Stopped showing Chauvin's body cam. Now moving to admit stills from the body cams. Defense has no objection.
*****State of MN v. Derek Chauvin Trial*****
785,444 Views |
8794 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by titan
Damage was done. Any more and you start looking like an a-hole rather than someone who's seeking truth.
Minimal self limited exposure until today. Due to one click of a vaguely described video....aaaand it was a beheading of that Pearl guy. The internet contains the foulest evil on earth,Dumb_Loggy said:
I've refrained from watching any videos of the incident until now with the body cams because I wanted to remain impartial (innocent until proven guilty). I don't see where the cops did anything wrong other than not putting him in the recovery position after he was unconscious.
Today I see now a tiny man in uniform and a big man, not that fat, actually jackked, out of control bull. This case is about one of those tiny little knees.
In the first case, he died three days later? I wonder what the autopsy said.waitwhat? said:Asian dude (although apparently not asian): https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/us/angelo-quinto-antioch-police-department-death-trnd/index.htmleric76 said:waitwhat? said:
There was a recent dude last month or January in California but he was Asian and the cop was, I think, black so nobody cared. There was a white dude a couple years ago but I don't think it was his neck.
Citations?
White man: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawyer-officers-knee-neck-killed-man-2018-arrest-71347397
EDIT: Both of these were posted on f16 and the reason they were posted was the lack of outrage since they weren't black. This floyd stuff is all a media circus.
The second case sounded like someone on drugs who was even more out of control than Floyd.
aggiehawg said:You are making assumptions. he appears to be unconscious but is he really?Dumb_Loggy said:
I've refrained from watching any videos of the incident until now with the body cams because I wanted to remain impartial (innocent until proven guilty). I don't see where the cops did anything wrong other than not putting him in the recovery position after he was unconscious.
Yes, you're correct; I don't speak lawyer. I should've said after it appeared that they determined he was unconscious.
Jury is excused for the day.
Nelson is making an offer of proof and needs to question the witness about the Milestone System after they leave. He's trying to get some more evidence to be allowed.
Nelson is making an offer of proof and needs to question the witness about the Milestone System after they leave. He's trying to get some more evidence to be allowed.
Do they have to go through this for all of the video/evidence they try to submit? Seems tedious based on the number of pieces of evidence that have already been shown.aggiehawg said:
Jury is excused for the day.
Nelson is making an offer of proof and needs to question the witness about the Milestone System after they leave. He's trying to get some more evidence to be allowed.
" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
earlier, the in store video
Did the guy in the red pants take money from Floyd while he was across from the phone counter?
Did the guy in the red pants take money from Floyd while he was across from the phone counter?
pacecar02 said:
earlier, the in store video
Did the guy in the red pants take money from Floyd while he was across from the phone counter?
Yes. In the most awkward way possible, actually. Like Floyd held out his money and this guy took it from him.
It's not the severity of the punishment that deters crime; it's the certainty of it.
It certainly appeared that he did.pacecar02 said:
earlier, the in store video
Did the guy in the red pants take money from Floyd while he was across from the phone counter?
I wonder if those were more of these "fake" 20's
it doesn't so much matter now, just curious
it doesn't so much matter now, just curious
Upon further examination, the MPD's Milestone System and body cam does not include Park Police. Separate system.waitwhat? said:Do they have to go through this for all of the video/evidence they try to submit? Seems tedious based on the number of pieces of evidence that have already been shown.aggiehawg said:
Jury is excused for the day.
Nelson is making an offer of proof and needs to question the witness about the Milestone System after they leave. He's trying to get some more evidence to be allowed.
A park police squad car was called by dispatch to back up Lane and Kueng before Chauvin and Thao could get there. It is the body cam evidence of that responding park police officer that Nelson wishes to be deemed admissible for purposes of not the defense case in chief but for experts to review for both use of force and medical issues.
ETA: Argument on the offer of proof will ne Friday morning at 9.
I've seen a jury dismissed before noon so the judge could hear evidentiary hearings in the afternoon. It's common for defense and prosecutors to argue to get evidence admitted or omitted. Defense will always claim that edited video is biased against their client.waitwhat? said:Do they have to go through this for all of the video/evidence they try to submit? Seems tedious based on the number of pieces of evidence that have already been shown.aggiehawg said:
Jury is excused for the day.
Nelson is making an offer of proof and needs to question the witness about the Milestone System after they leave. He's trying to get some more evidence to be allowed.
