What an ahole
I still believe GSC is coming contradicting himself.
Letâs assume the drugs did it and he fell unconscious as a result.
Do you think continuing to put all your weight on a man in that position does anything other than make his chances of survival better?
Iâll go as far as to suggest that the drugs already had him in distress, and that the weight the cop put on him for that amount of time did nothing but exasperate it.
Clooney killing it.
ââAttorney Crump, you should tell them if Derek Chauvin feels so confident in that, he should volunteer during his case, to get down on the floor in that courtroom, and let somebody come and put their knee on his neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds and be able to see if he can survive,ââ
This is why Clooney shouldnât be an attorney.
Remember what lost the prosecution the case for OJ? âIf the glove doesnât fit, you must acquit.â
I was actually thinking this this very morning. If I were the defense Iâd probably consider doing this right in front of the cameras.
Most likely the guy is fine. They have hundreds of documented cases where a neck restraint ended up just fine. Over 200 if I remember correctly over the past whatever number of years.
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
Fentanyl was the killer. Itâs obvious.
No, itâs not. Thatâs why Chauvin is on trial.
LMAO at George Clooney, who played a lawyer on TV, emailing a real life criminal lawyer and giving him advice. WTF is that?
1 Like
Chauvin is on trial because of the media.
The prosecutor originally said they werenât going to prosecute if you remember.
Then the looting started. And they changed their minds.
Bullshit.
This is an odd statement from you considering that youâve already admitted you believe he was negligent and that heâll go down for manslaughter:
This statement makes your comments on him being tried only because of the rioting and the media coverage is irrelevant.
If a peace officer is negligent, and that negligence results in a death, what do you expect?
Yes, GSC is playing both sides again.
You got people running around in here trying to justify this murder because of their ideology. Fucking sickening. Not only did he murder him, HE TORTURED HIM.
The rest of this should be block quoted, not sure why bolding takes it off. Iâm not changing any of it, just know i am not the author from this point on.
Dr. Andrew Baker ruled that Floydâs cause of death on May 25 in Minneapolis was âcardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.â
Baker did not include a lack of oxygen, or asphyxia, a cause that three medical expert witnesses has firmly said was what killed Floyd after being pinned on his stomach under the now-fired Chauvinâs knee for more than nine minutes.
Baker began his testimony by saying âI was aware that Mr. Floyd had become unconscious while he was in police custodyâ and died at the hospital. He opted not to look at videos of Floydâs death, including the one that went viral online, so as not to be biased in his findings.
Thomas explained that although Floydâs heart stopped, he didnât die from a heart attack.
"The activities of the law enforcement officers resulted in Mr. Floydâs death, and specifically those activities were the subdual restraint and the neck compression," she said.
She said that the sheer volume of videos of Floydâs death was âabsolutely uniqueâ in that sheâd never had a case so thoroughly documented, and it helped her arrive to determine how Floyd died.
âWhat I observed from all of these videos is this was not a sudden death,â Thomas testified. âItâs not like snow shoveling when someone clutches their chest and falls over. There was nothing sudden about his death.â
She later said with certainty, "Thereâs no evidence to suggest he would have died that night except for the interactions with law enforcement."
Iâm not playing both sides.
The original prosecutor made a statement shortly after Floydâs death saying he wouldnât prosecute based on the evidence he had access to. Then he changed his mind after the city erupted.
Thatâs on the record. Thatâs not my opinion.
I have always said that I believe there is a manslaughter case to be had here. There was a point where the officer was negligent in providing care to a man in his custody.
While I donât this he, the officer, caused the distress⌠I think he had a duty to act.
I think the state can prove that. I have always said that they could prove that.
Where am I being contradictory?
Maybe it would be more accurate to say itâs clear there was criminal negligence or gross negligence vs manslaughter⌠but I think itâs relatively similar under the law.
I think the difference is carelessness vs recklessness. So difference but similar.
By saying Floyd was wrong, from beginning to end.
See, this is why I rarely waste my time watching GSCâs videos of âevidence.â
Did you watch this? You wasted 6 minutes of my life. You said this was a video of the prosecutor saying he wouldnât convict Chauvin based on lack of evidence. If you actually watched the video, the prosecutor says he is beginning an investigation into the incident. He also calls for peaceful protests and non-violence. And then he answers a few questions saying heâs not going to rush to judgment.
Iâm gonna say this again, GSC, for your benefit. STOP READING HEADLINES. Look at the actual source. Are you telling me your entire opinion is based on a random YouTube uploaderâs video title? (And I shouldnât say random. I think itâs clear that account is heavily partisan.)
Obviously what Chauvin did was wrong. The degree of wrong is the debate. I donât think itâs in cold blood but Manslaughter is likely.
Minneapolis will burn to the ground with that that verdict.
I donât know that it will. I think if they get him on involuntary manslaughter that would work. Chauvin didnât plan to kill him that day. But certainly he had a horrible lapse in judgement.
1 Like
He literally says âthere is other evidence that does not support a criminal chargeâ after being asked if he will prosecute.
Those are his words, not mine.
Did you ever think of the possibility that more evidence came after he made those remarks that would justify a charge?
Jesus Christ. Youâre already on record ADMITTING you believe Chauvin acted out of bounds and that a manslaughter conviction would be appropriate.
What are you trying to prove?
Whatâs your point?
They overcharged him. And not by a little- by a lot. They are going for Murder 2 & 3.
This isnât murder. Or manslaughter or criminal negligence.
You have already said itâs manslaughter! You already said Chauvin acted out of bounds.
So what is it?
You talk pot of both sides of your mouth. None more than this topic.