George Floyd

The Prosecution Presented Compelling Evidence That Derek Chauvin Killed George Floyd by Using Excessive Force

The defense will have to cast doubt on at least one of those claims.

|

Closing out its presentation of witnesses in Derek Chauvin's murder trial yesterday, the prosecution underlined two essential elements of its case: that the former Minneapolis police officer's actions caused George Floyd's death last May and that his use of force was not justified in the circumstances. The defense, which began calling witnesses today, will try to cast doubt on both of those claims. Defense attorney Eric Nelson can win an acquittal if he persuades the jurors that prosecutors have failed to prove at least one of those propositions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chicago cardiologist Jonathan Rich yesterday agreed with other medical witnesses that Floyd "died from a cardiopulmonary arrest…caused by low oxygen levels." He also agreed that Floyd could not get enough oxygen because his prolonged prone restraint, during which Chauvin pinned him facedown to the pavement for nine and a half minutes, made it difficult to breathe. "Because of the position that he was subjected to," he said, Floyd's heart "did not have enough oxygen."

Like other prosecution witnesses, Rich said two theories the defense has floated are not supported by the evidence. "I can state with a high degree of medical certainty" that Floyd "did not die from a primary cardiac event and did not die from a drug overdose," he said.

Rich added that the three officers who were holding Floyd down—Chauvin, J. Alexander Kueng, and Thomas Lane—missed several opportunities to save his life. When one of the cops remarked that Floyd seemed to be passing out, Rich said, "that would have been an opportunity to quickly relieve him from that position of not getting enough oxygen." When Lane suggested that Floyd should be turned from his stomach to his side, Chauvin said, "Leave him." And when Kueng reported that Floyd had no detectable pulse, Rich said, the officers should have immediately begun CPR. "I believe that Mr. George Floyd's death was absolutely preventable," he said.

Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner Andrew Baker, who testified on Friday, agrees that Floyd suffered "cardiopulmonary arrest" as a result of "law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." In Baker's view, the use of force against Floyd fatally interacted with his "very severe underlying heart disease." But he did not rule out that breathing difficulty may have contributed to Floyd's death, saying, "I would defer to a pulmonologist."

Chicago pulmonologist Martin Tobin, who testified last Thursday, concluded that "Floyd died from a low level of oxygen" caused by obstructed breathing, which ultimately "caused his heart to stop." Tobin said even a perfectly healthy person would have died in these circumstances.

Nelson, Chauvin's lawyer, argues that Floyd "died of a cardiac arrhythmia that occurred as a result of hypertension, his coronary disease, the ingestion of methamphetamine and fentanyl, and the adrenaline flowing through his body, all of which acted to further compromise an already compromised heart." But even that gloss does not let Chauvin off the hook, since the stress caused by his use of force plausibly contributed to "the adrenaline flowing through [Floyd's] body" and the ensuing "cardiac arrhythmia."

University of South Carolina law professor Seth Stoughton, a former police officer, yesterday agreed with other use-of-force experts that Floyd's prolonged prone restraint was not objectively reasonable. "No reasonable officer would have believed that that was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force," he said.

Floyd resisted Kueng and Lane when they tried to place him in their squad car after arresting him for using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes. He said he was claustrophobic, complained that he could not breathe, and asked to ride in the front seat. But once Kueng and Lane pulled him out of the car, he stopped struggling and thanked them, at which point the three officers tackled Floyd, who was already handcuffed, and pinned him to the ground.

Judging from the video record of the encounter, Stoughton said, Floyd "does not appear to have the intention to assault or attack the officers." He said the use of force was even more manifestly unreasonable after Floyd became unresponsive. "Somebody who does not have a pulse does not present a threat in any way," he noted.

So far Nelson's argument that Chauvin's use of force was appropriate has been based mainly on Floyd's prior struggle with Kueng and Lane, which does not show that Floyd posed a threat after he was out of the squad car, and the suggestion that Floyd may have continued to resist in ways that are not visible in the videos. Nelson also has repeatedly argued that Chauvin and his colleagues were distracted by the bystanders who criticized the way the cops were treating Floyd.

