Dey one little bitty 140# cop... dude.

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Dey one little bitty 140# cop... dude.

---

I almost think this is english... but not 100% sure???

"Graphic videos of Floyd's arrest played on several screens. Some jurors took notes, others looked away and refused to watch the video."

As mentioned before one juror was excused during testimony and now here is a report of jurors refusing to view evidence in the case.


This infuriates me
I have served on multiple juries and I felt it was my duty to take in all of the testimony presented.

Honest question, how can the defendant expect to get a fair trial if the jurors don't watch the evidence presented? Is this the kind of thing a judge would do something about?

dude95 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

dude95 said:

---

78_Pacecar said:

---

2PacShakur said:

---

I mean, imagine the riots that could had been prevented if maybe Chauvin used the recovery position.

---

Can you imagine the riots that could have been prevented if Floyd had not tried to use a fake $20 bill. One so fake that a 18-19yr old kid with no training spotted.

Can you imagine the riots that could have been prevented if Floyd had not been high on drugs

Can you imagine the riots that could have been prevented if Floyd had when confronted with police placed his hands in full view of the responding officer and complied with their requests not causing the responding officer to pull his weapon

Can you imagine the riots that could have been prevented if Floyd had complied with the officers, not resisted, and had followed the axiom that the place to fight the law is in the court room.

Can you imagine the riots that could have been prevented?

---

In Minnesota - passing counterfeit bills less than $1000 is a misdemeanor. This happened over a misdemeanor.

Imagine if your son walked out of the Chicken on his 21st birthday, barely able to walk. When cops interact with him, he doesn't immediately comply because he's too drunk. Same thing - freaks out getting in police car cause he's so drunk he doesn't know which way is up. Then you have a video of a cop on top of your son for 9 minutes - two of those minutes when he's unconscious and not responsive. When your son dies while the cop is on top of him, he says it's because he had too much alcohol.

My expectation is that cops should know how to handle the situation better. Safer. I would be enraged if it was my white son - I would hope the rest of the country would be too.

A year ago - there wasn't even anyone on f16 defending what they saw. Then the riots happened and this whole place is ok with it. I'm not happy Chauvin didn't have the skills or temperament to deal with the situation. I don't care if he was frustrated Floyd didn't comply - it's his job. Even this thread talks about how Floyd would have been dead from an overdose at the same time regardless if there was a cop on top of him or not. Chauvin couldn't deal with a guy seconds away from a fent overdose?

---

Your example is not a comparable analogy. There was much more going on with Floyd than with your son in your example.

Regardless, there is one way to avoid this. Don't break the law and resist arrest.

Amazing how many people defend criminals' actions.

---

Our laws are not set up to allow for police brutality depending if he was a former felon. He wasn't fleeing the scene - he had a panic attack at getting in the back of the police car. He didn't pull a deadly weapon or try to strike any officer. His hands were cuffed behind his back. If they had better control of the situation - they could have sat him down to calm him down instead of needing all of that back up in order to fight to get him in the car. Apparently he would have been dead in that same 9 minutes anyway.

My example holds. Your son broke the law and was being detained for public intoxication. In his drunken stupor he freaks out and try's to get out of the car.

He broke the law and resisted arrest. Are you ok with similar reaction from the cops?

---

My opinion would vary from situation to situation. And I prefer not to delve too deeply into hypothetical examples.

Plenty of dead cops out there because they didn't act quickly enough. I usually give them the benefit of the doubt.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

As mentioned before one juror was excused during testimony and now here is a report of jurors refusing to view evidence in the case.

---

Not exactly. When the juror raised their hand, Cahill called a "stretch break" and recessed the trial. But I agree about the witnesses turning away from watching the video. Nelson can ask the judge to give an admonition to the jury that they are required to watch the evidence being presented. Cahill may even go farther and ask if anyone believes they cannot watch the videos in the future to raise their hands. If enough do, he could declare a mistrial.

---

Hawg, what is your opinion on what qualifies as "if enough do"?

Are you talking like 2-3 or like half?

Good Poster said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

As mentioned before one juror was excused during testimony and now here is a report of jurors refusing to view evidence in the case.

---

Not exactly. When the juror raised their hand, Cahill called a "stretch break" and recessed the trial. But I agree about the witnesses turning away from watching the video. Nelson can ask the judge to give an admonition to the jury that they are required to watch the evidence being presented. Cahill may even go farther and ask if anyone believes they cannot watch the videos in the future to raise their hands. If enough do, he could declare a mistrial.

---

Hawg, what is your opinion on what qualifies as "if enough do"?

Are you talking like 2-3 or like half?

---

Need 12 jurors for deliberation. Currently have 12 and 2 alternates, so three is the magic number.

Anyone expecting decisions rooted in fact and reason from our justice system is on a path to disappointment.

Quote:

---

Nelson can ask the judge to give an admonition to the jury that they are required to watch the evidence being presented. Cahill may even go farther and ask if anyone believes they cannot watch the videos in the future to raise their hands. If enough do, he could declare a mistrial.

---

And I have to be out all morning/early afternoon.....thank goodness for you & Branca so I can catch up later!

sam callahan said:

---

Anyone expecting decisions rooted in fact and reason from our justice system is on a path to disappointment.

---

Yep. Trial by Social Media. Brought to you by CNN.

Dark times ahead.

TChaney said:

---

"Graphic videos of Floyd's arrest played on several screens. Some jurors took notes, others looked away and refused to watch the video."

