Trial of the Century...

What verdict will the jury return:

  • Guilty: Second-degree murder

    Votes: 8 16.3%

  • Guilty: Third-degree murder

    Votes: 5 10.2%

  • Guilty: Second-degree manslaughter

    Votes: 25 51.0%

  • Not Guilty: All Charges

    Votes: 4 8.2%

  • Hung Jury

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
Happier said:
It is a helluva coincidence that a man dies of natural causes in the four minute window Chauvin has a knee to his windpipe.

DId he also throw the exhaust pipe against the wall? They seem to be reaching very hard to get a lone jurist to go for manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Does the windpipe run thru the shoulder?
 
State claims that Dr Baker (Medical Examiner) called them with info after listening to the Defense Doctors testimony yesterday.

Seems that it has to do with carbon monoxide from the police vehicle.


Basically, Defense claims that the state has had the info since February.
 
Gardens35 said:
State claims that Dr Baker (Medical Examiner) called them with info after listening to the Defense Doctors testimony yesterday.

Seems that it has to do with carbon monoxide from the police vehicle.


Basically, Defense claims that the state has had the info since February.
Click to expand...
State treading water right now, Chauvin may walk with time served.
 
Judge sides with the defense on most of the matters discussed, but will allow Dr. Tobin to testify with limits as a rebuttal witness.

15 minute break.
 
fish82 said:
I'm sure that's a relief for you lol.



Obviously it's not, since you posted a half dozen times that the cause of death was homicide before finally being corrected. ?‍♂️
Click to expand...
That is a lie. I think I posted that once or maybe twice and then made it clear that I was not referring to the medical cause which was well understood. Whether you use the term cause or manner, the context of every post was the homicide designation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Direct, Short Cross.

State has rested it's case.


Closing arguments on Monday, Jury will be sequestered during deliberations.
 
I think Chauvin had to testify and let the chips fall where they may.

There is one important question - actually, THE question - that hasn't been answered. If I am on the jury, the question I want answered is why did you continue restraint and not shift to medical assistance at any point from the time Floyd stopped talking/moving to the time the ambulance arrived (approx 4 1/2 minutes)?

If there is a reasonable explanation, then I am in the "not guilty" camp. If there isnt, I am in the "guilty of 2nd deg manslaughter" camp.

Chauvin is uniquely qualified to give a reasonable answer - or fail to.
 
ProV1 said:
That is a lie. I think I posted that once or maybe twice and then made it clear that I was not referring to the medical cause which was well understood. Whether you use the term cause or manner, the context of every post was the homicide designation.
Click to expand...

You posted it 6 times before being corrected. The search function is pretty robust lol.
 
IVCguy said:
I think Chauvin had to testify and let the chips fall where they may.

There is one important question - actually, THE question - that hasn't been answered. If I am on the jury, the question I want answered is why did you continue restraint and not shift to medical assistance at any point from the time Floyd stopped talking/moving to the time the ambulance arrived (approx 4 1/2 minutes)?

If there is a reasonable explanation, then I am in the "not guilty" camp. If there isnt, I am in the "guilty of 2nd deg manslaughter" camp.

Chauvin is uniquely qualified to give a reasonable answer - or fail to.
Click to expand...
Why testified when you have a high chance of being found not guilty
 
Raider6309 said:
Why testified when you have a high chance of being found not guilty
Click to expand...
I can only look at it how I have considered the testimony so far.

As I said, I want a reasonable explanation of why restraint was continued after it appears to be unnecessary. If I'm on that jury, that's what I need to hear, but i havent heard it. Therefore, i would disagree that he has a good chance of walking out free and clear.

Floyd pretty clearly began to die and then did die during that last few min of restraint. I believe murder is off the table, but the failure to stop the restraint , move to a side recovery position, and/or monitor health and provide medical assistance would appear to not be reasonable, and support the manslaughter charge.

Nelson is going to say that Chauvin is not a doctor or paramedic and that Chauvin was distracted by the crowd. I just dont think that's going to be persuasive. But if Chauvin got on the stand and said, "this is what I was thinking and why I was thinking it", he would at least have a shot at being cleared on all charges. In the absence of that, I think his chances are slim to none. FWIW
 
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or
(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or
(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.
If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.
 
