Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums

Chauvin trial: Another false media narrative collapses


Recommended Posts

When the media starts getting sued for slander or charged with inciting a riot they’ll tone it down some. Until then they’re happy getting rich off of false truths.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

 police body cam footage has come into evidence showing Chauvin's knee appeared to be on Floyd's shoulder blades and not on his neck as it appeared from the famous cellphone video taken by bystanders and as claimed by activists.

That really messes the narrative up

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DB2point0 said:

When the media starts getting sued for slander or charged with inciting a riot they’ll tone it down some. Until then they’re happy getting rich off of false truths.  

Sometimes it takes paying a lot of money for things to change and the media is ripe for the taking

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s beginning to look like Chauvin may not be guilty.  Will the Jurors be able to say not guilty, or will they find him guilty to prevent violence in the streets?  Are we at the point that mob violence rules?  Sadly, I say yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hagar said:

It’s beginning to look like Chauvin may not be guilty.  Will the Jurors be able to say not guilty, or will they find him guilty to prevent violence in the streets?  Are we at the point that mob violence rules?  Sadly, I say yes.

BLM & ANTIFA are just chomping at the bit for another reason to Burn & Pillage. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hagar said:

It’s beginning to look like Chauvin may not be guilty.  Will the Jurors be able to say not guilty, or will they find him guilty to prevent violence in the streets?  Are we at the point that mob violence rules?  Sadly, I say yes.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CarthDawg77 said:

BLM & ANTIFA are just chomping at the bit for another reason to Burn & Pillage. 

And the state and local police forces should be chomping at the bit to lock them up

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

That was clearly contradicted by testimony today by expert medical testimony. Chauvin should be found guilty. 
 

 

Guilty of what I think is the question

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

That was clearly contradicted by testimony today by expert medical testimony. Chauvin should be found guilty. 

I'd honestly suggest reading the recaps from LegalInsurrection. They're done by a lawyer. He's probably a bit biased, but I think he can at least provide insight into what's going on, and what the attorneys are trying to do. There's a lot going on in the trial that isn't being reported, and a lot of evidence that's being shown (because it's hours and hours of testimony). Right now the prosecution is leading the questioning (since they are presenting their case in brief) so the defense is limited in what they can do, and questions they can ask. Not sure when the defense gets to lead.

If they get him on anything, I don't think they get him on murder. Both of the murder charges, based on my admittedly limited knowledge, require intent. In other words, Chauvin somehow intended to kill George Floyd. I don't think that's the case, and I don't think the state can prove that. Depending on how all the evidence and questioning goes, they might be able to convict on the second degree manslaughter. Because I think that one involves negligence.

As I asked in a previous thread, I wonder if the judge would let the jurors re-create the "knee on the neck thing", much like Steven Crowder did. I know you may not like him, or his politics, but he had a couple of people on his show actually kneel on him for nine and a half minutes just to see what happened. I understand that they are vastly different circumstances, but I think it's interesting to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Watched it and thought it was a cheap stunt. 

See above, but here's a day 9 recap:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-day-9-wrap-up-medical-experts-resuscitate-prosecution-case/

From what I've seen and heard, I don't know that the jury can convict on either of the murder charges at this point. Like I said, the State might be able to convict on the second degree manslaughter charge. We're really going to have to see what other evidence is presented, and what the jury decides. Really, I think there are only 3 outcomes here (in no particular order): Not guilty, guilty on 2nd degree manslaughter, hung jury. The jury makeup, if I remember correctly, is 4 black individuals, 2 mixed-race individuals, and 6 white individuals.

Remember: all it takes is "reasonable doubt", and a unanimous verdict.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

Watched it and thought it was a cheap stunt. 

You should try it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article, interesting read:

https://www.forcescience.org/2019/01/new-study-more-evidence-against-the-myth-of-restraint-asphyxia/

A couple of interesting paragraphs:

Quote

However, Kroll cautions against “stretching” the findings to far different circumstances; for example, two or more officers lying or sitting on a suspect’s back with their full weight, so that both the suspect’s upper torso and lower back are under heavy pressure simultaneously. “This extreme positioning could hypothetically impair both chest breathing and belly breathing at the same time, producing fatal results in a matter of minutes,” he says.

He also warns: “Regardless of any scientific studies, officers need to be aware that there is a long ‘hangover legacy’ of court decisions that are not in harmony with the latest human-factors research. These can be used to blame officers unjustly for deaths following prone restraint, when, in fact, other matters like the suspect’s health or drug intoxication may be the causative elements. It’s important to document precisely how restraint was applied and to be certain that any attorney defending police actions be current with scientific findings.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Our findings are important,” Kroll told Force Science News, “because North American officers control and restrain agitated and resistant subjects in the prone position over half a million times each year. Subjects end up being proned out in about 60 per cent of physical force encounters—without a death or serious injury resulting.
“Prone restraint is needed for officer safety, and the stake needs to be driven into the heart of the stubborn myth that this procedure is inherently excessive and dangerous.” 

Dr. Mark Kroll, An Internationally Renowned Biomedical Scientist
 

🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites

Medical examiner killing all the theories of enlarged heart or heart attack etc

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Youngcoach123 said:

“Our findings are important,” Kroll told Force Science News, “because North American officers control and restrain agitated and resistant subjects in the prone position over half a million times each year. Subjects end up being proned out in about 60 per cent of physical force encounters—without a death or serious injury resulting.
“Prone restraint is needed for officer safety, and the stake needs to be driven into the heart of the stubborn myth that this procedure is inherently excessive and dangerous.” 

Dr. Mark Kroll, An Internationally Renowned Biomedical Scientist
 

🤔

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JETT said:

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great commentary!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JETT said:

Medical examiner killing all the theories of enlarged heart or heart attack etc

She didn’t seem biased at all. (Sarcasm)

 She nodded right along with the prosecution at every question she’d been prepped for, and shook her head no or looked confused when answering the defense. Even questions with obvious answers asked by the defense she balked at. Regardless of her intellect, her integrity is nonexistent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, trashyhound said:

She didn’t seem biased at all. (Sarcasm)

 She nodded right along with the prosecution at every question she’d been prepped for, and shook her head no or looked confused when answering the defense. Even questions with obvious answers asked by the defense she balked at. Regardless of her intellect, her integrity is nonexistent. 

We'll never really know, but I wonder how the jury is interpreting things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Monte1076 said:

We'll never really know, but I wonder how the jury is interpreting things.

I get it that most witnesses are called by either side because they are good for their side. I also understand that most if  not all will be prepped accordingly, i just didn’t think she hid her bias very well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...