George Floyd murderer's trial

[Elixir]

ActBlue does have a clause that money not used by the target organisation goes to the Democratic party.

What clause?

I suspect they changed it. Can't find it now. But it was in the fine print of their BLM donations page. That wasn't fake news. I read it myself.

Are you sure you didn't follow a link from some RW site or poster, to a spoof page made to look like ActBlue?
Not that anyone would do such a thing of course...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Day 7

A friend of George Floyd who was with him on the day of his fatal arrest appeared virtually in court Tuesday as his lawyer said he does not want to testify in Derek Chauvin’s murder trial and would invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

...

Hennepin County District Judge Peter Cahill said the majority of those questions would fall within the right against self-incrimination but left open the possibility of Hall only being asked to describe Floyd’s behavior and condition in the car ahead of his arrest.

The judge did not decide Tuesday on whether Hall would be forced to testify and asked the defense to draft what questions they would ask under those narrow guidelines, which he would then review.

Not sure if the defense is playing games but clearly they want a witness who will confirm there were drugs or leave open the possibility of recent Floyd drug use by virtue of the witness's 5th amendment plea.

The first witness called by prosecutors Tuesday is Sgt. Ker Yang, a crisis intervention training coordinator with the Minneapolis Police Department.

Yang, 49, is a 24-year veteran of the force. Through his testimony, prosecutors appear to be trying to convey that Derek Chauvin had been trained in how to recognize people in various crises and safely respond.

I believe the point was to show that Chauvin had training in de-escalation and in this training had learned that situations change over time, to be dynamic, perhaps restraining one moment and then de-escalating later.

A use-of-force instructor with the Minneapolis Police Department testified Tuesday that Chauvin’s use of his knee on George Floyd’s neck has never been a trained neck restraint in the department and would not be appropriate for a suspect that was “under control and handcuffed.”

Lt. Johnny Mercil said Tuesday morning while viewing an image of Chauvin restraining Floyd with his knee on Floyd’s neck that such an action is not and has never been taught as a neck restraint under department training.

He said, depending on the circumstances, such a tactic may not always be “unauthorized” but would not be an appropriate use of force in the case where a person was “under control and handcuffed.”

The lieutenant testified that in order to get a subject under control, officers are trained to "use the lowest level of force possible" in order to meet their objectives.

Prosecutors showed an image from the police department's defense and control response training guide showing an “unconscious neck restraint,” meaning the kind of neck restraint that would render a person unconscious, would be allowed when a subject was displaying “active aggression” and not fall under tactics used for “active resistance” or "passive resistance.”

Mercil also testified officers are shown how to do an unconscious neck restraint with their arms but not using their legs during training.

The prosecution showed documents Chauvin had received training on the department’s use-of-force policies. Mercil developed the curriculum and was one of the trainers providing the use-of-force training Chauvin would have taken.

Under cross-examination, Derek Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, entered a photo into evidence that Lt. Johnny Mercil agreed appeared to show Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's shoulder blade while the ambulance was on the scene.

Nelson asked Mercil, a use of force trainer with the Minneapolis Police Department, whether unconscious people can suddenly regain consciousness and fight and whether a restraint requires pressure on both sides of the neck for the person to go unconscious.

Mercil responded yes to both questions. Mercil also testified that it generally takes less than 10 seconds for someone to go unconscious because of a neck restraint.

With these questions, Nelson seems to be laying the groundwork that Floyd did not die from Chauvin's knee on his neck, as the prosecution has argued.

Officer Nicole Mackenzie said as the medical support coordinator with the department she provided first aid and medical training to recruits and officers. She added Chauvin has attended the training she conducts.

Officer Nicole Mackenzie, the Minneapolis Police Department's medical support coordinator, told prosecutor Steve Schleicher that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) can be started while waiting for paramedics to arrive — a point the prosecution has sought to drive home to suggest Derek Chauvin had a duty to provide medical treatment to George Floyd until paramedics arrived.

...

