Guilty or Not Guilty? The George Floyd trial...

[AccessBlaster]

George probably played an attorney in a movie, so he might be uniquely qualified to give unsolicited legal advice to the Floyd family.

George Clooney emailed George Floyd’s family lawyer advice amid Derek Chauvin murder trial

During a recent virtual appearance on “The View," George Floyd's family attorney, Benjamin Crump, said George Clooney emailed him about how he should respond to Derek Chauvin's defense lawyers' suggestion that a drug overdose caused Floyd's death.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Jon]

My feeling is that Chauvin should be acquitted. There is enough reasonable doubt in my mind over the cause of death. The defence hasn't even started their witnesses yet either. We've only heard from the prosecutions witnesses.

Here's why:

- George Floyd had a 90% occluded coronary artery. 70% or above can lead to sudden death.
- He had a tumour that increases adrenaline output, which increases strain on the heart.
- He had an enlarged heart due to high blood pressure, which means the heart works less efficiently.
- He had a small amount of meth amphetamine in his body, which is a stimulant and works the heart harder. The pathologist said there is no safe level of meth in the system, and it is dangerous for the heart.
- He had a high level of fentanyl in his system, which suppresses breathing.
- He voluntarily fought with police officers, causing increased stress to his heart.
- There was no bruising to the back, or side of the neck, or his back. The pathologist said typically, if someone was strangled, they would expect to see bruising on the neck, although they were referring to front strangulation. They had no information on back of the neck asphyxiation. If the pressure was that severe, the defence argues you would also expect to see some bruising or trauma, especially from a hard knee bone or hard shin, but none was found, despite removing skin layers to see if there was any damage.
- He said, "I can't breathe" 3 times in the squad car before he was even on the ground. Then he said while on the ground, he could not breathe. This suggests that he was having some kind of event before there was even a knee on the neck.
- Part of a pill that contained both meth and fentanyl was found in the back of the squad car, with Floyd's saliva DNA on it. This suggests he may have partially ingested some of the pills while struggling in the back of the squad car. He was handcuffed while in the car, and so it either fell out of his pocket, or it came out of his mouth as he was struggling.
- Peak respiratory suppression happens 5 minutes after ingesting fentanyl, as confirmed by the prosecutions own witnesses. This is around the same time Floyd started to pass out.
- Large amounts of fentanyl in your system can kill.
- While making arrests, officers are frequently being told by suspects that their arm hurts, they are having a heart attack, etc. They are effectively negotiating to avoid arrest. How is Chauvin, or the other officers, expected to know when they are telling the truth, or lying?
- During the initial struggle with two police officers, Chauvin arrives on the scene and is authorised to use a taser in those circumstances, but he chose not to, instead opting not to use a potentially lethal weapon.

These represent significant reasons to cause doubt that Chauvin even caused George Floyd's death at all. While the optics look terrible in the video, and it gives a surge of empathy and emotion, connecting the knee on the neck with the cause of death means discounting the bulleted points above. You can argue that Chauvin's actions pushed things over the edge, but how do you know he was not dying anyway? If neck compression was stopping him breathing, why was he struggling to breathe in the squad car beforehand? Why was their no bruising on the back of his neck or on his back, if Chauvin was using a lethal amount of pressure?

The defence only has to show "reasonable doubt", rather than the balance of probabilities.

Look forward to your comments!

 

[Jon]

As a side note, most media outlets are only presenting the prosecutions case. CNN for example only showed what the prosecuters were saying, without even mentioning what the defence said. If Chauvin gets acquitted, all the CNN viewers will call it a travesty of justice becuase they were led to believe one thing without hearing any of the other sides arguments.

 

[gemma-the-husky]

I will be very surprised if the defendant is acquitted. I don't think he needed to restrain Floyd after he was handcuffed, and should have responded to his pleas, and those of onlookers. The assisting officers are only slightly less culpable, I believe, although I am not sure whether they are also on trial or not.

As to whether George Floyd had mortal weaknesses - the rule is "you take your victim as you find him". I thought this was UK, but I think it must be so in the US also -

How the Eggshell Skull Rule Applies to Personal Injury Cases (jrlawfirm.com)

So although it won't bring George back, I am sure the city/state of Minneapolis/Minnesota might be facing a substantial amount of reparations.

 

[Jon]

I don't think he needed to restrain Floyd and should have responded to his pleas

Which pleas and when?

How the Eggshell Skull Rule Applies to Personal Injury Cases (jrlawfirm.com)

According to the following link, the Eggshell Skull Rule only applies to civil cases, not criminal. Therefore, in this case it is irrelevant.

