Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

Totally disagree. There was no reason to keep Floyd in that position for nearly 10 minutes. None. And no matter what else was going on in Floyd’s body, his position and Chauvin’s knee killed him. Guilty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

His intent was to kill??? Are you out of your mind? He had his camera on, multiple cops had their cameras on, bystanders were recording him in his face on their phones, he on multiple occasions repositioned GF when he was complaining - in what world do you think his actual intent was to kill the guy. Like I can’t even understand that as a possible consideration.

The defense attorney showed today that the prosecution misrepresented a few things. The blood from Floyd’s nose was from his fighting to stay out of the car. Floyd was on his side, not in the prone position when he reached the tire to reposition himself. They called EMS one minute into the scuffle when Floyd was bleeding. So much reasonable doubt. Not to mention, Floyd’s horrible health and his toxicology confirming the evidence of Fentanyl and meth in his system. I think the defense was phenomenal today, and I could not convict.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

His intent was to kill??? Are you out of your mind? He had his camera on, multiple cops had their cameras on, bystanders were recording him in his face on their phones, he on multiple occasions repositioned GF when he was complaining - in what world do you think his actual intent was to kill the guy. Like I can’t even understand that as a possible consideration.

The defense attorney showed today that the prosecution misrepresented a few things. The blood from Floyd’s nose was from his fighting to stay out of the car. Floyd was on his side, not in the prone position when he reached the tire to reposition himself. They called EMS one minute into the scuffle when Floyd was bleeding. So much reasonable doubt. Not to mention, Floyd’s horrible health and his toxicology confirming the evidence of Fentanyl and meth in his system. I think the defense was phenomenal today, and I could not convict.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if Chauvin’s end goal was to kill Floyd, but it is very clear Chauvin didn’t care if he did.

Floyd did not die from covid, or heart disease or heart attack, or drugs or a benign cyst or exhaust from the car. If he would have been left in the car he would be alive. If he were left sitting on the curb, he’d be alive. If he was left kneeling outside the car, he’d be alive. If he would have been laid prone and nothing else, he’d be alive. If not for the knee on the neck for over 9 minutes, he’d be alive. Chauvin did not follow protocol and put him in the recovery position. Even after another officer said Floyd had no pulse and was not breathing, he “stayed the course” and did not put him in the recovery position nor did he provide medical care as the protocol states. He is guilty and God help us if the jury does not come to the same conclusion.

But what you are saying is not the legal standard. The covid, heart disease, and drugs were preceding events that contributed to his death. There was no reasonable basis to believe that what Chauvin was doing - which was protocol and what he was trained on and he and others have done per protocol many times before and studies show never results in death - would have caused his death. There was zero intent or reasonable basis to believe he would have killed him.

Those are all fake facts.

Weird because i got that from the evidence admitted into trial that wasn’t objected to

Yes, you're weird. Were you watching the trial?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if Chauvin’s end goal was to kill Floyd, but it is very clear Chauvin didn’t care if he did.

Floyd did not die from covid, or heart disease or heart attack, or drugs or a benign cyst or exhaust from the car. If he would have been left in the car he would be alive. If he were left sitting on the curb, he’d be alive. If he was left kneeling outside the car, he’d be alive. If he would have been laid prone and nothing else, he’d be alive. If not for the knee on the neck for over 9 minutes, he’d be alive. Chauvin did not follow protocol and put him in the recovery position. Even after another officer said Floyd had no pulse and was not breathing, he “stayed the course” and did not put him in the recovery position nor did he provide medical care as the protocol states. He is guilty and God help us if the jury does not come to the same conclusion.

But what you are saying is not the legal standard. The covid, heart disease, and drugs were preceding events that contributed to his death. There was no reasonable basis to believe that what Chauvin was doing - which was protocol and what he was trained on and he and others have done per protocol many times before and studies show never results in death - would have caused his death. There was zero intent or reasonable basis to believe he would have killed him.

Those are all fake facts.

Weird because i got that from the evidence admitted into trial that wasn’t objected to

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as I hope not, I’m betting it’s going to be a hung jury. That will be the worst on all levels.... but you know there’s going to be one “blue lives matter” person who holds out on conviction and is truly convinced this was justified

I wonder how long the state will protect the jurors for after the trial. I’m sure the name of any juror pushing for acquittal will leak once the other hit the talk show circuit

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but he's guilty. His intent was to kill. It's obvious, and no earnest acting will make me believe otherwise.

His intent was to kill??? Are you out of your mind? He had his camera on, multiple cops had their cameras on, bystanders were recording him in his face on their phones, he on multiple occasions repositioned GF when he was complaining - in what world do you think his actual intent was to kill the guy. Like I can’t even understand that as a possible consideration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

I am as well. I was a total guilty until today. I took out the emotion and studied the video from the officer’s camera, and didn’t just focus on the 9 minutes. It was eye opening, and I would not convict. I predict a hung jury and no retrial.

Anonymous wrote:As much as I hope not, I’m betting it’s going to be a hung jury. That will be the worst on all levels.... but you know there’s going to be one “blue lives matter” person who holds out on conviction and is truly convinced this was justified

Anonymous wrote:As much as I hope not, I’m betting it’s going to be a hung jury. That will be the worst on all levels.... but you know there’s going to be one “blue lives matter” person who holds out on conviction and is truly convinced this was justified

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As much as I hope not, I’m betting it’s going to be a hung jury. That will be the worst on all levels.... but you know there’s going to be one “blue lives matter” person who holds out on conviction and is truly convinced this was justified

I’m not a blue lives person and i don’t think it was justified - i think it was horrific- but I wouldn’t be able to convict because i don’t think there is reasonable doubt under the legal standard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming in late: death certificate says “homocide”, wth is the debate about???

Homicide, as they said earlier in the trial, isn't a legal designation or something that results in an automatic conviction. There are only a few options; "natural", "suicide", "homicide", "other" (am I missing one?). So the ME said homicide, but the defense is arguing that that's a medical opinion.

Homicide from a medical viewpoint doesn't imply intent or malice.

I thought the defense attorney did a great job explaining that and with his closing argument. I was a full guilty and now I could not convict. I am concentrating on the entire incident, not just the 9 minutes.

Same. His earnestness is a plus.

Agreed. Can be more effective than a polished performance

Same. I am an attorney and was very much in the guilty camp for at least the second and third offenses (I was always doubtful on the top charge). After hearing the defense’s closing arguments, i could not convict on any of the charges. I am flabbergasted at my change in view.

Anonymous wrote:As much as I hope not, I’m betting it’s going to be a hung jury. That will be the worst on all levels.... but you know there’s going to be one “blue lives matter” person who holds out on conviction and is truly convinced this was justified