As police officers were arresting Floyd, bystander videos captured him repeatedly telling them he couldn't breathe. One officer can be heard telling Floyd that it takes "a lot of oxygen" to talk.

Mackenzie, who trains Minneapolis police officers in medical treatment, contradicted that statement Tuesday.

"There is a possibility somebody could be in respiratory distress and still be able to verbalize it," she said. "Just because they're speaking doesn't mean they're breathing adequately."

In his questioning of Mackenzie, Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, continued a line of questions that he has asked many other expert witnesses and bystanders to Floyd's arrest, suggesting that the onlookers at the scene — many of whom shouted at Chauvin to get off Floyd — influenced Chauvin's actions that day and potentially hampered his ability to render aid.

Mackenzie told Nelson that it is "incredibly difficult" to focus on a patient at a chaotic scene and that it’s more difficult to assess a patient.

"Does it make it more likely that you might miss signs if a patient is experiencing something?" Nelson asked. Mackenzie said it was possible.

Schleicher quickly followed up and asked if a crowd of onlookers excuses a police officer from rendering aid.

"Only if they were physically getting themselves involved," she said.

 

[blastula]

ActBlue does have a clause that money not used by the target organisation goes to the Democratic party.

What clause?

I suspect they changed it. Can't find it now. But it was in the fine print of their BLM donations page. That wasn't fake news. I read it myself.

Or maybe you are misremembering? It happens all the time to us, but the internet never forgets.

actblue donate page for blm - Wayback Machine

I looked through several snapshots of that page and found nothing like that. And it would be very strange if there were because ActBlue is only a platform for making donations to third parties like gofundme does, they don't tell the recipients what to do with the money they get.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I suspect they changed it. Can't find it now. But it was in the fine print of their BLM donations page. That wasn't fake news. I read it myself.

Are you sure you didn't follow a link from some RW site or poster, to a spoof page made to look like ActBlue?
Not that anyone would do such a thing of course...

No. But it did look legit

 

[DrZoidberg]

I suspect they changed it. Can't find it now. But it was in the fine print of their BLM donations page. That wasn't fake news. I read it myself.

Or maybe you are misremembering? It happens all the time to us, but the internet never forgets.

actblue donate page for blm - Wayback Machine

I looked through several snapshots of that page and found nothing like that. And it would be very strange if there were because ActBlue is only a platform for making donations to third parties like gofundme does, they don't tell the recipients what to do with the money they get.

Thanks for setting me straight. My bad.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I suspect they changed it. Can't find it now. But it was in the fine print of their BLM donations page. That wasn't fake news. I read it myself.

Or maybe you are misremembering? It happens all the time to us, but the internet never forgets.

actblue donate page for blm - Wayback Machine

I looked through several snapshots of that page and found nothing like that. And it would be very strange if there were because ActBlue is only a platform for making donations to third parties like gofundme does, they don't tell the recipients what to do with the money they get.

Thanks for setting me straight. My bad.

We've all been there. You should read the Buttigieg thread.

 

[jab]

Nothing like declaring the verdict before the trial.

So, what is your take on the evidence presented in court so far?

 

[jab]

I recall a homicide case where the defense argued that the victim shouldn't have died. The defendant hadn't hit him all that hard. The victim had an egg-shell skull, which the defendant had had no way of knowing about.

The court held that the perp was the one who selected the victim. You are guilty of homicide if the person you hit dies from the blow that you hit him with.

If we apply that logic, Floyd's use of drugs doesn't amount to a defense.

-

Irrelevant footnote: If that perp actually had enough head-hitting experience that he could offer expert testimony as to whether his blow should have killed, then I definitely want him to have been convicted.

He argued that Chauvin followed his police training and should be found not guilty.

I recall another case. A miner fell down a mine shaft; the mining company was sued.

Plaintiff claimed negligence: A vertical drop that wasn't barricaded or lit.

Defense claimed that it was in compliance with industry standards, which was they had to show.

The court held that an unbarricaded and unlit shaft was egregious. Yes, the law--as previously understood-- called only for compliance with industry standards, but this was a case in which industry standards were patently wrong, so that standard did apply.