Source: www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/mnvbzb/does_the_eggshell_skull_doctrine_invalidate/

So although it won't bring George back, I am sure the city/state of Minneapolis/Minnesota might be facing a substantial amount of reparations.

The family have already been paid $27M in damages.

 

[moke123]

As a side note, most media outlets are only presenting the prosecutions case.

Thats all that has been taking place so far. They have all aired the cross-exams by the defense.

Which pleas and when?

At the very least, when his body went limp, stopped breathing, etc. Those kind of telltale signs.

 

[Jon]

Thats all that has been taking place so far. They have all aired the cross-exams by the defense.

I read a CNN article and there was no mention of the defences arguments at all. And most of the coverage is 90% why he is guilty, and scant attention applied to the defences arguments. The cross-examinations are also going into the defences case, and have spent considerable time making their points. But because those covering the trial have already decided guilt before it started, following the kangaroo court model, they say hardly anything about the defences case.

At the very least, when his body went limp, stopped breathing, etc. Those kind of telltale signs.

When he stopped breathing, there were no pleas. The defence is arguing that if someone goes unconscious, they may still be dangerous, because if they come too they can still attack you, as confirmed by the prosecutors own police witnesses.

But how do you know he wasn't already dying when he went limp and from a cause other than the knee? Why wasn't there any sign of bruising on the back and neck if Chauvin was applying lethal force?

 

[NauticalGent]

And most The defence is arguing that if someone goes unconscious, they may still be dangerous, because if they come too they can still attack you...

A weak argument at best. I am pro-police for the most part, but from where I sit, the threat was neutralized.

As someone had already stated, once handcuffed, the safety and well being of the individual becomes law enforcement's responsibility. They failed and need to answer for it.

 

[Jon]

A weak argument at best.

What is weak about it?

They failed

What did they do that failed? How do you know he was not already dying?

I've made many points, clearly bulleted. So far, no one has really even commented on them. I think people made up their minds before the case started. That is a kangaroo court.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Once handcuffed the minimum amount of restraint required to maintain control should be applied. Anything more is unnecessary.

 

[Jon]

Once handcuffed the minimum amount of restraint required to maintain control should be applied. Anything more is unnecessary.

What if he was already dying? Do you have any evidence to suggest that a man with an enlarged heart, 90% occluded coronary artery, high levels of fentanyl and some meth, who said he can't breathe before being on the ground, violently struggling with 3 police officers was not already dying? Is it unreasonable to think that is the case?

 

[Jon]

Imagine this scenario. You know nothing about a person, but they are sitting there saying they cannot breathe, multiple times. Ten minutes later, they were dead. Would you think that some event happened that caused that, starting around the time they said they couldn't breathe and that the event continued until they were dead? A reasonable conclusion.

Then you find out they had high levels of drugs in their body, and another drug that has no known safe level. You might think they had a drug overdose. A reasonable conclusion.

Then you find out they had a 90% occluded coronary artery, enlarged heart, that drugs can adversely affect blood flow and breathing. You might think these could explain the shortness of breath and death. A reasonable conclusion.

Then you find out they had a lot of strenuous physical activity just prior to their breathing difficulties. Hardly surprising you may think. (Doctors recommend you get a checkup before starting a physical exercise program, to prevent coronary risk factors.) A reasonable conclusion.

Then you see the knee on the neck. You now completely change your mind: "It's the knee! It's the knee!"

Well, then you are really saying all your previous reasonable conclusions were not reasonable at all. You just see the knee and that's it!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Jon, I totally see your point but the defense will have a tough time over coming the optics.

 

[Jon]

I understand the optics part, but I would also like to add huge amounts of political pressure and risk to the jury's own personal safety.

However, the optics part has been expanded by the defence. Before, you just saw a police officer on the neck of a black man, saying he couldn't breathe and he dies 5 minutes later. But the jury has had a lot of detail since then, days and days of it.

Now we realise that he was struggling to breathe before the police officers put him on the ground. How do you account for that? I can't remember seeing any explanation from the prosecution for this. The jury knows this.

There was also a high level of drugs in his system, where the prosecutions own expert witness (a pathologist) said, knowing no other factors, it could be classified as a fatal overdose. The jury know this.

They also know that he had severe heart disease and an adrenalin causing tumour.

They also know there was no bruising on the back of the neck or his back, while if someone did a front strangulation, they would be looking for this. If the pressure from the knee on the neck was that severe, why was no bruising found? The jury know this.

