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 .
According to police officers’ probable-cause statement, which is often the basis of prosecutors’ case against suspects, the incident (on Aug. 9, 2007) unfolded like this: Two adults, Aracely Henriquez and Angel Negrete, and a toddler were in a home when they heard a knock at the front door. When Henriquez looked out the window, she saw a man “dressed in a blue uniform” who said “he was with the water department.” But when she opened the door, she realized the man was telling a lie and she tried shutting him out. Then, the statement reads:
However, this male held the door open and prevented her from doing so. At this time, a black Ford Explorer pulled up in front of the Complainants’ residence and five other black males exited this vehicle and proceeded to the front door. The largest of these suspects forced his way into the residence, placed a pistol against the complainant’s abdomen, and forced her into the living room area of the residence. This large suspect then proceeded to search the residence while another armed suspect guarded the complainant, who was struck in the head and side areas by this second armed suspect with his pistol after she screamed for help. As the suspects looked through the residence, they demanded to know where the drugs and money were and Complaint Henriquez advised them that there were no such things in the residence. The suspects then took some jewelry along with the complainant’s cell phone before they fled the scene in the black Ford Explorer.
About three months later, investigators in the Houston Police Department narcotics unit “came across this vehicle during one of the their respective investigations and identified the following subjects as occupants of this vehicle at the time of their investigation: George Floyd (Driver)…,” the statement reads.
At 6-foot-7, Floyd was identified as the “the largest” of the six suspects who arrived at the home in the Ford Explorer and had pushed a pistol against Henriquez’ abdomen before looking for items to steal. He pleaded guilty in 2009 and was sentenced to five years in prison. He was paroled in January 2013, when he was almost 40 years old.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Van Jones is as stupid...

He must be very stupid;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Van Jones is as stupid...


best comment, where are the "say their names" morons? 80:1 ratio and the clowns still call it systemic.


There were 719 gun homicides in Chicago alone last year, Mr. Jones. Nearly 80% of the victims and perpetrators (where identified) are African American. There were 7 (seven) officer-involved gun deaths in Chicago in ALL of 2020. Try to keep at least some sense of perspective, Van.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They shot him down a couple times as not being a medical expert. They spoke about his experience as a MMA fighter and security guard, neither of which makes him an expert in much.
He was not an expert witness. He was an eyewitness who used his knowledge to evaluate what he was seeing. He was never presented as anything else.
 
He was not an expert witness. He was an eyewitness who used his knowledge to evaluate what he was seeing. He was never presented as anything else.
Which is why they told him that. He was acting like he was an expert and the Judge told him to stop acting like you.
 
I think this guy walks in two worlds. In his business, he has a different language (a second language) where he attempts to pronounce words correctly and use words appropriately per Webster's. In his personal life, he uses a lot of slang. He kept getting caught between the two languages and it came across as awkward at times.
Sounds like most all human beings. Who uses the same language in social settings as professional settings? The minority of people.
 
The bolded contradict each other. Either he is an expert on chokes and his knowledge matters, or he is not an expert and his knowledge doesn't matter.

If this is the only expert the state has on blood choke holds, it is going to be problematic when the defense puts on an expert that says a blood choke hold must be on both sides to be effective.
No. He was not there to testify about choke holds. He was there to testify as an eye witness. His knowledge of chokes, if even not expert level, was relevant because it gave him a better understanding of what was happening vs a lay person. He predicted that Floyd was going to be choked out on the video. He did. He also predicted Floyd would die. He did.
 
No he didn’t. He said answer the question asked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of how good or bad these witnesses are, their testimony gives the prosecutor opportunity after opportunity to show video to the jury.

The Use of Force, Training, and Medical experts are going to be interesting to hear.
 
So, this one time in traffic court..........

The Judge was taking testimony from some guy who was a front seat passenger in a car that was involved in a two car crash within an intersection.

The guy says "We had the green light and were going straight through and then I looked out my window."

The Judge asks "And then what happened?", and the guy says "I said sheeeiiit, there's gone be a wreck!"




Lots of laughs.
 
TV. The female firefighter right now is pretty good witness.
I've been watching this trial on Court TV. First off, they are a joy to watch because they present the court news as professionals without the clear bias of any of other news networks. They can go back and forth individually critiquing and praising both sides for their failures and their successes. Second, they disagree entirely that the firefighter was a good witness. She has shown herself to be combative and unpredictable, playing to the defenses argument that the people surrounding the event that day were a threat. She made herself look very bad when the judge had to remove the jury and scold her for her attitude. Even then, she was still combative. It will be interesting to see how the jury treats her testimony. I'm guessing it won't be favorable because of her demeanor.
 
I've been watching this trial on Court TV. First off, they are a joy to watch because they present the court news as professionals without the clear bias of any of other news networks. They can go back and forth individually critiquing and praising both sides for their failures and their successes. Second, they disagree entirely that the firefighter was a good witness. She has shown herself to be combative and unpredictable, playing to the defenses argument that the people surrounding the event that day were a threat. She made herself look very bad when the judge had to remove the jury and scold her for her attitude. Even then, she was still combative. It will be interesting to see how the jury treats her testimony. I'm guessing it won't be favorable because of her demeanor.
I think many of you place way too much emphasis on style instead of substance. Was she accurate? Was what she was saying credible? Did she offer to check the pulse multiple times? Why was she doing that? If a juror decides to dismiss her testimony just because they found her argumentative, they are failing as a juror.
 

