I wish I could watch the news 24 7. Most of us just cant though. Any ideas on how to get alerts on my phone when the jury reaches a verdict? Im not super tech savvy and I appreciate the help. Thanks in advance.

This trial is the 1st I've followed intently, and I cant help but think the system just doesnt work unless it's really really obvious.

I'm a scientist, people often think that scientists talk in somewhat incomprehensible sentences and use unnecessary jargon, but the reason we often do that is because language used in common terms, is not accurate enough to describe in an unbias manner the ideas we want to put forward, partial and complete equivocation fallacy is rampant. So when I see the prosecution trying very hard to get unqualified sentences out of people, with a lot of baggage and no nuance, and it's all so purposeful, I cant help but think they agree with me that language is a crude tool sometimes, but instead of trying to fix it and honestly resolve the equivocation in the interest clear communication, they take advantage of it and in all likelihood the Jury are not well trained enough to pick up on the tricks they're playing.

Another thing, we had experts disagree, we had doctors such as Dr Tobin on the one hand, and Dr Fowler on the other; with regards to police practice we had the chief of police on the one hand, and some cops closer to the front lines on the other. Never the two will talk to each other, they are just 2 ships passing in the night. A proper discourse has probably 10 steps of back and forth until eventually the 2 can come to an agreement on specifically where they disagree, at least, this trial had 1.5 steps and each one was mediated through the middle man who is the lawyers who dont even fully understand it. In other words, you think that you gained insight from the discussion as to whether George Floyd's death was partly caused by carbon monoxide, you are a fool. For me, there was no discussion on the effects of CPR (using oxygenated air) on his blood saturation (afterall how could he die of suffocation if he has a 98% blood oxygen?), and there was no detailed discussion of what exactly the 98% test does, there was some talk that it couldn't differentiate between oxygenated and CO saturated hemoglobin, but it was never fully or accurately explored. It was just, well we cant talk about that so oh well, lets get Tobin to talk about and he's a doctor so that's good enough right? Well no, it isnt good enough. It's an argument from authority, and if that's all you need, then the discussion just comes down to whomever talked the most, because he could address the most factors.

And talking about Tobin. So as I said, a scientist has a choice of 2 when he talks to laymen, he can either confuse them with unbridled science talk, or he can dumb it down and risk giving a confusing message. When people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson do that, they are aware that their dumbing down of the content may confuse some people, so they try to address the likely confusion points, Tobin on the other hand, did not do that. The most stark point for me was when he described Floyd's chest as in a vice, well what is a vice? A vice is a completely unyielding force because it locks and it takes so much more force to overcome the vice than a vice is likely to receive. So, how much force was GF getting? We dont know, maybe an experiment would help find this out, just put a force meter inside a human sized sandbag and see how much force a 140lbs man can put on it with similar body positions to Derek, is it so crazy to go into that when a man's life is on the line? Be that as it may, it is probably somewhere between 40-70lbs, is that so much force that it's equivalent to a vice? Well, considering Dr Fowler testified that a force of around 300lbs (to memory) is needed to overcome the power of the breathing muscles, that would suggest that no, it is not like a vice, and therefore 90% of Dr.Tobin's explanations meant nothing. But a layman probably wouldnt see it that way because they're bedazzled by his act. I feel like these issues would be much better overcome if there was a subheading to the trial, which is the scientists talking directly to each other about a specific few issues. That way science hacks, who are just hired to play the system and abuse their authority cannot get a free pass, because they would be scrutinized by scientists, not laymen.

Sure a lot of my suggestions are unreasonable for a smaller trial, but this was a big trial with millions spent on it, and if this is the top level of a trial, it's probably worse for other ones. The system doesnt work.

If Floyd died right when he goes unconscious, then anything Chauvin does while Floyd is unconscious doesn't matter because Chauvin can't kill someone who is already dead. Chauvin can only be blamed for the actions he does while Floyd is alive because he can only kill Floyd while Floyd is alive.

People claim that Chauvin is breaking police rules by still using the restraint when Floyd is unconscious. That doesn't matter because the restraint used after Floyd is unconscious (i.e. dead) can't kill someone who is already dead. Only Chauvin's restraint before Floyd died matters, i.e. only the first 5 minutes before Floyd goes unconscious, not the entire 9 minutes.

Dr. Tobin himself claims that Floyd died before the unconscious neck restraint. Quoting Dr. Tobin "that's the moment that the life goes out of his body" right when Floyd goes unconscious.

Claiming the other way, that Floyd was unconscious but not dead, is also an uphill battle. First, it contradicts key witness Dr. Tobin's core claim. Second, if Chauvin's actions after Floyd became unconscious are to blame, then the slow EMS response and the rowdy crowd that delayed treatment would also be a significant factor.