In many cases, people view this as, "What is the most likely cause of death?" But that is not what a criminal trial is. You need to be 95% certain that the person is guilty. You only need a 5% or more doubt for them to be considered not guilty.

Does a reasonable person not conclude that this gives enough doubt?

Lastly, I am not sure if all the jurors have to agree or not on a verdict. Perhaps @moke123 could fill us in on that one. If so, then that is another hurdle. Whatever happens, I fear violence in the streets, more death, and effectively making it impossible to serve justice according to the law.

 

[moke123]

Then you see the knee on the neck. You now completely change your mind: "It's the knee! It's the knee!"

You seem focused on the knee.

The knee restricted bloodflow to his brain. This decreases the amount of oxygen to the brain. That is what the martial artists was refering to. It is the same thing as the illegal choke hold, just applied differently. He was also pressed to the ground and from the sides restricting his ability to breathe. This also decreases the blood/oxygen level. Without sufficient oxygen you pass out and die.

The importance of the knee is not so much the mechanics of his death as it shows Chauvins disregard to GF's condition. He could have easily maintained control of a supine handcuffed person (along with the other 2 cops holding his legs and feet) He could have also taken his hand out of his pocket to check for a pulse but didn't. The knee is a damning visual. Had he lifted his knee off his neck the other arguments might be more convincing.

They also know there was no bruising on the back of the neck or his back, while if someone did a front strangulation, they would be looking for this. If the pressure from the knee on the neck was that severe, why was no bruising found?

Wrap yourself in a corset and tie it real tight to the point it restricts your breathing. Any bruises? I doubt it. Dont get caught up in the CSI Effect.

Reasonable doubt means different things to different people. I've polled juries and you'd be suprised at some of the reasons they voted the way they did. Very often it's the players. They didn't like the D.A. or they didn't like the Defense Atty.

 

[Jon]

You seem focused on the knee.

Much of the prosecutor case consider the knee the most crucial part.

The knee restricted bloodflow to his brain. This decreases the amount of oxygen to the brain.

Would a 90% occluded coronary artery restrict bloodflow to the brain? How about large levels of fentynal? Meth? How do you know it was the knee?

Why have you, like the prosecution, ignored any comment about him already struggling to breathe without any knee on the neck, while in the squad car? It causes doubt that the knee was responsbile.

That is what the martial artists was refering to. It is the same thing as the illegal choke hold, just applied differently.

Do you mean the martial artist who threatened violence against the police offier? In what way was the knee similar to an illegal choke hold?

He was also pressed to the ground and from the sides restricting his ability to breathe

The prone position is trained in the police force.

Without sufficient oxygen you pass out and die.

Like from a drug overdose from fentanyl, combined with severe heart disease after exertion?

He could have also taken his hand out of his pocket to check for a pulse but didn't

Can you show me a picture where his hand is in his pocket? I do not believe this to be the case.

The knee is a damning visual.

Agreed, because people attribute proximate cause with what follows. It is important to not conflate correlation with causation.

Had he lifted his knee off his neck the other arguments might be more convincing.

This is my precide point in this post: https://www.access-programmers.co.u...ty-the-george-floyd-trial.317220/post-1759619

If you consider the other arguments might be more convincing, had the knee not been on the neck, you consider that they could be a reasonable possibility. Then you see the knee on the neck, and you think that is the cause of his death. Are you saying what you previously saw was no longer a possibility? You would be contradicting yourself if you did. You can't have it both ways. And you only have to have reasonable doubt for a person to be found not guilty.

Any bruises? I doubt it. Dont get caught up in the CSI Effect.

So the pathologist who looks for bruises on the neck for an asphxiation event has been watching too much telly? The prosecution showed diagrams suggesting severe amounts of weight on the neck and back. Yet no bruises found.

Wrap yourself in a corset

George Floyd was not wearing a corset.

check for a pulse

This part I have partial agreement on. Is it reasonable to do so? Did any of the presiding officers suggest it? Why didn't they? Was the growing crowd threat an issue? The police are trained to secure the scene first before attending to medical aid, because situations can turn ugly fast and so protect themselves first. I am looking forward to seeing what the defence says on this part.

Reasonable doubt means different things to different people. I've polled juries and you'd be suprised at some of the reasons they voted the way they did. Very often it's the players. They didn't like the D.A. or they didn't like the Defense Atty.

