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 .
Here is a question I have.

You are George Floyd. You try to buy a pack of cigs with a bad forgery of a $20 bill. You get called on it and walk out of the store to your car across the street. You sit there with 2 companions for several minutes. An employee of the store comes out and asks you to come back into the store to talk to the manager. You refuse and continue to sit in the car for several more minutes until the employee comes out with other employees and you are asked again to come inside. Again, you refuse. You continue to sit in the car until police arrive.

The question is... Why didnt you leave the store, go to your car, and drive away? Or after the first time the store employee came to the car? Or the 2nd time the employees came to the car?

I understand that the influence of intoxicants is probably the answer, but that is not a rational response to that situation
 
fish82 said:
In yet another Shocking Turn, BroV fails to grasp how reasonable doubt works lol.
Click to expand...
That is a stupid statement. I did not comment on reasonable doubt. I simply commented that the possibility of something occurring does not mean it occurred. He inferred that just because the possibility exists, that means there must be reasonable doubt. That is BS.
 
IVCguy said:
Here is a question I have.

You are George Floyd. You try to buy a pack of cigs with a bad forgery of a $20 bill. You get called on it and walk out of the store to your car across the street. You sit there with 2 companions for several minutes. An employee of the store comes out and asks you to come back into the store to talk to the manager. You refuse and continue to sit in the car for several more minutes until the employee comes out with other employees and you are asked again to come inside. Again, you refuse. You continue to sit in the car until police arrive.

The question is... Why didnt you leave the store, go to your car, and drive away? Or after the first time the store employee came to the car? Or the 2nd time the employees came to the car?

I understand that the influence of intoxicants is probably the answer, but that is not a rational response to that situation
Click to expand...
Maybe he did not knowing pass the bill and did not think he was guilty of anything. If you watched the video from inside the store, he was in no hurry to leave after he bought the cigs.
 
ProV1 said:
That is a stupid statement. I did not comment on reasonable doubt. I simply commented that the possibility of something occurring does not mean it occurred. He inferred that just because the possibility exists, that means there must be reasonable doubt. That is BS.
Click to expand...

You just recited your own conversation backwards, and still don’t know how reasonable doubt works.

Maybe stick to golf and prostitution…this law thingy really isn’t in your wheelhouse. ?
 
fish82 said:
You just recited your own conversation backwards, and still don’t know how reasonable doubt works.

Maybe stick to golf and prostitution…this law thingy really isn’t in your wheelhouse. ?
Click to expand...
Reasonable doubt is nothing more that a standard. Standards have to be met. The possibility of something does not automatically mean the standard of reasonable doubt has been met.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ProV1 said:
Reasonable doubt is nothing more that a standard. Standards have to be met. The possibility of something does not automatically mean the standard of reasonable doubt has been met.
Click to expand...

Are you Lester Holt in disguise?

NBC News anchor Lester Holt received praise from liberal media figures after saying reporters don’t need to hear both sides of a story before determining the "truth."

"I think it’s become clear that fairness is overrated ... the idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in," Holt said on Tuesday night while accepting an award at the 45th Murrow Symposium.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reasonable doubt is two words. Key word is reasonable . You can suggest that something casts doubt about the guilt of your client, but the jury must decide if it is “reasonable”. The case may well turn on the question of the cops intent. It’s looking very shakey there.

You call for EMS because Floyd is in distress but keep your foot on his neck while he is handcuffed on the ground ?
You refuse help from an EMT who is present while waiting for an EMS unit ?
Does a phony $20 bill mandate the death penalty ?
Arresting someone does not imply guilt. Do you have a right to survive to go to trial for adjudication ?
Is there a question of excessive force ? That results in death ?
Is it protect and serve or kill them and let god sort it out ?
Four cops with guns and other weapons vs one guy, handcuffed, on the ground. Odds on who wins ?

Bonus question - Would they have done that to a white guy, all facts being equal ?
 
ProV1 said:
Maybe he did not knowing pass the bill and did not think he was guilty of anything. If you watched the video from inside the store, he was in no hurry to leave after he bought the cigs.
Click to expand...
OK, but you were caught with fake money and the store has come out twice. The next logical thing that would happen is for the police to be called. You are a black man - and, supposedly, cops are hunting black men to kill them. Seems like any one of the events would cause you to beat cheeks.

Look, the guy was high as a kite and not thinking straight. But what about the other two people in the car? Why didnt they insist on getting out of there? Maybe they did but he was on no condition to drive and wouldnt give up the keys. But why didnt they get away from him?

Some guy pulled in behind the MB and when he saw the police cuffing him, what did he do eventually? Got out of there because he didnt want to get "caught up" or "in the middle" of what was happening. THAT is the instinct I am talking about.

The greater point is if Floyd leaves and the police find him a few hours later sleeping it off, there is probably close to zero chance the man dies and significant parts of cities wouldnt have been looted and burned and all of the nonsense that ensued.

That's what I was thinking as I was watching the trial this evening.
 
Floyd had Covid. All those drugs that depress the respiratory system. Then you put Covid on top.
Fentanyl,meth and Covid. His body was laboring before incident. Now throw in adrenaline. Jury will hear that. Is Floyd alive if he was sober? Did those drugs cause his death? That's up to the jury. Just google Floyd Tox report. It's 20 pages
 
Last edited:
OldSoulon said:
With the combination of drugs he had on board, did they have the possibility of causing death?