Like Los Angeles Police Department Sgt. Jody Stiger, another use-of-force expert, Stoughton questioned the notion that the bystanders posed a threat to the officers. He noted that the cops yelled responses to their criticism, which suggests they were not worried about possible violence. Furthermore, the officers were plainly aware of Floyd's complaints that he could not breathe, which they repeatedly dismissed in exchanges with him and the bystanders, and they clearly noticed that Floyd had stopped moving and talking, which is what prompted Kueng to check his pulse. In any event, as Stiger noted, the behavior of bystanders cannot legally justify the use of force against Floyd if it was otherwise excessive.

NEXT: The FDA's Decision To Pause J&J Vaccination Will Kill People

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Force was justified sine the guy already fought them out of the car. So it falls to how much and how much is never known until its too late.

    1. President Joe Biden will outline plans for $2.25 trillion in new spending on infrastructure, financed by massive tax hikes on businesses and individuals, during a speech scheduled to be delivered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, later today…………………..MORE DETAIL.

      1. TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Did you even bother to read the article?

      1. Did you bother to watch the trial? The prosecution expert on use of forceiterally said Chauvin could have tased Floyd and by not doing so Chauvin used less use if force than he was authorized to.

        Youre asking if someone read the article from Sullum who this entire last 2 weeks has essentially pretended there was no cross examination of any witness.

        Legal Insurrection has done a much better analysis as they don’t only listen to the prosecution case.

        1. Nailed it.

        2. I have been a close follower of Legal Insurrection’s coverage as well, JesseAZ. I found LI’s characterization of Barry Brodd’s testimony interesting. The upshot: Brodd (a defense witness) was absolutely destroyed on the stand by the prosecution. That was a mega-unforced error by the defense to call him.

  2. What makes anyone think that the persons now in Minneapolis are not going to loot and pillage, regardless of what the verdict is?

    Rioting is not just for protest any more; sometimes it’s a victory dance.

    1. We finna get dem respirations!

    2. Mo free shit.

      1. Bigoted, vanquished, disaffected, downscale right-wing clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        1. Which are among your least favorite?

        2. No, they’re simply making commentary based on emperical evidence. You should try it some time. I’d recommend hanging out on Bagley and 23rd in Detroit and see how well you’re treated. Most likely you’ll leave in an ambulance or; more likely, a meat wagon.

  3. “The defense will have to cast doubt on at least one of those claims.” I remember a time when the burden of proof was on the state.

    1. But the prosecution argued the corporate approved opinion Sullum already had!

      1. Police are all racist psychopaths. Prosecutors and the “intelligence community” are trusted TOP MEN.

        1. If that were true, wouldn’t “Saint George” know to avoid them at all costs?

      2. It’s neat how Sullum pretends that these prosecution witnesses aren’t the same assholes who created the deadly policies and procedures, and aren’t every bit as culpable as Chauvin.

        These “top men” should also be in the dock. Not presented as impartial truth tellers.

        Sullum is essentially nothing more than a propagandist these days.

        1. He also pretends half of witnesses gave plenty of reasonable doubt in the cross.

    2. Exactly correct.

      The state has presented it’s proof of why the defendant is guilty.

      Now the defense has to show why that proof isn’t actually sufficient to convict the defendant.

      1. In a theoretical sense the defense could just not do anything, and if the states evidence and arguments wasn’t enough to convince the jury to convict then they don’t convict.

        But persuading a jury unopposed is much easier than when facing an active defense, and prosecutors generally know better than to bring a case so weak that it wouldn’t persuade a jury even without a defense.

        That’s why the right to a lawyer is so important. If simple innocence, with no other defense, was enough to prevent prosecutors from making a convincing case against you, defense lawyers would be a luxury not a part of the Bill of Rights.

        I mean it would be nice if guilt and innocence were so obvious that no matter how hard they work, prosecutors and defense lawyers could barely change the outcome, but we’re human and it doesn’t work that way, or at least not for cases that make it all the way to trial.

        And the Chauvin case is certainly not one where the defense could do anything less than it’s utmost and have a hope of winning.

        1. I mean you might already have a good idea od what the result should be from reading the copious coverage on the matter – but by definition that would just disqualify you from being on the jury.

      2. So if I’m ever sitting on a jury that is trying you, I will assume you are guility until your defense proves you are not.

        You appear to be an idiot.

    3. Taken at their witnesses’ word, the state has proven their case. Now it’s the defense’s turn to try to cast doubt. If they are unable to do so, then the state met the burden of proof. That’s how the process works.

