Watching the trial of the cop who allegedly killed G Floyd…
It’s impossible to convict him given the evidence of the pathologist. There is no cause of death from the knee to the neck.
The fact the state then got several experts to reinterpret the evidence smacks of desperation.
My gut is he will be found guilty because of public outrage. The pathology report is damning. I can’t believe I have only just heard it.
(In summary the pathologist didn’t watch the video or ask too many questions (as all the best ones tend to do… see if their conclusions then fit the story they haven’t already heard). He found no evidence of asphyxia and no neck wounds to corroborate that cause. After seeing the video he still concluded that the subjects head was able to move and that fitted with the lack of injury showing pressure asphyxia).
He was screaming he didn’t want to die while stood up.
It’s impossible to talk when you can’t breathe, so I can see why that didn’t raise huge alarm bells.
That’s not my point, though, it’s that the knee on the neck didn’t cause his death.
It’s doubt. That’s all the defence need.
I’m not qualified to give an option on the evidence in total as I haven’t watched it. But you only need doubt to get off. I’ve seen plenty of it in closing evidence !
Combination of efffects leading to cardiac arrest.
I’m amazed how many medical experts had a look at the evidence (after the fact) and revised the conclusions.
It is riddled with doubt. I’m saying no more than that. I wasn’t there and haven’t seen the trial so I can’t comment. But I know from experience that you don’t need much of it to find it impossible to reach a verdict.
But you have to show that officer killed him. The pathologist seems to say it was heart attack caused by lots of things.
Sky just nailed it by saying the defence don’t have to outdo the prosecution; they just need to show some reasonable doubt.
I think there is plenty, but the prosecution case is that it looks bad, so it must be bad, so he killed him.
Vague is the point. He didn’t say it was a knee to the neck. He said there was no jury to the neck, and no sign neck pressure was any cause or problem.
By the way you don’t need to try and convince me he did it. I am only saying there is enough doubt that it might meant the rest is academic. If I was a juror I’d be hard pushed to dare to let him off, though, for fear of having to emigrate.
I know it’s not the letter of the law, but if you kneel on someone’s neck for 9 whole minutes, you deserve to have the book thrown at you, whether he lives or dies. It’s such a callous disregard for human life.
And it doesn’t make you guilty of murder. He controlled his head with a knee block.
It looks terrible, but if he had knelt on him he’d have left injuries.
Even the prosecution say it was positional asphyxia, which is not the knee on the neck. It’s amazing how so many people are reacting to what they see, not what happened.
His tactics were not great, and it does look bad, but he did not do what most people are assuming (his full weight on the neck). If he did do that the prosecution would have used it in their case.
There is no such thing as approved tactics in law.
Approved use of force are taught tactics designated to help. In law you can you use any force you honestly believe is necessary. You could axe someone to the head if you had to.
The point was didn’t that knee kill him. It’s much more likely just being laid down was a causation, as the later experts argued positional causes NOT strangulation. The knee didn’t even bruise him!
