Anyone watching this George Floyd trial?

[TonyGe]

What killed the man? Was it being in a stressful situation (that he put himself in) while having a deadly dose of drugs running through his veins or was it the cop and the knee. Or do you believe that there is another scenario? Prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, which one you believe that it was, while displaying your evidence.

If the guy was from Japan my views on this would not change. If the guy was white my views would not change. If the guy was black my veiws would not change...................Rockin'

I believe you that the ethnicity wouldn't change your mind but you have to really consider that the reality is Chauvin is a psychopath.

[Rockin']

I believe you that the ethnicity wouldn't change your mind but you have to really consider that the reality is Chauvin is a psychopath.

I haven't been privy to any of his evaluations, have you? ..............Rockin'

[TonyGe]

I haven't been privy to any of his evaluations, have you? ..............Rockin'

Yeah just go on the internet. One evaluation was done by an ex director of the FBI. I already posted a link to it.


Here are some more..





An opinion given by a bystander that is a mixed martial artist.

[BodyBagz]

Hindsight and the like are always 100 % correct.

That in the moment aspect, though.

Outside looking in, little guy should handled that giant in a less physical manner.

[joseph5620]

It’s not easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt though. That’s a high burden of proof.

It's on video for the jury to see. There are witnesses and expert testimony including the lieutenant and dispatcher testifying about Chuavin's actions. The Coroner concluded that it was a homicide There's also this:




The ambulance person had to actually tell him to lift up. He checked his pulse first while Chauvin’s knee still remained on George Floyd’s neck. The paramedic did a motion, like get up. Telling him, basically, to remove his knee.

His knee was still there. Even when they came. Even at the end. Even unresponsive.






Detective says Chauvin knee on neck a 'totally unnecessary' use of deadly force

“If your knee is on a person’s neck, that can kill them,” he said.







Lt Richard Zimmerman, who leads the homicide department, said in testimony on Friday that in four decades as a police officer he had never been trained to place a knee on someone’s neck as a means of restraining them during an arrest.






If those aren't the actions of a depraved mind I don't know what is. What more do you need to see or hear? This is way beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't see it that way there is nothing left for me to say about it to you after this.

[HewJohnson]

Haven’t been watching.

what’s the latest??

[Real King Kong]

It's on video for the jury to see. There are witnesses and expert testimony including the lieutenant and dispatcher testifying about Chuavin's actions. The Coroner concluded that it was a homicide There's also this:




The ambulance person had to actually tell him to lift up. He checked his pulse first while Chauvin’s knee still remained on George Floyd’s neck. The paramedic did a motion, like get up. Telling him, basically, to remove his knee.

His knee was still there. Even when they came. Even at the end. Even unresponsive.






Detective says Chauvin knee on neck a 'totally unnecessary' use of deadly force

“If your knee is on a person’s neck, that can kill them,” he said.







Lt Richard Zimmerman, who leads the homicide department, said in testimony on Friday that in four decades as a police officer he had never been trained to place a knee on someone’s neck as a means of restraining them during an arrest.






If those aren't the actions of a depraved mind I don't know what is. What more do you need to see or hear? This is way beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't see it that way there is nothing left for me to say about it to you after this.

It’s still not easy to prove. Considering Floyd was saying he couldn’t breathe and struggling before he was in that position, Chauvin could justify not seeing it as an emergency. He could also say he was focussed on the possible threat of people surrounding them, or he froze up, or whatever. All it takes is one juror to not be 100% convinced the guy is a psychopath. It’s a tough sell when he was a cop responding to a crime where the suspect, in his mind, was resisting. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he was convicted of 3rd degree murder, because the charge has merit and also considering how politically charged this case is, and the impossibility of finding a juror who hasn’t already been exposed to some form of narrative.

[HewJohnson]

It’s still not easy to prove. Considering Floyd was saying he couldn’t breathe and struggling before he was in that position, Chauvin could justify not seeing it as an emergency. He could also say he was focussed on the possible threat of people surrounding them, or he froze up, or whatever. All it takes is one juror to not be 100% convinced the guy is a psychopath. It’s a tough sell when he was a cop responding to a crime where the suspect, in his mind, was resisting. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he was convicted of 3rd degree murder, because the charge has merit and also considering how politically charged this case is, and the impossibility of finding a juror who hasn’t already been exposed to some form of narrative.

Any word on who the jurors are?

[Real King Kong]

Any word on who the jurors are?

No idea, but what are the odds they won’t be influenced in some way by everything that’s happened since.

[joseph5620]

It’s still not easy to prove. Considering Floyd was saying he couldn’t breathe and struggling before he was in that position, Chauvin could justify not seeing it as an emergency. He could also say he was focussed on the possible threat of people surrounding them, or he froze up, or whatever. All it takes is one juror to not be 100% convinced the guy is a psychopath. It’s a tough sell when he was a cop responding to a crime where the suspect, in his mind, was resisting. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he was convicted of 3rd degree murder, because the charge has merit and also considering how politically charged this case is, and the impossibility of finding a juror who hasn’t already been exposed to some form of narrative.

So are you saying they shouldn't convict him and he should get off? I don't understand your position on this. You asked me for mine and I gave it to you. You keep saying you're on the outside looking in and you have no dog in this fight. Yet you keep repeating the jury is going to be influenced by a "narrative" as if they have no cause to convict him. You've spent a lot of time repeating that so it appears you have taken a position on this case.

Either he's guilty or he's not. It's that simple. Which is it for you? You can't play both sides of the fence while claiming the jury is only going to convict because of a "narrative". It's either one or the other.