I'm actually watching all the testimony. But you're prob right, he'll be aquitted
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Would most cops not stop him, if they were there? Like the ones who stood by? The problem is not just the one man.
@goaded They were cowards. And ALL of them got fired and faced charges. How the Chauvin case is being handled is actually the typical way things get handled, despite what the media tries to get the public to believe. The ONLY reason this case is public is because of the riots, but that same publicity could hurt the chances of conviction in the later phases of the trial. When a cop falls out of line, they face 3 sets of consequences. First, they face department disciplinary proceedings, then they can face civil and criminal. The results of one of these paths does NOT necessarily affect the others. Even if Chauvin somehow escapes a conviction, he'll NEVER be hired by any police agency. On a side note, we had a cop in Rutherford County, Tennessee do something similar to what Chauvin did a few years ago. The suspect survived because other cops tackled the bad cop off the suspect. The cop was fired from the Sheriff's Office, convicted of aggravated assault and paid over a million in damages. Cops do not get the protection everyone thinks they do. However, not every unpleasant action of a cop is wrong. The law and people's perception of the law are often two different things. That is why I believe it should be mandatory for ALL citizens to have to go through classes throughout their time in school to learn the proper ways to interact with police. For example, most people think they are doing cops a favor by digging in the glove box to get their insurance when instead they should keep their hands on the steering wheel until the officer instructs them to move. On the part of the citizen they think they're being courteous, but they are raising the cop's anxiety because the cop has no idea what you're reaching for. It is numerous small misunderstandings like that which lead to most tragic outcomes with cops.
Didn't Chauvin have a long history of complaints against him? Shouldn't he have been removed as an officer before he had a chance to kill someone? That's the system failing.US police need better training in how to handle situations. They need to be clear and unambiguous. They should explain why they've stopped the person, and clearly and unambiguously explain what they want the suspect to do, with no room for misunderstanding.For example, have you seen the video of the Army Lt., who got stopped by the police because they couldn't see his temporary licence plates on the road? Once they'd seen them, they should have apologised and let him go. Instead, he had his hands out of the window so they could see them, while they pointed guns at him. What do you think would have happened if he'd followed their orders to open the door, which would have entailed taking one of his hands out of sight? I think there's a far from non-zero chance he would have been shot for going for a gun. (There's an older video of something similar, where a man is shot for following the officer's orders to the letter - "show me your licence and registration", or words to that effect; he was shot when he turned to get them from the glove box.)Think how often this sort of thing went under the radar before there were cameras everywhere.The US police should be brought up to 19th century policing principles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
Right. Blame everyone but the cop.
Yeah. Most cops would have just shot him instead."Riots". Can you imagine the ANGER at the injustice and unfairness and all you have is your voice. There is a breaking point where people can only take so much...
He tripped and accidentally choked Floyd with his knee for 20 minutes?
i hear it happens to guys accused of rape too. they slip, bounce up and down for 20 minutes and realize that someone is hurt. (horrid example of what you made me say)tbh most policemen should fry
LMAOOOOyeah "accidents" like that happen all the time
If he doesn't go in, his time is very, very limited either way 😤😉
If that former police officer gets a slap on the wrist there will be more riots , gangs yes they will have to call in the US National Guards plus Law Enforcement
So the expert testimony is BS to you?
His own Chief reluctantly admitted under oath that his knee was more on his shoulder in review. Then when the ‘expert’ was cross-examined stated that all the various drugs in his system could have caused him to suffocate as well. It would seem “beyond reasonable doubt” is called into question. I mean, this one defense attorney versus the 9 prosecutors is actually doing a damn good job of presenting doubt in the State’s argument. Media spin versus the court reality are two entirely different realities. Media is falsely calling this a slam-dunk for the State. It is not. All this serves to do is fan the flames of an angry equally misinformed. Thus, if acquitted of the charges, media will have its story of chaos and destruction it actually is hoping for. Ratings & Money... News has nothing to do with News.
@MannMitAntworten that’s not what they said at all. Every “expert” testified it wasn’t drugs it was the knee.
I must have completely misheard the question and the response. How does that happen?
@MannMitAntworten maybe our ideologies are getting our way.
That is an interesting perspective.
Seriously? Every testimony has been “No drugs, the cop suffocated him.”
Seems like you haven't watched any of the defense
I have and they keep getting refuted.
But hey, Casey Anthony, OJ and the Jinx guy got off. So you never know...
"Seriously? Every testimony has been “No drugs, the cop suffocated him.”"That's what they said when the prosecution's attorney asked. But when cross-examined by the defense attorney, those opinions got destroyed, with witness after witness having to admit that it was possible, or that Chauvin's restraint technique was trained by the department, or that his knee was not on his neck, or that he'd OD'd on the same drugs a week or two before, or that Chauvin used less force than he was authorized to use.The state has to prove, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that Chauvin intentionally tried to kill Floyd to get Murder 2 - and the prosecution's own witnesses alone more than provide reasonable doubt. To get Murder 3, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin committed a dangerous and depraved act that resulted in a death - hard to sell that one when the prosecution's witness said that he was trained to do that and chose a lesser-force option.At best, there's a possibility of manslaughter, which was a death caused by incompetence or disregard for human life, but again, proving even that beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be pretty difficult given the prosecution witnesses' own testimony.
@MrOracle I think they’ve proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense has exhaust fumes to blame. I guess the jury will decide.
The defense just needs to provide reasonable doubt. The prosecution has a much higher standard to meet. Of course, in such a politically-charged case as this, you never know, but had politics not been such a factor, I would have very high confidence of an acquittal based on the trial.
@MrOracle of course. But this is a common misconception. Reasonable doubt is it rained last night because the grass is wet. Not because Thor cried in my yard. The mountain of doctors who studied Floyd’s breathing have topped reasonable doubt about Chauvin’s knee in his neck. But hey, maybe the jury is just as dumb.
No one is saying that Chauvin's knee was never on Floyd's neck. That's not what's at issue. It's not even at issue if Chauvin was the direct cause of Floyd's death, actually - though doubt in that area largely acquits him.What's at issue for Murder 2 is: did Chauvin INTENTIONALLY kill Floyd, and can that be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? The prosecution's own witnesses admitted that this restraint technique was taught and authorized by the department, and that it was considered a lesser force option compared to using a tazer, which, again, the prosecution's witness admitted would have been justified in this case. Using an authorized restraint means he didn't just go rogue, and choosing a lesser force option means that he didn't intend to kill Floyd. That means no provable intent to kills, so no Murder 2.For Murder 3, it means Chauvin would have had to commit an deadly act in a heinous and reckless manner that was in violation of his training. The prosecution admits he followed his training. No Murder 3.Manslaughter is POSSIBLE, but they still have to PROVE that Chauvin had reckless disregard for Floyd's life, and in my opinion, they failed to meet that standard - though perhaps the jury will disagree.But the prosecution didn't come close to the standards of either Murder charge. Nor, I should point out, did they introduce ANY evidence that suggests that Chauvin's actions were in any way based on race - not that race was a listed factor in any of the charges. Yet, tons of people believe that this case is all about race, without any evidence of race being a factor, much less the overriding factor.
The defense is hilarious! 1. The crowd caused the problem by scaring Chauvin and distracting him... yes, because killing someone with your knee requires *lots* of concentration and thinking.2. The minuscule amounts of Fentanyl and Meth killed him even though multiple other experts said it wasn't enough. 3. Carbon monoxide from a cop car exhaust killed him except the can may not have been running and even if it was it was sitting outside at the curb, and the exhaust magically had no effect on Chauvin.