Chauvin trial: Defense trying to argue that Chauvin use of force was justified.

[madaboutharry]

In cross-examination of police Lt., defense attorney Eric Nelson is laying out a series of hypotheticals. Lt. Zimmerman isn't being very cooperative with Nelson's narrative.

It seems a pathetic exercise since the entire "scene" is on video and it is clear that the situation is not the "scene" that the defense wants to create.

[HUAJIAO]

1. And trying to paint the cops as worried about the 'dangerous crowd around them..'

[Ocelot II]

2. It's pretty pathetic.

Yes, sometimes force becomes necessary where there is a serious threat, even deadly force in rare instances, but Floyd was unconscious and handcuffed. Where was the threat? I'm sure the prosecutor will demolish this nonsense on redirect.

[Music Man]

3. Yeah, this is so stupid.

Insane hypotheticals: "What if the handcuffs come free, and they try to use them as a weapon?"

[Ocelot II]

4. Defense lawyer is questioning the witness about what can happen

if the handcuffs come off because they were too small, and the suspect can then use them to strike the officer. Too small? Earlier he was going on about what a big, dangerous guy Floyd was. And Floyd was unconscious, FFS!

[Siwsan]

5. I'll be shocked if the prosecution doesn't re-direct

This guy is throwing every scenario in the book at this officer, and is just trying to muddy the waters.

[Dawson Leery]

7. Nelson is the quintessential conservative

taking any position to justify himself.

[Ocelot II]

8. No, he's just a defense lawyer trying to do his job.

But he doesn't have a very good case to work with. I have no idea what his politics are, though many defense lawyers seem to lean toward liberal rather conservative, since they are defending clients against the power of the state.

[Dawson Leery]

10. I agree he is doing is job.

But he's not that good.

[Darwins_Retriever]

12. I always like watching trials on TV

You learn how bad lawyers really are. Nothing like TV lawyers.

[Ocelot II]

13. They are actually quite good. If you are used to TV trials

you will assume that everything in a trial is always interesting and dramatic. The reality is that the rules of evidence require lawyers to carefully lay a foundation for all of the evidence they intend to present, which means they have to ask a lot of boring questions about the witness' background, where they were, what they saw, how they were able to see it, etc., and establish the reliability of documents and other physical evidence by asking where it came from, who created it, where it's been, whether it's an original document, etc. It's slow and tedious and necessary, and sometimes it makes it seem like the lawyers are just flapping their gums. They are not. They are doing exactly what is required of them.

IMO the defense lawyer does tend to ask some unnecessary questions but it seems like he's doing what he can with a difficult case to be sure he covers everything he can. But he's not a bad lawyer. Neither are the prosecutors. All trials are like this (this one is actually less boring than most).

This is actually an excellent opportunity for people whose only exposure to trials has been fiction from movies and TV to see how they really unfold. They do not resolve in a few hours; there are no surprise witnesses, there are rarely any great speeches (I do think there will be a good closing argument from the prosecutor, especially if it's done by the lawyer who did the opening statement); and it's sometimes hard to figure out what's going on at all.

[markie]

6. Nelson

hypothesizing that Chauvin felt danger from Floyd... FFS that is crap... I guess that is his job, but Nelson is disgusting

[gratuitous]

9. They have to argue something

And it may appear pathetic to us, but remember, Chauvin's case and argument are directed at one person in the jury box. I don't know who it is, but the defense is hoping to impress upon the mind of just one juror that Chauvin was justified in his use of force, that the victim was no angel, that this is just the way we conduct ourselves in the United States of America. All Chauvin needs is one juror who thinks that Floyd had it coming and justice was served that day outside Cup Foods.

[Vinca]

11. The "what if" line of questions was completely stupid. It was an insult to the jury.

It was clear that George Floyd wasn't a threat to anyone as he lay there on the ground with 3 cops on him struggling to breathe and then dead. A cop might get a "spur of the moment" defense considered if he'd shot a guy, but this moment lasted more than 9 minutes. No defense. None.