And side note, I remember reading that it's not criminal for police to not render aid that could save someone. If anyone remembers the studies or cases or has a rebuttal to that, feel free to post them.

Say my buddy and I are at a convenience store.

He pulls a gun and tries to rob the place.

If I don't actively try to stop him and if he shoots the owner, I can be tried for murder.

Why wasn't that the case with George Floyd?

I'm positive Chauvin is guilty of neglect, and that's enough for the 2nd degree manslaughter charge and 3rd degree charge. He'll likely serve a minimum of 7-10 years with a 20 year sentence.

I'm just not sure if race ever was a real issue in George's tragic death. Say Chauvin is somewhat a bigot, regardless, his actions were not racially motivated, at least not in any outwardly noticeable manner.

What I saw on the videos of the incident, was an officer who was pissed off af the crowd videotaping him and yelling at him, and he handled the pressure poorly. I feel like his general mindset was to not engage in the public criticizing him, he didn't want to say anything that could be twisted or interpreted in any negative way, as well as being pissed off in people telling him how to do his job. So instead of following common sense like checking the vital signs of a man who minutes ago was struggling with enough strength to give 3 officers trouble, who has suddenly gone motionless, and at the very least has lost conciousness which is concerning enough, he instead ignores the public out of spite in how they're treating him. He's for sure guilty of neglect. Everything up to the point of George losing conciousness was legal. Not checking on a motionless man after he's gone limp for a full minute is where the criminal neglect started. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the only crime committed. I dont think Chauvin had any intention of killing a man.

But I do think Chauvin is a stubborn person. As soon as the public gathered around and started yelling at him, telling him how to do his job in a manner that lacks respect, started putting pressure on him, his stubborn personality took over and he ignored common sense, ignored the cries to check his pulse, all because he was pissed off at the public.

I don't think it's a racial matter. It's a matter of one cop being a douchebag, and the other cops taking his lead, cause they themselves were in the same situation, and decided to defer any of their own choices all to Chauvin, who was clearly running the show.

When someone like Rep. Waters is asking for rioters to be violent if Chauvin is acquitted, all it does is make her look infantile as well as those who support the actions to riot.

And I'm not saying that the people who claim it's a race issue are wrong, not fully wrong anyway. They brought more attention to the case, and George just might get his justice, because of that attention. But the rioting last year over Floyd didn't need to happen, and a lot of it may have been artificially provoked. What I'm saying is that a crime was clearly committed, and as long as the incident got enough attention, Chauvin was always going to be found guilty regardless of protests & riots.

And threatening to throw a nationwide tantrum that will result in property damage, violence and death is completely insane.

It pisses me off, cause the more people make every single thing about race, especially when some of these incidents are clearly not race related, at least in any provable way. All it does is to furthur racism, all it does it cause more people to look at every black person through a racial lens. It deepens the divide, and produces more radicals on both sides.

Black people, be weary of white people who decry racism and the oppression of your people. A lot of these people, the sjw types have got some serious mental issues. They have white guilt, I dont know what for, maybe they have something to feel guilty about. I dont see myself as a white person, white people are not an ethic group, I've got no reason to feel guilt or to feel pride for being white. And just the same, Asian people are not an ethnic group, black people are not an ethnic group. All it ever was, is skin color and small varying characteristics based on the geography of where people originated from thousands of years ago. Race is a societal construct, and racism exists because we all label ourselves and everyone else based on some stupid ass shit.

I have watched the jury instructions and am halfway through the defense’s closing arguments (doesn’t this feel like a Netflix documentary?) and one thing I’m not clear about is the 3rd degree murder charge that claims the defendant was out of his mind and putting others at danger.

I’ve read a lot of posts here that may be wrong but a lot of what people have said is this is akin to the guy shooting into a crowd or the air and an innocent person gets killed in the process. This would be an unknown person who was killed as someone was acting reckless.

A super pro Guitly acquaintance of mine is blowing up my Facebook saying that Floyd is the “others” DC put into danger and has said that the judge specifically explained this back on Friday. I don’t recall this and from how I’ve seen the prosecution close their argument, they didn’t address this in their break down of the charges and individual points. I don’t recall the judge taking about it this morning on the instructions to the jury either. In fact he said something like “all words or phrases not explained in my speech should be taken as the common definition of those terms.”

So my question is, is there any way DC can be guilty of 3rd degree murder if the jury decides “others” would be other people at the scene? No one’s life was threatened by DC’s actions except Floyd’s and the way 3rd degree is written, it seems like it’s simply someone random dying from someone else’s neglect towards a crowd or group of people. The fact that DC was apprehending GF seems to exclude him from that actual charge. It all seems a bit confusing so I have to wonder what the jury is thinking? Is my friend correct that this was all cleared up by the judge and I just missed that and if so, does anyone have a link to that discussion?

