Anyone watching this George Floyd trial?

[travestyny]

I gathered the facts of the case, and formed my opinions from there. I didn't follow the trial daily; I had no real interest in it and honestly I have better things to do. If anyone can point out a fact that I've missed, I am receptive to hearing that. But that hasn't been offered yet.

From the bolded and underlined portions I wrote above, I think any honest objective person would say - 'OK there is a lot going on here, this isn't a simple case. It certainly seems very possible and reasonable that Floyd largely killed himself with drugs that he ingested and with his poor health issues'

All Chauvin needs is reasonable doubt in this case, and I think there is more than enough reasonable doubt there to make a guilty plea for anything close to murder or manslaughter a very poor decision.

And yes, as my original comment stated, this country is definitely in a downward spiral. This verdict and case and the whole coverage of it, another example of the downward spiral. We are at a point where virtue signaling means far more than facts and the like. It's insane and it will not lead to good outcomes going forward, across the board.

1. The article says as plain as day that the neck restraint was NOT taught. That's because what Chauvin did was NOT one of the neck restraints that was taught. The article makes it clear. So no, I'm not wrong because as I said, it is NOT a neck restraint. Furthermore, look at what he said completely.

Displaying a photo of Chauvin holding his knee on Floyd's neck and looking up at a bystander, prosecutor Steven Schleicher asked Mercil, "Is this an MPD-trained neck restraint?" "No sir," Mercil replied.

He added that a "knee on the neck would be something that does happen in the use of force that is not unauthorized."

How long such a restraint is applied would depend on the level of resistance the subject is offering, Mercil said. When the prosecutor asked if the method would be authorized if someone is under control and handcuffed, he replied, "I would say no."

So again, it was not an authorized neck restraint. The method he used (incorrectly, since they are warned to stay off of the neck) is something that happens when they are cuffing suspects, and then the suspect is supposed to be placed in the recovery position directly after.


2. I've already mentioned that people who actually did overdose and who were taken in for DUI's had levels far higher than Floyd's. So there is no conclusion that you can draw from what you wrote above.

A. Chauvin had to be shown to be a substantial causal factor in Floyd's death, not the only cause or even the main cause.

B. We could see that the man couldn't breathe. We watched the ways in which he tried to breathe. He didn't look like a person OD-ing. His respiratory rate was not consistent with someone who was overdosing.



You should have watched more of the trial to make a more informed opinion.

[joseph5620]

I gathered the facts of the case, and formed my opinions from there. I didn't follow the trial daily; I had no real interest in it and honestly I have better things to do. If anyone can point out a fact that I've missed, I am receptive to hearing that. But that hasn't been offered yet.

From the bolded and underlined portions I wrote above, I think any honest objective person would say - 'OK there is a lot going on here, this isn't a simple case. It certainly seems very possible and reasonable that Floyd largely killed himself with drugs that he ingested and with his poor health issues'

All Chauvin needs is reasonable doubt in this case, and I think there is more than enough reasonable doubt there to make a guilty plea for anything close to murder or manslaughter a very poor decision.

And yes, as my original comment stated, this country is definitely in a downward spiral. This verdict and case and the whole coverage of it, another example of the downward spiral. We are at a point where virtue signaling means far more than facts and the like. It's insane and it will not lead to good outcomes going forward, across the board.

What facts did you gather? You thought Jeffrey Toobin testified for the prosecution LMAO. You didn't follow anything. You saw a white man convicted for killing a black man and you crawled from under your rock to to cry like a bit ch about it. You're doing nothing more than lying and deflecting.

[Boxing-1013]

1. The article says as plain as day that the neck restraint was NOT taught. That's because what Chauvin did was NOT one of the neck restraints that was taught. The article makes it clear. So no, I'm not wrong because as I said, it is NOT a neck restraint. Furthermore, look at what he said completely.




So again, it was not an authorized neck restraint. The method he used (incorrectly, since they are warned to stay off of the neck) is something that happens when they are cuffing suspects, and then the suspect is supposed to be placed in the recovery position directly after.


2. I've already mentioned that people who actually did overdose and who were taken in for DUI's had levels far higher than Floyd's. So there is no conclusion that you can draw from what you wrote above.

A. Chauvin had to be shown to be a substantial causal factor in Floyd's death, not the only cause or even the main cause.

B. We could see that the man couldn't breathe. We watched the ways in which he tried to breathe. He didn't look like a person OD-ing. His respiratory rate was not consistent with someone who was overdosing.



You should have watched more of the trial to make a more informed opinion.

Man if you can't even acknowledge you were wrong there, there is no point in continuing the convo or even reading the rest of your post.

[travestyny]

Man if you can't even acknowledge you were wrong there, there is no point in continuing the convo or even reading the rest of your post.

Wrong about what exactly? The proof that you are wrong is in the damn title!



