when Derek Chauvin inevitably walks ...
- Thread starter _glaciers
- Start date
It was pretty remarkable watching how much they are trying to craft the narrative in real time. They saw the same thing we all saw, but the total lack of being objective was glaring in a way that I don't think I've ever seen before.
Thankfully, I'm not watching ABC. I don't need their biased news network when I've got an objective reporter to listen to like you.
Did you watch any of his testimony today?Thankfully, I'm not watching ABC. I don't need their biased news network when I've got an objective reporter to listen to like you.
I haven't watched any of the trial testimony. Who needs it when I can get 'blow by blow' accounts from you and sk8?
Let me translate that for everybody:I haven't watched any of the trial testimony. Who needs it when I can get 'blow by blow' accounts from you and sk8?
"I went into this with a bias and nothing can change my opinion. I saw a video that invoked an emotional response and that emotion is worth more than facts. No matter what is presented, I already know everything that happened and it all supports my emotional response. Anybody that doesn't agree with my emotional bias must have an even bigger bias and that's why they can't see things clearly, even after reviewing more evidence than I am willing to expose myself to. As a result, I will act as though others who have a better grasp of the topic are insane and the best way to go about pointing this out is to use italics and emojis".
Juries are wired to want to give a law enforcement officer the benefit of a doubt. But given the lengthy video of how Chauvin reacted -- or I should say didn't react -- to Floyd's pleas, the defense has their work cut out for them.
My sense is that this trial has always been about determining what level of guilt Chauvin should accept for his actions which contributed to Floyd's death.
There's always the possibility of a hung jury of course. But I'm guessing that when all is said and done, the jury will ultimately get everybody to agree on the lesser charge of manslaughter and be done with it.
OK. So if you were a juror on this trial, when would you have made up your mind on how you would vote?
Good call on your part. The state is trying to bring Dr. Tobin back to rebut Fowler but they’ve filed on a bunch of stuff that would really be having him say the same things over again. They want their expert in last because they know that Fowler wrecked them. We’ll see what Cahill does here.
Nelson is pissed, and should be. Getting new evidence at 8 am today that the state has had for months is bad form and if Cahill allows it it seals the deal for an appeal.
On a personal note, with both sides resting on Thursday, I wonder when they are going to schedule closing arguments. Initially it looked like we'd finish on Friday and close would be on Monday and then deliberations. I hope it'll still be Monday because my wife's department (which normally does 10 hour shifts) is extending their shifts to 12 hours to ensure that they are double-covered in all zones when the jury goes into deliberations. If on Monday, then she only has one night to deal with it and then 3 nights off. Her zone covers the poor and mostly black section of town and her zonemate is a rookie still on probation so I'd rather that she not be working when the verdict is released.
No. He's being allowed to testify again. Cahill kind of limited it to a few things so it should be short. He berated the prosecution for presenting evidence at 8 am again, and told the state that whatever policies the medical examiners office are using need to be revised. I am honestly surprised that he didn't just disallow further testimony from Tobin. He told the prosecution that if anything about the lab results come up in his testimony that he's going to call a mistrial.
I wonder why Mr. Branca wrote this then: "
20 minutes ago
State is going to rest, state had until 10:15am CT to ready Tobin for rebuttal."
Maybe an error.
EDIT: "My mistake, the DEFENSE is going to rest, right now."
20 minutes ago
State is going to rest, state had until 10:15am CT to ready Tobin for rebuttal."
Maybe an error.
EDIT: "My mistake, the DEFENSE is going to rest, right now."
Last edited:
A mistrial hurts Chauvin? Trust me, the Chauvin defense is hoping and praying for one.
If the defense wasn't pretty confident, why would they rest after just a few witnesses.
If the state was confident in their case, they wouldn't have tried admitting new evidence and more testimony this morning.
Tobin brought up the test that wasn't supposed to be even hinted at, they went to sidebar, then Blackwell asked him about the test and Dr. Tobin answered giving details about the test. Nelson is probably arguing for a mistrial because he has no way to cross given that his expert is on a plane right now and this was sprung on them at 8 am this morning.
If there is a mistrial, want to bet that the media screams about Chauvin's "team" playing dirty?
Looking back on this trial, I think the most disingenuous and dangerous concepts put out are the state's experts opinions that suggested/asserted that police can only use force if that person is an active threat to that police officer at any moment that they are using force. This has not been the case at any point in time in this country and it doesn't ever make sense for that to be the case. This type of thinking is dangerous for everyone and no one should want that to be the standard.
Keep in mind that use-of-force can include things like taking someone's arm and guiding them away from an argumentative spouse to talk to them separately or even physically placing yourself between two people if contact is made. Police also use force to keep people from harming themselves, or others, and any handcuffing for detainment or arrest is a use-of-force. Also, someone who was a threat enough to require the use-of-force is likely to be a threat again at any time. Backing off of a restraint just because that active threat takes a break is and you're required to do so is not a good policy. The additional dissemination that a risk of injury is not enough to take action and you need an actual threat is also terrible. That's like saying that someone with a gun that's robbing a drug store isn't actually dangerous until he employs that weapon and everyone has to wait. Fire only when fired upon was a terrible ROE in Vietnam and it's a great way to get innocent people killed in America.
