the undeniable fact is the choke hold was continued for 5 minutes after mr Floyd was unresponsive with no attempt to check on his welfare
the undeniable fact is the choke hold was continued for 5 minutes after mr Floyd was unresponsive with no attempt to check on his welfare
Judge Ito's jury instruction still applies: "if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points to his guilt."
The undeniable legal fact is that there is evidence of fentanyl intoxication sufficient to cause death, and no evidence of neck damage. Your observation is not unreasonable, but it does not overcome a competing argument which is reasonable and rational.
Cardiac arrest and loss of consciousness, quickly followed by death, due to Fentanyl and other drug intoxication, complicated by known health conditions, is a reasonable and rational defense argument. The law requires that a reasonable argument that points toward innocence must be adopted in preference to a reasonable argument that points toward guilt.
There was no choke hold. A restraint hold maintained for five minutes on a corpse is not murder or manslaughter. Mr. Floyd, having suffered cardiac arrest, his welfare status was dead, or nonresponsive and non-revivable. CPR was contra-indicated by COVID-19 pandemic health care restrictions. Application of a defibrillator by emergency personnel only confirmed that Mr. Floyd was dead.
Maintaining the restraint hold beyond what was necessary could be proceeded against as a policy violation, as was done in the Eric Garner case.