Killer Joe said:
Thanks. Just asking because if he is found guilty of that and only gets a couple of years sentence, I can still see some serious rioting going on.
Click to expand...
I believe it is set in stone. If it isn't the highest charge, there will be rioting. And it is certain to not be the highest charge if a conviction occurs.

It is, after all, the social justice rioting, looting, and burning season.
 
I would have a lot more respect for anarchists if they were out there in 2 feet of snow and -10 degrees rioting. But they like warm weather. Plus, they are in 2nd semester in the winter. Gotta get through their fresh indoctrination from their indoctrination center of choice before they put it into practice.

It didnt stop Jussie.
 
IVCguy said:
I can only look at it how I have considered the testimony so far.

As I said, I want a reasonable explanation of why restraint was continued after it appears to be unnecessary. If I'm on that jury, that's what I need to hear, but i havent heard it. Therefore, i would disagree that he has a good chance of walking out free and clear.

Floyd pretty clearly began to die and then did die during that last few min of restraint. I believe murder is off the table, but the failure to stop the restraint , move to a side recovery position, and/or monitor health and provide medical assistance would appear to not be reasonable, and support the manslaughter charge.

Nelson is going to say that Chauvin is not a doctor or paramedic and that Chauvin was distracted by the crowd. I just dont think that's going to be persuasive. But if Chauvin got on the stand and said, "this is what I was thinking and why I was thinking it", he would at least have a shot at being cleared on all charges. In the absence of that, I think his chances are slim to none. FWIW
Click to expand...
I'm curious if today's testimony has changed your mind at all considering the following:

To achieve a guilty verdict on any of the charges, the state must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the actions of Derrick Chauvin actually caused the death of George Floyd (not necessarily the sole cause, but at least it had to be a substantial, contributory factor).

At first, the state did not seem to have a solid theory of how George Floyd died. If you just looked at the bystander's video, you might think that George Floyd was literally strangled by Derrick Chauvin's knee on his neck. But then the state introduced the bystander testimony of bystander and amateur MMA fighter, Donald Williams. Williams seemed to testify that Chauvin was not strangling Floyd or cutting off his airway, as doing so would have prevented Floyd from being able to speak or cry out, which he did for several minutes while Chauvin was on top of him. Instead, Williams testified that Chauvin was applying a "blood choke" to Floyd, which would have led to an almost immediate unconsciousness followed quickly by brain death.

Once the medical experts started to take the stand, though, the state seemed to settle on asphyxia as the cause of death - the body ceasing to function due to the lack of its ability to get oxygen through the bloodstream to the brain. For the last half of its case in chief, the state has focused on positional asphyxia as the main cause of death - stating that being handcuffed in the prone position, with Chauvin on his back and shoulder area deprived Floyd of the precious oxygen he needed to live. Apparently the state gave up on the idea that Chauvin was on Floyd's neck after the Defense focused on camera angles that seemed to show pretty clearly that Chauvin was close to Floyd's neck but not actually ON Floyd's neck.

But then today, in a rebuttal to a Defense Expert witness who had introduced the possibility that Carbon Monoxide from the nearby tailpipe of the police vehicle was also a contributing factor, the State's chief medical expert testified about how that was NOT possible because George Floyd's blood oxygen saturation was 98% according to lab results. I am by no means a medical expert, but if someone dies of asphyxia (lack of oxygen), then how could his blood oxygen level be at 98%? BTW, on recent visits to the doctor, my own blood oxygen levels were tested to be at 97%, which the doctor told me was well within the normal range.

Did the prosecution just disprove its own theory of the case? Any people with medical backgrounds out here in Yappi-land who can explain to me how someone can have a blood oxygen level of 98% and still die of asphyxia? Like I said, I am not a medical expert by any means.

I've been trying to keep an open mind in this trial, but starting from the presumption of innocence, if the prosecution fails to convincingly point out how the victim died, I'm not sure how I can come to the conclusion (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant's actions caused that death. Especially when the alleged victim had 1) an extremely high level of Fentanyl in his system (enough that, taken alone, the prosecution's own medical examiner had stated that it would have qualified as the cause of death), 2) a heart condition, 3) Covid, 4) a tumor in his belly that could have secreted enough adrenaline during a fight with the police that it might have damaged his already fragile heart, and 5) arteries that were 75-95% blocked. Even if I thought the defendant's actions contributed to the victim's death, I couldn't say I believed it "beyond a reasonable doubt".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top