      1. Link to me where the prosecution showed a depraved mind or intent for murder charges?

        Also do you need links to the cross examinations where virtually each witness said there was doubt?

        Prosecution moved from blood choke, to trachea choke, to lungs couldn’t work due to pressure on his back. It wasn’t a good prosecution.

      2. Rossami, Jesse is right. If I was on the jury, I would be getting angry. The method of the murder has changed twice between the opening statement and now as the prosecution’s own witnesses declared that it could not have been a blood choke (that was the use of force expert), and the medical examiner’s lack of damage to the neck muscles and the fact that Chauvin was primarily on Floyd’s back meant that it could not have been due to weight on his neck. Now, the argument is that the hold was a contributing factor, and the use-of-force expert testified that he had held people down for longer and did not recommend releasing holds when people went unconscious because they can quickly come back up.

        This isn’t a slam dunk case. In fact, if this was my lawyer, I’d fire him for making such a basic mess-up that his own witnesses have continuously undermined his theory of the crime. I see no way the second degree murder charge can stick, and even the third seems doubtful.

        I would also second the earlier recommendations of Legal Insurrection. These articles are just ignoring the more interesting part of the case. If I had been reading Reason alone, I wouldn’t know half of the story.

    4. Seriously. Giant man hopped up on meth saying he cant breathe prior to restrain ends up with heart failure? That’s not a crime and I hate cops. A negligent contributory cause maybe excessive maybe not. That comes with the territory when you’re on the street getting fucked up and resisting arrest.

      1. The breathing problem was most likely due to a fentanyl, not meth, OD. What the meth in Floyd’s system did was to keep him partially awake and agitated, as the fentanyl prevented his breathing. Thus, the excited delirium.

    5. That doesn’t mean you don’t have to put up a defense against what the state claims. Unless you have complete faith in the critical thinking skills of the jury.

  4. meth+fentanyl+resisting=reasonable doubt

    1. + “very severe underlying heart disease.”

      1. I like “x” over “+” there TBH but math and me… well you know

        1. Covid is disappointed that it’s being left out of your equation.

      2. And hypertension….

        1. And Floyd had Covid, which also has led to a bunch of people dying from not getting enough oxygen, and showing up at hospitals with really low oxygen blood levels. You’d think Sullum would mention it, no doubt the defense will.

    2. Not according to the multiple doctors who testified for the prosecution.

      Not being a doctor myself nor having access to the detailed medical records, I’m going to withhold judgement until the defense has a chance to put their own doctors on the stand.

      1. According to one doctor, who was so laughable as to be dismissed outright. Nice that you have stuck with your narrative no matter what though. Tobin disagreed with the other medical experts on the stand. Odd you didn’t mention that.

        1. Which medical expert ruled out the restraint as cause of death? Which said he likely would have died anyway at that moment even without the restraint?

          1. Tobin said drugs and heart condition had no effect. 2 other examimers both on cross admitted flpyd had lethal doses of drugs and heart issues that could lead to sudden death. I posted Tobins laughable summary below.

    3. This write up on what the prosecution did is in line with what I saw. The prosecution kept changing its story on how Floyd even died, as I mentioned above. You could see the prosecution change their narrative as the trial went on due to the way their case broke under cross examination.

      https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/04/13/prosecution-rests-in-chauvin-trial-and-jury-is-told-to-pack-a-bag-n1439679

      My favorite part was still this:

      Tobin said he knew by watching the videos of the incident exactly when Floyd died.

      The testimony didn’t comport with use-of-force expert’s, and was a departure from other experts, but the pulmonologist said with certainty exactly when Floyd suffered brain damage and died.

      He also said with certainty that Floyd’s 90% and 75% blockages of his heart, the deadly dose of fentanyl and meth combo, smoking cigarettes, COVID, and fighting with the cops had nothing whatsoever to do with Floyd not getting enough oxygen; that Floyd wouldn’t have died but for Chauvin’s knee being somewhere on Floyd.

      Just unbelievable, but most liberals are quoting the above as fact.

      Almost every medical witness but Tobin put on the stand stated under cross that the health issues, drugs, etc all played a part in the death.

      Floyd claiming he couldn’t breathe well before being placed on the ground. EMTs called before distress after Floyd pushed himself out of the car. Floyd asking to be put on the ground. Etc.

      State didn’t even bother trying to prove intent or depraved mind.

