Total posts: 17,895
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Please can you elaborate on this '5 seconds to do' concept? Is there a way to rush it that doesn't slam us into N1?
It’s pretty obvious. Me and Oro are already on him. You, Coal, FT, and one another person just places their vote. If someone hammers then they’re scummy as fuck. It’s easy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Post 166. That's correct.
I highly highly disagree with you, and I’d be surprised if others didn’t as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
I don't want claims from anyone. Just a lynch on scum.
So you just want to blindly lynch a person without even knowing their role and character claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Let's do something else to help me better understand your perspective.Are you willing to lynch Oro this DP?
As of now no. I lean town on him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Btw do you have a hatred towards pinging people ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I stand by that. Four and you may not know that MC claimed PACIFIST last game. We tested DP1 and a surprising number of TOWN threw MC into auto confirmed TOWN after the test (which read proved accurate). My common sense says that MC would not make such a claim so early as SCUM but I have this nagging concern in context that MC might be hoping to slide by untested based on the cred he built last game. I'm still down with testing this claim, even if you are convinced it is a waste of time.
+1
Only a fool doesn’t double check their flanks are secured. We all know it’s not affiliation indicative. The goal is to lock him into his role. Plus it only takes like 5 seconds to do
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Pie, you gotta break open from your cage. Learn to see.
I don’t go around scum reading literally everyone.
Let me ask you this: name one person who you want to full claim right now. Cause Me, WF, RM, and Earth cannot be all scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Pie likes wasting time...
It’s called making sure our flanks are protected.
Created:
Posted in:
We haven’t even heard from Earth, Lunatic, and Speed. Why don’t we actually wait till everyone checks in
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Pie also wanted to waste our time with MC's role. With no scumhunting objective whatsoever.
It’s not “wasting time” if it takes two seconds to confirm. It’s always better to be safe than sorry.
Scum waste our time. Town scum hunt. It's clear which one Pie's doing.
I’m gonna laugh at you so hard when you see that I’m town
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Pie, what's your read on RM & Oro?
I have an FoS on RM, it’s been months since I played with him. From what I can remember, he was very aggressive with theories in my 13 Reasons Why Mafia game when he was scum. It seems like the same thing here with the TP mentioning.
I lean town on Oro. He already soft claimed which is a big part of his town meta. When he’s scum he rarely tries and just ends up ghosting or putting minimal effort. I don’t see that at this stage in the game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Oro, I provided you multiple pieces of evidence to lynch Pie. Why are you ignoring these?
No you haven’t lol. You’ve just said Post this and that means Pie is scum. Why do those posts indicate I’m scum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
I recommend Pie's partners bus. There's no saving him now.
Have you ever considered that I don’t have any scum partners because I’m town? I’m gonna laugh when I flip town. You’re just gonna say I was acting scummy to get rid of the blame. I can already imagine it lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
who knows this theme? I am thinking Pie, speed, whiteflame most likely to be familiar.
I hate anime lol, don’t know anything about the theme
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Post 66. Classic scum tell. Discredit the strongest scum hunter in the game.
You really aren’t considering you haven’t played with more than half of us. Plus DART mafia is hell of a lot different than DDO mafia lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@coal
Y’all probably played with FT on DDO back in the day. Anything unusual about his play so far from what y’all can remember?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Look, proving someone's role doesn't tell us anything about alignments. It's a complete waste of time. A benefit for the scum.
I never said it proves alignments. It locks him in the role every DP and literally takes 5 seconds to do. There are 6 people active rn
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
I'm by far the most experienced and trustworthy scum catcher in this game. I'm the kind of person you lynch at LYLO if I haven't led a lynch on scum yet.
This isn’t DDO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Testing MC is a distraction and waste of time.
I would heavily disagree. We should be testing him every day phase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Why don’t you help test Chris rq and then you can lobby for a wagon on me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Your eye is untrained. Please trust.
The irony lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Not bastard. this show is Fairy Tail Themed Mafia
Ok cool so nothing to do with waifus, just characters from Fairy Tail Anime
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Post 17 is a scum post. Awkward attempt to look like you're doing something.
