..."Every time you say that any officer deliberately murdered that man, you're prejudicing any jury...you're handing the defense at least a motion to move any trial out of the county if not the state, if not more than that, based on your prejudicial comments"

Then again I'm not a lawyer But having him on the news at every press conference relaying his opinion as fact will not help any case the state may/may not have against any officer involved...

I can't imagine a jury finding him NOT GUILTY anywhere.

The Feds might charge him too for the Civil Rights violations.

I don't think he's going to get off at all. His life is ruined. Heck of a last week for former MPD Officer Chauvin.

I can certainly see a not guilty verdict. It depends on what charges and what comes out at any trial. They've already said the charges they've filed so far are just placeholders - they might be revised up...or down.

To put it another way, imagine a 60 minute long movie - you've only seen 8 minutes of it. Now, explain what happened and why. ALL of what happened and why.

You can't. There's simply not enough information publicly available (at least that I've seen), and the ME has already said the death was not caused by the actions LE took. Unless the bodycam videos have somehow been leaked and I'm not aware of that?

I guess everyone's forgotten the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, huh.

You have a better legal mind and insight into the Legal System than I do if you can see a not guilty verdict. And yes, there may be some exculpatory evidence in those other 52 minutes of the movie (as you put it) that makes us all say, "We got it wrong. Reinstate him with back pay."

Like I said, it depends on the charges. I mean, if Keith Ellison decides to charge the officers with Murder 1? That's a "not guilty"; there's almost zero chance of them proving beyond a reasonable doubt that this was planned and premeditated by anyone involved. If they get charged with something similar to "Depraved Indifference" or like that? Sure, I can see a "guilty" verdict there; they can probably prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe, again depending on what is on video, admissible, and provable. It also depends on whether any lawyer can prove they were acting in compliance with department guidance and policy for contacts like this, too. For all we know, they were acting within their training and department guidelines/policy for restraining a combative subject (if he was, before the filming started), and for all we know, the dead guy tried stabbing an officer before he was restrained that way. We just don't know. All that we do know, is that the guy was restrained, and he died in custody. Anything beyond that, right now, is just guessing. IMO.

Let me ask you this, Here are four officers, "acting within department guidelines/policy for arresting a combative subject"....and the department fires them. Why?

LOL, you're kidding, right? Minneapolis PD takes their marching orders from a super liberal mayor...they're the definition of "knee jerk reaction" right there. They didn't even bother to wait for any internal reviews. They didn't care about the facts of the case; they cared about how the case made the PD look in that moment. Which is fine, I get that, but it's still a knee jerk reaction that happened because of how they felt about it, not because of the facts of what occurred and why.

The funny thing is, they thought that firing those guys would prevent any rioting or demonstrating. They were wrong.

Well, then maybe after all of the internal reviews, the review of policy and procedure manuals, and all the video footage from cellphones, body worn cams and the video from the store itself plus the 911 transcript. The truth (60 minute movie) can come out and then those officers can go back to protecting and serving the citizens of Minneapolis.

Well, yeah, we are; all the cameras that would/could show us what happened, and let us hear what happened as he was being led to the car, put in, then taken back out are kind of important. That's where whatever caused 4 cops to decide that the best and safest thing they could do, was have 3 cops physically pin him to the ground while a 4th stood watch. Cops don't pin people to the ground for fun; you need to earn that.



"Completely false"? No, not even close. It's right in the ME's report, "no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.". Being restrained didn't help any, no doubt; but it wasn't responsible for his death, either. Would he still have died if he was left alone in the back of a patrol car? If he had a heart attack, which is what the ME report sort of alludes to (to me anyway), then yeah, he probably would have died just the same, without anyone pressing him into the ground.

And, re-read what you quotes - "any potential intoxicants"  - so they don't even know if he was high as a kite, drunk, or what yet...and then, the important word here:

"likely"

As in, they don't know if it did or didn't. They think it might have, but maybe not. What if it didn't? Can you prove that it did, or didn't? The statement is another way of saying "We think that maybe him being restrained, his heart disease, and maybe the meth he may or may not have smoked before might have had something to do with his death, maybe". That's not an indictment. That's a whole lot of "maybe". Lots of shit might happen, maybe. They can't prove or disprove it, but they can poison any potential jury pool, which to me, is what they're doing; ensuring they get a conviction on anything they decide to throw at him by planting seeds in everyone's head instead of just letting the documented facts speak for themselves.



It's weird how they released some of the body cam footage, but not the rest. It's almost like they don't want everyone to know everything.

I'm honestly and truly surprised that after Mike Brown (everyone thinks he's a poor innocent kid from the hood...until its proven, days/weeks later, that he was wanted in multiple strong arm robberies and in fact did try to wrest an officer's sidearm from an officer, which resulted directly in his death), and then Trayvon Martin (where it came out in trial that Trayvon physically attacked Zimmerman, resulting in Zimmerman defending himself; NOT that Trayvon was the victim), where all the media narrative and supposed "facts" were spun in ways to ensure that the decedents were portrayed as nothing but victims who had no hand in their cruel deaths...that people are still not just waiting for all the facts to come in. Everyone's rushing to judgment based on maybes and feelings. Same with Philando Castile.

All I'm saying is, there's a lot of context missing, a lot we still don't know. Everyone's rushing to convict over some "maybe this is what happened" statements, partial video with no or shit audio, and feelings.

Agreed. I'm waiting for the missing context to arrive that shows that kneeling on the suspect for 8 minutes or so, 4 of which after he went limp is well within police policy/procedure for a combative (and handcuffed) suspect who earlier may have, well, who knows what?

Like any good movie, the outcome is dictated by the editing.

Resuscitation of a patient in Cardiac Arrest is not a simple undertaking.  If the EMS (Paramedics) only defribrillated him once, that to says there was not a viable rhythm to work with, I.E. asystole (Flat Line).  Where as multiple defibrillation attempts would indicated Ventricular Fibrillation or pulse-less VT/SVT.  Assuming standard  AHA ACLS protocols were followed it was poor outcome obviously.  And, they must have gone the extra mile at the hospital to revive him.  

There are are a lot of factors that probably contributed to the death, and the toxicology report might take time to get results from.  There was suggestion that Floyd verbalized he was claustrophobic?  So many potential factors to put into play.  Excited Delirium? Underlying Health Issues?

Like many have pointed out what context would justify that parts of the encounter that you did see? The mayor is an idiot yes and the governor is worse.