Floyd-Chauvin Case - what's your thought on the outcome
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
He absolutely had a chance to go to court. Had he complied woth the police and not swallowed fentanyl he could have had a day in court.
What if the knee wasn’t the cause of death? As current testimony seems to be proving out.
What if testimony reveals he died from an Overdose?
Still feel the same?
Then why don't you keep your mouth shut until you have all the facts?
That seems the prudent thing to do.
What will ultimately hurt Chauvin in the long run is that Floyd was already detained and placed in the squad car, even though he never quite made it all the way in.
Taking him from the car to the pavement, the actions preceding the knee to the neck, is what will do Chauvin in. The man was secured and no longer a threat to anyone other than himself. If he dies from the OD on the way to booking/hospital or at either one, Chauvin's name would never even be known.
As of right now, the prosecution has the floor. He'll look guilty even if he is the most innocent person in the room. That's the job of the prosecution.
What will ultimately matter is what kind of case the defense has. It had better be ironclad because those videos are extremely prejudicial.
Taking him from the car to the pavement, the actions preceding the knee to the neck, is what will do Chauvin in. The man was secured and no longer a threat to anyone other than himself. If he dies from the OD on the way to booking/hospital or at either one, Chauvin's name would never even be known.
As of right now, the prosecution has the floor. He'll look guilty even if he is the most innocent person in the room. That's the job of the prosecution.
What will ultimately matter is what kind of case the defense has. It had better be ironclad because those videos are extremely prejudicial.
Last edited:
I don’t know. What was the purpose of calling martin, the store clerk? You dont need the person who called 911. His testimony consisted of Floyd passing counterfeit money and acting erratically in the store. Both hurt the prosecution. Rather, his testimony was needed to tell the jury how he felt seeing Floyd die. Completely irrelevant to the trial.
it makes me think the prosecutors know they have a weak case and are relying on emotion and people’s preconceived opinions as to what happened to convict.
fair trial my ***.
That is all this prosecution will be about and if Chauvin is acquitted every moron on earth will repeat all this stuff and how they feel
Other than in the court of public opinion I don't think the officers in that case were ever charged or tried for that case. I may be wrong on that.
However, from going back and watching the videos again, especially the body-cam, it doesn't appear he (Floyd) was ever fully put into the squad car due to his size and strength as well as the degree to which he was resisting.
The prosecution knows this witness hurts their case so they call him in early and take away the defense's ability to use it later in the trial when it would remain fresher in the minds of the jury and could help establish reasonable doubt. It's actually a great move.
The prosecution using the "emotional" side is simply a maneuver to turn this case away from the facts and toward the individual, i.e. Chauvin. It's basic psychology - if you can get someone to form an opinion of someone quickly, everything else that is said about them, good or bad, must go through that lens first and its difficult for someone to look objectively after that.
The prosecution knows the "science" is against them. They have to turn the jury against Chauvin before that evidence gets presented.
It's like a chess match - move and counter-move.
Floyd still needed air and blood flow. While he was a criminal, he should not have died for his offenses. That said he did cause most of his problems.
What will later be brought out (or better be) is that all the while Floyd is claiming he can't breathe, he is. All those minutes of fighting and complaining, he was breathing the whole time, and quite well enough to loudly voice his opinion.
Exactly. The trial has little to do with the facts of the case and instead the prosecution is relying on emotion and people's predetermined opinions of the incident to convict. The problem is the judge shouldn't allow this type of testimony at trial. How people felt is appropriate at the sentencing if convicted but how they felt watching Floyd die has no relevance to whether the officer murdered or assaulted him. It is only done to prejudice the jury and has no probative value and is a textbook example of testimony which should be precluded at trial by the Court.
Like I said, fair trial my ***.