How is the post awkward?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Stall the testing of MC's power please, we must talk more and get many reads, opportunities for subtle breadcrumbs, so on and so forth.
It doesn’t even take that long to do. Plus we should be doing it every DP from now on cause he could be a multitude of other roles that mechanically are similar
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FourTrouble
Post 17.Vote I like pie
What do you not like about post 17?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Role PM's are being sent out some time today. Game won't start til Saturday morning. The game is Fairy Tail themed versus Bastard Waifus
Could you explain this further? Are the waifus from the Anime Show Fairy Tail?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I want Oro's character and a paraphrase of the justification.
Any specific reason?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Will you accept the jury's verdict?Why or why not?
Ya I mean, I’ll disagree with it if he’s convicted but I’ll accept it cause that’s how the justice system works
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
having had stock since 1982...
You must’ve earned a crap ton 🤑
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Correct, and yet my understanding of what is happening is still so much better than yours.
Categorically false lol.
You ignored my request for a quote by a witness saying that a crowd yelling obscenities justifies using more force than is warranted on a suspect who is already restrained. Because nobody actually said that, so your interpretation of the testimony was wrong.
You’re making big fat strawman right now lol. Nelson, nor I said a crowd that’s a threat warrants an escalation of force. That never happened here. The restraint was simply maintained
Just like your interpretation that intent was relevant to all charges was wrong. Just like Greyparrot saying that violating police policy doesn't matter is wrong. And like him thinking that Chauvin not tasering someone when he had authority to do so somehow matters is wrong.I think I am seeing a pattern.
You admitted that you have no idea what you’re talking about and instead are relying your interpretation based on news headlines that don’t even mention what the defense and prosecution actually said.
The prosecution asked if a crowd merely videoing was a threat not whether the crowd as whole could be viewed as a threat. It was Nelson that brought in context
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I am extremely busy and actually working in the field today so I can't respond to you line by line from my phone. But it's not true that the questions were tailored to George Floyd. It was a general line of questioning. The defense attorney never asked based on how THIS crowd was behaving, how a cop on scene could be distracted; he never asked based on how THIS crowd was behaving, a cop could have been fearful, and he never asked how George Floyd in particular was behaving once he was cuffed on the ground, how a cop could think that Floyd was being actively aggressive and that therefore kneeling on his neck was necessary. He didn't ask those things because he knew that the witness testimony in response would not be helpful.
The questions are purposely designed to be leading lol. The crowd was yelling obscenities, a man was being physically restrained. A person even approached an officer. The ambulance people also saw the area as a threat lol.
Instead he cherry picked buzz words and phrases (talk about taking things out of context) and said "if someone was calling you a pussy, would that be sufficient to cause alarm" and started frantically pacing around for dramatic effect. He specifically never referenced THIS scene where someone was calling the cop a pussy, because every single cop thus far testified that none of the crowd's behavior on that particular day warranted Chauvin's response.
Are you denying that people weren’t calling the cops pussies and other names. Are you denying that people were being held back? Are you denying that people were approaching officers? Cause all of this is categorically false.
Everyone thus far testified that Floyd should have been turned on his side even given the actions of this particular crowd. Not a single witness said that people verbally threatening and yelling obscenities constitutes a dangerous situation.
Yes they did lmfao. Literally watch the testimony.
The witnesses said that you would be conscious of the crowd and be aware of them to ensure that their behavior did not escalate. They said it would be reason for the cop to "maintain restraint" on the suspect. Floyd was restrained when he was handcuffed and lying on the floor. Maintaining restraint is not the same as having multiple people kneeling on someone's neck and back.
Actually that is maintaining restraint lol because it’s taught by MPD. There’s a picture about it too.
No one said there was any reason to be fearful of the actual crowd in question. To the contrary, each expert agreed that the crowd was concerned and upset but complying and posed no threat.
So why did the ambulance not render aid right then and there? Because the surroundings were perceived as a threat. Nelson clearly emphasized this.
That's why the defense had to desperately resort to generalities and ask things like "And isn’t it true that the safety concern might come not from the suspect himself, but from angry bystanders?" He 100% avoided talking about this particular scenario in question.