Keep in mind that use-of-force can include things like taking someone's arm and guiding them away from an argumentative spouse to talk to them separately or even physically placing yourself between two people if contact is made. Police also use force to keep people from harming themselves, or others, and any handcuffing for detainment or arrest is a use-of-force. Also, someone who was a threat enough to require the use-of-force is likely to be a threat again at any time. Backing off of a restraint just because that active threat takes a break is and you're required to do so is not a good policy. The additional dissemination that a risk of injury is not enough to take action and you need an actual threat is also terrible. That's like saying that someone with a gun that's robbing a drug store isn't actually dangerous until he employs that weapon and everyone has to wait. Fire only when fired upon was a terrible ROE in Vietnam and it's a great way to get innocent people killed in America.
I'm surprised, quite honestly. The prosecution really pushed the limits there.
Either way, it wasn't a strong ending for them.
I'm guessing Cahill isn't unaware of the rioting that would occur and/or his judicial seat is at the whim of an election.
Lol if I’m beating the shit out of you, a cop can use force against me to stop beating the shit out of you.
If you have a guy handcuffed facedown on the ground - you have a duty of care - like check if they’re breathing and if not act accordingly. What threat did the crowd or Floyd pose when he was unconscious? You can’t claim you didn’t know he was unconscious- he’s in your custody/care as soon as you put the Cuffs on.
The crowd certainly posed a threat as they uttered verbal threats of physical force at the officers. Enough of a threat that EMS had to move 3 blocks away to work on Floyd.
You are right about custody of care. The police officer isn't a doctor or even an EMT. His ability and training to discern medical condition is very sparse. If he assumed that the EMS that they called that was a minute and a half away (apparently the station was very close) would be there very quickly, then it's reasonable that they just maintain position until the experts get there. In my wife's agency, they can provide Narcan if they can assess an opiate overdose and have trauma bandages for open wounds, but the procedure is that they call for medical and wait for them to show up. They are not trained to handle that stuff.
So the officers diagnosed excited delirium and used a non-lethal (from the MPD manual) restraint to hold Floyd for professional medical to come. And you think this is unreasonable? Why?
How did the prosecution have this evidence and not share it with the defense until 8am today? And for the love of God why would they ever bring it up at all just to refute the carbon monoxide theory? This whole thing is bizarre.
Because they didn't have it, supposedly. The story they told is that it is taken at the hospital as a normal course of admission but Baker never thought to request it so he didn't get it. Tobin guessed that it was taken after he heard Fowler bring it up and so they went and "found" it.
The reason that they crowed about is that they said Fowler didn't mention it back in January that he'd be discussing it so they had no idea they needed to prepare for it. Which was an outright lie because it was in Fowler's report.
It appears that Judge Cahill is not a man of his word.
"Blackwell: Have an opinion as to whether this statement that Floyd carboxy could have increased to 18% is reliable.
Tobin: Not, not reliable.
Blackwell: Based on arterial blood gas obtained when Floyd in Hennepin County.
Cahill: Sidebar.
Cahill: Objection sustained, rephrase the question.
Blackwell: Why results not reliable? Understand something about oxygen saturation testing of the blood.
Tobin: Floyd went to HCMC, he had arterial blood taken, and then on the blood gas measurements, pressure of oxygen, CO, the acid in blood pH, get all different measurements, also get the O saturation, how much of the hemoglobin that carries the O, how much of that is saturated with O, and in Floyd was 98%.
Blackwell: 98% saturation with oxygen.
Blackwell: If know 98% O saturation, tell us what the CO content was at maximum?
Tobin: Tells us that if hemoglobin saturated at 98%, only 2% left, so maximum CO would be 2%"
There is no way they didn't have it, and Cahill knew they were full of crap. This simple bit of evidence would have changed the entire course of this trial. The prosecution came into this with a faulty premise that they had to have known about so everything that their experts were testifying about was based on a lie. Basically all of the expert testimony is tainted.
Nelson probably realized this and was part of the reason the defense rested this morning. He knows without a doubt that if Chauvin is convicted he has a 100% certainty of winning on appeal.
You are very right about this point that Tobin made. Since the neither the state nor the defense presented any evidence of anything that would've increased the blood oxygen after EMS came, this point by Tobin totally impeaches the prior testimony that he died of low blood oxygen. I would be shocked if Nelson didn't use this in his closing argument on Monday. It's wholly consistent with the defense's theory of events that the restraint did nothing to blood flow to the brain and that Floyd died of something other than positional asphyxia.
Closing arguments are today and so a lot of people are talking about the trial. On a local radio station, a man called in who illustrated why our media is doing our society such a disservice today. He felt that Chauvin would get off because the prosecution had the CO angle sprung on them and wasn’t allowed to present evidence. The fact of the matter was that Fowler had the CO angle in his February report that was given to the prosecution and they didn’t bother to prepare for it. They got caught unprepared and tried to act like it wasn’t provided but the judge ruled that they had time to prepare, their rebuttal should’ve been part of their discovery package, and they weren’t going to spring a rebuttal on the defense at the last minute because they didn’t prepare. Of course, this is after filing 5000 pieces of evidence during the trial on the prosecution’s side. The prosecution has acted all sorts of unfairly to the defense in this trial.
But the media flat out lies about it and people still trust them for some reason.
But the media flat out lies about it and people still trust them for some reason.
Similar threads