I agree entirely with you on this one! Whatever the law says, I believe there are probably "independent" jurors on this trial that have decided on their verdict before hearing any evidence at all, as have most of the media. I prefer the defence attourny, as I find him much more interesting to listen to. There are a couple of grey haired attorneys on the prosecution side that I find dull as dishwater. For me, my favourite and most convincing attorney for the prosecution is the black guy. He has a nice manner about him, and is more believable,

 

[Jon]

I think most people here think Chauvin is guilty, while I believe there is reasonable doubt. Then again I thought OJ was innocent, yet most here think he was guilty. But with the OJ trial, I agree with the jury! Maybe the jury in this case will come to the same conclusion as me.

 

[NauticalGent]

What did they do that failed? How do you know he was not already dying?

Irrelevant to my point. Excessive force was used to restrain him. That is what I have a problem with. Did it bring about his untimely death? I think so but then I can't prove it. I'm not sure which side has the burden of proof, we will watch and see.

I refuse to watch the show on TV, I think it is slanted - whether or not I'm on the right side of the slant does not make the shit-show good and proper.

Jon, a yes or no question, do you beleive the amount of effort used to restrain him necessary?

 

[Jon]

Irrelevant to my point.

Was your point not about about failure of the safety of the individual, as stated below?

As someone had already stated, once handcuffed, the safety and well being of the individual becomes law enforcement's responsibility. They failed and need to answer for it.

If someone dies of a drug overdose, can they be kept safe? I think it is THE point.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

I've watched the raw footage, although some channels do appear very slanted. I linked to one where he outlines the cases for both sides, which I find good.

Jon, a yes or no question, do you beleive the amount of effort used to restrain him necessary?

I don't believe it is a yes or no answer. If you think it is, I could ask you this question for a yes or no answer: "Do you think it is possible for George Floyd to have died from a combination of 90% blocked artery, high levels of fentanyl in his system and a struggle with police officers?" If you think that is reasonably possible, he is not guilty.

Instead of yes or no, I can give an opinion. George Floyd was 6'5" and 223lbs. Chauvin was 5'9" and 140lbs. That is a huge disparity in size and weight. Add in that Floyd was very muscular, that one of the prosecutions witnesses said the drugs he was on could give superhuman strength and the fact that 3 officers could not successfully keep him in the back of the squad car, despite being handcuffed. He was also not compliant.

Given the above, Floyd was a perceived danger to the police officers. They have first-hand experience to his size and strength, unlike us bystanders. Under those circumstances, what is deemed the correct amount of force? I don't know. Police witnesses have said that restraint techniques can look ugly to viewers, but they may be necessary. Chauvin could have tasered Floyd because he was fighting with the police officers. That would have also looked ugly. But ugly looking methods does not necessarily make the officer using them guilty of murder or manslaughter.

The law doesn't require that Chauvin needs to have acted in a manner that with 20:20 hindsight might be viewed differently. Several times, a particular court case was brought up by both sides covering this point. You have to factor in the reasonable police officers own perspective and bear in mind they are making spilt second decisions with imperfect information under dynamic evolving conditions. I do my best to make the best code I can, but it is littered with bugs. Human error comes built in.

In essence, to answer your question in the briefest terms (after a long monolog!), I don't know. But because I don't know, that is another factor towards reasonable doubt.

And, if he was already dying from a drug overdose, excessive restraint may be an irrelevance to the outcome. I believe they use a "but-for" causation criteria. "But-for Chauvin's actions, would Floyd have died anyway?" If not, Chauvin was the cause.

To prove causation, the prosecution must show "but-for" causation and reasonable foreseeability.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...-over-george-floyds-death-legal-causation?amp

Edit: As a side note, Chauvin worked in security at a nightclub at the same time as Floyd. What if he knew of his violent criminal history and prison time, and the fact he was a bouncer, possibly with trained techniques in combat? Could that go into Chauvin's decision making if he recognised him? Perhaps the defence will flesh this out this coming week.

 

[moke123]

Can you show me a picture where his hand is in his pocket? I do not believe this to be the case.

Edit: I stand corrected, he was wearing black gloves.

Do you mean the martial artist who threatened violence against the police offier? In what way was the knee similar to an illegal choke hold?

He also said that he is doing a "Blood Choke", a martial arts move. Cuts off blood to the artery just like a choke hold.

So the pathologist who looks for bruises on the neck for an asphxiation event has been watching too much telly? The prosecution showed diagrams suggesting severe amounts of weight on the neck and back. Yet no bruises found.

Just means no blood vessels were ruptured. The CSI Effect is a term we use where a juror is looking for "Smoking Gun Evidence" For instance in a ra** case where no DNA evidence was found or it wasn't presented for one reason or another.