Are you claiming there weren’t angry bystanders? Because there sure as hell were. There’s a picture of a guy being physically restrained. There’s video of a guy literally approaching one of the cops.
Calling names is not a threat, and the crowd stayed on the curb.
People approached the officers lol. They were yelling verbal threats and obscenities.
In fact, when officer Thao who was facing and monitoring the crowd yelled at them to get back and stay on the curb, they complied.
After someone approached him lol. Mob mentality can really shift easily don’t you think?
They always complied. Again that's why the defense attorney cherry picked things that were said but did not ask about the scenario in question as it actually played out.
You have it backwards lol. The scenario was literally clear. There was a threat posed by the crowd.
“Later, on re-direct, Schleiter would attempt to diminish the damage of this bit of testimony by asking Mercil if bystanders merely taking videos would constitute a reason to not provide care. The answer, of course, was no.
But that merely provided Nelson with the lay-up opportunity on re-cross to ask whether a mob shouting insults and outright threats would constitute such a reason—and that was conduct of the mob in this event—and the answer to that, of course, was yes.”
So who’s not talking about the full context? It’s very clear to me that you didn’t bother reading the article.
He asked a compound question to which Mercil said yes regarding an officer being called a bum or something, but all witnesses repeatedly said that an agitated crowd would not justify increased force on the suspect.
It wasn’t an increased used of force. It was maintaining the restraint until EMS got there - something which Mercil conceded he had done in the past. So he should be arrested right?
Also, the crowd's behavior escalated when Floyd started to or did lose consciousness. Therefore (even if such analysis were permissible or consistent with protocol) the crowd's behavior could not be used to justify Chauvin's initial decision to kneel on Floyd's neck, nor his decision to remain kneeling on the neck for over 6 minutes before consciousness was lost.
What? You admitted that tasing was justified and putting a knee to the neck was a lesser force that could be used. So his initial decision was definitely right per your own admission.
Maintaining the pressure was also talked about
“Similarly, Nelson hit back on the state’s emphasis on the whole “recovery position” narrative in the context of hypothetical positional asphyxia. Might there be circumstances that would prevent putting a suspect in a recovery position? Mercil answered that there were.
It was after Nelson was done with cross that Schleiter attempted to salvage something from this train wreck for the prosecution by showing a still photo of the bystanders, pointing to some holding phones, and asking if people taking videos was a good enough reason to maintain a restraint. Mercil answered that video taking by bystanders was not a sufficient reason.
That’s when on re-cross Nelson pulled up the exact same photo that Schleiter had just used, and pointed out that in the picture MMA Williams was clearly being physically restrained from advancing on the officers by the arm of another bystander pulling him back.
Would the threat of imminent physical violence from bystanders be a sufficient reason to maintain restraint on a suspect? If the crowd is shouting that they’re going to slap the “F” out of you, that you’re a “p-word,” that you’re a bum, would that be sufficient to cause the officers to be alarmed about the prospect of imminent physical violence from the bystanders?
Yes, Mercil answered, it would.
It was the prosecution that didn’t talk about the context. Nelson brought the full context.
Again, being fearful of the crowd (if justified) only justifies use of force on the crowd. You cannot use the actions of a third party to justify the LEVEL of force used on a suspect. You're literally making the insanely stupid argument that if you were under arrest and that I as a witness started yelling at the cop that he was a pussy, that would somehow justify the cop beating you or killing you because I was yelling obscenities while standing on the curb.
That’s a false analogy. The restraint was already used. He didn’t escalate the use of force. He maintained it because of the perceived threat of both Floyd and the crowd.
I have no idea why you think that's valid. And if you think a cop has said that it's justifiable to increase the use of force on a suspect because a crowd started name calling, please specify that quote for me because I definitely missed it. I'm listening to the testimony on my phone cuz I'm not WHF this week, but I'm fairly certain you just made that up.