Saw a judge rule that a police officer's questions we're inadmissible but the responses to those questions weren't. So the prosecution edited the video to take out all those statements. Then the defense claimed it was confusing b/c the responses were to questions about different dates. Defense didn't like the next edit so the prosecution redid it for a third time with black screens and muted audio over the officer's questioning. Some pauses were 3-4 minutes long. Was excruciatingly tedious to listen to.
Federal courts generally get most of that out of the way pre-trial.
You cannot at the same time say "The footage is damning for the police" followed by "Based on what I've seen I think it's manslaughter" and then try and say "but I'm wide open to more evidence".
You would meet the absolute definition of a biased juror. Essentially you are waiting to here from more witnesses to convince you he is not guilty of causing Floyd's death. That's not innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond REASONABLE DOUBT.
That's he looks guilty so prove to me he didn't do it.
You would meet the absolute definition of a biased juror. Essentially you are waiting to here from more witnesses to convince you he is not guilty of causing Floyd's death. That's not innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond REASONABLE DOUBT.
That's he looks guilty so prove to me he didn't do it.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
This right here 100%ruddyduck said:waitwhat? said:
This footage is damning for the police. Floyd is dead here.
I don't know if any of you have watched a person die, but my dad died of lung cancer and I had to watch after we removed the ventilator. It was horrific and his body still moved for a while after he was clearly dead. He would still gasp for air after he was gone.
This clip will be what gets Chauvin on manslaughter unless the defense can pull off a miracle.
no offense but people like yourself terrify me regarding jury trials.
That was a topic of much of the voir dire by the defense. His client does not have to present one shred of evidence nor ask one question. The juror must understand that the presumption of innocence means there is no hurdle to overcome to prove the defendant didn't do it. Holding such a view disqualifies a juror from serving. And indeed Nelson successfully challenged several prospects for cause on that basis.fka ftc said:
You cannot at the same time say "The footage is damning for the police" followed by "Based on what I've seen I think it's manslaughter" and then try and say "but I'm wide open to more evidence".
You would meet the absolute definition of a biased juror. Essentially you are waiting to here from more witnesses to convince you he is not guilty of causing Floyd's death. That's not innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond REASONABLE DOUBT.
That's he looks guilty so prove to me he didn't do it.
Everyone seeing the viral video convinced themselves the officers had to be guilty of something, myself included. Until I started reading the reports, watching the bodycam evidence, autopsy and tox reports, police manual materials and doing other research. Admittedly I was looking for confirmation of what I thought I had seen in the video. That didn't happen as the evidence was not at all what I expected. Just the opposite.
So I had to rethink my approach from the presumption of innocence and then view the evidence using beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the elements as charged. IMO, there is a s***ton of reasonable doubt in this case, again as charged.
Just a guess here(not a lawyer), but could be Nelson knows about Cahill and understands how to handle himself and how to treat jurors in Cahill's courtroom.aggiehawg said:Agree that there is a calculus involved for Nelson. Endless objections not only irritate the jury they also irritate the judge. If the prosecution is doing something like repeatedly asking leading questions, he can ask for a sidebar and have Cahill tell the state to tighten up their questions.Quote:
Hard to say without knowing what he's got in the way of ammunition. If he thinks he has some really compelling testimony that will decide the case, why bog things down trying to score points off unimportant witnesses when the prosecution is wasting the jury's time? As has been pointed out, it's just Nelson representing the defendant, and being seen by the jurors as someone who is trying to move things along, and not waste their time, can be a difference maker. Odds are that when the jurors deliberate, they will only be talking about a handful of key witnesses, none of whom have yet testified.
That occurred and I have noticed the questioning by state has been tighter today.
With so many prosecutors, some even private attorneys, might be substantial differences of opinion on how they act in Cahill's courtroom.
Just my less than 2 cents worth.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Sure I can. Based on what I've seen so far it looks like negligent manslaughter. The bodycam footage looks pretty damning. But if the defense can do a reasonable job on casting doubt on the knee being a contributing factor, and show that the officers were reasonably right to continue kneeling on him even after he stopped moving and breathing, besides the telltale twitching of a dead man, then he should walk from that as well.fka ftc said:
You cannot at the same time say "The footage is damning for the police" followed by "Based on what I've seen I think it's manslaughter" and then try and say "but I'm wide open to more evidence".
