Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
She looks tired to me.
Derek Chauvin murder trial (Police officer who arrested George Floyd)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Maybe she found his stash of fentanyl?
Soldato
Seems that the term excited delerium, is now a racist term according to some press outlets.
Christ, 120mmHg is considered a hypertensive emergency, and to think that's after all the fentanyl he's taken as well, just shows you how meth he must have had in his system.
We knew these witnesses were coming - the footage from 2019 had to be cut so as only to show the medically relevant bits - arresting officer + EMS from that incident, key thing defence wanted to highlight was the drug use and resulting high blood pressure (it isn't about comparing his behaviour). Also AFAIK the EMS person pretty much told him he needed to go to the hospital or he'd die, I don't think they've allowed that.
The passenger was just to confirm that he was falling asleep in the car and getting drowsy etc.. imagine they didn't have her as a witness - the other person in the car, Hall, is pleading the 5th and they'll potentially be struggling to get anything out of him.
Presumably, there will at some point be a medical expert witness called for the defence later to talk about both the high blood pressure in the 2019 incident and him drifting off to sleep + other behaviour in the incident in question. Defence counsel just wants those key points on the record from the witnesses today.
The passenger was just to confirm that he was falling asleep in the car and getting drowsy etc.. imagine they didn't have her as a witness - the other person in the car, Hall, is pleading the 5th and they'll potentially be struggling to get anything out of him.
Presumably, there will at some point be a medical expert witness called for the defence later to talk about both the high blood pressure in the 2019 incident and him drifting off to sleep + other behaviour in the incident in question. Defence counsel just wants those key points on the record from the witnesses today.
Wasn't he driving? The shop clerk said he looked drunk/wasted as he bought the cigs. His ex said he was giving her a lift?
With the drugs in his system can't imagine he was all that safe to drive. Esp falling asleep, etc...
Well yeah - that bit gets missed, note you'll see it in this thread and on social media, the NPC-like commentators parroting the notion that this was all over a $20 bill etc... as if the fact that he looked wasted and was found behind the wheel of a car completely out of it is completely irrelevant.
Reality is that with the police finding him in the state in he was in behind the wheel of a car they absolutely had to arrest him/take him in, the store reported him to 911 describing that him as awfully drunk, not in control of himself - it's not like some random person accidentally passing over a forged bill and then upon being told about it being very apologetic and immediately offering to pay for the goods.
Also, the witness today (officer Chang) is the one who ran a check on him - they're not just dealing with a random member of the public at that point, they're dealing with a known violent criminal.
Soldato
Yeah the defense had to edit the footage to remove that part from the bodycam so that the Jury/Public couldn't see GF's laundry list of crimes. No doubt there was some nasty stuff on it that would have gone against the narrative.
Soldato
Depends on what context your referring too.
In the context of an active crime, it would certainly be important as it would give the officers an inducation of what to expect.
In the context of the case/jury if the crimes shown were significant they could influence tthe outcome one way or another.
On the case now though the current use of force expert seems to be on the ball, many of the scenarios he details and the explanations given point to officers doing everything right and within their limits and in some cases using less force than they were legally allowed to use, upto the current time of the trial, they are about to go into the last few minutes of the incident ultimately leading to the death of GF.
In the context of an active crime, it would certainly be important as it would give the officers an inducation of what to expect.
In the context of the case/jury if the crimes shown were significant they could influence tthe outcome one way or another.
On the case now though the current use of force expert seems to be on the ball, many of the scenarios he details and the explanations given point to officers doing everything right and within their limits and in some cases using less force than they were legally allowed to use, upto the current time of the trial, they are about to go into the last few minutes of the incident ultimately leading to the death of GF.
Why don't we just call it what is it? Drama Queen
Defense use of force expert looked good, but on cross is horrible, having said that the cross really seems stretching going into super hypotheticals...
Matter to whom? The police in the way they handled him on the day of his death, or matter to the jury?
You can probably understand why police might be more cautious in dealing with a repeat offender resisting arrest, when he has at least one prior conviction for armed robbery. You might be inclined to take no chances with your own personal safety, around such a person. Esp when he's also high on drugs at the time.
I mean, wouldn't you? The goal is to treat people on the basis of their actions at the time/on the day, but if you happen to know that person is a known felon with a somewhat violent past, you can't help but take that into account. Your average person has a very well developed sense of self-preservation
The fact is a lot of people will judge you on your past behaviour, like it or not. A lot of people wouldn't trust an ex-rapist or an ex-murderer around their kids*. It is what it is. *Not talking about Floyd here.
I believe the reason for bringing up the past case was to backdoor in Floyds history of popping pills to get rid of them when the cops turn up.
Soldato
Seems that way, he was definately pushing for the "on top" thing which I thought was an extreme use of wording for it. You also cannot see the position of DCs right knee in relation to GF so its impossible to say its "on top" also. On a body position though, DCs right shoulder is dropped lower than his left which to me looks like his weight is primarily on his right hand side.
Soldato
It was testified by a witness he was taking 7-9 tablets of percocet every 20 minutes. The recommended dosage is 2 per 6 hours for an adult.
Man of Honour
I always thought that was the case in England!
I remember my Dad on Jury Service and it was only after the man was found guilty that they read out all his previous charges.
Not that you are necessary saying otherwise, but none of his previous behaviours, prior to the direct involvement of the police, are relevant for the purposes of whether her was murdered or subject to manslaughter.Matter to whom? The police in the way they handled him on the day of his death, or matter to the jury?
You can probably understand why police might be more cautious in dealing with a repeat offender resisting arrest, when he has at least one prior conviction for armed robbery. You might be inclined to take no chances with your own personal safety, around such a person. Esp when he's also high on drugs at the time.
I mean, wouldn't you? The goal is to treat people on the basis of their actions at the time/on the day, but if you happen to know that person is a known felon with a somewhat violent past, you can't help but take that into account. Your average person has a very well developed sense of self-preservation
The fact is a lot of people will judge you on your past behaviour, like it or not. A lot of people wouldn't trust an ex-rapist or an ex-murderer around their kids*. It is what it is. *Not talking about Floyd here.
Man of Honour
Two reasons:
1) The case is biased by him being globally depicted as a martyr-saint murdered over US$20 solely because of his "race". His previous crimes are directly relevant to addressing that bias.
2) It's genuinely relevant to the police response. A violent criminal known to be extremely unpredictable due to their drug use (and who is currently drugged up) should be handled differently to a sober person with no known criminal history.
A random example from my own life. On one of the fairly numerous occasions on which I was stopped and questioned by the police I was breaking into a flat(*). I became aware somehow that someone was watching me and I turned to see a copper watching me from a safe distance. No idea how long they'd been there, assessing the situation. I was making very slow going of the job of breaking in, slowly removing remarkably hard putty from around a pane of glass in the door so I could get in that way. They questioned me politely, assessing both me and the situation. I answered them politely. I was sober. Predictable. Unthreatening. Had I been a drugged up violent criminal with a history of armed robbery and the copper knew that, it would (and should) have changed the police response. Probably a lot.
* I was living there at the time and had left my keys at work. But of course the police didn't know that beforehand.
Man of Honour
In a trial of the person, yes. But not when the police are called. It would be downright reckless and negligent for them to try to ignore extremely relevant information about who they're dealing with.
- Status