If we apply that logic, then even if Chauvin was doing what he was trained to do, that may not amount to a defense.

His superiors, under oath, have stated that he wasn't doing what he was trained to do.

 

[jab]

"This trial isn't about Floyd, nor BLM."
You are correct on that point, Dr. Z. The trial is 'about" ex-officer Chauvin.

 

[blastula]

Thanks for setting me straight. My bad.

We've all been there. You should read the Buttigieg thread.

Hadn't seen that one. O.M.G.

 

[J842P]

The training defense is patently absurd to me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The training defense is patently absurd to me.

Today the defense tried to say that the knee was on the shoulder blade and that there is some bit of training consistent with that somewhere somewhen. Is that what you mean? The expert on the stand said that it's still not part of training to put the knee so close to the neck, in that hypothetical. Also, all the other arguments about de-escalation, a prone person, medical attention, etc etc would still be relevant and applicable. So I wonder if this is what you're talking about. Post below will cover more of the testimony from today in this regard.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Day 8

Jody Stiger, a Los Angeles Police Department sergeant serving as a prosecution witness, said that based on his review of video evidence, Chauvin applied pressure to Floyd’s neck or neck area from the time officers put Floyd on the ground until paramedics arrived.

“That particular force did not change during the entire restraint period?” prosecutor Steve Schleicher asked as he showed the jury a composite image of five photos taken from the various videos of the arrest.

“Correct,” replied Stiger, who on Tuesday testified that the force used against Floyd was excessive.

Chauvin attorney Eric Nelson sought to point out moments in the video footage when, he said, Chauvin’s knee did not appear to be on Floyd’s neck but on his shoulder blade area or the base of his neck. Stiger did not give much ground, saying the officer’s knee in some of the contested photos still seemed to be near Floyd’s neck.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...auvin-charged-with-killing-george-floyd-day-8

This next bit is the defense attorney possibly playing games to remind the jury about drugs...putting Floyd on trial instead of Chauvin:

In other testimony, Floyd could be heard saying in a police body-camera video of his arrest, “I ate too many drugs,” according to the lead Minnesota state investigator on the case, Senior Special Agent James Reyerson.

Does this strike anyone else as an odd way to say "do" drugs? I mean, we're not talking about magic brownies. How about "I raped too many thugs?" Might as well accuse him of that? That is, it appears to be an interpretation proposed by the defense attorney, not the witness, which ordinarily would not have been entered into evidence except through a qualified expert. In any case, there's a lot more to this:

After playing the clip the first time, Nelson asked, "Did you ever hear Mr. Floyd say, 'I ate too many drugs?' "

"No," Reyerson replied.

Nelson played the clip a second time, asking, "Did it appear that Mr. Floyd said, 'I ate too many drugs?'"

This time, Reyerson said, "Yes, it did."

But later, under additional questioning by the prosecution, the agent backtracked, saying he now heard something different.

After listening to a longer recording than what had been played by the defense, the Reyerson said what Floyd was saying was actually, "I ain't do no drugs."

https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-...agent-testifies-floyd-said-i-aint-do-no-drugs

...and back to Stiger where the defense made some points but ultimately still Chauvin was in the wrong:

On Wednesday, Chauvin’s lawyer asked Stiger about uses of force that are commonly referred to by police as “lawful but awful.” Stiger conceded that “you can have a situation where by law it looks horrible to the common eye, but based on the state law, it’s lawful.”

Nelson has argued that the officers on the scene perceived the onlookers as an increasingly hostile crowd and were distracted by them.

But Stiger told the jury, “I did not perceive them as being a threat,” even though some onlookers were name-calling and using foul language. He added that most of the yelling was due to “their concern for Mr. Floyd.”

Nelson’s voice rose as he asked Stiger how a reasonable officer would be trained to view a crowd while dealing with a suspect, “and somebody else is now pacing around and watching you and watching you and calling you names and saying (expletives).” Nelson said such a situation “could be viewed by a reasonable officer as a threat.”

