quote:

Originally posted by cheni:
"
It was like a murder for 5 min. with 3 men on top after he passed out. In my opinion. Intentional murder? nope.

At this point it is only your opinion that it was murder. That is what this trial is about .To prove it was murder or not .Your insistence at this point it was murder is moot. Just cool it for a while. PLEASE!!
Edited for spelling

This message has been edited. Last edited by: triggertreat,

The fascination with this trial is nuts. We've all seen 90% of the evidence months ago. Dude's not guilty as charged. Make your case that he's a murderer, whatever. Put any cop in the that same situation and 98% and the outcome would have been the same. Only thing the cop could have changed was to administer aid 3-4 minutes earlier than he did. It's not even guaranteed that he would have lived had he immediately rendered aid. Charges should have been whatever applies for failure to render aid, negligence, or manslaughter in that state.

quote:

Charges should have been whatever applies for failure to render aid, negligence, or manslaughter in that state.

Keith Ellison as our attorney general, the dude never had a chance. Hell, the state went to court multiple times just to shoehorn in third-degree murder because they were terrified that they would not get a conviction on second.

All things considered, I could see an argument for manslaughter. However, if that’s what happens, to the “mob” it will be the same as not guilty. This city, and multiple others will burn burn burn.

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:
Oh ya and rackrack called a 27 year police veteran who has been a detective for 20 years a dimwit. Probably because he doesn't agree or something. The white Sargent testified that he had never heard of the term "hold for EMS" so.

You are confused. My post was about the lieutenant, not the sergeant. The lieutenant testified in the affirmative that he had heard the term. Watch the video again.

Also, being a 27 year veteran does not preclude one from being a dimwit. He stated in his testimony that his job is to make sure that the scene is secured with crime scene tape. Sounds like the department doesn't have any higher opinion of him than I do, if that's the duty they assign to him as a 27 year veteran.

The prosecution obviously chose him because he's slow and malleable, a dimwit.

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:
Do you want me to stop commenting?

So much so that you're on Moderated Status for seven days. You are thoroughly confused, and on multiple levels at that.

If, after your seven day suspension, you choose to post further on the subject of this thread, I may take further action. I looked at your posting history. It's almost entirely in the Lounge. There are other sections to this forum. You may be surprised at the topics available for discussion- firearms, even. It's true.

Just to be clear- because, frankly, you seem a bit dense to me- if you try to post right now, it won't reach the board. This will be lifted in a week. I hope that's clear to you. I typed it out slowly.

So is (was) the restraint used allowed by the department?

quote:

Originally posted by sigalert:
So is (was) the restraint used allowed by the department?

It was taught by, but has since been removed.

Not a lawyer (obviously) but I don’t understand why the defense attorney didn’t show the training manual to that dimwit LT on cross. I would think you would bring that training syllabus up every time the opportunity arose since it was current at the time of the incident.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Not a lawyer (obviously) but I don’t understand why the defense attorney didn’t show the training manual to that dimwit LT on cross. I would think you would bring that training syllabus up every time the opportunity arose since it was current at the time of the incident.

Too early in the trial. This will take weeks, so the best strategy is to put that into the jury's minds closer to their deliberations. Strategically, let the jury hear every single prosecution witness say this was improper, reprehensible, dangerous, reckless, etc. And then when the defense has the lead, show the manual and contradict every witness that came before and leave it fresh in their minds.

The defense attorney is VERY VERY good. And it's one man with a minimally experienced assistant against a dozen or more attorneys for the prosecution. Dare I say "there ought to be a law" against the prosecution having disparity of force in the trial. Each of the dozen or more prosecution attorneys can specialize in only a small number of witnesses and material. The defense needs to know all of it and stay on his game every minute for the entire trial.

Where are Dershowitz and the other famous defense attorneys on this? Nowhere to be seen.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Not a lawyer (obviously) but I don’t understand why the defense attorney didn’t show the training manual to that dimwit LT on cross. I would think you would bring that training syllabus up every time the opportunity arose since it was current at the time of the incident.

Too early in the trial. This will take weeks, so the best strategy is to put that into the jury's minds closer to their deliberations. Strategically, let the jury hear every single prosecution witness say this was improper, reprehensible, dangerous, reckless, etc. And then when the defense has the lead, show the manual and contradict every witness that came before and leave it fresh in their minds.

The defense attorney is VERY VERY good. And it's one man with a minimally experienced assistant against a dozen or more attorneys for the prosecution. Dare I saw "there ought to be a law" against the prosecution having disparity of force in the trial. Each of the dozen or more prosecution attorneys can specialize in only a small number of witnesses and material. The defense needs to know all of it and stay on his game every minute for the entire trial.

Where are Dershowitz and the other famous defense attorneys on this? Nowhere to be seen.

Just to add-this was covered in the link in this post on page 8...but Lefty Sig summarized it quite well.

Chauvin Trial Day 5 Wrap-Up: Poorly Informed Witnesses Provide State with Poorly Informed Opinions

https://lawofselfdefense.com/c...y-informed-opinions/

quote:

Originally posted by rackrack:
Also, being a 27 year veteran does not preclude one from being a dimwit.....