They didn’t increase the use of force lmao. And I never said they did. What the Defense asked was:
“Would the threat of imminent physical violence from bystanders be a sufficient reason to maintain restraint on a suspect? If the crowd is shouting that they’re going to slap the “F” out of you, that you’re a “p-word,” that you’re a bum, would that be sufficient to cause the officers to be alarmed about the prospect of imminent physical violence from the bystanders?
Yes, Mercil answered, it would.”
There you have it. The state’s own witness saying a crowd doing all the things the crowd in the George Floyd situation were doing warrants maintaining the restraint. I never said escalate the use of force. And the Chauvin didn’t escalate force either.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you know Chauvin wasn't the first officer on the scene? He got a priority one call saying a large 230-pound man was actively resisting arrest. He had full authority at that point to pull his taser upon exiting his police cruiser and immediately open fire.This isn't something the media covered.
Ya I realized that after watching the trial itself. Something Danielle probably didn’t do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not only is there no autopsy evidence of strangulation, but the video shown today also shows that the knee was barely touching his neck most of the time not even touching his neck, consistent with the autopsy evidence. And where his knee actually was on the upper part of Floyd's back for the most part, no evidence of bruising was noted in the autopsy report. The defense hasn't even started to point this out.
Numbers can be manipulated however someone wants. It’s why the subjective testimony is what it generally comes down to
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Derek Chauvin and his two fellow Minneapolis police officers who pinned a handcuffed George Floyd to the ground and remained on top of him until he became unresponsive had restricted his breathing so severely that it was almost “as if a surgeon had gone in and removed” Floyd’s lung, according to testimony Thursday at Chauvin's murder trial.Testifying for the state, Dr. Martin Tobin, a physician who specializes in pulmonology and critical care medicine, put into sharp relief the impact that the restraint on Floyd had on his ability to breathe. Tobin is not connected to the case but was asked by the state to review Floyd’s medical records and footage of the May 25, 2020, incident.
The defense medical expert hasn’t come yet lol. They’ll say the complete opposite of what this guy said lmfao
Created:
-->
@Danielle
All you did was cite the testimony elicited on cross, which was limited to generalities, possibilities, and what-ifs.
That’s false lol. The questions were tailored specifically to the George Floyd situation.
None of it was relevant to the specific scenario at issue to which all police officers, training experts, and standards and practice experts all consistently testified that everything done by the officers from the time Floyd was cuffed in the prone position was inconsistent with training, protocols, standard practice and the law.
Again they testified that in a complete vaccum considering zero context of the situation. The defense every CX brought up the context and asked the question again. Which is better? With context or without?
Specifically they testified that there was no observable threat from the "crowd" which was compliant.
This was obviously false if you bothered to read what I sent you. They clearly testified that bystanders threatening physical harm to the officers and yelling obscenities constitutes a dangerous situation. Hell even the ambulance once it came immediately took him in and went a block away cause the situation was risky.
You can't even consider external threats when deciding the level of force to apply to a person in custody (i.e., a perceived threat from a third person yelling at you cannot be justification for using force on a suspect, continuing force on a suspect, or increasing force on a suspect).
Yes you can and officers are trained to consider their surroundings. The officers clearly said this when they testified and documents even show they’re taught to consider risk from crowds.
You can only consider the threat that the person in custody posed, if any.
This is definitely false. Watch the actual CX lol or read what I sent you, cause you clearly didn’t bother to.
So all that matters is whether Floyd was passively resisting, actively resisting, or actively aggressive at the time the force was applied. All officers who testified said he wasn’t even passively resisting once he was prone and handcuffed on the ground.
He doesn’t have to be. Each officer testified that officers have to consider what happened previously, currently, and possible after. They even testified that numerous suspects fake consciousness or physical ailments and some even come back to consciousness with crazy strength - clearly a fear considering 2 cops had trouble over Floyd and Floyd was massive compared to the officers
Your emphasis on care is misplaced, though I suppose the fact that you’re focused on it suggests the prosecution is doing a good job. It is obvious that the testimony on this point was only brought forth for its emotional impact, insofar that it highlights the inhumanity and indecency of the officers. The only inquiries relevant to whether Chauvin is guilty of second degree murder are:1) Was Chauvin and the other officers’ use of force improper (i.e., was it inconsistent with law, policy, and standard practice for the officers to kneel on a suspect's neck and chest while holding down his legs, after he was restrained and in the prone position) and/or or was Chauvin’s continued kneeling on Floyd’s neck for the full 9+ minutes improper2) Did chauvin’s wrongful conduct cause Floyd’s deathI maintain issue #1 is pretty cut and dry, so the only way the defense can win is if they somehow convince a jury member(s) that Floyd was going to overdose regardless. I doubt that will happen.
