George Floyd

The Defense Argues That Derek Chauvin's Fear of George Floyd's 'Superhuman Strength' Justified His Deadly Use of Force

"This wasn't policing," the prosecution says. "This was murder."


During his closing argument in Derek Chauvin's murder trial today, prosecutor Steve Schleicher urged jurors to focus on the "nine minutes and 29 seconds" during which the former Minneapolis police officer kept a handcuffed George Floyd pinned facedown to the pavement. "Force must be reasonable," he said. "It must be reasonable at the point it starts, at the point it ends, and at all points in between." And during his prolonged prone restraint, Schleicher said, Floyd "was not a threat to anyone."

A thorough consideration of the evidence, Schleicher said, only confirms the impression left by the bystander video that appalled people across the country. "You can believe your own eyes," he said. "This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video."

Defense attorney Eric Nelson, by contrast, asked the jurors to consider "the totality of the circumstances," including what Chauvin heard, witnessed, and experienced before pinning Floyd to the ground on May 25. "The use of force is an incredibly difficult analysis," he said. "You can't limit it to nine minutes and 29 seconds, [because] it started nearly 17 minutes earlier."

Schleicher also talked about the broader context of Floyd's encounter with the police, which began after a convenience store employee called 911 to report that Floyd had used a phony $20 bill to buy cigarettes. When Officers J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane approached Floyd as he sat in his car near the store, Schleicher noted, they were immediately aggressive. "Within seconds," Lane was holding his gun "inches from George Floyd's face"; the officer was screaming and cursing at Floyd, who looked "terrified."

Floyd nevertheless initially complied with all of the officers' instructions: He put his hands on the steering wheel, got out of the car, did not resist as he was handcuffed (even though the cuffs were not double-locked and therefore continued to ratchet and squeeze his wrists), walked over to a Chinese restaurant and sat down on the sidewalk, got up again, and walked across the street. But when Kueng and Lane tried to put him in their patrol car, Floyd seemed to have an anxiety attack. He said he was claustrophobic, complained that he could not breathe, and asked to ride in the front seat.

From Floyd's perspective, Schleicher said, the back of the squad car looked "like a little cage." Still, he said, Floyd's statements suggest that he "was trying to work up the courage" to get into the car. Kueng and Lane lost patience and tried to force Floyd into the car, a decision that even Nelson has criticized. "If Kueng and Lane had chosen to de-escalate instead of struggle, Mr. Floyd may have survived," he said in a pretrial motion. Schleicher likewise faulted Kueng and Lane for escalating the situation instead of trying to calm Floyd.

According to Nelson, the struggle inside the car, which lasted about a minute, made a strong impression on Chauvin, who was trying to assist Kueng and Lane. The car was "rocking back and forth," he said, and "a reasonable police officer understands the intensity of the struggle," having seen that "Mr. Floyd was able to overcome the efforts of three police officers while handcuffed, [using] his legs and his body strength."

Once the cops pulled Floyd out of the car, however, he stopped struggling and thanked them repeatedly, which in Schleicher's view confirmed that "the problem was the back of the car." At this point, Floyd was handcuffed and kneeling on the street. "He is handcuffed," Schleicher said. "He is on his knees. He is not going anywhere. There are four officers there….It could have been over [then]."

But Chauvin, Kueng, and Lane "pushed him down on the ground," Schleicher said, even though they "didn't need to." Floyd was briefly lying in the "side recovery position," which makes it relatively easy to breathe. "Incredibly," Schleicher said, "they take him out of the recovery position and prone him on the ground." That position, he said, is supposed to be used only prior to handcuffing an arrestee, after which Minneapolis police are trained to put him on his side or let him sit up to avoid the risk of "positional asphyxia."

Chauvin had one knee on Floyd's neck and the other on his back, while Kueng applied pressure to his back and Lane held his legs. They kept him pinned in that position for nine and a half minutes, despite Floyd's repeated complaints that he was in pain and could not breathe, despite Lane's suggestion that Floyd should be rolled onto his side, and despite concerned bystanders' warnings that his life was in danger. Chauvin, a 19-year veteran who was the senior officer at the scene, continued kneeling on Floyd even after he stopped talking and moving, became unresponsive, appeared to lose consciousness, and no longer had a detectable pulse.

"George Floyd begged until he could speak no more, and the defendant continued this assault," Schleicher said. "When he was unable to speak, the defendant continued. When he was unable to breathe, the defendant continued, beyond the point that he had a pulse…When the ambulance arrived…the defendant continued. He stayed on top of him. He would not get up. He would not let up. He stayed on him, grinding into him, continuing to twist his fingers, to hold him down. [Floyd] had no pulse. He was not breathing. He was not responsive. And the defendant had to know what was right beneath him."

Chauvin did not testify, which would have given him a chance to elucidate his thinking during the encounter, although it also would have exposed him to a potentially brutal cross-examination. But in Nelson's view, the prolonged prone restraint has to be understood in light of Chauvin's reasonable fears. He knew that Floyd was a big guy, suspected that he was under the influence of drugs, had experienced his strength and "active resistance" in the patrol car, and understood that an arrestee's behavior "can change in an instant" from compliance to resistance or aggression. "It's a dynamic situation," he said. "A reasonable police officer tries to predict, or is at least cognizant and concerned about, future behavior, based upon past behavior….Human behavior is unpredictable, and no one knows it better than a police officer."

At the same time, Nelson implicitly acknowledged that Chauvin's choices were at least questionable. "The standard is not what should the officer have done in these circumstances," he said. "Officers are human beings capable of making mistakes in highly stressful situations." He also called Floyd's death "tragic" and conceded that Chauvin's treatment of him was "unattractive."

While Nelson emphasized Floyd's size and apparent intoxication, Schleicher noted that such factors do not on their own constitute a threat that justifies the use of force. The defense's use-of-force expert, Barry Brodd, claimed that Floyd was "somewhat resisting" even after he was pinned to the ground, although his definition of resistance seemed to include writhing in pain and struggling to breathe. But even by Brodd's account, the prone restraint continued for more than seven minutes after Floyd was no longer resisting.

Regardless of what Chauvin worried might happen, it is clear that he kept kneeling on Floyd long after Floyd posed no conceivable threat. "I think he's passing out," Lane said after several minutes, and soon afterward Kueng reported that he could not find a pulse. "How can you justify the continued use of force against this man when he has no pulse?" Schleicher wondered. "It was not necessary. It was gratuitous. It was disproportionate."

Brodd nevertheless concluded that Chauvin's use of force was justified in the circumstances. That contradicted the testimony of the city's police chiefother supervisors, and other use-of-force experts, who said Chauvin's actions violated his training, department policy, and the Fourth Amendment, which according to the Supreme Court requires that force be "objectively reasonable," meaning a "reasonable officer" would have done the same thing in the same situation.

Nelson today dismissed those conclusions as "opinions." But the only countervailing testimony he offered on this point came from Brodd, who raised many eyebrows by arguing that pinning Floyd to the pavement did not even qualify as a use of force because it was not likely to cause pain. Brodd also claimed that "drug-influenced" suspects "don't feel pain" and "may have superhuman strength"—an old canard with racist roots that police tend to drag out when they are accused of using excessive force.

Schleicher took aim at all three assertions during his closing argument. Aside from the fact that the Minneapolis Police Department's definition of force (like most people's) does not require the infliction of pain, he said, Floyd was clearly experiencing pain under Chauvin's knee, as reflected in his repeated complaints to that effect. Schleicher showed photos of lacerations on Floyd's face, knuckles, and shoulder, which he said were evidence of his desperate struggle to "create breathing space" by pushing against the pavement. He also noted that Chauvin used "pain compliance" techniques on Floyd's fingers and hands, even though at that point there was no more that Floyd could do to comply.

So much for the insensitivity to pain that Brodd described. Schleicher also noted that "there is no such thing as superhuman strength because there is no such thing as superhumans," who exist only "in comic books." Far from demonstrating superhuman strength while three cops had him pinned to the ground, Schleicher said, Floyd "was so desperate to breathe [that] he pushed with his face…to lift himself, to open his chest, to give his lungs room to breathe, the pavement tearing into his skin."

As he has throughout the trial, Nelson dismissed the prosecution's claim that Floyd died because the prone restraint made it impossible for him to breathe properly. He said Chicago pulmonologist Martin Tobin, who explained in detail how that position would have impeded Floyd's breathing and concluded that he died from "a low level of oxygen," offered nothing but "theory, speculation, and assumption." Yet even Brodd conceded that the risk of positional asphyxia has long been widely understood by police.

Nelson noted that Hennepin County Medical Examiner Andrew Baker said nothing about asphyxia in his autopsy report. The prosecution "did not like Dr. Baker's conclusions," he said. Yet Baker, who concluded that the use of force against Floyd fatally interacted with his "very severe underlying heart disease," classified the death as a homicide. And in his testimony, he did not rule out the possibility that impeded breathing played a role in Floyd's "cardiopulmonary arrest," saying, "I would defer to a pulmonologist."

The defense's sole medical witness, forensic pathologist David Fowler, concluded that Floyd died from "a sudden cardiac arrhythmia" rather than asphyxia. But he said an important factor in that arrhythmia was the "very stressful situation" created by Floyd's prone restraint, which hardly lets Chauvin off the hook. As Schleicher noted, it would be an "amazing coincidence" if, after Floyd was pressed against the pavement for nine and a half minutes, "he chose that moment to die of heart disease."

The defense also has argued that Floyd's consumption of fentanyl contributed to his death. But the level of fentanyl in Floyd's blood, 11 nanograms per milliliter, was near the low end of the concentrations seen in fatal overdoses, and Floyd, as a regular user, would have developed tolerance. A toxicologist testified that the ratio of fentanyl to the metabolite norfentanyl was much lower than what is typically seen in fentanyl-related deaths, and medical experts noted that Floyd was not displaying signs of an opioid overdose, such as drowsiness, slow breathing, or constricted pupils.

Nelson today implied that other possible contributing factors mean that Chauvin did not cause Floyd's death. But as Schleicher noted, "the fact that other causes may have contributed to George Floyd's death does not relieve the defendant of any criminal liability." If Chauvin's actions were "a substantial causal factor," that makes him legally responsible, assuming that his use of force was objectively unreasonable.

If the jurors agree that Chauvin caused Floyd's death by using excessive force, they still will have to decide which of the charges against him fit the facts of the case. The second-degree murder charge alleges that Chauvin killed Floyd while committing felony assault, which means he "intentionally applied unlawful force" and thereby inflicted "substantial bodily harm." The third-degree murder charge says Chauvin killed Floyd by "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." The second-degree manslaughter charge alleges that Chauvin caused Floyd's death "by his culpable negligence, creating an unreasonable risk and consciously [taking] the chances of causing great bodily harm."

Nelson argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the predicate felony underlying the second-degree murder charge. "There is absolutely no evidence that Officer Chauvin intentionally, purposefully applied an unlawful force," he said. He maintained that the prosecution had not proved the other charges beyond a reasonable doubt either.

It seems to me that Chauvin's actions easily qualify as second-degree manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a presumptive sentence of four years. I have reservations about the felony murder charge, which thanks to a quirk of Minnesota's law allows prosecutors to treat pretty much any deliberate assault that unintentionally causes someone's death as murder rather than manslaughter.

The third-degree murder charge carries a lower maximum penalty than felony murder (25 vs. 40 years) but the same presumptive sentence: 12.5 years. Schleicher made a persuasive case that Chauvin's actions reflected the requisite "depraved mind," meaning that he showed "reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference."

Nelson has suggested that Chauvin's use of force and his failure to perform CPR are mitigated by the distracting presence of horrified bystanders who criticized the way he was treating Floyd. To the contrary, Schleicher argued, those objections should have alerted Chauvin to the danger of positional asphyxia, especially when combined with his training and Lane's suggestion that Floyd should be rolled off his stomach.

"He could have listened to bystanders," Schleicher said. "He could have listened to his fellow officers. He could have listened to his own training. He knew better. He just didn't do better."

Schleicher suggested that Chauvin "chose pride over policing," seeing the onlookers' criticism as an ego-threatening challenge to his authority. "The defendant was not going to be told what to do," he said. "He was not going to let these bystanders tell him what to do. He was going to do what he wanted, how he wanted, for as long as he wanted, and there was nothing they could do about it, because he had the authority. He had the power of the badge."

Whatever distraction the bystanders caused, Chauvin clearly was aware that Floyd was in distress. When Floyd said he was in pain, Chauvin repeatedly responded with a flat "uh-huh." When Floyd said, over and over again (27 times, by the prosecution's count), that he could not breathe, Chauvin replied that "it takes a lot of oxygen" to complain. "The defendant heard it, he acknowledged it, and all he did was mock him," Schleicher said.

Schleicher emphasized that convicting Chauvin would not be an indictment of police generally, noting all the officers who testified against him. "This wasn't policing; it was murder," he said. "He betrayed the badge and everything it stood for. It's not how they're trained. It's not following the rules….This is not an anti-police prosecution. It's a pro-police prosecution."

NEXT: The House Just Voted To Let Marijuana Businesses Use Banks. Again.

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah, yeah, lets get to the burning and looting already. Queen Maxine has declared Chauvin guilty already. Free Jordans and liquor!

    1. 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. Nah, Sullum and the prosecution have it all wrong. Floyd was going to die of a drug overdose at the exact moment he did die even if the cops had never interacted with him, yup yup.

    3. Shouldn’t Sullum be on his sixth column calling for Maxine’s impeachment by now? I guess elected officials “inciting violence” is bad only when it’s Trump.

      1. Reason could sure use a LIKE button.

    4. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular officevcxz 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. “You can believe your own eyes,” he said. “This case is exactly what you thought when you saw it first, when you saw that video.”

    Well, part of one video. If you add all the videos to include previous arrests and similar behavior, it can produce a different picture of this sweet, selfless individual. I prefer to keep the Obama version in my head. You know the one, gold casket, angel wings, murals and kind words by world leaders. It paints George Floyd in a completely different light. About, 27 million different.

    1. Worthy of note that at least one of Floyd’s previous arrests came at the hands of ex-cop Gerald Goines, who is also awaiting trial for murder.

      1. Less worthy than even him being woth his drug dealer at the time who was having trouble waking him up prior to the arrest.

      2. Yes, but he had a lifetime of arrests. As a known Junkie, his daily routine required breaking the law several times to support his habit. He had regular contact with the police. He was a grown man that has never produced anything but a burden on the taxpayers and multiple unloved crotch droppings. Floyd’s family really made out on this. They have 27 million and they don’t have to worry about George Floyd stealing it for dope.

        1. The fact that cities are paying out amount like this should wake people up to the fact that something is wrong with policing policies. Whatever amount the cities get from ticket for infractions are not going to offset this amount. I am guessing the money came out of a insurance fund and at some point I hope that company or funds puts its foot down.

          1. “policing policies” – is deciding to pay out about 100 X the typical wrongful death amount a policing policy?

    2. Sullum doesn’t need bullshit like medical evidence or the full story.

      1. Of course not. Anymore, that’s the Reason way.

    3. “If you add all the videos to include previous arrests and similar behavior, it can produce a different picture of this sweet, selfless individual.”

      What does it matter whether George Floyd was “sweet” or “selfless”? Do only sainted people have a fundamental right not to be abused by police? The only questions that matter pertain to what happened in those moments. Was the force Chauvin applied reasonable and consistent with his training and department policy or not? If the force was unreasonable, did it cause his death? Talking about anything else is an attempt at distraction.

      1. “The only questions that matter pertain to what happened in those moments.”

        Are you saying that Floyd being high as a kite, covid positive, with a bad heart, and ingesting a lethal amount of drugs at the beginning of the arrest has nothing to do with it?
        Science denier!

        1. “Are you saying that…”

          Since none of what you listed after this has anything to do with what I did say, I am going to answer that no, I am not saying any of that. But since you brought it up, it is not an undisputed fact that he had a “lethal” amount of drugs in his system. And even if he did, neither that, nor his bad heart, nor being COVID-positive mean that he would have died at the time he did if Chauvin had not knelt on him for over 9 minutes. If we could prove, definitively, that Floyd would have died 3 hours later, had Chauvin not acted as he did, but that we could also prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Chauvin’s actions resulted in his death at that time, 3 hours sooner, then Chauvin would still be guilty.

  3. Sullum is absolute garbage. Acgual legal analysis that isn’t so fucking slanted.

    It goes through every charge and the issues with each.

    1. The progs will riot and rage no matter the result. It’s just too bad this crisis can’t be used to remove the democrats from office and take over.

    2. This wasnt Journalism, it was Proggy Woke race war propaganda

      1. Or what they call ‘Monday’ at Reason.

    3. “Acgual [sic] legal analysis that isn’t so fucking slanted.”

      I read some of this, but he lost me with his “analysis” that included arguing about the word “cause”. He suggested that if Floyd hadn’t gotten claustrophobic and stayed in the car calmly instead, that he’d be alive, therefore perhaps his own actions “caused” his death. That isn’t how cause and effect work.

      This guy isn’t just some neutral observer. He has a whole thing going centered around armed self-defense. His website states prominently:

      Carry A Gun
      So You’re
      Hard To Kill
      Know The Law
      So You’re
      Hard To Convict

      He has the view, and makes money telling people this view, that the world is full of dangerous people. We need to be able to kill them before they kill us. And since that will lead to questions about whether we really did need to kill them, we need to be ready with legal arguments to avoid being charged and convicted for going too far.

  4. How can you repeatedly yell, “I can’t breathe” if you can’t breathe? It takes air for your vocal cords to work. Did anyone explain this at the trial?

    1. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective starring Jim Carrey?

    2. You’re thinking of people who can’t breath because they are chocking. No air at all can get in or out so no sound.

      Anyone who has suffered from allergic reactions that were life threatening and severe asthma, can tell you that people can talk even if they can’t get enough air in their lungs to keep them alive. It’s pretty common knowledge.

      1. We have our own legal standards here. It’s called unreasonable doubt.

    3. No, because both lawyers know it’s a stupid argument.

    4. Yep. It is clear that Chauvin was justified because Floyd would have said “I can’t breathe very well.” If he was really struggling to breathe. That he said, “I can’t breathe.” When he clearly could means he was lying!

  5. Second degree manslaughter is likely what the jury will convict on. Third degree murder may be a bridge too far.
    If not Third, will cities burn?

    1. I’m gonna die with a with no tears in my eyes
      God digs my daddy

      His enemies died when he lifted his knife and said
      Please let me win and I’ll send you a life so
      Soon I will be burning for my, soon I will be
      Burning for my daddy

      I’m ready to die but it seems to be odd that
      Bleeding is better than breathing to God but
      Soon I will be burning for my, soon I will be
      Burning for my daddy

    2. Yeah, I still can’t figure out where the murder charges came from. Nothing I have seen indicates that the prosecutor laid out any evidence that Officer Chauvin attempted to injure or kill Mr. Floyd. The prosecutor’s case is that he was overzealous in restraining and should known that it may lead to Mr. Floyd’s death. That smells like manslaughter.

      Pretty sure that regardless of outcome, some folks will try to burn the cities. Not sure how far it will get though. The GOP is really eager to throw incitement and insurrection back at the Dems. I am thinking they are not going to get free reign this time now that their ill behavior entirely reflects on the Dems. Also, there aren’t going to be any mayors whining when the federal bois roll into town.

      1. Some of the the murder charges came from the usual liberal tactic to get courts to read something new into a law that isn’t there.

        Third degree murder had always been interpreted as doing something so completely reckless that you caused a death without intent. It was a crime more serious than manslaughter because your act risked hurting a whole group of people. The textbook example is someone randomly firing a shot towards a crowd of people, and hitting and killing someone (like what happens in battles between gangs).

        Not so coincidentally the Minnesota Supreme Court recently ruled for the first time in another case , after the Floyd incident happened, that doing a reckless act with an individual you are specifically interacting with (which is a factor in their death) could now be considered third degree murder instead of manslaughter even though that would have been manslaughter in the last 100 years.

  6. Damn, it really took Sullum all day to figure out a way to spin this one.
    Should’ve just quoted Dr. Seuss like the prosecutor did.


    City manager fired for saying cop deserves due process. Defense witness targeted with pig’s head and blood. Protestors marching on the house of a DA. Journalists outing small time donors to legal defenses. Maxine Waters all but threatening riots if a verdict doesn’t go her way.

    Not to mention the repeated attacks on the federal courthouse here in Portland and the widespread, repeated riots before a case has even been heard. You think these don’t have chilling effects? We gonna talk about the left’s attacks on the judicial system/rule of law or nah?

    It goes without saying that the Floyd jurors know if they don’t convict they are setting off riots like the country may never have seen. Can you have a fair trial under those circumstances?

    Tangentially related.
    CNN legal analyst covers the Chauvin trial by impugning due process, not with why due process is important. Think about that.
    Defense begins the closing by defining reasonable doubt, not with why #DerekChauvin is innocent. Think about that.

    1. We have to rid ourselves of the progs before it’s too late. Their lives mean nothing if it saves our freedoms.

  8. Sicknick died of two stroles a day after 1/7. ME rules it natural cause, err I mean lack of HO2.


    1. Poor White Knight.

      Greenwald is on it and isn’t taking prisoners:


    Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey:

    “Regardless of the decision made by the jury, there is one true reality, which is that George Floyd was killed at the hands of police.”

    1. Progressive Cuck Leadership in action. If you can’t beat them, let them beat you”.

    2. You can’t trust a Frey after The Red Wedding.

    1. Awesome!

  10. A church in Mpls has been set on fire, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if one of the members of the jury is an attendee. Either that or there are literal Satanists among BLM.

    1. When you listen to chemjeff and Tony, you get the impression that they like churches burning just because.
      No excuses necessary.

      1. “If any people were in the church at the time, it serves them right for not obeying COVID restrictions” /Tony, problably


    JUST IN – Church on fire in #Minneapolis, Minnesota. [Video]

    1. Mostly peaceful church burning.

    2. #NotAHateCrime

  12. I keep changing my mind about this case. Hopefully the jurors have superhuman wisdom.

  13. Isn’t it reasonable to say the cop and his buddies were negligent, and thus some degree of manslaughter is more appropriate for Chauvin; unless the prosecution can definitely and without doubt prove Chauvin’s intent?

    1. I’m pretty sure Chauvin was in the wrong. The question is whether the evidence shows that it meets the legal burden for criminal homicide. Regardless, progs gonna riot and kill.

      1. Chauvin very much did something that’s morally repugnant, but if the prosecution really were fighting for justice, one would like to believe they would be making the case for something that a) would result in the accused being indicted, and b) be suitable for the crime at hand. There are big issues with law enforcement (and ultimately the system for which it enacts force), but to place it all on one man is kind of disgusting in of itself–and I’m no boot-licker.

        1. “but if the prosecution really were fighting for justice,”

          Justice? You get justice in the next life. In this life you get the law.

          They are fighting for a conviction, just is you’d expect from the prosecution.

          1. Sure, but why bring nonsense charges that just confuse the issue? There is no evidence that Officer Chauvin intended to injure or kill Mr. Floyd. The case that the prosecutors laid out is that Officer Chauvin f’ed up. That isn’t murder. That is manslaughter.

            1. “There is no evidence that Officer Chauvin intended to injure or kill Mr. Floyd.”

              Intentions are mental states which don’t necessarily leave evidence. You are misguided in thinking otherwise. Still, if he didn’t intend to kill or injure, why would he continue to restrain Floyd after his heart and breathing had stopped? Chauvin had the chance to take the stand and answer these all important questions, a chance he declined to take.

              Manslaughter is when you unintentionally kill someone in a drunken brawl. Chauvin was not drunk and was doing the job he was trained to do. He knew exactly what he was doing.

              1. If he had intended to kill Floyd, why call EMTs so quickly?

    2. Absolutely not. That would mean the leftist protestors rioters had a legitimate reason to be upset. Leftists are wrong about everything and must be opposed at every turn. That means the cop did nothing wrong.

  14. I’m rooting for full acquittal with the hope Sullum becomes so despondent he offs himself.

  15. Now let’s get that prosecutor to DC ASAP so he can apply that minute-by-minute “reasonable force” criteria to the Ashli Babbitt case.

  16. My sister died from a drug overdose where she consumed far, far less that whet she supposedly was capable of handling as a regular user. In her case she had been clean for 7 days, was released from city jail, used a fraction that she had 7 days earlier and died of an overdose.

    The argument that the amount of fentanyl in George Floyd’s system was way lower than he could handle is specious. There are far too many variables to be definitive. The truth usually lies somewhere in between the usual opinions. I have no doubt that the actions of the Police including Dereck Chavin contributed to George Floyd’s death.

    I have seen absolutely zero evidence that this was a Murder as defined by Minnesota Statutes. Manslaughter seems to fit better in this situation according Minnesota Statutes.

    In general a Jury needs the ability to put their feet into the defendants shoes. Blank out the mob mentality of the moment and narrative of the corporate media. The corporate media and the mob has tried and convicted within hours of the actual event. Before any evidence, before any investigation, before any reflection. A Jury of peers is the last defense against the tyranny of the government.

    The question is if a Jury member was in a similar situation as a defendant, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and the human variables such as emotion and adrenaline rush, how would they have honestly reacted. Not how they wish they would have reacted, but an honest appraisal.

    Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
    (1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

    (2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

    §Subd. 2.Unintentional murders. Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:
    (1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

    (2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, “order for protection” includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

    (a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

    (b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

    A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

    (1) by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

    (2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

    (3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

    (4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner’s premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

    (5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

    If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim’s death.

  17. The cop’s actions were completely and totally justified, no matter what, because to say otherwise is to agree with dirty leftist scum.

    1. I believe your leftist friends have been doing that exact same thing from 2016 up until January 5th………………

      1. I don’t consort with dirty leftists. Only Trump voters. Everyone else is a traitor to America.

  18. This case boils down to can the defense attorney find one person to hang the jury. There was no intent to provide a defense for Chauvin’s action, just can we get someone to not vote for conviction. We all saw the video, we all know what happened. How would we feel if Charlie Manson or Jeffery Dahmer had gotten off on a hung jury? Is this different? Can we just let this happen and walk away?

    1. You’re an idiot – comparing Chauvin to Manson & Dahmer… just fuck off.

  19. Remember when reasonable doubt meant something? They didn’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You can’t hold someone responsible for causing a death when you don’t even know what the cause of death was. Cart before the horse on this one.

  20. Regardless of the outcome, Mr. Chauvin is probably safer in prison for a while.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.