Here's to hoping that the medical examiners don't seem angry, bratty, or bitchy, I guess?

As that would clearly tank the credibility of an autopsy.

(April 5, 2021 at 8:57 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Here's to hoping that the medical examiners don't seem angry, bratty, or bitchy, I guess?

As that would clearly tank the credibility of an autopsy.

Or lying under oath, as that MMA guy did when he said he wasn't angry, because the word angry was triggering or microaggressive to him.

Yeah, that.

The defense lawyer just asked the Police chief if he was a physicist in regards to Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck. How fucking irrelevant and a cheap shot. Any layperson can look at that video and know that there was enough force on Floyd's neck to cause distress and affect breathing.

(April 5, 2021 at 3:50 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(April 5, 2021 at 8:57 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Here's to hoping that the medical examiners don't seem angry, bratty, or bitchy, I guess?

As that would clearly tank the credibility of an autopsy.

Or lying under oath, as that MMA guy did when he said he wasn't angry, because the word angry was triggering or microaggressive to him.

These are the prosecution's witnesses you're talking about. They are coached by a team of attorneys ahead of testifying. They know the strategies that the defense will use to discredit them as witnesses. So when the defense asks "are you angry," "so you were angry," "and that's when you got really angry," etc, they're trying to paint a picture of the witness so the jury no longer takes them seriously. That's why he responded that way, and why he couldn't give a simple "yes" or "no."

This is incredibly common in cases of all kinds. You're an idiot if you don't push back, at least a little, on cross examination like that.

(April 5, 2021 at 4:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The defense lawyer just asked the Police chief if he was a physicist in regards to Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck. How fucking irrelevant and a cheap shot. Any layperson can look at that video and know that there was enough force on Floyd's neck to cause distress and affect breathing.

It’s really all they’ve got, Brian. Everyone is entitled to a defense, even if the defense is a lousy one.

It’s like the old adage:

-If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.

-If the law is on your side, pound on the law.

-If neither one of those is on your side, pound on the table.

Boru

(April 5, 2021 at 4:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 5, 2021 at 4:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The defense lawyer just asked the Police chief if he was a physicist in regards to Chauvin's knee on Floyd's neck. How fucking irrelevant and a cheap shot. Any layperson can look at that video and know that there was enough force on Floyd's neck to cause distress and affect breathing.

It’s really all they’ve got, Brian. Everyone is entitled to a defense, even if the defense is a lousy one.

It’s like the old adage:

-If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.

-If the law is on your side, pound on the law.

-If neither one of those is on your side, pound on the table.

Boru

Don't get me wrong, that certainly is the lawyer's job. I simply think attacking a carreer police cheif like that was not good for his defense.

(April 5, 2021 at 4:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 5, 2021 at 4:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It’s really all they’ve got, Brian. Everyone is entitled to a defense, even if the defense is a lousy one.

It’s like the old adage:

-If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.

-If the law is on your side, pound on the law.

-If neither one of those is on your side, pound on the table.

Boru

Don't get me wrong, that certainly is the lawyer's job. I simply think attacking a carreer police cheif like that was not good for his defense.

Again, what else can they do? The video makes it all but impossible to defend Chauvin’s actions (primarily because his actions were indefensible), so the defense are left with trying to make everyone who DIDN’T kneel on Floyd’s neck look worse than the man who did.

Boru

(April 5, 2021 at 1:01 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: So, the year before he died, he swallowed some drugs after the cops arrested him.



Are you arguing that that time, he also had a cop kneel on his neck long past the point where he lost consciousness?
Did he somehow die of an overdose in 2019, come back to life, and then manage to die the same way in 2020?

No? Then this case ain't fucking relevant to what happened in 2020.

https://www.fox9.com/news/judge-rules-so...uvin-trial

The beginning of the video will be played for the jury in the Chauvin trial. Eating your stash can be dangerous, no? Especially when Floyd was already high out of his mind before he went into the store to steal the cigarettes. This is the type of behaviour that could be expected of George. Behaviour that could kill people. Did behaviour like this contribute to his death? Maybe.

---

(April 5, 2021 at 4:31 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(April 5, 2021 at 3:50 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Or lying under oath, as that MMA guy did when he said he wasn't angry, because the word angry was triggering or microaggressive to him.

These are the prosecution's witnesses you're talking about. They are coached by a team of attorneys ahead of testifying. They know the strategies that the defense will use to discredit them as witnesses. So when the defense asks "are you angry," "so you were angry," "and that's when you got really angry," etc, they're trying to paint a picture of the witness so the jury no longer takes them seriously. That's why he responded that way, and why he couldn't give a simple "yes" or "no."

This is incredibly common in cases of all kinds. You're an idiot if you don't push back, at least a little, on cross examination like that.

It's lying under oath, no matter how you look at it. The witnesses were angry and they should have been angry. He could have defended himself without lying under oath. Just say, "Yes, of course I was angry but I was no threat to anyone." Then, as a juror, I don't see you as a liar who's trying to say whatever he can to bury Chauvin. How can I, as a juror, trust anything about what he's said about MMA techniques and all of that, when he won't simply admit, that yes, he wasn't thrilled that someone was being killed in front of his eyes and he's not a robot without emotions?

(April 5, 2021 at 5:15 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(April 5, 2021 at 1:01 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: So, the year before he died, he swallowed some drugs after the cops arrested him.



Are you arguing that that time, he also had a cop kneel on his neck long past the point where he lost consciousness?
Did he somehow die of an overdose in 2019, come back to life, and then manage to die the same way in 2020?

No? Then this case ain't fucking relevant to what happened in 2020.

https://www.fox9.com/news/judge-rules-so...uvin-trial

The beginning of the video will be played for the jury in the Chauvin trial. Eating your stash can be dangerous, no? Especially when Floyd was already high out of his mind before he went into the store to steal the cigarettes. This is the type of behaviour that could be expected of George. Behaviour that could kill people. Did behaviour like this contribute to his death? Maybe.

---

(April 5, 2021 at 4:31 pm)Aegon Wrote: These are the prosecution's witnesses you're talking about. They are coached by a team of attorneys ahead of testifying. They know the strategies that the defense will use to discredit them as witnesses. So when the defense asks "are you angry," "so you were angry," "and that's when you got really angry," etc, they're trying to paint a picture of the witness so the jury no longer takes them seriously. That's why he responded that way, and why he couldn't give a simple "yes" or "no."

This is incredibly common in cases of all kinds. You're an idiot if you don't push back, at least a little, on cross examination like that.

It's lying under oath, no matter how you look at it. The witnesses were angry and they should have been angry. He could have defended himself without lying under oath. Just say, "Yes, of course I was angry but I was no threat to anyone." Then, as a juror, I don't see you as a liar who's trying to say whatever he can to bury Chauvin. How can I, as a juror, trust anything about what he's said about MMA techniques and all of that, when he won't simply admit, that yes, he wasn't thrilled that someone was being killed in front of his eyes and he's not a robot without emotions?

How can you, as a juror, evaluate the emotional state of a witness to an incident from ten months ago? Maybe he’s in therapy for anger management. Maybe he’s one of those rare birds who simply doesn’t get angry.

Or maybe - just maybe - you decided he’s lying because you need him to be lying.

Boru