UNDlaw80 Posted April 24, 2021 Share Posted April 24, 2021 2 minutes ago, Redneksioux said: With the amount of video they replayed, blatantly showing the officers not "protecting and serving" I think they shot themselves in the foot. I think their only hope would have been to allow Chauvin to testify to possibly humanize him some. Every competent lawyer considers as such. So it’s actually telling that the defense decided not to allow Chauvin to testify considering their chances for acquittal already looked exceedingly slim. What’s there to lose? That tells me Chauvin had no answer for his actions, and/or was unapologetic (difficult to humanize him to the jury). His lawyers weren't stupid . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted April 24, 2021 Share Posted April 24, 2021 54 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said: Every competent lawyer considers as such. So it’s actually telling that the defense decided not to allow Chauvin to testify considering their chances for acquittal already looked exceedingly slim. What’s there to lose? That tells me Chauvin had no answer for his actions, and/or was unapologetic (difficult to humanize him to the jury). His lawyers weren't stupid . I was cracking up seeing people on social media. "Oh this guy is incompetent! What an awful lawyer!" Dude seemed pretty sharp to me. Was impressed with both sets of lawyers ability to pretend to understand all them scientific terms lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 24, 2021 Share Posted April 24, 2021 so who burned down the ambassodor last night...gfhockey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 8 hours ago, Redneksioux said: https://www.newsweek.com/george-floyd-autopsy-report-cause-death-1579393 quoted from link... According to the report, Floyd, who had been apprehended on suspicion of passing a counterfeit $20 bill, died of "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." My opinion, since the officers did the opposite of the "protecting and serving" here, and the defense was almost incompetent, this was a no brainer for the jurors. Coroners report also said he was in Fentanyl intoxication and heart disease that contributed to his demise. Also said there was no bruising on the necks exterior surface or interior. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 2 minutes ago, bison73 said: Coroners report also said he was in Fentanyl intoxication and heart disease that contributed to his demise. Also said there was no bruising on the necks exterior surface or interior. no bruise...no murder but mob rule is the new standard i guess 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 17 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: no bruise...no murder but mob rule is the new standard i guess I guess we’re headed back to the days of the Salem witch trials...good times. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 9 hours ago, JohnboyND7 said: I thought the defense did a good job per what I've heard from lawyers? Seems like one of those situations where a reasonable jury could find the guy guilty. But a reasonable guy can also think the guy got railroaded as far as the trial. I have a hard time understanding why this trial was in Minneapolis. Any Minneapolis juror is going to have a substantial interest in whatever outcome is gonna prevent rioting. Politicians and activists demanding a guilty verdict while basically holding a molotov cocktail.... it smells bad. This jury got put in a tough spot. I'm not sure how a trial can be fair to either the defendant or the jury when only one outcome will maintain peace in the city. To those who thought it was super simple and straightforward, I dont think it was. The state called two weeks of witnesses, they went out and hired doctors from across the country to contradict their own county medical examiner. One of the doctors claimed to have put in 150 hours working on the case. Does that seem simple to you? Yeah I remember reading the county medical examiner report as well as some layman's assessments of it. I think Chavin's indifference to a person showing obvious signs of an overdose which he has assumedly been trained to recognize is enough reason to find him guilty on at least 1 of the charges. But to paraphrase a couple of the assessments of the county report...Floyd had a lethal amount of fentanyl and other drugs in his system and was likely on his way to dying that day unless someone got him to a hospital....if you watch the entire body cam videos you can see pretty clearly he has a large tablet of something in his tongue(likely fentanyl), he turns his head the other direction and when he turns back towards the body cam it is gone(he swallowed it). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsh Hall Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 9 hours ago, UNDlaw80 said: Every competent lawyer considers as such. So it’s actually telling that the defense decided not to allow Chauvin to testify considering their chances for acquittal already looked exceedingly slim. What’s there to lose? That tells me Chauvin had no answer for his actions, and/or was unapologetic (difficult to humanize him to the jury). His lawyers weren't stupid . With a federal indictment pending if acquired he really couldn’t testify. There was zero chance of him testifying. That the defense didn’t request a mistrial for the Brady and other prosecutorial issues the defense had to be pleased with the progression of the case. They only made that motion at the end of the case. In his denial, the judge specially indicated that it was a valid appeal issue. There are tons of legitimate appeal issues. I’d guess that the odds favor the granting of a new trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsh Hall Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 12 hours ago, Sioux>Bison said: They had to prove his knee on his neck had nothing to do with his death in order to prevent a murder conviction. “Bad Legal Takes” on Twitter would love that one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted April 25, 2021 Share Posted April 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Walsh Hall said: “Bad Legal Takes” on Twitter would love that one... Bad legal takes is amazing! Especially when they nail a new contributor who used to be a federal prosecutor or something lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 On 4/24/2021 at 10:54 PM, Walsh Hall said: “Bad Legal Takes” on Twitter would love that one... doesn't no bruising prove that the knee was on the shoulders? or just because the media reminds you everyday of "9 minutes of knee on NECK" you can't figure it out...no bruise no murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsh Hall Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 1 hour ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: doesn't no bruising prove that the knee was on the shoulders? or just because the media reminds you everyday of "9 minutes of knee on NECK" you can't figure it out...no bruise no murder? My point was that the defense doesn't need to prove anything. The state needs to prove