You mean an off-duty nurse who came into the operating room to tell the doctor what to do?

Reading that does not change a single thing.

You said this "...the prosecution is making a pretty big mistake by not presenting what should have happened, i.e. what techniques/processes they should have used."


I said I specifically recall, at least one of the use of force experts, (I think it was the black cop near the end of day) who did exactly what you say they did not do. He walked us through what proper use of force would look like and then how officers are trained to turn a person on their side, once restrained to ensure they can breath.


Nothing in your quote addresses your statement or my rebuttal of it.

Interestingly, the prosecution's breathing expert has never testified in a criminal case, but has testified in medical malpractice.

Guy on the ground, on his stomach. His hands behind his back in cuffs.

My grandmother could keep him subdued in that situation. And she's been dead for two decades. She wouldn't even need to be anywhere near his neck. Oh... and I will even allow her husband and father to assist from their graves. Neither of them need to be remotely close to the guy's neck.

or

After one minute, maybe lean into Floyd's ear and whisper "Imma gunna take my knee off your neck now. If you [continue] to struggle, I will return my knee to your neck"

It was murder we witnessed.

There's a very big problem. How long does it take a healthy person to asphyxiate in that position? At what minute does it become negligent, or criminal?

There's been a bunch of talk about the crowd so thought I'd put up body cam footage of the actual event. Everyone can draw their own conclusions

I’m gonna guess that nine ****ing minutes is a bit long, how many minutes have to pass before you decide it’s inappropriate to continue strangling someone? A half an hour?

lol

No.

Not a big problem at all.

When the guy stops resisting you simply take your knee off his neck.

That way you do not have to try and calculate the second he goes from normal, to brain death, to death.

Once he is no longer resisting and if you continue anyway it should be criminal.

But you said Floyd had "a lethal dose of fentanyl" in his body. So we are not talking about a healthy person. Lethal means he's essentially dead already.

But of course.... the facts are it was not a lethal dose.

No, Trolly, the government has to prove at what minute does it become criminal...

...

You folks don't understand. Casey Anthony "walked" because the prosecution could not prove what the criminal act was that resulted in the death of her child.

Pretty much everybody knows she killed her daughter, it just couldn't be proven. I think this is similar situation here, you have to show the criminal act and at what point it becomes criminal. Restraining a suspect isn't a criminal act.

This is rich

Well, you guys thinking bringing this type of analysis is some sort of defense of Chauvin but it's more or less an analysis of the situation, and will likely be a big factor if he's acquitted. I'm sorry you don't like that. It's a very difficult case to prove. You don't understand that so you're going to all be screaming when and if he gets acquitted, that ignorance is going to lead to people to rioting, if that were to occur.

That doctor's testimony just now was brutal for the defense. I think the defense said they aren't even going to cross.

Using deadly force against a prone and cuffed suspect is a felony.

You just made that up.

There is nothing in the criminal code that requires such distinction.

The action can be criminal regardless of the time it was in place. It can be considered criminal simply because the person has submitted and you keep doing it anyway.

Stop making stuff and representing it as if factual.

You said "lethal dose" in a prior post itshot, not overdose.

LOL
Can just see Sean Hannity or some other clown getting all fired up when cities are burning across the country that people just don't understand.
Actually they understand perfectly.

Hopefully the only question is whether the chomos are going to man up and make this guy's life hell in PC.

If the defense shows an exhibit that recreates the situation, and the person doesn't run out of oxygen within 6 minutes...

What do you think that's going to do to this guy's credibility?

Is this like your prior hypothetical that seemed to be 'wow' 'devastating' moments for you?


I honestly am not sure what you are saying here but I am guessing you are saying 'if they can demonstrate a knee on the neck where the guy does not die or blackout' that somehow would be bad?

Meaning you think that if one person grabs you in a rear naked choke and squeezes so hard you die in 3 minutes, and another person does it for 5 minutes but in a slightly different positioning and with less pressure and the person stays conscious that is somehow shocking.

---

I shot a guy and he died ....MURDER.

But I recreated it and shot a guy and he only got a flesh wound... ACQUIT!!!

The point is, I don't think that statement can be backed up. He didn't say most likely, likely, or probably, but he said they would die. I think that statement can be easily disproven.

Again, it's not illegal for a cop to restrain a suspect, by the neck. Maybe it should be illegal. It is illegal to shoot someone, so your analogy is bullshit. Like, if your kids were to wrestle, and one of them pinned the other one down, and they end up suffocating, that's not murder.

Vegas I can honestly say this forum wouldn't be the same without you

Right but you keep treating jurors like they are idiots.


Just because you think it would be 'devastating' to see the Defense stage a knee on neck and the person not die, you should not assume a jury would take that comment as an absolute as opposed to a situational comment.


Do you really think the jury now thinks 'every such situation, staged or not' will result in death' and they will say 'we are holding you to that literally'?


Or do you think you are flailing around looking for any of the thinnest reasons to convince yourself it would be justified to acquit??