Yes or no answers, please.
Click to expand...
That is the only question. Tough to answer imo There is the video and it presents visual evidence. Then there is the Tox report. It's why we have jury's
 
Paladin said:
Reasonable doubt is two words. Key word is reasonable . You can suggest that something casts doubt about the guilt of your client, but the jury must decide if it is “reasonable”. The case may well turn on the question of the cops intent. It’s looking very shakey there.

You call for EMS because Floyd is in distress but keep your foot on his neck while he is handcuffed on the ground ?
You refuse help from an EMT who is present while waiting for an EMS unit ?
Does a phony $20 bill mandate the death penalty ?
Arresting someone does not imply guilt. Do you have a right to survive to go to trial for adjudication ?
Is there a question of excessive force ? That results in death ?
Is it protect and serve or kill them and let god sort it out ?
Four cops with guns and other weapons vs one guy, handcuffed, on the ground. Odds on who wins ?

Bonus question - Would they have done that to a white guy, all facts being equal ?
Click to expand...
I’d say it’s reasonable that George Floyd died from a combination of meth, covid, bad heart, and excited delirium from being arrested/meth. But you’re from Hocking county and you people love that meth
 
Paladin said:
Reasonable doubt is two words. Key word is reasonable . You can suggest that something casts doubt about the guilt of your client, but the jury must decide if it is “reasonable”. The case may well turn on the question of the cops intent. It’s looking very shakey there.

You call for EMS because Floyd is in distress but keep your foot on his neck while he is handcuffed on the ground ?
You refuse help from an EMT who is present while waiting for an EMS unit ?
Does a phony $20 bill mandate the death penalty ?
Arresting someone does not imply guilt. Do you have a right to survive to go to trial for adjudication ?
Is there a question of excessive force ? That results in death ?
Is it protect and serve or kill them and let god sort it out ?
Four cops with guns and other weapons vs one guy, handcuffed, on the ground. Odds on who wins ?

Bonus question - Would they have done that to a white guy, all facts being equal ?
Click to expand...
A 6’7” white guy on Fentanyl, with priors and resisting? Don’t be stupid
 
ProV1 said:
Incorrect. Taken directly from the autopsy.

CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT
DATE AND HOUR OF DEATH: 5-25-20; 9:25 p.m. DATE AND HOUR OF AUTOPSY: 5-26-20; 9:25 a.m. PATHOLOGIST: Andrew M. Baker, M.D.
FINAL DIAGNOSES:
SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION
Click to expand...
No, my statement was correct. There is no distinctive difference between cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary arrest. The word homicide does not appear anywhere, as you claimed.
 
I think many of the newer angles of video show how high Floyd was. As a juror, that would be a factor for me (mitigating). I also would wonder how the other two people in his car were not harassed by the police?

I’m still leaning towards a manslaughter conviction.
 
gobluetom said:
Are you Lester Holt in disguise?

NBC News anchor Lester Holt received praise from liberal media figures after saying reporters don’t need to hear both sides of a story before determining the "truth."

"I think it’s become clear that fairness is overrated ... the idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in," Holt said on Tuesday night while accepting an award at the 45th Murrow Symposium.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the reasonable doubt standard?
 
chs1971 said:
No, my statement was correct. There is no distinctive difference between cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary arrest. The word homicide does not appear anywhere, as you claimed.
Click to expand...
Your statement is not correct. He did not die of cardiac arrest. Cardiac is just heart and pulmonary includes respiration. The cause is subdual, restraint, and neck compression. IT SAYS IT IN THE REPORT. Further, the coroner office had previously in advance of the written report, said the cause of death was homicide. That is a fact.

Read the Full Autopsy Report on George Floyd | Law & Crime (lawandcrime.com)
 
FWIW, there's a significant difference between "manner of death" and "cause of death," which is partially why so many coroners' "homicide" findings don't result in conviction.
 
ProV1 said:
Your statement is not correct. He did not die of cardiac arrest. Cardiac is just heart and pulmonary includes respiration. The cause is subdual, restraint, and neck compression. IT SAYS IT IN THE REPORT. Further, the coroner office had previously in advance of the written report, said the cause of death was homicide. That is a fact.

Read the Full Autopsy Report on George Floyd | Law & Crime (lawandcrime.com)
Click to expand...
You are lying.

 
fish82 said:
FWIW, there's a significant difference between "manner of death" and "cause of death," which is partially why so many coroners' "homicide" findings don't result in conviction.
Click to expand...
That is true. The correct term is actually manner of death was homicide. The cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest by subdual, restraint, and neck compression. Based on the report, it is clear what killed him. That does not mean that the results will not be argued by the defense.
 
chs1971 said:
You are lying.

Click to expand...
No I am not. You can’t read plus you are a lying sack. The cause of death is written in English in the coroner report. The manner of death by homicide was published in the release with the report. It read:

Cause of death: Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression
Manner of death: Homicide
How injury occurred: Decedent experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officer(s)

Below is the actual release but it will do no good because you have already proven you can not read.

 
First witness, Floyd's girlfriend. Was almost immediately sobbing on the stand.

After telling the"love Story" and all that fluff, she admits that she and him addicted to opioids. Prosecutor again trying to "get in of front" of that.

Said he suffered from "sports injuries" to the neck, shoulder, and lower back.



So far, Defense is outstandingly respectful with this witness.

She identified one of their "dealers" by name and photo. It's the guy who was in the store with Floyd on the date of his death.

She talked about taking Floyd to the ER due to overdose.

Talked about purchasing pills from others.



(Now at a side bar)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top