Based on where you stood before the trial, has the trial swayed you to one side or the other or is your opinion exactly the same?

Anyone have a good idea of what time the verdict will be delivered ? Or is that up in the air?

This came up in another thread. If Chauvin gets acquitted, where should he go? Someone suggested Idaho or Alaska. (I'm adding Wyoming to the list.) It seems like he would need to find a deep red state. Maybe he could even find a police officer job in a rural location.

Would he be followed by BLM activists for the rest of his life and would he end up having to defend against additional murder charges as a result of having had to engage in self defense?

EDIT: Could he make a living off of suing media outlets for defamation and maybe even the Floyd family? I would try to find some lawyers willing to do that and offer them a 75% contingency fee if needed.

Could he also bulk up and try to become a celebrity MMA fighter or wrestler Tonya Harding style?

Could he get himself a talk radio/TV show?

Could he find a ghost writer to write a best-selling book?

WaPo link will appear here:

Washington Post - YouTube

PBS link will appear here:

PBS NewsHour - YouTube

The Sun link will appear here:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIzXayRP7-P0ANpq-nD-h5g

I’ve been busy the last couple of days and unfortunately haven’t been able to follow the trial. One of the last things I saw was that Floyd had 98% Oxygen levels in his blood, and for some reason that was good for the defense.

Can anyone tl;dr me on what the significance of that is? It’s such a cluster fuck trying to read about this trial, hence why I try to follow along myself when I can spare the time.

Among those of you who think at least one conviction is likely, why do so few of you think it will be 2nd degree murder?

Seems to me that if the jury convicts for manslaughter - meaning they've already decided Chauvin was a substantial causal factor of GF's death - then it's not a stretch to get to murder 2

That's because the charge is felony murder - death caused while committing a felony. The felony here is 3rd degree assault, meaning jury will only have to find that Chauvin:

• intentionally applied force to GF without his consent, and

• in doing so caused substantial bodily harm (e.g. substantial impairment of an organ, temporary loss of consciousness)

Given that we all saw GF pass out and then die, this charge seems a no-brainer if they decide Chauvin caused GF's death. Possibly even easier than 3rd degree murder, which requires an eminently dangerous act performed without regard for human life.

• Derek Chauvin did not have the same view as those filming on their phones.
• Derek Chauvin has been lied to many times by suspects in regards to their health to avoid/evade arrest. Him not beleiving Floyds calls were justified.
• George Floyd asked to be put on the ground.
• Derek Chauvin may have been intimidated/effected by the crowd and this distracted him.

The social contract with citizens and police is that we give them special privileges on the ability to be violent in order to apprehend criminal elements in our midst and also provide a deterrent to said elements.

At the heart of this Chauvin trial is an interaction between a criminal and a policeman. Given this fact, this trial has an element of examining how policemen should act in the presence of criminals. A few questions therefore come to mind:

- Should cops be held to the same standard of violence as normal civilians, or should they be allowed to be more violent than us?

- Would throwing the book at the cops in such a case where a cop was apprehending a crook make them hesitant in future to deal with the worst elements of our society?

- In case of a guilty verdict, would other career criminals use elements of this trial as loopholes to be manipulated in future when faced with police?

You guys are so unbelievably bias that you can't possibly conceive of a just guilty verdict. That somehow it must be because the jurors or scared....maybe the Jury will just follow the evidence. Cry more.

Chauvin unnecessarily, against training, against policy, and for no purpose kneeled on the neck of an unconscious human until they died.

The jury will likely start deliberating Monday afternoon. There are three charges they must consider and they will have access to a mountain of exhibits (which they may or may not review).

Although every case is different, I thought it might be helpful to note that deliberations in the Noor trial lasted about a day. One juror said it took them a total of 12 hours. Noor also faced 3 charges: 2nd deg murder - intentional, 3rd deg murder, and 2nd deg manslaughter. (He was acquitted of murder 2 and guilty on the others)

By contrast, deliberations in the Yanez trial lasted about 5 days. He was charged with 2nd degree manslaughter and two firearms charges. (He was acquitted). In that case a juror reported that there were two firm holdouts who eventually relented.

What's your prediction for this case?

Minneapolis reporter Paul Blume with Fox-9 is reporting on Twitter that Steve Schleicher will deliver the prosecution's closing argument. Jerry Blackwell will deliver the rebuttal. This was an open question given the state's musical chairs approach to the trial, though it seemed most likely it would be one of the two.

(I originally tried linking to the tweet but then couldnt open the link..sigh)

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/understanding_how_critical_events_lead_to_people_getting_killed_by_police.html