Judge Wayzata schmuck did some nice mansplaining to the fire dept employee. Can defense interrupt her answers? She took pause, then began again and immediately the defense said there was not a question. Then judge mansplain was triggered.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Mar 30 2021 04:06pm

Yes, he restrained Floyd in order to take control of the situation with an uncooperative subject.

The charges are unintentional 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, and 2nd degree manslaughter. The notion that he was committing a felony by making a legal arrest and restraining Floyd with a legal technique is simply not going to stick. 3rd murder requires a "depraved mind", without regard for human life, and must be doing something eminently dangerous. 2nd degree manslaughter requires only that he took unreasonable risk with the situation, a risk which any normal person would have recognized. The last two are both possible, but they aren't certainties. They must prove that he was in a "depraved mind" for 3rd degree murder, and they need to prove that he was doing something "eminently dangerous", which a normal person would recognize, for 2nd degree manslaughter. His defense will point out that what he was doing was approved, and that an ambulance was called and reprioritized.

Correction: The 2 other officers next to Chauvin restrained Floyd.

Just because a certain hold is approved for subduing an uncooperative suspect does not mean that it is okay to keep applying this hold for 8 more minutes after the individual has been subdued, handcuffed and brought under control. A lot of arrest or takedown techniques fit the definition of torture if applied for a long period of time.

Furthermore, cops have a responsibility for the well-being of the persons in their custody. When a captive keeps saying "I can't breathe" for 8 minutes, it is the duty of the officer to check whether he's just putting on a show or having a genuine health issue. Chauvin (and his colleagues, let's not forget about them!) didn't give a single fuck about that. The way they ignored Floyd's pleas for help imho fits the "evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life"-part in the legal definition of third degree murder.

it's really telling to see the usual suspects try to drag george floyd's character through the mud, focusing on the crimes he committed, his personal flaws, his physical appearance - as if any of that was even remotely relevant here. at the same time they completely ignore the crimes, the flaws, and the professional background of the killer - all of which highly relevant for this case. but hey, no bootlicking or bigotry at play here, right? pathetic...

Wamen may not be interrupted, men may be interrupted, of course. Welcome to 2021.

Soon: Black people may not be interrupted, white people may be interrupted, of course.

And shortly thereafter: LGBTQ folk may not be interrupted

Idiotic "progressive" shite politics

If George Floyd had not quite literally just committed a crime, the police would never have become involved in the first place. If George Floyd had not swallowed a lethal dose of drugs rather than face potential possession charges, he would still be alive. If George Floyd had stayed in the cruiser rather than slamming his head against the glass (risking injury or death) while demanding to be let out, he would never have been on the ground. If George Floyd had not been in a state of drug-induced Excited Delirium that caused the need for extreme restraint, he would not have been restrained.

A criminal died. So fucking what? Shut the fuck up already you filthy nazi scum. Nobody gives a shit what you think about an American legal case.

loled at your usual pathetic shiteposts you phreak.

You just love to spin the usual narrative, poor Floyd was not a criminal, he was a victim and murdered on the spot cuz black.

Reality is that he was a hardline criminal and had fentanyl in his blood and his own behavior caused him to find himself restrained on the ground instead of sitting comfortably in that cop car. Git gud scrub

Was more interested in the etiquette of witness testimony, it's not clear to me. All they said was recorder needs time and cadence.

A court room belongs to the judge. Period. End of discussion. In every single case, every single time. If it was a judge interjecting, that's their job, it's their court room.

It sucks, but there's no "splaining" of any kind there. It's the judge's prerogative to interject with statements and/or questions at any time for any or no reason whatsoever.

You sound like somebody who's never stepped foot inside a court room and have no idea how the court system works. Seriously.