Not sure if you're speaking figuratively or literally here but if it's the latter then I'm pretty sure that's untrue. Prosecution don't need to pare things down to the minute, they need to prove how Chauvin's actions falls under one of the degrees of murder under law. Abusing a technique- even an approved one-which leads to the death of a suspect can quite possibly fall under one of those degrees. They don't need to show at what actual minute this occurred.

If the length contributed to GF's death then Chauvin did indeed commit a crime. A cop already testified that he didn't perceive the crowd as a threat, so his defence opining they were hostile doesn't really hold water.

Since this is a poker forum.....what do people think the current odds for acquittal are?

100:1
10:1
1:1

From what I am reading here.....ISIV seems to be around 1:2. (He didn't say this, I am just estimating off of what I read)
Cuepee seems to be about 2:1. (Same caveat, Cuepee never said anything like this, I am speculating)
Everyone else seems to be in 100:1 or greater range. (100:1 seems low for several here, but again, no one expressed odds)

That said, if any of the 100:1 people want to put up 1k against my $10, I'm all for it.

good to know we have an expert on the case.....

I wouldn't take a 100 to one bridge jumper but you may actually be giving way too long odds here.

I'm pretty sure he's been trolling us for a while now.

But hell, he owns me. I can't help but react.

I would not put it any better than 1:1.

Again I would not be shocked if people like IHIV are eager to get on the jury, these days, to nullify it along partisan lines given any excuse they cling to.


This is the same State that said the cop shoot of Philando Castile was a good shoot.

Before the trial I thought this was an acquittal but after the prosecutions witnesses I have it at manslaughter . Will wait for the full defense but I still have this at an acquittal and 3 innocent folks get killed in the riots

You are pathetic.

I think the defense got a witness to admit to the hypothetical that 'if Orlando was indeed reaching for his gun and was planning to shoot the cop....'


"Devastating".

Whatever...

"in your expert opinion, is it possible that GF could have been high on an ultra strong dose of CCP PCP and in a rage broken his handcuffs? Remember possible and could have are the key words here. Now a suspect who just broke his steel cuffs in a rage, would you consider that person dangerous?
So actually officer Chauvin acted selflessly and heroically for not just shooting the suspect dead, as the police handbook would recommend,when placed in this dangerous situation. The suspect 'could' have posed a much bigger threat if not for this officer's exemplary police work."

Yeah, you guys are doing what the media is doing. You're not acknowledging the defense is scoring some real points towards reasonable doubt with these prosecution witnesses. You're making out like this a slam dunk verdict.

It's self-fulfilling prophecy. When and if you don't get the expected result you're going to scream unfairness.

I think it's relevant to the defense that they have a potential witness that will testify that Floyd ingested opioids immediately prior to his altercation with police but can't testify because the prosecution won't provide immunity.

Cousins is Hall's lawyer.

No IHIV, I peg it at 50/50 best and i have only moved it up to that due to a very strong case by the Prosecution so far.

What we are mocking is you acting like the Defense would have no case and then feigning shock that they do.

There is no case like this where a Defense will not paint the hypotheticals the police MIGHT HAVE faced. It is automatic. It is also the weakest form of defense. They would much rather being saying what they actually faced (did he point a gun, did he make a threatening gesture) instead of saying 'well, what if....'. If the Defense is solely reliant on asking a bunch of 'what if...' questions it means they know they have no case based on the reality of what actually happened that they can make.

And yet, even with that, a full on hypothetical defense, I still think it is a coin toss. But that is an indictment on the system and not what Floyd did. Because that is based on a 'but what if he did, that instead'.

Yes.

But do you think it's relevant to the prosecution that they have video of a handcuffed and prone Floyd who is not resisting being slowly killed in front of the neighbors ?

Or is that something you discount in your weighing of the evidence ?

You keep railing on the hypotheticals...

But..

What if somebody in the crowd did x, would that be hostile?

Of course, X being something the crowd actually did.

Because it’s totally legal to murder someone if they’ve consumed drugs.

Yes, of course it's relevant. The problem is, it's possible Chauvin made an incorrect decision, as opposed to being crimally negligent. It's possible he incorrectly assessed the threat of the crowd. It's possible he was incorrect in his assessment of risk from Floyd. I would say it's much more than possible, it's all but conclusive he made incorrect decisions.


If he is incorrect on all those things what makes it criminal? He followed the process to determine threat level, but concluded the incorrect thing, or made a mistake during that process, what makes it criminal?

Did I miss it as I have not yet seen IHIV make a single commented about any of the 'devastating' admissions the Prosecution has got.

It is almost like he is only watching one side of this with his TIVO set it to skip all the Prosecution questioning.

Blue wall collapses in ways many say we have ever seen before in this type of case. Crickets.

Defense presents hypotheticals such as 'but what if you felt threatened by the crowd... but what if he was playing possum and was still ready to fight... but what if the drugs he ingested prior...' and IHIV is ready to take a seat on the jury and acquit.

So now you're arguing that a trained leo has no responsibility for his actions ?

If Chauvin made incorrect decisions that caused him to kill an innocent man he's criminally negligent. If he had any intent or malice when he did it he's guilty of murder.

This really isn't a hard case for the prosecution to put forth.

This is like the thread where the neo liberals are arguing that the American worker has it better than ever.

You can always find some evidence to make your case. That's why there are 12 people on the jury. So they can discuss things.

Thank God I'm not stuck in a jury room whith HIV for weeks though. He'd hang any jury. There would be situations in that room...lol.

That's not the criminal legal standard. Malpractice isn't a crime.

The part where he murdered a guy is the criminal part.

You have never shown anything demonstrating that and the video I have watched does not prove that. The defenses position was based on a bunch of subjective questions and view around 'if the police felt the crowd was threatening...' to then pose an answer to those hypothetically created views the office might have 'IF'.