Justice and the George Floyd trial

It looks like you are correct. So, they have to prove third degree assault. My recollection of what I read was wrong.

I looked for such a video and couldn't find it.

I did see a video of the police giving up on their attempts to force him into the back seat of the police car.

There are prosecution witnesses dealing with drug addiction (particularly Floyd's girlfriend). It seems like the prosecution is targeting some of this testimony, not to the jury, but to the public at large.

I wonder if the prosecution has a problem because they are speaking to two audiences. The prosecution has to speak to the jury... but the members of the prosecution also have to make the interested people in the public happy. They have to please the press, and the people on the left who want justice.

The the defense only has to speak the jury. The defense lawyers aren't going to win anyone over in the general public and don't have anyone they need to please.

It looks like the prosecution is recognizing the areas that are weaknesses for them. They went over Floyd's drug use head on, framing it as a struggle with drug addiction, to try to control the narrative. They are also admitting that Floyd was resisting arrest, they are making the argument that the restraint was applied "longer than necessary" rather than saying that he was compliant. The political left has been arguing that he was cooperative and subdued. It doesn't seem like the facts support this argument.

The prosecution has scored real points on the horrific nature of the crime, and that the force was excessive. The eyewitnesses all saying from bystanders to the 911 operator all saying they were shocked by what they saw was pretty powerful.

But the prosecution knows where the defense is going to score points.

These issues are things that play differently in the liberal bubble than they do in the public at large. Of course the question is how the jury will view them.

Lt. Zimmerman's testimony was devastatingly effective for the prosecution. He talked about training and the known danger of the "prone position". He stated clearly that there was no need for this level of restraint once the handcuffs had been applied.

The defense on cross-examination asked about appropriateness of the use of knees during the application of handcuffs. But the prosecution clearly scored points with this testimony.

Did he say what they should have done with the guy instead of what they did do?

There is this strange story coming from the political left that Floyd had been handcuffed and subdued in the police cruiser... and then taken out by the cops to "punish him".

There are no facts to support this story. The prosecution isn't making this case.

I suppose it shows the power of ideological position the effect how people interpret the story.

I'm glad to hear that the prosecution isn't trying to make that case.

If it's not already clear, I'm not following the trial closely. Although I do hear brief excerpts from the evening news.

Yes,

Lt. Zimmerman made it very clear that any restraint should have stopped long before it did. And he said that the pressure to the neck was inappropriate and dangerous in the prone position.

Under cross-examination he allowed that the knee could be used on the neck to while getting the handcuffs on, but that after this point it was dangerous and unnecessary.

This testimony was very powerful and great for the prosecution's case.

But what should have happened when the restraint stopped?

I presume he wasn't suggesting that they stop the arrest and let the guy go free.

You should watch the testimony of Lt. Zimmerman. He came across as a thoroughly competent police officer. In my opinion he is the best prosecution witness so far.

My understanding from his testimony is that you can apply the knee to the shoulder while you are getting the handcuffs on (and even then, it isn't the best technique). Once you get the handcuffs on there is no reason to continue applying pressure with the knee.

At that point he should have keep control of Floyd (who know in handcuffs was much less of a threat) WITHOUT the knee hold. In addition he should have moved Floyd out of the prone position which is (according to Lt. Zimmerman) known to be dangerous for the suspect. Presumably then, with control, he could get help (or wait for medical aid) and then continue moving him to the squad car in a safe and professional manner.

You can watch it yourself. This senior police officer soundly condemned the actions of Officer Chauvin. He called them dangerous and outside of his training. And he gave a professional testimony from someone who clearly had experience.

As I said, it was devastatingly effective testimony for the prosecution.

Actually the handcuffs were already on the guy even before they tried (and failed) to bundle him into the police car.

If you look at the police body camera footage of the failed attempt to bundle him into the police car you can see the cuffs on him right at the start.



It is quite dangerous actually.

That Eric Garner guy in New York City died from being prone too.

But I'm not sure how well police officers are trained to avoid placing people in a prone position.



So, stand around and wait for backup, and then try again to force him into the car once there are even more officers surrounding him??

I wonder if any of the officers had tasers.

The testimony from Lt. Zimmerman was that the neck restraint used was dangerous, unprofessional, against training and completely unnecessary.

Yes. I'm getting that.

I'm just not understanding what a good alternative course of action is.

The guy was refusing to let them put him into the police car.

and that justifies winding his life? would it have been better to Tqse him, knowing that it too has risks??

They did not intentionally end his life.

I do wonder why they didn't tase him.

Oralloy,

I don't see the point to this argument. I listened to the testimony of the police lieutenant. I found him credible and believe that this was very effective (even devastating) for the prosecution side. An important question to me is whether Officer Chauvin acted according to his training, and if what he did was necessary or appropriate. This was an expert witness with real police experience saying clearly that it wasn't.

You can listen to it and come to your own judgment. It is my guess that this was effective testimony for the jury.

Saying "they did it wrong" isn't reasonable if there was no way for them to do it right.

I think I answered this question. And the Police Lieutenant answered it better (and he gets to speak to the jury).

The prosecution argument is that even if the knee restraint was necessary to get the handcuffs were on, that it should be released as soon as the suspect was in handcuffs. At that point there is no need for the police to maintain the neck restraint.

The cop makes sure the suspect and the scene are safe. This includes moving him from the prone position and ending any dangerous restraints. Then they have time to get help and to safely move the suspect in a controlled way to the squad car.

That is not what this cop did.

The defense is going to argue that doing this safely wasn't possible. I will listen to the defense argument too.

But from the testimony of this police lieutenant, that I found compelling, what Officer Chauvin did was dangerous, inappropriate, and completely unnecessary.

The handcuffs were on the guy long before they started pressing him to the ground.

The handcuffs were on him before they even started trying to put him in the back of the police car.

Pressing him to the ground was not an attempt to put handcuffs on him.



So everyone stands around waiting for backup to arrive, and then they try again to put him in the car once there are a lot more officers on the scene??

If so, how do they keep him under control while everyone is standing around waiting for backup to arrive?