Unless you're livestreaming the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin from top to bottom, you probably know next to nothing about his defense team's argument. That's because the national media would rather not explain it.
Instead, TV journalists and commentators at CNN serve as hype men for the prosecution and use-of-force professionals who have testified that Chauvin's maneuver to subdue George Floyd on the ground was improper.
And when the media do get around to covering bits and pieces of the counterpoints made by Chauvin's lawyer, Eric Nelson, it's for the express purpose of belittling and dismissing them in the dumbest ways.
Nelson has been making the case, in part, that the aggravated crowd that gathered at the scene of police taking Floyd into custody hindered Chauvin and the other officers from performing their duties by functioning as an additional threat.
Reacting to Nelson's line of questions about that Wednesday, CNN's Jake Tapper said, "This crowd did not appear to be threatening or hostile at all."
Here's a sample of the things said by people in that crowd who, according to Tapper, "did not appear to be threatening or hostile at all":
—"He's a f---ing bum, bro."
—"He's enjoying that s---."
—"You f---ing bum."
—"It's the whites. They love messing with us."
—"I'm not scared of you, bro."
—"You're a f---ing p---y-ass dude."
All of that was being screamed at Chauvin and the other officers who had been trying for roughly 15 minutes to calm Floyd down and seat him in the squad car. If Tapper, anchoring from a public street, had hecklers calling him a "f---ing p---y-ass dude" while he was trying to do his job, would he consider that "not hostile at all"?
If you don't buy the theory that a crowd of people, agitated and angry, could distract or even unnerve a police officer who has been trying to subdue a suspect, fine. But don't tell me it's sunny while I'm soaking in the rain. Anyone on site would have perceived that crowd to be threatening and hostile.
Nelson also asked some of the prosecution's witnesses whether they can hear Floyd on video, as he's struggling, say he "ate too many drugs." The point is not to say Floyd was a bad guy who deserved to be killed. It is to remind the jury that Floyd was a drug user and had potent amounts of opiates and methamphetamine in his system, thus providing an alternative explanation for his death to the one the media and prosecutors suggest. Chauvin's defense is also positing that Floyd ingested a large number of pills immediately before he was engaged by police.
Tapper was highly dismissive on Thursday: "I’ve never heard anyone say 'I ate too many drugs' in my life. It’s just not really a common expression.”
Well, case closed, folks! Dartmouth graduate Tapper has never heard anyone say, "I ate too many drugs," so surely no one heavily under the influence of street drugs has ever said it!
The average person in such a situation, as Tapper surely knows, would say something more like, "Sir, please indulge me, but I may need some special consideration. I have ingested an excess of intoxicating substances."
Contrary to what Tapper and the others would admit, Nelson has done a spectacular job introducing elements of reasonable doubt, over and over again. The prosecution's use-of-force experts weren't there when Floyd died in police custody. They weren't there for any of it. And when questioned by Nelson, each one has admitted that in highly intense police engagements, how an officer responds and to what degree is dependent on an infinite number of factors — the suspect's physical size, his behavior, the environment, even the need to anticipate events of the immediate future.
Hindsight is 20/20, and people like Tapper are just all-around blind.
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "What the media are saying about the Derek Chauvin trial and what's actually happening are very different - Washington Examiner"
Post a Comment