he is a detective. He is not a street patrol officer that regularly arrests people. If thats not obvious enough.. Last time he did street patrol as Chauvin did, tazers were not even being used.
You miss the point... Dude has not been on the "streets" for almost 3 decades. 3/4 of George Floyds life. And his credibility in terms of excessive force are still as valid? Cmon man, excessive force is best detailed by someone who regularly uses it, not some so called "behind the scenes expert that never uses it"
He's there as the LT in charge of that particular crime scene, not a use of force expert. Defense clarified that when it comes to use of force training, he's a student not a trainer. He goes through the same training every other Officer gets every year, he certainly doesn't know any less.
If he was lying, it's stupid to have Court rules prevent that from being challenged so false ideas sink into the Jury over the weekend.
From what i saw, I thought the defense lawyer did a good job pointing out the nature of his work vs his testimony. Tough case anyway you look at it but I thought that interaction was won by the defense.. Not a lawyer and therefore this message can not be perceived as legal guidance lol.
all off? What the heck are you talking about, i listened to his testimony and thats where the numbers came from. It would be better if you were not so critical of every little thing..
he is a detective. He is not a street patrol officer that regularly arrests people. If thats not obvious enough.. Last time he did street patrol as Chauvin did, tazers were not even being used.
That might be relevant had a taser been used.
You miss the point... Dude has not been on the "streets" for almost 3 decades. 3/4 of George Floyds life. And his credibility in terms of excessive force are still as valid? Cmon man, excessive force is best detailed by someone who regularly uses it, not some so called "behind the scenes expert that never uses it"
He's there as the LT in charge of that particular crime scene, not a use of force expert. Defense clarified that when it comes to use of force training, he's a student not a trainer. He goes through the same training every other Officer gets every year, he certainly doesn't know any less.
If he was lying, it's stupid to have Court rules prevent that from being challenged so false ideas sink into the Jury over the weekend.
From what i saw, I thought the defense lawyer did a good job pointing out the nature of his work vs his testimony. Tough case anyway you look at it but I thought that interaction was won by the defense.. Not a lawyer and therefore this message can not be perceived as legal guidance lol.
It would be better if you reviewed his service record, your numbers are all off.
all off? What the heck are you talking about, i listened to his testimony and thats where the numbers came from. It would be better if you were not so critical of every little thing..
Do your down votes tell you anything?