Apologies if posted elsewhere. Shocking start and pitiful/disgraceful defense so far...
Day One:
Day Two:
Day Three:
Day One:
Day Two:
Day Three:
Last edited:
George Floyd | Chauvin guilty on all counts | Sentenced to 22.5 years
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
They’re live streaming the trial?
It’s on some the cable news networks (MSNBC & CNN, anyways).
That’s mad. Must be insanely nerve wracking as a witness
Always find the practice of live trials in the States unusual but rather fascinating. The OJ Simpson one must have been on another planet.
First time ever allowed in a Minnesota courthouse, I think.
Fox News is wall to wall ‘Crisis at the Boarder’ coverage.
We love it. Menendez Brothers, Laci Peterson, Casey Anthony, OJ, in our DNA since the Gen X generation.
My parents had something similar but more classy with the Watergate Hearings, Iran Contra hearings, etc.
This is hard to watch, it must be literal torture for Floyd's family.
- from Reddit
She asked if the cameras were off (3:32). Judge said they weren't - 'we are on the record'. Easy to mishear.
Found her to be a disappointing witness in general - especially given that the WaPo was hyping her up as the 'star witness' in the days leading up to her appearance. Combative and emotional rather than calm and factual doesn't play well in court.
From watching the past two days, I still think the best chance of a conviction is due to the negligence of not administering Narcan - when all the cops apparently believed he was ODing on an opiate.
Even the last witness (Cup Foods employee) was able to tell Floyd was 'nodding' on opiates...so how do the cops justify doing nothing to help?
Their excuse for not administering Narcan seems to be that they were worried he also had methamphetamine in his system...but how could they reasonably assume that? Unless there's some 'tell' on meth consumption that I don't know about? I know with opiates it's pinprick eyes.
Ultimately, the toxicology report obviously does end up showing that had meth in his system - and Narcan apparently potentiates the cardiovascular effects of meth...but I still don't see how that was a reasonable assumption to make at the time.
I think it'll come down to whether or not they can prove they had grounds to reasonably assume he had meth in his system... as that's why they're saying he was restrained, and also why he wasn't given potentially life-saving Narcan.
Last edited:
I don't see the judge being anything but impartial there...which is his and the court's job.
Have to agree.
Just shown some of the police bodycam footage.
Can hear the pigs asking if they should roll him on his side...noone answers or does anything. That's supposed to be a bodycam under the car too. The guy's obviously lifeless at the end. How the feck can you check a pulse when Chauvin's knee is still on his neck?? Don't understand how the Defence just don't call it quits at this point??
Can hear the pigs asking if they should roll him on his side...noone answers or does anything. That's supposed to be a bodycam under the car too. The guy's obviously lifeless at the end. How the feck can you check a pulse when Chauvin's knee is still on his neck?? Don't understand how the Defence just don't call it quits at this point??
That arrest video. The sounds from Floyd. Awful to watch and hear
if he gets off the ensuing riots might be worse than after the Rodney King trial
I said in the other thread, the police and justice system are already fully aware of this too and yet their jury selection process hints that they want him to at the minimum get off lightly so they have no issue with the inevitable rioting as long as they continue to win the war.
OJ was an eye opener, and all we get here is a pencil drawing of people in the court room.
Would you prefer the whole live trial and video in court rooms in the UK though?
Looks like the bodycam under the car was Chauvin's. Very convenient.
I’d find it fascinating at first, especially complex / high profile cases, however I’m sure It would get a bit tedious once the novelty had worn off, so just seeing highlights and summary’s, but I Suppose that’s what reporters are for at the moment.
It would be like the big brother house! A brilliant concept 20 years ago, now it’s meh!
Plus I bet the have to deal with lots of sensitive / confidential things that wouldn’t be ethical to broadcast.
I’ll stay tuned to my real crime dramas on the tellybox!
Why are camera's allowed during trials by the way, isn't that invading a defendant's privacy?
Yeah I think as interesting as it would be you run the risk of having people play up to the cameras somewhat and turning the whole thing into a show rather than a legal trial. I would imagine it also makes things difficult if there was a retrial as most people would have seen the case first time around so would be hard to find a jury to look at it objectively.
Isn't it something to do with if they are in the public interest?
I don't think that the defendant is ever shown. Plus trials are public so you have no reasonable expectation of privacy anyway.
Absolutely, plus adding to stress etc, reliving an ordeal knowing that everything you say is being scrutinised.
Some of the footage is heartbreaking. Floyd begging one of the arresting officers not to shoot him is unreal.
OK, I sort of had my own question answered by this video that they showed.
I can admit that it maybe is reasonable to think he's on an upper here.
But then...to get really circular...how did they know he was on an opiate too? An opiate high looks like the exact opposite of this sort of 'excited delerium' - to use the term they've been using during the trial. Pinpricked eyes?
It'll be interesting tomorrow when we hear from some of the cops there.
The goings on in a courtroom are public knowledge. No one, specifically jurors, will be swayed by the cameras being in there in regards to Chauvin’s privacy. There’s no privacy aspect of the defendant that is being invaded or violated.
He’s shown all the time. He sits directly next to his defense attorney separated by a lexan window.
There’s no privacy violation here.
The nonchalance with which Chauvin speaks after realising he's dead, to me suggests he has killed before.
He knows exactly what he's doing. Look at the moment Floyd becomes unresponsive and people start getting more worried. His first instinct isn't to check on him and see why he's stopped responding, it's to get his knightstick out and make sure they back up so he can finish the job.
There is just no way what he's doing isn't intentional.
He has been involved in officer-related fatalities before.
Not surprised. Killed him off like a professional.
I guess he's only doing his job but that Mr. Nelsen really seems like a P.O.S.
Here’s a perfect example of injecting doubt...
The cnut defense lawyer asks Floyd’s girlfriend at the time of his death about pet names they had for each other.
He asks it one way, then changes it to ‘what did he have your name as in his phone?’
She broke down when she said ‘Momma.’
This was during a lengthy examination about what drugs they did together.
The cnut defense lawyer asks Floyd’s girlfriend at the time of his death about pet names they had for each other.
He asks it one way, then changes it to ‘what did he have your name as in his phone?’
She broke down when she said ‘Momma.’
This was during a lengthy examination about what drugs they did together.
It was really hard to watch that.
Yeah. I mean, the defense attorney was just doing his job & that question was rather brilliant on his part to potentially inject doubt, but I truly hope something karmic befalls him soon.
I can just imagine his face when he learned the ‘Momma’ fact.