each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDlaw80 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 1 hour ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: doesn't no bruising prove that the knee was on the shoulders? or just because the media reminds you everyday of "9 minutes of knee on NECK" you can't figure it out...no bruise no murder? This isn’t difficult. Floyd wasn’t "strangled" per se, but (in layman's terms) died of positional asphyxiation. This is what the vast majority of medical experts concluded, and why the 9 minutes of Chauvin on top of him played a huge part. Basically, for 9 minutes Floyd was put in a prone position that made it difficult to expand the chest cavity to obtain air. And, in addition, had the full weight of a grown man pressing down on his neck/shoulder for said time frame further exacerbating his inability to obtain oxygen. His positioning and Chauvin’s weight and unwillingness to get off of him is what killed him. It explains the lack of bruising considering Chauvin’s force was static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 33 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said: This isn’t difficult. Floyd wasn’t "strangled" per se, but (in layman's terms) died of positional asphyxiation. This is what the vast majority of medical experts concluded, and why the 9 minutes of Chauvin on top of him played a huge part. Basically, for 9 minutes Floyd was put in a prone position that made it difficult to expand the chest cavity to obtain air. And, in addition, had the full weight of a grown man pressing down on his neck/shoulder for said time frame further exacerbating his inability to obtain oxygen. His positioning and Chauvin’s weight and unwillingness to get off of him is what killed him. It explains the lack of bruising considering Chauvin’s force was static. so your saying his knee wasn't on his neck....so manslaughter it is then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 47 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said: My point was that the defense doesn't need to prove anything. The state needs to prove each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt. i was agreeing with just came out wrong...people watch the media and they believe that crap...all chauvin had to do was show reasonable doubt which they did by far yet the media kept talking about "knee on the neckfor 9 minutes"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 2 hours ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: doesn't no bruising prove that the knee was on the shoulders? or just because the media reminds you everyday of "9 minutes of knee on NECK" you can't figure it out...no bruise no murder? Needed Johnny Cochran on the defense. "If the neck wasn't black and blue, the narrative wasn't true" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, petey23 said: Needed Johnny Cochran on the defense. "If the neck wasn't black and blue, the narrative wasn't true" pretty sure your already a better lawyer than undlaw80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDlaw80 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 1 hour ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: so your saying his knee wasn't on his neck....so manslaughter it is then. His knee was on both. That’s painfully obvious. No sane person continues to kneel on somebody’s neck/shoulders (for 4-5 minutes) well after the person has lost consciousness, stopped breathing and has no pulse. Said action can only lead to 1 outcome – death. Holy hell, he didn't even get off when paramedics arrived. That doesn’t even happen in bar fights. It shows blatant intent to kill. That's why he was convicted of murder, not manslaughter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 Just now, UNDlaw80 said: His knee was on both. That’s painfully obvious. No sane person continues to kneel on somebody’s neck/shoulders (for 4-5 minutes) well after the person has lost consciousness, stopped breathing and has no pulse. Said action can only lead to 1 outcome – death. That doesn’t even happen in bar fights. It shows blatant intent to do kill. That's why he was convicted of murder, not manslaughter. where's the bruise then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDlaw80 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 5 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: where's the bruise then? I already detailed why no bruising existed.......as detailed by medical experts during the trial, with really no counterpoints from the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 Just now, UNDlaw80 said: I already detailed why no bruising exsted.......as detailed by medical experts during the trial, with really no counterpoints from the defense. u really didn't explain why there is no bruise on his neck...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redneksioux Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: u really didn't explain why there is no bruise on his neck...... Let me guess, you are also not vaccinated? And reporting masked kids outside to cps? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDlaw80 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 29 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: u really didn't explain why there is no bruise on his neck...... Ok Chief. Like I said, Chauvin's position was static. No blunt force or significant movement of Chauvin's knee was applied - he applied even force and pressure. Not uncommon for non-bruising to occur. This is basic medical stuff. “This myth that you have to have bruises to prove strangulation, no you don’t. You can be strangled to death and have no bruises,” Dr Smock said, using his hands to demonstrate how someone chocked in a headlock might not get bruises because limbs are broad surfaces, while someone strangled with a thin cord might have acute marks to show for it. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/george-floyd-died-because-had-222628629.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 28 minutes ago, Redneksioux said: Let me guess, you are also not vaccinated? And reporting masked kids outside to cps? proudly unvaccinated...and 100% healthy. wanna run a 10k at 8pm tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXFAN97 Posted April 27, 2021 Share Posted April 27, 2021 15 minutes ago, UNDlaw80 said: Ok Chief. Like I said, Chauvin's position was static. No blunt force or significant movement of Chauvin's knee was applied - he applied even force and pressure. Not uncommon for non-bruising to occur. This is basic medical stuff. “This myth that you have to have bruises to prove strangulation, no you don’t. You can be strangled to death and have no bruises,” Dr Smock said, using his hands to demonstrate how someone chocked in a headlock might not get bruises because limbs are broad surfaces, while someone strangled with a thin cord might have acute marks to show for it. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/george-floyd-died-because-had-222628629.html comparing hands to knees now.... i guess you don't understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts