I’m sure is was.
Point is they played it multiple times in front of the jury and the defense’s take, “I ate too many drugs” was uttered multiple times as well. Legal Insurrection is a lawyer site. They seem to think he was a very good witness for the defense. Who wrote the Hill article and what legal expertise do heshethey have?
Whoever wrote it please note that they point out that the prosecution pointed out that when you listen to this in context it is much less convincing. Your source left this out, for whatever reason, so I’m filling in the omission (which I think makes a difference).
If you want to compare sources, yours is heavily biased to the right so not a surprise they reported out of context (much like the defence in this particular instance).
Mine seems heavily biased toward the law.
So is the prosecution
The prosecution chose a witness to a MAJOR trial who had never given deposition in a MAJOR trial before. The LI folks seem to think that this was a major error in the favor of the defense.
That’s, what did you call it, oh yeah, an opinion. If he gets off because of this, you can have a cookie. Seems like reaching for straws by your legal site, is my opinion. I’m not a lawyer, but neither are the jurors.
Or an informed opinion.
Why? This case has fuckall to do with me and I’m not much interested in the outcome. I have no skin in the game. My interest is in how the Law confronts woke mob rule ethos.
Not if you think context is important. For those of us who do, I provided some from a less biased source of information. You are welcome. This was my only reason for the first post, since then we have accomplished nothing.
I’ve been watching the trial a bit, and so far it doesn’t look good for the prosecution. The prosecutor has appeared consistently stiff and weak, and the defense lawyer has been so effective on cross-examination that he’s going to call two of the prosecution’s star witnesses as defense witnesses.
A lot of talk but I think it boils down to some simple facts. I was listening to Dan Bonginos take on this a while back (right wing commentator but also from the police force) who said up till the handcuffs are on, pretty much everything goes when resisting arrest. After that, you treat them kindly and certainly don’t kneel on their neck.
Floyd died while in handcuffs, while basically in police “care” and while they were in engaged in behavior which they shouldn’t be. I’d say they are guilty of something although not being a legal person decline to put an exact name to it.
And if he died of a fentanyl overdose, which seems likely, there’s probably nothing the police could have done to prevent that, other than promptly calling for an ambulance, which they did. With all the reasonable doubt raised about Floyd’s actual cause of death, I just don’t see either of the murder charges sticking.
Of course I’m no legal expert either, and anything can happen in a jury trial. I imagine a good number of the jurors are fearful for their lives if they were to acquit.
Yup, and the 27 mil has already set that ball rolling. He died in custody, and that part is outside the scope of whether or not it was GF’s behavior, resistance, drug use or mental or physical health or the cops’ handling of him that led up to or caused it.
Bit like saying if a teacher locks a student in a cupboard and the student dies of an overdose it would have happened anyway therefore locking him in the cupboard was no big deal. He might have died anyway if he wasn’t locked in the cupboard. except for all we know locking him in the cupboard was the stressor that pushed the kid over the top and his heart gave out.
Except we all know teachers shouldn’t be locking kids in cupboards and police shouldn’t be kneeling on peoples necks when handcuffed and if people who die under those circumstances, the ones administering bad forms of punishment need to be held to account.
I was thinking if a DUI accident killed someone high on drugs, but yours works also
I don’t think anybody is saying it was no big deal, but I still think there’s a great deal of reasonable doubt about Floyd’s cause of death. Chauvin kneeling on him may have been a contributing factor, or it may have even been the main cause, but I haven’t seen any proof one way or another.
From the evidence presented so far, I don’t see a convincing case for either of the following murder charges:
Yes, but @TT analogy is not a bad one, DUI means if someone dies and you are over the limit at the wheel, you will be found guilty regardless of the circumstances, even you were driving like an angel and the person threw themselves in front of the vehicle.
The circumstances of the death were conflated with inappropriate excessive force from an officer.
I’m still wondering how the drugs are going to be handled in court, seems the most reasonable reason for reasonable doubt, to me
I don’t think it’s a good analogy at all, because no case can be made for someone driving under the influence, while a case can be made for a police officer using force to restrain a suspect who is high on drugs and has been resisting arrest, both of which were true about Floyd.
Back to my Bongino take, which is once the cuffs are on it’s over.