      1. Playing a part in his death doesn’t mean they were the proximate cause of death. They were aggravating factors perhaps. But unless there is reason to think Floyd would have died anyway at that moment without the pressure on his lungs exerted by Chauvin then Chauvin is guilty.

        1. You really don’t understand what beyond reasonable doubt means, do you? The state examiner was asked dorrcy by the defense if he had declared people dead from levels of drug or heat conditions of Floyd’s level. He said yes to every one.

          Go read or watch the crosses. Lol.

          1. Asked directly *

            And yes. If floyd succumbed to death based on legal actions by Chauvin, Chauvin would be not guilty. If a cop shoots at someone who is shooting at him, the cop is taking a legal action and not liable for murder.

  5. Start making cash online work easily from home.everybody can join this job and make extra dollars in part time……….EARNS MANY DOLLARS.

  6. “Judge Cahill denied Nelson’s request to present testimony about Hall’s statements to investigators saying there is nothing in the statement to indicate it was trustworthy which is required for it to be presented under an exception to the hearsay rule. He also denied Nelson’s request to require prosecutors to outline why they have refused to grant immunity to Hall in exchange for his testimony.”
    This seems like something about which a libertarian magazine would be concerned.

    1. If a not guilty verdict is handed down, at least we can count on Nancy Rommelman to report on the peaceful protests that spontaneously erupt.

      Same thing if the verdict is guilty.

      1. “Same thing if the verdict is guilty.”

        As I commented above: victory dance

        I do look forward to her next installment; and it will be about a riot regardless of the verdict.

        1. They have already started.

      2. Mostly peaceful but fiery protests.

    2. This was the disturbing part of the day. Also won’t make hall testify to plead.

  7. These are Reason’s headlines regarding the Chauvin trial:

    The Prosecution Presented Compelling Evidence That Derek Chauvin Killed George Floyd by Using Excessive Force
    Medical Examiner Agrees That the Cops Killed George Floyd
    Expert Witnesses Reinforce the Prosecution’s Case That Obstructed Breathing Killed George Floyd
    Police Chief Refutes Derek Chauvin’s Claim That He Did What He Was Trained to Do
    George Floyd’s Prolonged Prone Restraint Was ‘Totally Unnecessary,’ a Police Lieutenant Testifies
    Derek Chauvin’s Belief That George Floyd Was Intoxicated Does Not Help His Case

    Notice a pattern?

    1. It’s like they’re pushing a narrative or something.

    2. Reason is afraid of riots?

      1. no worries, I’m told to expect mostly peaceful protests

    3. “Notice a pattern?”

      Libertarians are skeptical of authority in cases of police violence?

      1. Other than that one time when they universally rallied behind a black cop who shot an unarmed white woman in the face for trespassing even though there was a 4-man SWAT team standing 10 feet behind her, each with an M4 assault rifle pointing at her back. You and the rest of the Marxist cunts at Reason would be jumping up and down with your pants around you ankles furiously jacking your microchodes if Waco were happening today. You’re pathetic bootlicking pieces of shit and the only time you give a single runny shit about police violence is when they shoot a psychopathic drugged out black suspect who resists arrest.

        1. Or the authority in the form of multinational corporations, mass media, monolithic educational establishment, state government, and national government that wants to hang Chauvin.
          Social justice, yall – and don’t you dare dissent.

      2. Is the prosecutor not authority?

    4. The prosecution goes first?

      1. Heh…nice

    5. That they are publishing articles during the prosecution’s turn to make the case? Of course all the articles about testimony so far are going to favor the prosecution. The defense hasn’t yet had a chance to speak.