You would meet the absolute definition of a biased juror. Essentially you are waiting to here from more witnesses to convince you he is not guilty of causing Floyd's death. That's not innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond REASONABLE DOUBT.
That's he looks guilty so prove to me he didn't do it.
You're so much more engrained in him being not guilty regardless of evidence than I am in him potentially being guilty that it's laughable.
God forbid I wait on evidence and experts and allow my opinion to be changed based on that, rather than entrench myself into one side. You're as bad as the side that will burn down cities when he's found not guilty of murder (not literally as bad since I assume you won't burn anything down).
" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
Username checks out (on every post)
I'm sure they will be removed posthaste.third coast.. said:
i personally thought that his knee was on his upper back this whole time. it never appeared to me to be on his neck. wich i could have caught the bdy cam videos today and seen the struggle to get in and out of the car as i had not seen those before. hope they are on youtube later.
Loss of bodily functions?aggiehawg said:
Appears to me that Floyd peed while he was still talking. It was not a postmortem evacuation as the firefighter believed.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
That's one shot in time at the end of the altercation. He knee was on his neck majority of the time.aginlakeway said:will25u said:Agthatbuilds said:will25u said:will25u said:
This is what was in the tweet above.
Who deleted it? Breaking911 or twitter?
Probably @breaking911. They reposted.
WOW. It was on his back.
Aaaah! But according to the MMA "expert" that was "shimmying."third coast.. said:
i personally thought that his knee was on his upper back this whole time. it never appeared to me to be on his neck. wich i could have caught the bdy cam videos today and seen the struggle to get in and out of the car as i had not seen those before. hope they are on youtube later.
Obviously you're just biased.NASAg03 said:That's the end of the video when he's moved it to check pulse on a immobile suspect. Notice the gurney in the background?will25u said:Agthatbuilds said:will25u said:will25u said:
This is what was in the tweet above.
Who deleted it? Breaking911 or twitter?
Probably @breaking911. They reposted.
" 'People that read with pictures think that it's simply about a mask' - Dana Loesch" - Ban Cow Gas
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Dr. Ron Paul
Big Tech IS the empire of lies
TEXIT
Yup.Quote:
That's the end of the video when he's moved it to check pulse on a immobile suspect. Notice the gurney in the background?
Is it annoying anyone else that no one can seem to pronounce Chauvin's name the same way twice?
Read what you wrote out loud and try not to laugh.
The law is innocent until PROVEN guilty. How is that concept so hard?
In no part of what I wrote did I opine his guilt or innocence, though since neither side has fully presented their case then he is in fact, at this time innocent.
I actually am completely open to his guilt or innocence as clearly NOT all the evidence is in NOR the cases fully presented, including any rulings by judge on testimony or evidence and juror instructions. Hawg explains this well above. You start at innocent, you do no start as guilty nor reach that conclusion before judge tells you to go deliberate.
As soon as you have an opinion on the evidence or case thus far, then you are no longer an impartial juror and should excuse yourself. You cannot have it both ways.
Lumping with others who may have stronger feelings or drawn their own conclusion is disingenuous and incorrect.
The law is innocent until PROVEN guilty. How is that concept so hard?
In no part of what I wrote did I opine his guilt or innocence, though since neither side has fully presented their case then he is in fact, at this time innocent.
I actually am completely open to his guilt or innocence as clearly NOT all the evidence is in NOR the cases fully presented, including any rulings by judge on testimony or evidence and juror instructions. Hawg explains this well above. You start at innocent, you do no start as guilty nor reach that conclusion before judge tells you to go deliberate.
As soon as you have an opinion on the evidence or case thus far, then you are no longer an impartial juror and should excuse yourself. You cannot have it both ways.
Lumping with others who may have stronger feelings or drawn their own conclusion is disingenuous and incorrect.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
Featured Stories
See All
SEC Round-Up: Dawgs facing possible playoff elimination this week
by Olin Buchanan
33:59
18h ago
1.7k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 12
by Matthew Dawson
29:44
26m ago
281
23:22
36m ago
320
ElkoSZN
Instead of scheduling tough non-conference games like ND...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
50
LosAngelesAg00
Instead of scheduling tough non-conference games like ND...
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
37
Cm214
Thoughts Thread - Dan Campbell for College Gameday Guest Picker?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
35
Redbeard85
Thoughts Thread - Dan Campbell for College Gameday Guest Picker?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
29