neck should not be continued when the ambulance arrives
a knee in the neck should not be continued when the paramedic got out and was standing by the person

choking someone out for 9 minutes. is not police policy
choking someone out and continuing to choke out and not do anything to aid recovery. is not police policy

even chauvins boss and colleagues and specialist in police training are all saying what chauvin done is not policy

so accept it chauvin broke the law in a manner that caused someones death
accept the verdict is in.
accept that chauvin is guilty