      1. If only there were cross examination

    6. Going based on the headlines, there was no cross examination at all.

  8. Just gonna keep posting this drivel forever aren’t you.

    1. He wrote over 100 articles about Trump in less than 60 days, this is child’s play.

  9. This article has so many errors it should never have been posted. The restraint used on Floyd was in fact part of the training Chauvin received for non-compliant suspects who are resisting police, as Floyd did for ten full minutes before being placed – not tackled – on the ground at Floyd’s own request.
    The cops had no way of knowing that Floyd had a lethal level of drugs in him nor that he had advanced cardiovascular disease which made him more vulnerable , and furthermore, the fact that the restraint may have contributed to his death does not make Chauvin guilty if the technique was legal, which it is.
    If Tobin said that even a healthy person would have died, then the cops were given faulty training, but I do not believe Tobin has evidence to back up that statement.
    The hostility of the crowd was a major distraction from the cops’ ability to focus on Floyd, since one of the prosecution’s own photos shows the “martial arts expert” in the crowd being restrained from attacking the cops by another bystander. Cops are responsible for keeping themselves safe, keeping the suspect safe, keeping bystanders safe and they were all on a busy street with traffic only a few feet away. Hostile crowds harmed Floyd by forcing the cops to deal with them instead of monitoring Floyd’s reaction to restraint. They also had every reason to believe the ambulance would arrive any minute, not after ten minutes.
    In two plus weeks of the prosecution’s case, they still have not even been able to pin down the cause of death and kept moving the goalposts as Defense counsel undermined their theories. No problem finding reasonable doubt here.

    1. Cool it with the racism, buddy.
      This isn’t Stormfront!

    2. Maybe you should be on the defense team.

    3. The restraint used on Floyd was in fact part of the training Chauvin received for non-compliant suspects who are resisting police, as Floyd did for ten full minutes before being placed – not tackled – on the ground at Floyd’s own request.

      Show me the part of the training manual that instructs police to kneel on a suspect after they’ve stopped breathing and registering a pulse.

      The cops had no way of knowing that Floyd had a lethal level of drugs in him nor that he had advanced cardiovascular disease which made him more vulnerable , and furthermore, the fact that the restraint may have contributed to his death does not make Chauvin guilty if the technique was legal, which it is.

      Show me the part of the training manual that instructs police to kneel on a suspect after they’ve stopped breathing and registering a pulse.

      Hostile crowds harmed Floyd by forcing the cops to deal with them instead of monitoring Floyd’s reaction to restraint.

      Yes, it was a hostile crowd that forced Chauvin to remain kneeling on a suspect’s back (a person even you claim the police have a responsibility to keep safe) after said suspect has stopped breathing and registering a pulse.

      They also had every reason to believe the ambulance would arrive any minute, not after ten minutes.

      Which is still no reason why Chauvin remained on Floyd’s back after he had stopped breathing and stopped registering a pulse.

      You’ve worked long and hard to completely ignore that indisputable fact of the encounter.

      1. So you don’t really care about the cause of death, you’re just mad that his corpse was disrespected?

        1. Hardly. Chauvin staying on Floyd for as long as he did was entirely unnecessary, and demonstrated either negligence of or indifference to Floyd’s worsening condition, which seems to fit with the legal definition of manslaughter in the second degree. The people who don’t care about the cause of Floyd’s death are the ones saying he died of a drug overdose citing the results of a toxicology report performed later.

          If Floyd had swallowed a bellyful of drugs and then got hit by a car while crossing the street, nobody would be arguing that the driver wasn’t responsible because Floyd was going to die of an OD at some point soon. But in this case people are completely ignoring what was going on at the time of Floyd’s death because drugsrbadmkay.

          1. No, you’re being emotional because copsrbadmkay.
            The question at issue is whether Chauvin – caused – Floyd’s death, which is certainly a required element of murder, and possibly manslaughter as well.
            Based on the autopsy, there is no physical evidence that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death.
            I’m not going to defend Chauvin being an asshole, or Floyd being an asshole. But I haven’t seen any evidence that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death.
            If Chauvin’s failure to adequately respond to Floyd’s condition meets the standard of manslaughter, then that would be a warranted condition.
            But it doesn’t seem like Chauvin killed Floyd, and the powerful institutions and activists just telling us he did isn’t going to convince me beyond reasonable doubt.

            1. Based on the autopsy, there is no physical evidence that Chauvin caused Floyd’s death.

              Agreed. But there’s also video evidence of what went on at the moment of Floyd’s death. If you lie down with your wrists secured behind your back and someone puts two 45lb. barbell plates on your upper back and just stands there watching you for nine minutes, your trachea will not suffer any bruising or associated trauma, but your breathing will be hindered. If you have underlying health problems such a situation could kill you, and the person who put those plates on your back could be culpable, especially if there’s video of the event.

      2. Lol. You need some facts for that emotion.

        1. You’re disputing that Chauvin remained on Floyd’s back after he’d stopped breathing and registering a pulse?

  10. The defense will have to cast doubt on at least one of those claims.

    They already buttfucked every prosecution witness on cross. The video of Fentanyl Floyd screaming “I ATE TOO MANY DRUGS!!!!!!!” will almost certainly cast reasonable doubt in the minds of actual human beings with actual functioning brains.

    Of course when you’re a NPC and you ignore any evidence contrary to your foregone conclusion, the case is a slam dunk.

    1. It also helped to have his drug dealer sittin’ in the car seat next him.

    2. The words were “I ain’t do no drugs”.

      Nobody can get this guy out of involuntary manslaughter at least. The guy was not resisting at the end. He was still kneeling with significant weight when the guy had no pulse instead of administering CPR.

      Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from criminal negligence or recklessness. Kneeling on an unresponsive guy’s neck is negligent and reckless and went against his training.

  11. The defense will undoubtedly present their own expert witnesses, who we can presume will offer alternative explanations. Sollum is counting his chickens before they hatch. Basing any analysis of the strength of the expert witness testimony before the defense offers their own expert witnesses is a good way to be disappointed if you want a conviction. You may get one still, but to act as if the prosecutors case is airtight, while not mentioning cross examination and not waiting for the defenses case is probably not advisable.

    1. Yes.

      The prosecution’s case ought to sound convincing when it is as yet unopposed by the defense’s case. If not, what are they doing bringing such a weak case?

      To be fair, a columnist is not a jury member and can use information not yet presented to the jury to come to a conclusion about the trial.
      But the way it is written it sounds like he is just taking the prosecutions witnesses words as gospel, as opposed to having further information or analyses that backs up the prosecution and makes it unlikely the defense can refute their claims.

  12. Chicago cardiologist Jonathan Rich yesterday agreed with other medical witnesses that Floyd “died from a cardiopulmonary arrest…caused by low oxygen levels.”

    I have not been following this case too closely, but one of the law vlogs I follow pointed out that the prosecution had a bunch of medical experts, none of whom were connected to the medical examiner’s office, which was telling.

    1. Didn’t that guy try to diagnose Trump over Twitter?
      Or am I mistaken here?

    2. The Hennepin County medical examiner, board certified in forensic pathology, who performed and wrote the original autopsy and report testified as a witness for the prosecution. He is the Medical Examiner for the county.

      They also brought Dr. Lindsey Tobin who was a medical examiner for the county for many years and now serves as a consultant forensic pathologist also testified. She was not paid for her testimony or preparation.

      Both certified the manner of death as “homicide”.

      So the vlog you read is absolutely incorrect.

      1. “Both certified the manner of death as “homicide”. So the vlog you read is absolutely incorrect.

        I don’t think anyone is disputing that this was involuntary manslaughter, idiot. Just that it wasn’t first degree murder like the prosecution is trying to pretend that it was.
        Maybe you don’t understand what “homicide” encompasses.

        1. He is not charged with first degree murder.

      2. I may have interpreted it wrong, or perhaps the ME was called after the vlog was made. I can go verify, but it’s going to be tedious.

        1. The ME was called last. He did well for the prosecution with prepared answers but sucked in cross admitting he had written death certs for levels of drugs or heart blockage found with floyd.

          1. That may be it, I don’t know what day I listened to the vlog, but as best as I can recall, the lawyer said it was notable that no one from the ME’s office had been called to testify.

      3. Homicide, the killing of one human being by another.

        Homicide is a general term and may refer to a noncriminal act as well as the criminal act of murder.

        Some homicides are considered justifiable, such as the killing of a person to prevent the commission of a serious felony or to aid a representative of the law.

        Other homicides are said to be excusable, as when a person kills in self-defense. A criminal homicide is one that is not regarded by the applicable criminal code as justifiable or excusable. All legal systems make important distinctions between different types of homicide, and punishments vary greatly according to the intent of the killer, the dangerousness of the killer’s conduct, and the circumstances of the act.

        1. Is a drug overdose or heart attack homicide?

  13. No word on the other side of the case? Sullum should get a dictionary and look up, UNBIASED.

  14. Seriously, if Floyd had knelt on Chauvins neck until he was dead, would he have even lived long enough to go to trial, much less argue that the cop in fact died of a heart attack or an overdose?

    It’s preposterous, cartoonish.

  15. Chauvin is (most likely, IMO) guilty of manslaughter or some charge related to negligence. There are undoubtedly many past incidents in which officers knelt on the suspect’s neck for close to 9 minutes. But once Floyd stopped breathing, they had to change course.