You’re not considering qualified immunity. All the defense has to do is prove was the actions done by Chauvin were reasonable. All the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt. The burden of proof isn’t on the defense. It’s on the prosecution to prove without a doubt.
Plus once again you clearly didn’t bother reading the article or the text I sent you. Maybe read it and then get back to me.
Created:
Posted in:
Apple OS is way better than Android OS without a doubt. Apple revolves around quality of their product earning profit even though the market is dominated by Android
Created:
Posted in:
I wanna do a poll to see if people here like/use IPhone or Android.
Personally IPhones are vastly superior. What do y’all think ?
Personally IPhones are vastly superior. What do y’all think ?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You only have 11 juror emotes...
I try 🤷♂️
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️ 🤷♂️
😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Prosecution has to be batting .900 to win a Murder conviction. This case isn't anywhere near that close. It's over.
Prosecution witnesses were so bad that the Defense told the court they wanted one of em to be their witness lmfao. It’s so obvious he should be acquitted.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
@Greyparrot
I think the case for second degree murder is strong too. It really just comes down to the causation argument for all charges, and I can't see anyone disregarding what we all see with our own eyes when we watch that footage. Unlike every other cop trial, ALL THE COPS TESTIFYING agree that Chauvin was 100% wrong. You never see that happen. I would be surprised if he walks. If you're serious I will legitimately bet you $250.
Well you also have to consider whether the actions Chauvin took were justifiable. And based on CX, they pretty much were. I’ll take them apart 1 by 1.
Lt. Mercil
Indeed, when asked if he himself had ever disbelieved a suspect’s claim of a medical emergency as an apparent effort to avoid arrest, Mercil answered that he personally had done so.
Nelson once again had the state’s witness concede that under the MPD critical decision-making model the officer must consider a wide breadth of factors beyond just the suspect, including the officer himself, his partners, any bystanders—especially angry or threatening bystanders.
When asked if additional use-of-force factors included if the suspect was believed to be on drugs, and whether being on drugs could give a suspect exceptionally great strength, Mercil agreed to both statements.
When asked if Mercil trained officers that a suspect who had become unconscious could regain consciousness, get back into the fight, and perhaps even be more aggressive than previously, Mercil responded that he did.
As noted above, Nelson also explored with Mercil whether there were circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an officer to maintain a neck restraint for a substantial period of time, and Mercil conceded that there were.
Sometimes to maintain the neck restraint for however long it took EMS to arrive, asked Nelson? Mercil answered that he, personally, had maintained restraint on suspects for the duration required for EMS to arrive.
On the issue of providing timely medical care, an issue the state pushes with particular energy, Nelson had Mercil agree that while MPD policy is to provide care as soon as possible, that must take into consideration the safety of the scene, and that the MPD policy actually requires that it first be safe for the officer to provide care before the officer has the duty to provide that care.
Indeed, factors such as whether a suspect had just been fighting with the officers was huge in determining whether an officer could reasonably provide care—especially if that “care” would be chest compressions requiring the suspect to have their handcuffs removed. Mercil answered in the affirmative.
Later, on re-direct, Schleiter would attempt to diminish the damage of this bit of testimony by asking Mercil if bystanders merely taking videos would constitute a reason to not provide care. The answer, of course, was no.
But that merely provided Nelson with the lay-up opportunity on re-cross to ask whether a mob shouting insults and outright threats would constitute such a reason—and that was conduct of the mob in this event—and the answer to that, of course, was yes.
Similarly, Nelson hit back on the state’s emphasis on the whole “recovery position” narrative in the context of hypothetical positional asphyxia. Might there be circumstances that would prevent putting a suspect in a recovery position? Mercil answered that there were.