Last edited:
Day 3 testimony
Again it looks like (on facts) that the prosecution is it's own worst enemy:
Martin (store clerk)
1. Floyd had indeed passed a rather obviously fake counterfeit bill (after his friend had failed to pull this off in the very same store)
2. Floyd appeared substantively impaired while in the store (“He did look high,” as Martin put it)
3. Floyd was an unusually large man (it was what made Martin take exceptional notice of Floyd in the first place)
4. Floyd had refused repeated offers to simply make good on the bad bill, pay for his cigarettes with actual money, and the whole incident would be forgotten
5. Martin confirmed that the store manager carried a pistol in his back pocket (could be seen on video). Goes against the prosecution's insinuation that the neighborhood was safe. This goes to the defense trying to characterize the need for force as well as the angry crowd gathering and thus distracting the officers from care of Floyd.
6. Martin rejected Floyd's friend from passing a fake $20 earlier in the day. He accepted a similar fake bill from Floyd despite knowing it was fake. Was it because the size of Floyd and the fact that Martin testified to Floyd being 'high'? Both are factors in the use-of-force decisions by police.
Bodycam
1. Floyd laying on the ground and as police position themselves to restrain Floyd, he deliberately kicks out at the officers with both legs. The officers then did or tried to restrain Floyd's legs.
McMillan (witness)
1. When asked by prosecution how Floyd appeared to him with Chauvin's knee of Floyd's neck - McMillan stated that Floyd had foam running out of his mouth. Foaming of the lungs and by extension out of the mouth is an indication of fentanyl. This reinforces the defense notion that Floyd was killed by a fatal dose of drugs.
Again it looks like (on facts) that the prosecution is it's own worst enemy:
Martin (store clerk)
1. Floyd had indeed passed a rather obviously fake counterfeit bill (after his friend had failed to pull this off in the very same store)
2. Floyd appeared substantively impaired while in the store (“He did look high,” as Martin put it)
3. Floyd was an unusually large man (it was what made Martin take exceptional notice of Floyd in the first place)
4. Floyd had refused repeated offers to simply make good on the bad bill, pay for his cigarettes with actual money, and the whole incident would be forgotten
5. Martin confirmed that the store manager carried a pistol in his back pocket (could be seen on video). Goes against the prosecution's insinuation that the neighborhood was safe. This goes to the defense trying to characterize the need for force as well as the angry crowd gathering and thus distracting the officers from care of Floyd.
6. Martin rejected Floyd's friend from passing a fake $20 earlier in the day. He accepted a similar fake bill from Floyd despite knowing it was fake. Was it because the size of Floyd and the fact that Martin testified to Floyd being 'high'? Both are factors in the use-of-force decisions by police.
Bodycam
1. Floyd laying on the ground and as police position themselves to restrain Floyd, he deliberately kicks out at the officers with both legs. The officers then did or tried to restrain Floyd's legs.
McMillan (witness)
1. When asked by prosecution how Floyd appeared to him with Chauvin's knee of Floyd's neck - McMillan stated that Floyd had foam running out of his mouth. Foaming of the lungs and by extension out of the mouth is an indication of fentanyl. This reinforces the defense notion that Floyd was killed by a fatal dose of drugs.
The question is would he have died from the fentanyl alone, or did the knee to the neck for 8 minutes put a strain on his system that compounded the impact of the fentanyl.
Of course that is the question. So why the hell are the feelings of the witnesses admissible? And why is his girlfriend telling the jury about how they met and their struggles with addiction?
How does that testimony make it more or less likely whether Floyd died from a knee or fentanyl?
Clown Show up there.
Huh? lol I asked was he foaming at the mouth prior to the police takedown aka 'the incident'? smh
JH
2h·
Courtney Ross, George Floyd's girlfriend, who he referred to as Mama, revealed the other passenger in the car at the time of his arrest was their drug dealer
She previously told the FBI she felt she might die when doing pills with Floyd
@NationalFile
https://nationalfile.com/george-floyds-girlfriend-say
2h·
Courtney Ross, George Floyd's girlfriend, who he referred to as Mama, revealed the other passenger in the car at the time of his arrest was their drug dealer
She previously told the FBI she felt she might die when doing pills with Floyd
@NationalFile
https://nationalfile.com/george-floyds-girlfriend-say