As mentioned before one juror was excused during testimony and now here is a report of jurors refusing to view evidence in the case.


This infuriates me
I have served on multiple juries and I felt it was my duty to take in all of the testimony presented.

---

Agree. The jury I was on had horrible videos and photos that we had to look it. Traumatic. Still makes me sick to think about it.

for all the sjws and cancel culture leaders, I wish there was a polar opposite that would research those people and scrub their entire histories for ugly things previously said on social media. I'm sure many sjws have said or done things that are as equally as cancellable as the ones they attack.

edit: a word, spelling is hard

schwack schwack said:

---

Quote:

---

Nelson can ask the judge to give an admonition to the jury that they are required to watch the evidence being presented. Cahill may even go farther and ask if anyone believes they cannot watch the videos in the future to raise their hands. If enough do, he could declare a mistrial.

---

And I have to be out all morning/early afternoon.....thank goodness for you & Branca so I can catch up later!

---

While you are out, ponder on Branca's question about why would the prosecution object to the admissibility of their own videos that they themselves just put into evidence, albeit in a limited format? And note that Nelson said the more expanded format he's requesting was necessary for both use of force and medical expert testimony.

That expanded format, which Rugel testified could not be altered, could be manipulated to speed up slow down or zoom in within the frame of the stills in the videos.

Anyone have an audio feed link? Can't watch but can listen today...

TIA

Also segments of video can be extracted from Milestone which allows for incomplete compilations of video to be used in court. It is possible for the prosecution to extract only the segments that are favorable to them and not show segments that are unfavorable.

Why would the prosecution only want to show segments of the entire video and not the entire video? Why would they have any admissibility objections to the entire video? They've used segments of those videos already in court and they have been admitted as evidence. Something seems to be wrong here.

That objection is almost like when the senate edited Trumps speech to make it look worse and then getting upset when the full video is shown lol

E: spelling

the enigma said:

---

Anyone have an audio feed link? Can't watch but can listen today...

TIA

---

I listen to YouTube, cause I'm tech savvy.

aginresearch said:

---

Also segments of video can be extracted from Milestone which allows for incomplete compilations of video to be used in court. It is possible for the prosecution to extract only the segments that are favorable to them and not show segments that are unfavorable.

Why would the prosecution only want to show segments of the entire video and not the entire video? Why would they have any admissibility objections to the entire video? They've used segments of those videos already in court and they have been admitted as evidence. Something seems to be wrong here.

---

Agree. I want to hear the tap dancing by the state at the hearing tomorrow morning at 9 on the issue. Particularly because Nelson specifically stated he needed it for expert witness testimony on use of force and medical issues.

Not sure who Cahill was talking to but it was a prosecutor saying they would have medical testimony on Friday. Said the name of a Dr. that was not ME Baker. Assumption is that it would be one of the experts? Or maybe the second autopsy the state outsourced?

My own story before today's activities get underway:

~8 years ago I sat on a jury for a criminal case in downtown Houston involving an elderly white woman who was arrested for DWI. It was 10am when it happened, and she was hopped up on all kinds of meds because she had fibromyalgia and every other infirmity known to man. She shouldn't have been driving.

I asked a few questions during jury selection re: DWI, and was selected by the prosecutor who was a youngish guy, maybe younger than me, and had a big Aggie ring on. Really nice guy who presented his case well. The defendant's attorney was this old hippy lady and she was horrible, but the defendant selected her and she wasn't appointed by the state.

We (the jury) found her guilty after a 2-day trial. There was one guy on the jury though, this black fella in his 30's, and he just had such a hard time because of emotions and he kept feeling bad for her. Even though she wasn't going to jail, but just a perma-ban on driving. We appealed to him based on the fact that when she was driving intoxicated, she could have hit kids playing in the streets since it was summer and 10am.

He finally joined us and we found her guilty.

The best part of the trial was the post-discussion with the attorneys, the judge (who was incredible), and the jury. We got to critique them. I loved it.

I represented myself in one other case that I "won" in Harris county, and that was fascinating too.

I kind of wish I went to law school in retrospect.

Had a similar experience. Mine was a guy who got high and led police on a crazy chasethrough Wilco. There was a ton of car dash cameras so he was obviously guilty for reckless driving and assault with a deadly weapon (tried to get the cops to rear-end him). During sentencing we had a lady who didn't want to put him in jail for more than 6 months because she was kind-hearted and didn't want him to lose hope to rehabilitate. We eventually agreed on 5 years.

Afterward we met with the attorneys for both sides. The state offered him 8 years as part of a plea deal- he took the trial because he thought the jury would be more lenient. Was really interesting talking to the attorneys after the trial and getting this information we didn't see during it.

First witness of the day is up. Courtney Ross. SJW karen haircut lady

We are back. Cahill says they are ahead of schedule and so the jury will be dismissed at noon tomorrow for the weekend.

State is calling next witness. Courtenay Ross.

Personal friend of George Floyd since 2017.

A friend of Floyd's since 2017.

So this witness is going to be emotional only and say what a good guy floyd is i assume

Already crying for heavens sake.

I envy you. I'd love to serve on a jury for a criminal trial. I can imagine sympathy for a defendant like that playing a major role.

Being a lawyer is great but sadly trials are few and far between. Though more common in criminal cases.

It appears so.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11737650/george-floyd-girlfriend-courtney-ross/

Good grief, what does this have to do with anything?!

His girlfriend is relevant to this incident because??

character witness? i'm guessing