George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[Bairnardo]

3 minutes ago, Johnstoun said:

It's not the best pitch I've seen for an essay writing service, so more likely sexual enhancing racist hoodies.

#AllWoodInTheHood

[Sweet Pete]

43 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

#AllWoodInTheHood

PeckerWood surely

[Bairnardo]

2 minutes ago, Sweet Pete said:

PeckerWood surely

The hoodie reference is important. 

[Honest_Man#1]

10 hours ago, 19QOS19 said:

Massive moment there. This could be a huge piece of evidence in the prosecutions favour here.

 

9 hours ago, 101 said:

What was it?

I’d also be interested to know what it was.

[19QOS19]

What was it?

I’d also be interested to know what it was.

Chauvin's supervisor was in the dock and the prosecutor had established that it was part of his job to assess when excess force was used and that he sends it up the ladder for punishment. He eventually came out and asked something along the lines of "When should Chauvin have stepped off his neck?" Initially the defence objected and there was a sidebar. The Jury was even sent out until both sides could present to the judge why they could/couldn't ask that question. The judge eventually ruled in favour of the prosecution to ask one question.

TL;DR - The prosecution asked Chauvin's supervisor "When should Chauvin have stepped off Floyd's neck?" to which the supervisor replied "When Floyd stopped resisting or had become non responsive".


Obviously we all know that should have been the case but as the jury is likely to have a few morons it's massive that we have that come from a higher ranked officer. That the defence fought hard to stop the question being asked shows how big a piece of evidence that could be for the prosecution.

[Bairnardo]

Chauvin's supervisor was in the dock and the prosecutor had established that it was part of his job to assess when excess force was used and that he sends it up the ladder for punishment. He eventually came out and asked something along the lines of "When should Chauvin have stepped off his neck?" Initially the defence objected and there was a sidebar. The Jury was even sent out until both sides could present to the judge why they could/couldn't ask that question. The judge eventually ruled in favour of the prosecution to ask one question.

TL;DR - The prosecution asked Chauvin's supervisor "When should Chauvin have stepped off Floyd's neck?" to which the supervisor replied "When Floyd stopped resisting or had become non responsive".


Obviously we all know that should have been the case but as the jury is likely to have a few morons it's massive that we have that come from a higher ranked officer. That the defence fought hard to stop the question being asked shows how big a piece of evidence that could be for the prosecution.

Struggling to understand even entertaining objection to that. If your line is you have been trained to do so such a thing, its surely reasonable to probe the entirety of the training which will include such safety features as, when to stop choking a person so as to ensure they don't become dead.

[101]

53 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

Chauvin's supervisor was in the dock and the prosecutor had established that it was part of his job to assess when excess force was used and that he sends it up the ladder for punishment. He eventually came out and asked something along the lines of "When should Chauvin have stepped off his neck?" Initially the defence objected and there was a sidebar. The Jury was even sent out until both sides could present to the judge why they could/couldn't ask that question. The judge eventually ruled in favour of the prosecution to ask one question.

TL;DR - The prosecution asked Chauvin's supervisor "When should Chauvin have stepped off Floyd's neck?" to which the supervisor replied "When Floyd stopped resisting or had become non responsive".


Obviously we all know that should have been the case but as the jury is likely to have a few morons it's massive that we have that come from a higher ranked officer. That the defence fought hard to stop the question being asked shows how big a piece of evidence that could be for the prosecution.

The non responsive bit worries me there he could claim that he felt he was resisting arrest and was waiting for him to become non responsive.

Now of course the prosecution will say why did you take him back out the car instead of when you had lifted him going straight to the nearest cop shop to book him in. 

[19QOS19]

Struggling to understand even entertaining objection to that. If your line is you have been trained to do so such a thing, its surely reasonable to probe the entirety of the training which will include such safety features as, when to stop choking a person so as to ensure they don't become dead.

Tbf to the defence I could understand his argument and it was quite a fascinating interchange between the two sides when the jury left. I'll try and articulate as best I can but will probably fail spectacularly - it's the supervisors job to ascertain whether or not too much force was used but if the 'criminal' dies it gets immediately moved up the ladder and it's the supervisor's superiors who then look into whether too much force was used. So the defence argued that it wasn't the supervisor who determined whether or not it was excessive force and therefore was in no position to judge whether or not it was.

The prosecution rebuttal was to pull up the supervisor's rules and regulations and it showed he still has the ability/role to know when too much force is used even if the case automatically goes above his head in some cases.

Like I say, it was probably the best bit of the entire case so far and really interesting to see how both sides argued.

The non responsive bit worries me there he could claim that he felt he was resisting arrest and was waiting for him to become non responsive.
Now of course the prosecution will say why did you take him back out the car instead of when you had lifted him going straight to the nearest cop shop to book him in. 

Don't take my quote as verbatim. He never said "non responsive" as like you say that's a frightening way for Police to approach it. He said the copper should have been off him when he became non responsive, not that they should be on them until they become non responsive.

[19QOS19]

Didn't get to watch today but saw a clip from a Lieutenant who was asked a similar question about the excessive force to which he responded it was far too much*. Two good days for the prosecution. The defence is going to have to do some amount of work to avoid this dickhead going down.

* Words to that effect.

[Lofarl]

This doctor chaps testimony is great to watch.  

[Busta Nut]

how's this goin?

[19QOS19]

how's this goin?

I missed a fair bit last week unfortunately but the evidence against him is stacking. I know it's America but he just can't get away with this.

I said to the Mrs that the prosecution have showed beyond reasonable doubt that Chauvin used excessive force but they need to prove that force was the cause of the death which they really haven't done yet. The defence appeared to be arguing the fentanyl is what killed him but last week a clinician categorically stated this wouldn't have caused it which should go a long way to proving it was Chauvin's actions that killed him.

[Highland Capital]

Thought the old Irish lad was great.

[19QOS19]

Cardiologist saying George wouldn't have died if the coppers weren't on top of him.

I know it's America but f**k me, the evidence is overwhelming. There's no chance he get away with this, surely?

[ICTChris]

Police shooting in the confusingly named city of Brooklyn Center in Minnesota.

reason? Officer drew the wrong weapon!

I’m sure there was a police shooting In a train station where the officer went to tase someone who was being held on the ground but drew their gun and shot him straight in the heart. If every cop is armed to the teeth I guess this will happen eventually.

[pandarilla]

Cardiologist saying George wouldn't have died if the coppers weren't on top of him.

I know it's America but f**k me, the evidence is overwhelming. There's no chance he get away with this, surely?

That cardiologist was a dead ringer for Anthony scarramucci - the guy who sucked up to Donald trump for a while.

Loved himself - but he was on the side of the good guys so not too irritating.

[Detournement]

Just a wee slip up. 

[Michael W]

Did the Officer concerned manage to make that excuse with a straight face? 

"Used the wrong gun". Probably a new low. 

[madwullie]

1 hour ago, Detournement said:

Just a wee slip up. 

They're practically the same thing and these guys hardly ever have any training with their guns, so you can see why they'd make that mistake. 

[BillyAnchor]

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

Police shooting in the confusingly named city of Brooklyn Center in Minnesota.

reason? Officer drew the wrong weapon!

I’m sure there was a police shooting In a train station where the officer went to tase someone who was being held on the ground but drew their gun and shot him straight in the heart. If every cop is armed to the teeth I guess this will happen eventually.

Unfortunately it happens, in a Father Ted episode, Father Larry Duff reached for a stapler instead of his phone.