Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Best place to follow the persecution of Chauvin

Drugs were found in both the squad and the SUV where George Floyd was sitting. Some of the pills had saliva from Floyd on them. There is a noticeable difference between the actions of Floyd in the store video and outside in custody. He was visibly under the influence inside the store and nearly passed out in the SUV when police arrived. One of the people with Floyd in the SUV was scheduled to testify and filed a notice that he was not going to willingly testify and if called would invoke his right to not incriminate himself by refusing to answer questions.

All of which might indicate Floyd ingested drugs given to him by the person in the SUV with him once the police arrived to attempt to hide the drugs from discovery by the police. And might have contributed to the death of Floyd.

Things are the best they can be for the prosecution at this time in the trial since it is their witnesses who testify first. The battle of the medical experts will be important.

I have a prediction that I want to put in writing.

If Chauvin is found NOT GUILTY:
Minnesota cities will burn because of "an unjust system that allowed a killer to walk".

If Chauvin is found GUILTY:
Minnesota cities will burn be cause of "a system that allowed this to happen".

Either way, Minnesota cities and cities across America will burn/riot/loot as an excuse within hours of the verdict. Make sure to have a plan to stay safe.

For some odd reason I don't have a problem with the cities burning, self inflicted consequences.

I don't either, except my mom lives in St. Paul and I am only about 20 minutes outside the city. If it spills out this way I will have a large issue,

Well, you should have a problem with it. Niqqers gone wild is not a good thing for anybody...especially White folk.

There’s going to be riots.

Steve Harvey done called it. “Without calling for it “

I do.

We have paid, and will pay to rebuild them. Not to mention a lot of innocent REAL Americans will be impacted.

And I'll admit selfishly, the more unsafe the cities become, the less people live in them. Which means more people spilling out and destroying rural America with subdivisions and all the shidt that comes with it.

I'd rather the cities remained healthy, safe, and vibrant. For all the above reasons.

It's too early for me to make any conclusions. The Defense "ruled the morning" yesterday when they cross-examined Floyd's girlfriend. Both were addicted to opioids and sometimes, and just prior to his death, they got their drugs from illegal sources and they were not pharmaceutical grade. Floyd had a prior overdose from taking this type of drug (a speedball - opioid and amphetamine combination) where he then also complained of stomach pain and had a foamy residue at his mouth. Upon cross-examination, a paramedic indicated at this foamy mouth being a sign of a possible opioid overdose, resulting from a difficulty in breathing.

In the pm the prosecution scored points when it was noted by Chauvin's direct supervisor (a Sgt) that, based on his training, Chauvin's use of force was excessive at some point in time. Then again, this morning another officer who investigated the death testified that, in his opinion, the level of force applied to a prone handcuffed suspect, was excessive and "could kill him". The key here is that he did not and could not testify that that level of restraint DID kill him. But it's clear that the thin blue line is broken in this case. His Department is not backing him in any way - to this point.

What amazed me was that which wasn't asked of the paramedics by the defense, as to whether they considered or evaluated Floyd for a possible opioid overdose and why Narcan was not administered. Of course, Floyd's denial that he was on drugs when police questioned didn't help him. Had he or his companions admitted that Floyd had taken a large qty of opioids, then when he lost consciousness, either the police or the paramedics could have administered Narcan. The paramedics went into detail of the measures they took to try to revive Floyd (chest compressions, IV epinephrine, AED, breathing assistance etc) but nothing about specifically treating for an opioid overdose.

Again, the key to this case will come down to the exact cause of death, or, whether there is a reasonable doubt as to the exact cause of death. It's pretty clear, based on testimony and the written police procedures entered into evidence, that at some point the level of restraint used by Chauvin was excessive and against his Dept.'s policy. There's no need/kneed (pun intended) to keep kneeling on a suspect's body/neck to restrain someone who has lost consciousness and who is no longer struggling or responsive. If/when that level of restraint is necessary, it's clear that it should be limited and discontinued after the suspect is no longer a threat to the officers or to the suspect himself.

At this point in the trail, the prosecution has pretty much proven excessive force and an assault was committed on Mr. Floyd primarily by Officer Chauvin. They have not yet proved that he caused Mr. Floyd's death and would seem that the door of reasonable doubt to that assertion has been opened.

An important point concerning the possible ingestion of drugs. In the prosecutions opening, they foretold that their rebuttal to the defenses assertion that a lethal dose of fentanyl was in Floyd's body and was the major contributor to his death, was the fact that Floyd had an elevated tolerance to these drugs due to his continued and prolonged use.

When the defense cross examined Floyd's girlfriend, she testified that Floyd had been clean, and she only noticed a change in his behavior and suspicion of using approximately two weeks before his death. I don't think two weeks would be a long enough time to obtain any kind of tolerance that would supersede a lethal dose of fentanyl. This was a great job by the defense and set up their play later on that Floyd's primary cause of death was a drug overdose, which would be a reasonable explanation considering the facts of the case, and any person with half a brain would consider reasonable doubt.

I've not been impressed with the defense attorney.

Itll burn one way or another.

Agreed. That point was made by the defense and it is accurate; ODs often occur when an addict is off opioids for awhile and then goes back on them and taking the same amount they had previously. Good point! It certainly goes to reasonable doubt. The testimony of the coroner and medical Drs. who performed or reviewed the autopsy will be key. If they can get any doubt as to whether the drugs were the cause of death, the case should end there. But - - - as in the OJ case, it doesn't always come down to what is said or proven in court. You know these jurors are well aware of what the consequences of an unpopular not guilty verdict would be. This is way too politicized. It would take a brave jury to acquit on the more serious charge of murder, based on any reasonable doubt. The level of doubt in this case, I believe, would have to be beyond just what seems reasonable but would need to be proven to almost a certainty that Chauvin did not cause Floyd's death. A hung jury is always a possibility, but that's just kicking the can down the street.

Whatever happens, that city is a powder keg with a lit fuse.

The passenger (Morries Lester Hall) is the one who tried to pass a counterfeit bill to the clerk earlier in the day.
I suppose they could still get him on the clerks testimony for that anyhow...

You seem to have a very good grasp of this case and some expert knowledge of your own. Keep the commentary coming please. It's informative.

I forgot to switch months...
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...r-day-for-prosecution-advantage-defense/

"We also learned from Ross that the passenger in Floyd’s car, Maurice Hall, the man who had earlier tried to pass a bad $20 bill to the clerk in Cup Food and been rebuffed, was apparently Floyd’s drug dealer, or at least one of them."

If you are a drug dealer, why do you need to pass fake bills?

Thanks, I'm certainly no expert. I'm just tired of getting the spin and more spin presented as news regarding anything that has any political ramifications. So, I decided I would watch this trial as if I'm a juror (which I have been) and make up my own mind based on the facts as presented. I'm watching on HLN network and I mute the commentary of the talking heads. I don't need someone to tell me what it was that I just heard or how I should think and (especially) feel about anything. "Just the facts Ma'am."

Like many, I suspect, I was shocked when I first saw this almost a year ago and figured he was guilty. Then I read the autopsy when it was released and it looked like it could have been an overdose situation. The only way for me to know, is to watch the trial and get the facts as presented and draw my own conclusions. I'm happy to report what is transpiring in court and my thoughts along the way, with as little bias as I can keep at bay. I really do wanna know why no one treated Floyd for an overdose and why Narcan wasn't used. Maybe it was investigated in pre-trial and discounted as not relevant. No way of knowing.

Criminals be criminals. Why spend your real money when you can keep it and spend the fake stuff?

Maybe a half-full powder keg? I thought a LOT of small businesses were already gutted from last year??

getting interesting