Chauvin's Restraint On Floyd's Neck Isn't Taught By Police, Use-Of-Force Trainer Says



He's not even the only Minneapolis police officer that testified to this. But I guess you wouldn't know since you obviously didn't pay attention.

[Boxing-1013]

What facts did you gather? You thought Jeffrey Toobin testified for the prosecution LMAO. You didn't follow anything. You saw a white man convicted for killing a black man and you crawled from under your rock to to cry like a bit ch about it. You're doing nothing more than lying and deflecting.

You 'won' and you sound like you're crying about it, Joe. Why so upset lol

Who testified and who didn't is irrelevant. I've laid out the facts of the case a few times on here. So have a few others. Those don't change. People can give their opinions and people can testify and say whatever they want.

[Boxing-1013]

What facts did you gather? You thought Jeffrey Toobin testified for the prosecution LMAO. You didn't follow anything. You saw a white man convicted for killing a black man and you crawled from under your rock to to cry like a bit ch about it. You're doing nothing more than lying and deflecting.

Until someone presents some actual evidence to refute what appeared to be a career criminal with health issues finally having a fatal OD, I mean the facts of the case as I presented them will stand. Anyone acting like this is a 100-0 case, either way, is crazy. It largely appears to be an accidental overdose but you could argue that Chauvin and the crew could have done more, or maybe contributed. But that case doesn't hold a lot of water as far as getting a guilty verdict. it needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt and that just isn't even really close.

Like I said to you just a second ago in another post - everything for you is black and white lol. Your mind is trapped and brainwashed to only see things in that lens. I see a police officer who got a pretty bad shake, and I see a piece of sh.it criminal who is a fuc.king joke that anyone would try to make a martyr of. Pretty sad state for the community if that is the best they can come up with lol. If that dude was white, he would still be a piece of sh.it.

[Boxing-1013]

Wrong about what exactly? The proof that you are wrong is in the damn title!



Chauvin's Restraint On Floyd's Neck Isn't Taught By Police, Use-Of-Force Trainer Says



He's not even the only Minneapolis police officer that testified to this. But I guess you wouldn't know since you obviously didn't pay attention.

You do realize that not taught does not mean illegal? Right. As mentioned, the guy in the article admitted that that technique happened with restraining someone, and that it was NOT unauthorized. It was legal. That restraint happened.

[travestyny]

You do realize that not taught does not mean illegal? Right.

Dude, you're not paying attention. Not taught, as in IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT PROCEDURE.


THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT:



Not what Chauvin did.

As mentioned, the guy in the article admitted that that technique happened with restraining someone, and that it was NOT unauthorized. It was legal. That restraint happened.

He mentioned that it could happen WHEN THEY ARE CUFFING INDIVIDUALS AND IS NOT TO BE CONTINUED WHEN THE PERSON IS HANDCUFFED AND UNDER CONTROL.

[joseph5620]

You 'won' and you sound like you're crying about it, Joe. Why so upset lol

Who testified and who didn't is irrelevant. I've laid out the facts of the case a few times on here. So have a few others. Those don't change. People can give their opinions and people can testify and say whatever they want.

What exactly did I "win"? Wow. This verdict has you feeling liked you took an L. As funny as that is it's also pathetic. It's obvious that the only angry one here is you with your hyperbole about America being set back by the verdict or whatever that nonsense was that you posted.

Your statements about this case are only showing how mentally unstable you are. Get some help.

[Boxing-1013]

Dude, you're not paying attention. Not taught, as in IT WAS NOT THE CORRECT PROCEDURE.


THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT:



Not what Chauvin did.




He mentioned that it could happen WHEN THEY ARE CUFFING INDIVIDUALS AND IS NOT TO BE CONTINUED WHEN THE PERSON IS HANDCUFFED AND UNDER CONTROL.

Here is what he said - How long such a restraint is applied would depend on the level of resistance the subject is offering, Mercil said. When the prosecutor asked if the method would be authorized if someone is under control and handcuffed, he replied, "I would say no."

So now we get into the weeds of it - we have to consider now whether 1) one would consider Floyd under control in this situation. I would not say that he was. He was flailing around a lot and was on drugs. He was also a very large guy. That has to be considered as well. He wasn't a 90 pound grandma.

And 2) He gave his opinion that if someone was handcuffed and under control, that technique would not be 'authorized' in his opinion. It is still a legal move. But now we get into the issue again of what is considered 'under control.'

Also, not that it really matters but it appears he directly states in that article as well that they DON"T teach that technique you just posted:

Describing the police use of neck restraints, Mercil said the department's training calls for officers to use their arms to restrict the flow of blood to and from the brain by applying force to the side of the neck "with the intent to gain control of a subject." He also said that while neck restraints can be performed with the legs rather than the arms, his unit doesn't teach officers to do that in their in-service training.

"As far as my knowledge [goes]," he added, "we never have."

I feel like you're trolling now since you posted that. Which is good in a way, since maybe you know that the stuff you're saying is not accurate at all.