NEW: Alternate Camera Angle Blows Massive Hole in George Floyd Narrative

True that police may use increased levels of force to make an arrest and/or subdue a suspect.

They can only use the least amount of force necessary and once the suspect in custody (handcuffed) they must be cared for with reasonable care.

If you are suggesting police deliberately neglect folks in custody because they resist arrest and that results in death, that is illegal.

peace to you

 

this bleeding heart "he wanted "Mr. Floyd" to die is simple easy to disprove - he ordered one of the noob cops to go with the ambulance that got lost.

no, what you have to do here is to show Chauvin IS guilty of the death, and that really shouldn't be that hard to do if he is. So far, there's been no evidence that he caused this druggie's death.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, he was detaining him, and I get it that if you choke someone to death even if that person will die in ten minutes anyways, that you still just committed murder but there would be evidence that you had choked that person. Just sitting with one knee on somebody's neck is a very hard way to kill somebody that outweighs you by dozens of pounds and there should be massive physical evidence if you did so.

There is an autopsy out there that says this, why isn't the zealous prosecution bringing in Baden and that other quack to testify? It's because they don't want that, their arguments so far are just on pure emotion ("it looked bad", "we don't do this', but they do) and the feelings of the bystanders. I think the emotional appeal is working, some of those Minnesotans on the jury are breaking down in tears daily. Doubt the defense will be able to reason with them, they CARE about this dead thug. Appealed, overturned.

 

That's funny. In America, he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the theory anyway. The prosecution has to make its case. That's the theory anyway. Going for the emotion means they really haven't a case. But go ahead, bang that pulpit harder for effect.

 

Both defense and prosecution play to emotions when it suits them.

The prosecution is making its case. The defense is aggressively defending their client.

Despite comments to the contrary, the justice system in the US is still functioning just fine.

peace to you

 

Shouldn't even be trying the case,

Yeah, with Keith Elison, Benyamin Crump and the rest of BLM leading the lynch mob, can't be more impartial and fair than that, despite comments to the contrary.

 

LOL. He stopped breathing because of the OD.

 

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace
11 nanograms of fentanyl in his system, 3 are fatal.
Crime scene tech ignored Floyd's chewed up speedballs spit out on the black rubber mat of police car which he had eaten. Said did not think pills-drugs were relevant to the investigation. This case is a battle over ideas.
Judge has afforded tremendous leeway to the prosecution.

 

The coroner testified he died of cardiac arrest due to low blood oxygen levels.

His body couldn’t get enough oxygen due to the knee on the neck and other the officers on his back.

A second doctor, a pulmonary expert, testified to the same cause of death.

Two medical experts have now testified the cops caused Mr. Floyd’s death.

peace to you

 

The Derek Chauvin Trial – Coverage to Tenth Day

"Two videos were shown in court, both separately and side-by-side. The side-by-side version matched the timing of the two videos, so you could see the same event from two points of view. One video was taken by 17-year-old Darnella Frazier with her phone and the other was video from Officer J. Alexander Kueng’s body camera. From Darnella Frazier’s perspective, it looks like Officer Chauvin had his knee on George Floyd’s neck — but Police Chief Arradondo agreed that from the perspective of Officer Kueng’s body cam, Officer Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s shoulder blade. Up until that moment, the chief said he thought the knee had been on Floyd’s neck."

 

Seeing the massive drug overdose in his blood, Floyd would have died even if not meeting Chauvin maybe, but it depends on when Floyd ate those fentanyl-methamphetamine speedballs, had he taken them as soon as the police came for him, confronted him in his car, before the police were at the scene or after he was forced into the police car. Also a question is what would any another police officer in that department do to restrain a person in the same situation.

My thinking he ate them after the police confront him, does not matter an officer's name, began their arrest, as an attempt to hide the drugs from the cops. He may have been selling or buying speedballs, but a drug user wont just waste drugs like that without cause and not thinking of how they can kill, he may have thought he could handle taking them as he was used to using these drugs.

 

Why is it that no one here actually wants justice to prevail? Why have people already made up their minds and then looked for obscure information to cement the preconception?

I will let both the prosecution and defense do their job and then trust the jury to rule justly. Whatever happens I will accept the verdict.

The obsession by Christians on this trial is actually disturbing.

 

Your posts don't appear less obsessed just less informed, even about the basics of the American justice system, and perhaps very biased.

Such a skewed perspective makes you a poor judge of others, especially regarding who wants justice and who wants injustice.

Characterizing trial evidence as "obscure information" suggests bias due to the influence of media suppression designed to create a false narrative.

 

What info is obscure?

 

there is a good way to avoid all these threads that seem to bother you so much - just don't open them. After all, they would never be accepted as part of this jury, according to YOUR preconception.

 

Posts 69 and 70. Pure speculation based upon a preconceived judgment. No different than the folks who already have convicted Chauvin via social media.

 

Evidence is evidence. Judging that evidence is neither your nor my job. Leave it to the jury.

 

There is a good way to avoid being a prejudiced and judgmental faux juror - don't start a bogus thread.

 

There is nothing wrong with discussing this as it is a current events and news forum.
Do you think talking about this is evil?
Or talking about any other news story?

 

And yet you are judging the evidence, even contrary to an experienced witness forced to change his testimony, because he based his previous answers on poor perspective.

Perhaps it would be better if you ceased posting hypocritical judgment of others here.

 

didn't start the thread or any other, Sparky but you really need to get a grip. This trial is being televised live across this country to millions of "faux jurors" who going to have opinions as the case unfolds whether you like it or not.