“During the 13 days of sometimes tense and emotional testimony and cross-examination, both the prosecution and defense promised the jury that they were going to prove their case, but Christensen said only one side did.”
Ummm...it is NOT the job of the defense to PROVE the defendant is innocent. If a reasonable person could DOUBT their guilt, they go free. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very tough standard for an impartial jury!
If there is a plausible way Floyd could die without Chauvin causing it, Chauvin should go free.
In a civil trial, the standard is “more likely than not”. I could see Chauvin losing in a civil trial. But there was absolutely a possibility that Floyd died of a heart attack brought on by his exertions while resisting arrest. That is a no brainer. And if it was a plausible possibility, then that IS “reasonable doubt”!
When someone says “I can’t breathe”, the proper response is not to kneel on them while they are prone. As a matter of fact, it is the worst thing you can do.
I got the feeling Chauvin enjoyed being a cop too much.
In a civil trial, the standard is “more likely than not”. I could see Chauvin losing in a civil trial. But there was absolutely a possibility that Floyd died of a heart attack brought on by his exertions while resisting arrest. That is a no brainer. And if it was a plausible possibility, then that IS “reasonable doubt”!
........................................
Maybe I have this wrong, but I thought I read that the coroner testified that his death was caused by health-related issues exacerbated by the entirety of his altercation with the police, and therefore was not specifically due to his restraint by Chauvin.