It was after Nelson was done with cross that Schleiter attempted to salvage something from this train wreck for the prosecution by showing a still photo of the bystanders, pointing to some holding phones, and asking if people taking videos was a good enough reason to maintain a restraint. Mercil answered that video taking by bystanders was not a sufficient reason.
That’s when on re-cross Nelson pulled up the exact same photo that Schleiter had just used, and pointed out that in the picture MMA Williams was clearly being physically restrained from advancing on the officers by the arm of another bystander pulling him back.
Would the threat of imminent physical violence from bystanders be a sufficient reason to maintain restraint on a suspect? If the crowd is shouting that they’re going to slap the “F” out of you, that you’re a “p-word,” that you’re a bum, would that be sufficient to cause the officers to be alarmed about the prospect of imminent physical violence from the bystanders?
Yes, Mercil answered, it would.
Talk about utter disaster. There’s more though of course
Officer MacKenzie
Isn’t it true, Nelson asked MacKenzie, that you train officers to consider not just the suspect, but the totality of the scene? Yes, she replied.
Isn’t it true that police officers also have a competing duty of safety to themselves, their partners, to bystanders, that paramedics, for example, don’t have? To the point that if the scene is unsafe, if the officers haven’t already announced a code 4 “all safe,” that EMTs will stage a distance away until they are told safety has been achieved. Yes, MacKenzie replied.
And isn’t it true that the safety concern might come not from the suspect himself, but from angry bystanders? Indeed.
Isn’t it true, Nelson asked, that agonal breathing could be misinterpreted by officers as just breathing? Yes, answered MacKenzie. Would this be a more likely misinterpretation if the scene was noisy, disruptive, had the presence of a loud angry mob? It would, answered MacKenzie.
Nelson noted that one of the CPR training slides previously shown by Schlieter on direct questioning of MacKenzie had indicated that one of the reasons an officer could justifiably cease performing CPR was if the circumstances were not safe enough to allow continued CPR. Would this also mean that unsafe circumstances could justify not starting CPR in the first place, even where CPR would otherwise be warranted. Yes, answered MacKenzie.
Here Nelson began to ask again about the reasons that arriving paramedics might do a “load and scoot.” Why that approach, if the patient needs care?
One reason, MacKenzie answered, was that the patient might need immediate care that could only be provided at the hospital, such as emergency surgery.
Understood, replied Nelson, but might there be another reason?
Yes, answered MacKenzie. Unfortunately, and this might be hard to believe, she said, but there have been instances in which paramedics were attacked by an angry crowd. If that’s a concern, the paramedics might do a load and scoot purely for reasons of their safety.
Exactly as happened in the case of the paramedics arriving at the Floyd scene.
But then, in an effort to undercut Nelson’s characterization of the bystanders at the Floyd scene as constituting a hostile crowd, Schleiter asked MacKenzie for her definition of a hostile crowd.
Her answer: A growing contingent of people, yelling, being verbally abusive to those providing scene security, acting in manner that could interfere with care.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I love you.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
How much you wanna bet he walks or there’s a hung jury?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
This is why Chauvin will be found guilty of murder. As soon as Floyd said he couldn't breathe, Chauvin should have gotten off his neck. Chauvin had a taser if Floyd tried to get up. This is what the police did in the Eric Garner case and why they weren't charged with murder.
Police officers including the state’s own witnesses testified that people who resist arrest frequently feign physical conditions to avoid arrest and the fact that handcuffed suspects can still be dangerous.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ya I saw Nelson destroying the State Witnesses. It was pretty funny how they had to backtrack the fact that Chauvin was authorized to use even more force in the form of a taser but he chose not to. Talk about lack of intent
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Derek Chauvin will be found guilty of second-degree murder .
You’re assuming he is guilty based on the fact Floyd’s death was ruled a homicide, when that wasn’t the case in very similar cases.
Chauvin likely gets acquitted or there’s a hung jury
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hung Jury or Acquittal - Calling it rn. This is before any of the defense witnesses too lmfao
Created: