(04-21-2021 06:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-21-2021 03:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (04-21-2021 03:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: So everything for the first time X in the 9 mins 9 secs was hunky dory, then everything else past that balance, if I read you correctly?
What is that time X?
By the way, are you aware the state'es own witnesses precluded the ' knee on the neck'? And the state post that issue had to change gheir references of the 'knee on the neck to 'knee on the AREA AROUND THE neck '?
You talking to me, Tanq? I am not versed in the law, but it seems to me that Chauvin was too slow in removing his knee. I could not give you a precise time - I think it would go more to a determination of when it was no longer needed. But I am the type of guy who, if on the jury, would need a good explanation of the law.
First one of the state's own expert witnesses testified that since a pulse was shown to be taken at the scene, that pulse reading would have been impossible with a knee or boot 'on the neck'. From that point forward the prosecutors referred to the position as 'around the neck area and upper back.'
So, the video evidence (and testimony above) bounced the talking point of 'on the neck.' Lets assume that correct. That means Chauvin braced his weight not across the neck, but on the upper back. To me, that changes the aspect of every count --- including the negligent homicide count.
Sorry I geeked out on the trial......
There are people far more versed in both medicine and law than I to address this... but I probably represent a typical, well informed juror.
To me, you can cause damage to someone and initiate events that can kill someone by restricting their airway, which ANY pressure to the neck, chest etc can do. You don't have to strangle someone to cause a reaction that kills them... especially if they are otherwise compromised already. The question therefore isn't whether or not the knee killed him.... it is whether or not the knee contributed to a body reaction that killed him... which brings me to....
Was the knee to the back necessary? He had been in cuffs and relatively compliant for a good while. Yes, he was 'resisting' some actions based on what could be 'made up' symptoms... 'I can't breathe'... so we go to the purpose of the knee and the policies surrounding it. He violated policy and the intent. While he wouldn't do EVERYTHING the cops wanted him to do, he was not a danger as he was in cuffs, wasn't running, wasn't armed etc etc etc.... and he had alternatives, especially with multiple cops there and more help on the way. Have him sit down, cuff his ankles and surround him.... even hold a tazer on him. He chose to violate policy.... that was a choice. It is natural if you are having anxiety about being restricted to 'fight' that restriction. You can't CAUSE a reaction and then use the reaction as a justification for the acts that caused the reaction.
Murder? I don't see that based on my understanding of the word... but I don't know the wording of the laws in that state. I DO think he violated policy (with alternatives available) in a way that placed George at medical risk... and he suffered a medical reaction that killed him. It probably says that he did similar things before... disregarding policy and engaging in unnecessarily aggressive methods of restraint.... which is criminal given his position of authority... and it lead/contributed to his death.
If he follows policy and George dies, he walks IMO. If he doesn't, he's liable to some degree... and unfortunately for him, this is precisely what people are upset about. "Alpha' cops who engage in unnecessarily aggressive tactics.
The REACTIONS by many are ridiculous and arguably criminal. Waters did more to try and incite a riot than Trump EVER did.... but that doesn't change that he violated policy... both word and intent... and it resulted in the exact 'complaint' that we all generally support.