    The fact that Floyd ingested a lot of drugs (in a sheer fit of panic) will obviously play some factor. But it’s probably not enough to get Chauvin off the hook completely.

    Chauvin is a moron, pure and simple. The officer who tangled with Michael Brown is arguably a victim. This guy did his job like a club bouncer and whoever hired him deserves all kinds of blowback. The guy just looks like a douchebag.

    I’m in favor of reforming qualified immunity, not getting rid of it entirely, which will cause all kinds of unintended consequences. But this is one of incidents where the officer should be sued in civil court.

    1. I think it was worse than negligence causing death.

      If Floyd was killed by the negligence of Chauvin while being officially taken into custody, it would have been negligence.

      But once Floyd was initially handcuffed, he was already in custody. He was killed in an intentional act of unnecessary and excessive force.

  16. Hopefully these articles mean they canned that lying cunt Rommelmen.

    If it really takes that lying cunt a week to write her “man on the street” articles then she’s got a great scam going.

    I’m sure that lying cunt can write those in an hour. After all it’s all made up.

    Chuck loves her because she hates Portland. Of course a Mormon welfare queen like him would hate an awesome place like Portland.

    It’s better than the rural shitholes most commenters on here call home.

  17. “Tobin said even a perfectly healthy person would have died in these circumstances.”

    I seriously doubt that.

    1. It’s true. I saw him say it.

      1. Tobin was probably their worst medical witness as he claimed drugs, heart disease, covid, and cigarettes have no effect on oxygen levels.

        1. All true. Active Covid pneumonia can but he had no evidence of that. The others all have normal oxygen levels.

  18. Judge has denied use of testimony from the person who was in the car with Floyd, who happens to be his drug dealer. Has also granted the dealer to not appear as they said they would plead the fifth.

  19. The entire Minneapolis police department is prepared to throw Chauvin to the wolves in the hopes of preventing a mass riot and watching the entire city burn down.
    Of course I could care less if they did just as I could care less if the ANTIFA thugs burned down Portland.
    The point is that Floyd was no saint. He had a long history of criminal convictions and prison time. He was involved with porn and he was a habitual drug user.
    A real pillar of the community they said. Why he helped little old ladies across the street and delivered Bibles to shut ins. Just ask any one of the numerous children he fathered out of wedlock.
    Now they’re going to split what’s left of the $27 million after the lawyer gets his take and they will either kill each other over it and or spend it wildly and end up broke again within two years.
    It doesn’t matter the outcome of this trial. The resulting riot and further destruction are a guaranteed.
    If I lived in that city, I would seriously be making plans to vacate ASAP.
    The really sad part of it is the ones who have been hurt by the riots, those whose businesses were looted and burned to the ground were mostly minority owned.
    Just like the riots of 1967 when sections of Watts, Newark and Detroit were torched and never rebuilt, the same will happen to Minneapolis and Portland.
    And I vividly remember those riots, especially when the mayor of Detroit brought in the 82nd Airborne…with tanks and .50 machine guns.

    1. Your god doesn’t exist

    2. Black Floydays are for looting don’tcha know. The deals are incredible.

      The precedent is set. When enough blacks need new bling and one of them gets killed by a cop, it’s black Floyday.

    3. “George Floyd was no saint.”

      Verbatim FOX News talking point.

      People like you shrugging your shoulders at a death sentence for the crime of being icky is the whole goddamn problem.

      1. They are not talking about whether he deserved to die or not, but the fact he is being deified. The pictures of Floyd with an angel’s halo are ridiculous for a convicted violent criminal. There would be much better candidates for that than Floyd.
        “Aracely Henriquez was the woman kidnapped and brutally beaten by George Floyd and his five accomplices, as they searched her home for drugs and money.
        She was pregnant at the time, and he asked her if she wanted him to kill her baby.” – snopes – Published 12 June 2020

        Sandra Bland would be a much better person to point out the problems with policing.

  20. “The defense will have to cast doubt on at least one of those claims.”

    From reporting by Paul Craig Roberts on testimony taking place in the courtroom but obviously NOT being reported on by the mass media (i.e. state propaganda organs), it sounds as if they had already done that prior to April 9th.

    1. Hilarious. “bUt IT WUz onLy A mISdEMeAnoR waRRanT!” Yeah, on a guy with a pending trial for Aggravated Robbery.

      No, she shouldn’t have shot him.