“As a potential threat, correct,” Stiger said.

Chauvin’s lawyer noted that dispatchers had described Floyd as between 6 feet and 6-foot-6 and possibly under the influence. Stiger agreed it was reasonable for Chauvin to come to the scene with a heightened sense of awareness.

Stiger further agreed with Nelson that an officer’s actions must be judged from the point of view of a reasonable officer on the scene, not in hindsight. Among other things, Nelson said that given typical EMS response times, it was reasonable for Chauvin to believe that paramedics would be there soon.

In other testimony, Stiger said that as Floyd lay pinned to the ground, Chauvin squeezed Floyd’s fingers and pulled one of his wrists toward his handcuffs, a technique that uses pain to get someone to comply, but Chauvin did not appear to let up while Floyd was restrained.

“Then at that point it’s just pain,” Stiger said.

Asked by prosecutors whether Chauvin had an obligation to take Floyd’s distress into account as he was considering how much force to use, Stiger replied: “Absolutely. As the time went on, clearly in the video, you could see that Mr. Floyd’s … health was deteriorating. His breath was getting lower. His tone of voice was getting lower. His movements were starting to cease.”

“So at that point, as a officer on scene,” Stiger continued, “you have a responsibility to realize that, ‘OK, something is not right. Something has changed drastically from what was occurring earlier.’ So therefore you have a responsibility to take some type of action.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...auvin-charged-with-killing-george-floyd-day-8

 

[J842P]

No I mean whether or not he was trained to do this seems irrelevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

No I mean whether or not he was trained to do this seems irrelevant.

Yeah, so, there is a reasonable expectation that if you do on the job as you were trained, especially when it's the government telling you how to do your job, then doing those things in good faith should rightly be protected.

 

[J842P]

No I mean whether or not he was trained to do this seems irrelevant.

Yeah, so, there is a reasonable expectation that if you do on the job as you were trained, especially when it's the government telling you how to do your job, then doing those things in good faith should rightly be protected.

I can agree that it might be taken into consideration, and I can imagine situations where it is exculpatory, but it should not generally serve as a shield. No.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"This trial isn't about Floyd, nor BLM."
You are correct on that point, Dr. Z. The trial is 'about" ex-officer Chauvin.

I find this attitude pretty distasteful. When show trials happens in other countries westerners are always shocked and complain. But when it happens on our own turf, then suddenly other rules apply. It's double standards IMHO.

The only reason I can see that anybody would see this as anything but a show trial is political motivation. Which is the antithesis of the rule of law.

I hope it gets instantly appealed and kicked up to the Supreme Court ASAP. That's the only place we'll get anything resembling a fair trial. Of course it will also be swayed by public opinion. But less than it is now. At least that jury are experienced trained professionals.

 

[Wiploc]

The only reason I can see that anybody would see this as anything but a show trial is political motivation.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate.

I think of show trials as performance art, not interested in finding truth.

Do you have another definition of "show trial," or do you have reason to believe that this trial isn't about finding truth?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The only reason I can see that anybody would see this as anything but a show trial is political motivation.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate.

I think of show trials as performance art, not interested in finding truth.

Do you have another definition of "show trial," or do you have reason to believe that this trial isn't about finding truth?

Every member of the jury knows they are the ones on trial unless they give the public what they want. They have reasons to fear for their lives, or at least their future. The BLM riots was not a small thing.

Expecting a fair trial in the given circumstance is as absurd as it is idiotic.

Yes, it is performance art. We're not going to learn anything of any relevance that's not on that video. It's just a circus. A spectacle. A show trial.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only reason I can see that anybody would see this as anything but a show trial is political motivation.

I don't understand. Can you elaborate.

I think of show trials as performance art, not interested in finding truth.

Do you have another definition of "show trial," or do you have reason to believe that this trial isn't about finding truth?

The major disconnect I see happening in a lot of minds around Floyd's Murder's trial is that they keep thinking that the fact that the truth is so easy to find makes it a "show trial". It does not. It just makes it a clear case.