A CourtTV article on the substance of the eyewitness testimony.
That's actually a very good article. Basically what I said about Court TV above. They cover the case with neutrality and recognize the successes and failures of both sides. Not a slamdunk by either side today.
 
That's actually a very good article. Basically what I said about Court TV above. They cover the case with neutrality and recognize the successes and failures of both sides. Not a slamdunk by either side today.
I would agree that the testimony on it’s own is not a slamdunk. The combination of that and the 9:30 video makes it pretty close to a dunk.
 
That's actually a very good article. Basically what I said about Court TV above. They cover the case with neutrality and recognize the successes and failures of both sides. Not a slamdunk by either side today.
Perhaps they have been excellent covering the trial (I haven't been watching), but this (from the article) is clearly bias:

Chauvin, 45, is charged with murder and manslaughter, accused of killing Floyd last May by pinning the 46-year-old handcuffed Black man to the pavement for what prosecutors said was 9 minutes, 29 seconds.

...

The most serious charge against the now-fired white officer carries up to 40 years in prison.


It's race-baiting and and giving preferential treatment.
 
Perhaps they have been excellent covering the trial (I haven't been watching), but this (from the article) is clearly bias:

Chauvin, 45, is charged with murder and manslaughter, accused of killing Floyd last May by pinning the 46-year-old handcuffed Black man to the pavement for what prosecutors said was 9 minutes, 29 seconds.

...

The most serious charge against the now-fired white officer carries up to 40 years in prison.


It's race-baiting and and giving preferential treatment.

Floyd was handcuffed and he is black...seems incredibly factual.
 
Perhaps they have been excellent covering the trial (I haven't been watching), but this (from the article) is clearly bias:

Chauvin, 45, is charged with murder and manslaughter, accused of killing Floyd last May by pinning the 46-year-old handcuffed Black man to the pavement for what prosecutors said was 9 minutes, 29 seconds.

...

The most serious charge against the now-fired white officer carries up to 40 years in prison.


It's race-baiting and and giving preferential treatment.
LOL. No it’s not. It’s 100% factual and to pretend there are not racial dynamics to this trial is ridiculous.
 
Prvy1 up to 39 posts. He must be glued to the TV. He hasn't been this excited since Cuties was on.
Actually. Watched very little. About 90 minutes yesterday then went to play golf. I did read a couple things and watch a clip or two when I got home last night. Why do you care?
 
I think many of you place way too much emphasis on style instead of substance. Was she accurate? Was what she was saying credible? Did she offer to check the pulse multiple times? Why was she doing that? If a juror decides to dismiss her testimony just because they found her argumentative, they are failing as a juror.

in the clip or two you watched, or the couple of things you read, did you see where one of the minors tell the court that they saw the police check his pulse multiple times?
 
in the clip or two you watched, or the couple of things you read, did you see where one of the minors tell the court that they saw the police check his pulse multiple times?
I watched the 9:30 video and believe somebody tried to come over and check his pulse once but Chauvin did not lift off his neck. I’m not sure how effective that possibly could have been.
 
in the clip or two you watched, or the couple of things you read, did you see where one of the minors tell the court that they saw the police check his pulse multiple times?
Is that the minor who said she witnessed a murder and can't sleep

Funari, crying, said she felt like she was failing because she wanted to intervene but was unable to because "there was a higher power there" – an officer was pushing the crowd back. "There was nothing I could do as a bystander there," she said, adding, "I couldn't do physically what I wanted to do."

As Chauvin continued staring down at Floyd, she said, "I saw him put more and more weight on him. I saw his leg lift off the ground and his hands go in his pocket."

As she continued filming, Funari called out to Chauvin, a composite video shown to the court showed. She said, "Why are you kneeing him more," and "he's about to knock out," the video showed. Asked to explain the statements while she was on the witness stand, she said: "I could see he was going unconscious, his eyes rolled to the back of his head."


When Floyd was no longer struggling, she said. "At that point, I kind of knew," she said. "You knew what?" the prosecutor asked. "That he was dead, or not breathing," she said. Funari said "he didn't look alive" when the paramedics arrived.

"At that point, I felt all I could do was show everything that was going on with the camera," she said. Funari said she initially kept to herself after the incident and "felt numb." Funari said she has not since returned to Cup Foods.

Funari told prosecutors that she did not see officers check for Floyd's pulse. But on cross examination, defense attorney Eric Nelson said Funari initially told agents, in the wake of the incident, she had seen officers check for a pulse multiple times. When asked by Nelson if she had been "angry" that day, Funari she said "yes."

On redirect examination, Funari told Eldridge she was angry, but did not distract or try to attack the officers. "I was upset because there was nothing we could do except watch them take a life in front of our eyes."

 
Top