    2. Why is the only reasonable reporting on this from British papers?

  21. “Like other prosecution witnesses, Rich said two theories the defense has floated are not supported by the evidence. “I can state with a high degree of medical certainty” that Floyd “did not die from a primary cardiac event and did not die from a drug overdose,” he said.”

    I agree. He did not die from either a primary cardiac event or a drug overdose – so he didn’t die from either a cardiac event ALONE or a drug overdose ALONE. It was from BOTH a cardiac event AND a drug overdose – PLUS other factors such as the stress of being arrested and resisting.

    The doctors/scientists can provide all the proof they want that neither of those two mentioned factors alone caused his death. But unless they provide proof that his specific COMBINATION of factors (excluding Chauvin) didn’t kill him, they have failed to prove that it was Chauvin’s fault. And I seriously doubt that anyone has scientifically tested that combination – or anything similar.

    1. if Floyd had knelt on Chauvins neck until he was dead, would he have even lived long enough to go to trial, much less argue that the cop in fact died of a heart attack or an overdose?

      It’s preposterous, cartoonish.

      1. It depends crucially on which part of the neck the knee is on. Chauvin’s knee was in the recommended position. And Floyd was much heavier than Chauvin. But the answer to your question is “No”: given Floyd’s COMBINATION of drugs, heart disease, etc., he would have died before he could have killed Chauvin.

    2. So all those things by coincidence happened in minutes, at once in a guy who had been living with drug addiction and coronary disease for years. In fact he was robust enough to work as a bouncer.

      1. Yes, Chauvin advocates are using the bugs bunny “hmmm, could be” defence.

  22. Reason, the woke liberal site that decides someone is guilty before the defense even begins. Maybe it would be better to get both side before jumping to a conclusion?
    The conclusion might even be the same, but then again it might not.

  23. “I can state with a high degree of medical certainty” that Floyd “did not die from a primary cardiac event and did not die from a drug overdose,” he said.

    This statement destroys all the credibility of this so-called expert witness, Dr. Rich.

    I can see with a high degree of medical certainty that Mr. Floyd MAY have died from a primary cardiac event and/or drug overdose. He took lethal amounts of drugs which can cause a fatal cardiac arrhythmia and/or fatal respiratory depression. The only certainty here is uncertainty.

    As a separate issue, the restraints used might have contributed to his death as well.

  24. Let’s just ignore the fact Floyd ingested a bunch of pills to avoid getting caught with them and had three times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system but what the heck? Let’s blame the cop, because, well, he was there.

  25. Watch the video- he’s a murderer. Floyd would be alive without his actions (and lack of action in getting him medical care.)

    In old times he’d be hanging high for all to see.

    1. So you don’t know what “murder” means

  26. It is probable that his death was due to a combination of factors; underlying cardiovascular disease, drugs in the system, a high level of fear/anxiety, and restraint applied for an excessive length of time. It is not possible to determine which of these factors carry the greatest weight. Mr.Sullum feels that the prosecution has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the restraint was an essential component of Floyd’s death. So it is up to the jury.

  27. Well, that’s one person’s opinion, one in which I do not share.

  28. The question is not whether Chauvin used too much force. That’s a no-brainer. The question is whether Chauvin knew that he was using excessive force, and did he intend to inflict lethal harm.

    I truly don’t believe that Chauvin meant to kill Floyd. That rules out Murder 2. The question then becomes manslaughter, and that, if the evidence that the defense intends to present, makes it a close question for the jury.

    1. None of the charges require proof of intent to kill. The second degree charge is for unintentional murder.

      The third degree murder charge requires the death was caused “ by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”

      The second degree manslaughter charge requires that they prove he was “culpably negligent”.

  29. So when NFL players take a knee during the National Anthem, it is their way of showing support for Chauvin by mimicking him?

  30. Force and reason are not the elements that should have been considered, intent is. it should have been involuntary manslaughter.
    The intent, regardless of the outcome was to restrain Floyd, not to kill him.

  31. The witness that swayed an alternative juror’s mind was Dr. Tobin, a pulmonologist, who explained in understandable terms how Chevin’s restraint caused low O2 levels. I saw another side by side video in which the police chief said Chevin’s knew was on Floyd’s shoulder blade.

    I would see why his testimony would sway jurors.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.