The brown haired guy (day 11) was the prosecution's use-of-force expert, and he did waver and flirt with perjuring himself, at one point answering both "it depends" and "absolutely" to the same question.
It's hard to get people to accept jury duty when they might be locked up in a hotel room for a month.
It just means one's ''fellow citizens.''Something has puzzled me, and continues. A jury of your peers
So a jury of policemen?
This is a really troubling case, agree.
I'd like to know the reason they drew their guns, as soon as the car stopped. Army Lt. Nazario was driving his new car home, so it had a temporary tag.
Man, the prosecution would love you as a juror. Easily manipulated. You're just falling for the prosecutor's framing. Brodd never agreed that Chauvin was "on top" of Floyd (in the sense of body weight), he had already said that Chauvin was not using force (hence did not alter the level of force), and unless Chauvin definitely knew Floyd was having trouble breathing, even though he started saying that the second they tried to put him in the car, anything but a relaxed position does still indicate some degree of resistance.
He did not comply, and on a felony stop. They let him go when they could have charged him with obstruction, at the very least.
Police do not take that chance, especially at night, with heavily tinted windows. Odds are, they take that chance and they're dead.
While I understand fellow citizens I also feel fellow citizens to be extremely wide in scope
That’s not what he said on cross examination. He flip flopped so much in fact that he could have been mistaken for the prosecution’s witness.
Risk is different than a threat. Sure, a police officer could dream up a number of risks but Floyd wasn’t a threat once he became unresponsive. That is what many witnesses have testified to.
Why was one of the police officers fired? Nazario wasn’t breaking the law, he wanted to drive up to a lighted area (I don’t blame him) and he politely asked what he had done. They pepper sprayed him and practically assaulted him over their error. They didn’t see a temporary tag on his vehicle. It’s racial profiling, if we want to be honest about it.
So they should have welcomed his decision to stop in a well lit area, to reduce the risks to themselves. (Assuming, of course, the rationale was their own safety.)
Given that Chauvin caused two of those issues, yes. Manslaughter is negligence or carelessness that causes a death. It requires malice - thus the prosecution would have to prove that Chauvin intended to cause Floyd discomfort. But that's all it requires. Intending malice, then acting towards someone based on that malice - but with no intent to kill or seriously harm - is involuntary manslaughter if the person dies as a result.
Negligent homicide does not require intent.