Sky : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8uWCAf4H_w
(That link may continue to work throughout the trial)
ABC : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgWZl7HNHmg
(These guys have predetermined the outcome: their commentary promotes the prosecution case and derides points made by the defence)
Fox 9 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHPMZvQ38XE
(Yeah, it's Fox, but it's the local Minnesota version)
Also available on CourtTV in US and UK if that's a TV channel you can access.
Other live streams are available. Note that at the time of posting this the trial is not being broadcast - coverage expected to start at 10.30am ET.
A lot of people thought him very controlled and credible.
The undershirt has been described as reading 'Black Excellence'. Being racist doesn't however exclude him from being a witness.
The prosecution played on his MMA background and tried to use that as justification for his interpretation of events.The defence used his presence and actions towards the police to bolster their opening statement suggestion that onlookers were posing a risk to the police officers, and distracting them from providing full care and attention to Floyd.
Defence Lawyer : "You called him a fucking pussy ass bitch?"
Witness : "If that's what you heard on the video, then yes I did."
That was part of the defence asking if he was angry, something he vehemently denied, saying he was professional and in control. Comically the prosecution returned and literally described him as 'increasingly angry'.
The defence did miss a trick though. During the initial testimony yesterday the witness said he pulled back another onlooker, away from the police. Asking why he felt the need to do that, and exploring whether he considered the other onlooker was about to engage with the police officers would have either demonstrated that there was a risk to police, or that this witness was acting physically for no discernible purpose. Either would help the case that onlookers posed a risk.
The defense didn't do such a bad job provoking him in the courtroom, which made his denial of anger seem rather absurd. I don't think the police really need anything other than an encroaching crowd, even a peaceful one, to try and "dictate" the scene, but who knows what the hell the average person considers reasonable anymore.
That's possible. My error illustrates how reliable eyewitness testimony is, I suppose. That's what really bugs me about having kids testify about how they felt and what they thought happened after a year of highly visible race-hustling propaganda, although I can see how that might be an effective emotional appeal to the jury. I know it's his job to win and I do appreciate the adversarial system, but I never could stand sleazy tactics like that when you know damn well the facts don't support the charges and you're trying to ruin a man's life with tears. At any rate, it's interesting to see how this will play out. The judge at least seems to be a really good one, even if his court is shrouded in COVID theater. I'm just glad my only part in this is as a spectator.
Well, I chose my words carefully - I'm sharing what others have said. I could make out the word 'black' but not the word(s) below it, so your view is as good as theirs.
Good call by the defence not to cross-examine the 9 year old (whose cousin said she was 12). But yes, those two witnesses were very much 'play on emotion' ones rather than providing any useful evidence regarding cause of death or culpability of the accused.