The prosecution obviously chose him because he's slow and malleable, a dimwit.

Everyone needs to re-read this...no prosecutor is going to put a person who can quote the SOP when a fellow cop is in the dock....hell, find a current FTO and ask him the policy..I bet he can quote it and explain it to the normal person in normal words(which is what the FTOs job is-to explain the system and rules)

And yes, there are other reasons for being a 27 year veteran and not progressing further than Lt/senior officer/corporal ...like the staff doesn’t like how you speak the truth, or you train newbies in the truth and not following what staff wants, or you follow the law vs doing what you are told..., or there are no vacancies in the staff position, or they think promoting lesbian black women will show how woke the department is, or most likely- dudes an idiot and the staff didn’t want him to be a captain because he’s an idiot...I could go on but you get the gist...

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
OK thanks. How about WP. Washington Post???

Correct. Sorry about the initials. Since they use them as their logo in just about everything, I thought the initials alone would be recognized.

The Lt. could be called back as a defense witness, after defense has their expert testify on policy and procedure and that the technique was allowed at the time of incident. Impeach his testimony at that time, show him the Policy and Procedure Manual and read from it then. This idiot also said a handcuffed suspect is NEVER a threat.......I personally know of two officers who were killed in my area by handcuffed suspect and numerous others injured by handcuffed suspects.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

I hope that's clear to you. I typed it out slowly.

The past two weeks have been very stressful for me. I read these two sentences, funniest thing I've seen for a long time. The laugh really helped me. Thank you.

[

quote:

Originally posted by cheni:

It seems some members don't agree that putting a knee on the neck of a passed out handcuffed man for 5 min. is wrong.

As far as I'm concerned St. George de la Fentanyl (MMXX) was a scumbag who was directly responsible for his own demise. Unfortunately that officer is going to be sacrificed on the altar of wokeness.

But then if you are employed by a communist regime don't be surprised if they toss you in the gulag when they have no more use for you.

Oh I read that reply about being too early in the trial. I just think it’s a hogwash answer. There are two sides to the argument, quality vs quantity. They both have merit and place. It’s not inconceivable that the jury will hear the same nonsense prosecution argument a couple dozen times. Throw enough mud against the wall syndrome. Saving the training manual perhaps is a more effective path or perhaps not. I find in life that stopping a nonsensical line of thought is usually getter than letting it take root.

I’m not a lawyer but I would counter their nonsense with the training manual every time. Never let the idea even start to settle in the juries mind that the restraint was anything but allowed.

I still don’t get waiting for the “ta da” moment. It seems risky. Certainly riskier than rubbing their tits in the outright lie each time they spoke it.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I’m not a lawyer but I would counter their nonsense with the training manual every time. Never let the idea even start to settle in the juries mind that the restraint was anything but allowed.

I still don’t get waiting for the “ta da” moment. It seems risky. Certainly riskier than rubbing their tits in the outright lie each time they spoke it.

That is a demonstration of weakness of your defense, that you have to answer every point when it is brought up...it makes your side seem petty

A defense based on strength allows the other side to build a wall and then destroys it all at once by taking out the false foundation. This isn't even the practice of law but a basic fundamental of arguement

Remember that the state goes first, and a good prosecutor will structure the case so that the defense gets as little chance as possible to rebut the case during the state's case. That is the disadvantage of going second - the other side gets to tell its story first, more or less uninterrupted. The advantage of going last is that you are the last thing the jury hears.

Lawyers argue about it a lot, but the consensus is that going first is an advantage, more often than not.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronin1069:

quote:

Charges should have been whatever applies for failure to render aid, negligence, or manslaughter in that state.

Keith Ellison as our attorney general, the dude never had a chance. Hell, the state went to court multiple times just to shoehorn in third-degree murder because they were terrified that they would not get a conviction on second.

All things considered, I could see an argument for manslaughter. However, if that’s what happens, to the “mob” it will be the same as not guilty. This city, and multiple others will burn burn burn.

So true, I am from MN I just hate to see what has happened to my home state. I hope they are preparing for the mayhem that will occur. We had planned to visit family on the 17th but it looks like we will be heading straight to the Black Hills instead.

I fundamentally disagree with your premise epiphany. This “perry mason” moment you are building up for may never materialize in the manner you think it will. If they are stating an outright lie, destroy it, right then, don’t let it take root at all among the jury.

If you destroy the basis of their lie, they can’t keep bringing up the same lie. Your point is incorrect in my opinion. If you allow them to repeat a lie over and over thinking I will destroy it at the end I think you fail miserably in your argument. You utterly lay waste to it immediately. If they bring it back up you make them look idiotic which would then be easy to do.

This isn’t a small lie followed by a bunch more small lies, the wall of lies of which you describe. This lie, that the restraint wasn’t taught, practiced, and standard procedure of the MPD is literally the cornerstone of their manslaughter argument (assuming probably correctly that the murder charges are knowingly out of reach). Completely deny that ground. They can’t claim rogue behavior if it’s SOP. You would actually hope they try to bring it up again, arguing against the actual training manual makes their position not weak but absolutely untenable.

To your point, countering every lie with facts makes your argument weak. I fail to understand that position, at all.